Loveland Bike Trail
 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 1996

LAND-USE PLANNING MEETING

(#71 & #72)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. in regular session with Larry Timm, Director of Planning. Chair Pro-Tem Duvall presided and Commissioner Disney was present; Chair Clarke will be out of town this week. Also present were: Al Kadera, Subdivision Administrator; Scott Cornell, Environment Site & Access Specialist; John Pedas, Zoning Code Enforcement Officer; Rex Burns, Project Engineer; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. RADON TEST REQUIREMENTS: This is a request to amend the procedure for radon testing; Mr. Kadera informed the Board that Larimer County has required radon testing in new residential structures in new subdivisions for several years and test results are required before a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued by the Building Department. Mr. Kadera noted that in June of this year, several staff people were charged with the responsibility of devising a better way to address radon testing; Ms. Haag, Doug Ryan, Brice Miller, and Mr. Kadera met to discuss various options to relieve some of the problems that occur when a builder nears closing time and needs to get a Certificate of Occupancy but can't get a radon test scheduled in time. As a result of those meetings, their preferred option would be allow the Certificate of Occupancy to be issued if the builder presented a paid receipt from a locally established radon tester; the receipt must specify the address of the home to be tested and state that the test will be done within 30 days with results provided to the homeowner and the County Planning Department. Mr. Kadera stated he talked to several of the radon testers and they enthusiastically supported this concept and think they can get a more accurate test if they work with the homeowner after they are in the home. The staff recommendation is to continue to require radon testing in all new subdivisions before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, offer the option of providing a paid receipt from a qualified radon testing firm; the receipt shall specify that the test shall be completed within 30 days of occupancy and test results shall be supplied to the homeowner and the Planning Division.

Dennis Sovik, builder in Larimer County specializing in energy conservation and healthy buildings, stated that he is installing passive radon systems in Greyrock Commons Subdivision and, in his opinion, the radon tests that are done while the builder is getting ready for the CO are a joke because at that time you have a dozen different subs coming in and out of the building and the door is open all the time and the result is an inaccurate reading; therefore, he likes the idea of putting off the radon testing for 30 days.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff recommendation to continue requiring radon testing in all new subdivisions before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued and offer the option of providing a paid receipt from a qualified radon testing firm; the receipt shall specify that the test shall be completed within 30 days of occupancy and test results shall be supplied to the homeowner and the Planning Department.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

2. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL REVISION (#96-RA0881):

This is a request to approve revision of Section 10 of the Larimer County Storm Water Management Manual. Mr. Cornell noted that the Storm Water Management Manual was adopted by the Board in 1979; the current version of Section 10 is general in nature and does not provide sufficient detail to allow effective implementation of a quality erosion control program. Mr. Cornell stated that Section 10 on Erosion and Sediment Control has been revised to provide definitive standards for erosion and sediment mitigation during land development and construction and will make it easier for engineering groups and developers to submit an erosion control plan that is appropriate and less confusing and will provide an equitable review and speed up the process of review. Staff findings include: 1) The proposed revision is consistent with the current land use policies as stated in the Larimer County Land Use Plan; 2) Adoption of the proposed revision is necessary to facilitate an effective erosion control program for land development and construction; 3) Adoption of the proposed revision will define the standards for erosion control planning and mitigation and enhance uniform compliance. The Planning Commission/staff recommendation is for approval of the revision of Section 10 - Erosion and Sediment Control of the Larimer County Storm Water Management Manual.

In response to questions from the Board regarding his opinion of the revisions, Mr. Burns stated he worked with Mr. Cornell on the development of the criteria and noted these are not hard regulatory but practical engineering suggestions for developers that they can use to achieve erosion control.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and Planning Commission/staff recommendation and approve the revision of Section 10 of Erosion and Sediment Control of the Larimer County Storm-Water Management Manual.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

3. BAUER VEHICLE RESTORATION SHOP ZONING VIOLATION

(#94-ZV0454): 35-05-69; LOT 11; CLOVERDALE ACRES SUBDIVISION,

212 SW 35TH STREET IN LOVELAND, CO.

This is an alleged violation for accumulating, storing, repairing and selling various kinds of vehicles in the R-1 Residential Zone. Mr. Pedas submitted photos of the property and a letter received regarding this item, provided the background information, and reviewed the major concerns and issues; he noted that a recent complaint indicated that the activity on the property was becoming intolerable. Staff findings are: 1) The subject property is zoned R-1 Residential; 2) The R-1 Residential Zone does not permit outside storage not accessory to a residential use; 3) The R-1 Residential Zone does not permit vehicle repair shops; 4) Farm vehicles and trucks stored outside is inconsistent with the residential character of the neighborhood; 5) Continued use of the property inconsistent with the zoning restrictions may affect property values in the neighborhood. The staff recommendation is to find that a violation exists, require compliance within 60 days, and authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.

Roger Clark, attorney for the property owners, stated that their position is that this is not a business, it is a hobby and the noise and visual problems that have been referred to have been overstated. Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Bauer is undertaking activities pursuant to an understanding worked out when the first allegations arose in 1994; however, suggestions will be offered later regarding a reasonable limitation on pursuing his hobby. Mr. Clark called Mr. Bauer to the podium and questioned him informally at length about his farming background, his hobby of restoring old tractors, how many he owns personally, how many he has worked on in the past year, if he realizes a profit for restoring the tractors, etc. Mr. Bauer submitted a picture of the 6-ft. picket fence he recently constructed on his west property line to block the view from the neighbor's property and described other normal activities in the neighborhood that create noise, such as lawnmowers, power saws, drills, etc. Mr. Clark read several letters from some of the adjacent neighbors, all in support of the Bauers and indicating that the one complaint is a personal matter; Mr. Bauer identified the location of the neighbors in support and submitted those letters for the record. Harvey Bauer, son of Alvin Bauer, noted that this is a personal issue between one neighbor and his parents; he stated that this is a hobby for his father and if his profit was calculated for restoring the tractors, it would amount to one-half of minimum wage. Jim Ichols, adjacent property owner, stated he has no problem with the Bauers at all and agreed the complaint is a personal thing. Chair Pro-Tem Duvall asked what number of tractors Mr. Bauer would be willing to limit on his property at one time; Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Bauer will agree to having the three of his own and the one he is currently working on at the time. Gordon Arnason, the neighbor making the complaint, addressed the Board and stated he agrees with what was stated in the letters and noted that the Bauers are great people and he has nothing against them personally; he stated that since the County doesn't have a noise ordinance, he is just asking the Board to enforce zoning and he thinks the Bauers should apply for a variance to have a junkyard. Mr. Arnason doesn't think the neighbors should be subject to this noise in their R-1 Residential neighborhood and he thinks it is a business and not a hobby. Florine Bauer described two instances in which she could have complained about Mr. Arnason - once using a power saw when she had a terrific headache and one time he had a big fire in his backyard and they had company; she also stated that he has sold a car, a boat, and now has a motor home for sale and she asked if that isn't a business. Mr. Clark requested that the Board either make a determination that no violation exists or that alternatively the Board restrict the pursuit of Mr. Bauer's hobby to 4 tractors at any given time.

At this time the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner's remarks; Commissioner Disney stated he has mixed feelings about this and has no doubt that Mr. Bauer is a good neighbor, but it is still unclear where the line should be drawn between hobby and business to insure that a precedent is not set for others to do the same. Chair Pro-Tem Duvall stated that it is obvious that something is going on that does not normally occur in a subdivision and she thinks the offer to only have four tractors total at one time is a workable solution; at the same time, however, there are all these other things that seem to be collecting on the property that don't relate to the tractor repair and she asked how can they be sure it is only a hobby. Ms. Haag stated that there is no definitive answer to that question and it is a matter of degree, it depends on the size of lot, amount of screening, etc.; therefore, you have to use common sense and judgment as to what reasonable number of tractors constitutes a hobby. Ms. Haag suggested that the Board clarify for the property owner what they would deem to be an appropriate number of vehicles to constitute a hobby and then if he exceeds that number, then at that point a violation would exist.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that, in the matter of the Bauer vehicle restoration shop zoning violation, the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists and in order to gain compliance, only a total of 4 tractors may be on the property at any one time, work cannot take place any later than 10 p.m. on weekends and 8 p.m. on weekdays, and any materials that are not accessory to a residential use must be removed from the property.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

4. GUARDADO MOBILE HOME/TRAVEL-TRAILER ZONING VIOLATION

(#96-ZV0822): 11-08-68 - 6029 EAST COUNTY ROAD 60.

This is an alleged violation for using travel trailers as residential units, occupying a single wide mobile home as a residential use without building or septic permits, and adding onto the existing residence without a building permit. Mr. Pedas submitted photos of this property, provided the background information, and reviewed the major concerns and issues; he informed the Board that last week a variance application was filed to allow the single-wide mobile home on the property as a second dwelling on the property. Staff findings are: 1) The zoning restrictions allow only one dwelling per lot; 2) Permanent mobile homes require consent from adjoining and surrounding property owners; 3) Health and building safety issues are addressed with building permit applications; 4) Septic permits are required for any increase in the intensity of on-site sewage disposal; 5) Continued use of the property, inconsistent with the zoning restrictions and building code requirements, may affect property values in the area. The staff recommendation is to find that the violations exist, require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action in the deadline is not met.

Mr. Guardados, property owner, explained that he has had a difficult time obtaining signatures required on the consent petition by 70% of the property owners within 800 feet in order to apply for a variance because two of the owners live out of state. Mr. Guardados stated he reinsulated the walls in his bathroom and didn't know he needed a permit for that--it was a repair job; he noted that there is no one living in the single wide, as it has no water or electricity. Responding to a question from the Board, Mr. Guardados stated that there is one house, one single-wide mobile home, for which he has applied for a variance, and one trailer, which does not belong to him but to some people that don't have any other place to live and they are taking care of his disabled wife and living there for free. After questioning about the repair job, Mr. Guardados agreed that 4 ft. was added to the house. Dan Nelson stated that many of the neighbors residing in the adjacent subdivision of Indian Creek Estates are very concerned with the modulars and trailers on this property and he is concerned also with what is going on as the property is a mess. Steve Hume, who lives 1/2 mile away, stated he would hate for the County to start a precedent of allowing trailers or multiple families on a property in an area where people have spent a lot of money on their homes. Mr. Guardados rebutted that from CR 3 to CR 60 there are 10 trailer homes and he cited other properties that have violations.

At this time the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner's questions and comments. Commissioner Disney asked about the timing of the variance applied for; Mr. Pedas replied that the variance will go before the Board of Adjustment on August 27, 1996 and, if the variance is approved, since the mobile home is already there, they would have to submit the consent petition and obtain the building permits within 30 days. Discussion followed.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners find, in the matter of the Guardado mobile home/travel trailer zoning violation, that three violations exist, require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

5. INTLEKOFER (YANKEE FIELD) ZONING VIOLATION (#96-ZV0832):

27-08-68 - 4625 EAST COUNTY ROAD 54

This is an alleged violation for using an old airstrip in the O-Open Zoning District without Special Review approval for airports and heliports. Mr. Pedas submitted photos of the site, provided the background information, and reviewed the major concerns and issues. Staff findings include: 1) The subject property is zoned O-Open District; 2) The O-Open Zone allows airports and heliports with special review approval; 3) The continued use of the property for airstrip related activities may affect property values in the area; 4) The non-conforming status of the airstrip established in 1973 no longer exists as the result of the discontinuance of the use as a crop dusting activity. The staff recommendation is to find that a violation exists, require immediate compliance, and authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.

Bob Intlekofer, property owner, stated that when he purchased the property, one of the airplane hangars was being used for restoring aircraft and doing FAA inspections and there were existing permanent fuel tanks on the property used for crop dusting refueling; at that time, he checked with Planning and Zoning and was told that the airport was grandfathered in. Mr. Intlekofer stated that he did some conservation work and it has been in a conservation status for the last few years and he submitted a list of 23 pilots indicating that they have used the airport over the last ten years. With regard to the sky diver use, Mr. Intlekofer stated it provided added revenue; however, he noted that the sky diving was too much of an impact, resulting in trespass, so he ceased that use. Mr. Intlekofer stated that he has mechanics that have FAA certification doing annuals and upgrades on planes and he would like to keep the airport open as a runway but without a lot of density, he has spent money to keep it open and he believes the use has been continuous. Commissioner Disney noted that the list of pilots submitted has phone numbers only and not the dates they used the airport. John Goettl stated that his house overlooks Yankee Field; he moved there in 1976 and it was an active airport at that time and then it deteriorated to an ultra light field and the neighbors objected. Mr. Goettl noted that his observation was that from 1983 on this was an inactive field for quite awhile and the field was not suitable for landing aircraft; then activity began again. Al Winick, who lives 100 yards from the airport, stated he is the one who turned the sky divers in for landing in his field; however, that problem has been resolved. Mr. Winick stated that he has lived at this location for 14 years and possibly once or twice a year a plane would go in and out; however, two weeks ago, ultra lights started again. Fred Zeiler stated he has a list of the dates when a planes came in for refueling; he noted he has lived there 4 years and there was a time when this air strip was not used and he asked the Board to cease this use. Jim Matsuda, representing Mountain Vista Golf Course, stated that this airstrip borders the property on the golf course and there is a noise distraction and there have been complaints from some of the golfers; he noted they have plans to expand the golf course another 9 holes in a few years and he is concerned about the impact from the airfield. Mr. Winick added that he has no problem with the use, only the ultra lights.

Mr. Pedas stated that the dilemma for the Board to resolve is whether or not Yankee Field has a non-conforming status; the question is, when was it abandoned or flights discontinued and, to the best of his knowledge, when the application for the special review was filed for the ultra aircraft, it did not have a non-conforming use. Mr. Pedas noted that under certain circumstances emergency landings are allowed.

At this time the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner's questions and comments; Commissioner Disney stated that he feels this issue should go through special review so concerns can be mitigated. Chair Pro-Tem Duvall stated that her concern is that information is not available for them to determine whether or not there is a grandfathered use and the dates the pilots said they used this airstrip were not given. Ms. Haag offered several options for the Board to consider, including continuing this hearing until that information has been made available. Mr. Pedas stated that the issue before the Board is not to decide whether or not this airport should be used, but to consider a zoning violation and he contends that even though after the current property owner purchased the property and they began to fly aircraft, sometime between 1978 and 1983, it lost its non-conforming status; the Board concurred that at this time this is not considered an active airport and to become so would require special review.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners find, in the matter of the Intlekofer (Yankee Field) zoning violation, that a violation exists, require immediate compliance, and authorize legal action of the deadline is not met.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The meeting recessed at 5:30 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SCHOOL SITE FEE INCREASE

(#73)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider an increase in school fees. Chair Pro-Tem Duvall presided and Commissioner Disney was present; as noted previously, Commissioner Clarke is out of town this week. Also present were: Larry Timm, Director of Planning; Richael Michels, Planner I; Dennis Miller, Thompson R2J; Ron Daggett, Poudre School District; Scott Touillion, St. Vrain District; Ron VanDonselaar, Park District; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Ms. Michels stated that the purpose of tonight's public hearing is for the Board to consider a request from various school districts in Larimer County to approve an increase in the amount of the school site fee; in addition, the request includes a change in the time of collection of the school fees from the final plat stage to the building permit stage. Ms. Michels noted that the school site fee is a pass through fee that is collected by the County for the benefit of the school districts and is used by the districts to acquire land for new school sites. Ms. Michels stated that the current school site fee of $8, which has been collected since 1972, and since March of this year, county staff has been meeting with representatives from the various districts to determine what a more appropriate fee would be; she informed the Board that two public forums were held to provide an avenue for citizen comment and large display ads for tonight's meeting were placed in the various newspapers. Ms. Michels outlined the proposed increases in the following districts, as calculated by the individual districts based on detailed methodologies: Poudre R-1 - $483.90; Thompson R2-J - $332.; St. Vrain Valley RE-1J - $481. Ms. Michels noted that the Park R-3 District in Estes Park has expressed an interest in increasing their school district fees also, but they have not presented their methodology and proposed fees at this time. Ms. Michels stated that the new fee will go into effect upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners; however, the new fees will not apply to any subdivision or PUD that has received its preliminary plat approval or to exemptions that have received final plat approval prior to the date of approval of the new fee. Staff findings include: 1) State law requires Counties to include provisions for school sites for schools in their Subdivision Regulations and allows a fee to be collected in lieu of land dedication; 2) School site fees have been collected by the County for the school districts since 1972 at a rate of $8 per newly platted lot; 3) Proposed fee increases are based upon quantified methodologies established by each individual school district and are based upon current land values and other variables; 4) An increase in the school site fee is needed to more adequately reflect the costs of acquiring land in the various school districts. The staff recommendation is for approval of the school site fees as proposed by the school districts.

Ms. Michels introduced the school district representatives present for tonight's hearing and thanked them for their hard work, time, dedication and commitment to this issue. Mr. Miller made a presentation and explained the methodologies the districts used to calculate these fees; he returned compliments to the county staff for their hard work and efforts in working on this issue. Mr. Miller stated that the rationale of the request to change the school site fee was to tie it to reality and he noted that as time goes on, variables such as land values, size standards, etc. may change; therefore, there will be an annual review of the standards and methodology for calculation of the fees. Discussion and questions from the Board followed; Mr. Touillion responded to the question how these fees compare with surrounding counties, stating that the fees in Boulder County are in line with this proposal and it was noted that these fees apply only to development in the unincorporated areas in the County.

Commissioner Duvall expressed appreciation to everyone for coming to tonight's hearing and for all their hard work and also acknowledged the hard work of Florence Brown on this issue. The Board stated that since there was not a large public audience at tonight's hearing, it must be an indication that there is consensus of the need to update these fees.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the increase in school site fees which are collected for school districts in lieu of requiring land dedication in new subdivisions.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1996

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#74)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Pro-Tem Duvall presided and Commissioner Disney was present; as noted previously, Chair Clarke is out of town this week. Also present were: Carol Evans, Planner I; Rex Smith, Director of Public Works; Diane Martell, Engineering Staff Services Manager; Carol Block, Director of Finance; Terri Bryant, Chief Accountant; Ralph Jacobs, Human Services Director; Patsi Maroney, Compensation & Benefits Specialist; and Donna Hart, Community Information Manager. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. OPEN SESSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: No one appeared today for the open session for public comment.

2. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR FALLON-CYR SUBDIVISION: Ms. Evans requested Board approval of the Final Plat for Fallon-Cyr Subdivision; she noted that the Preliminary Plat was approved on June 17, 1996 and the applicants have met all the conditions.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Final Plat for the Fallon-Cyr Subdivision (#95-SU0686), and authorize the Chair Pro-Tem to sign same.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

3. LETTER TO PINEWOOD SPRINGS ROAD BOARD: Mr. Smith reminded the Board that earlier this year the Board approved four options to be offered to the Pinewood Springs Road Board regarding road maintenance; he noted that a Road Board meeting was held and apparently they agreed on one of the options, but have never taken formal action. Mr. Smith requested the Board to authorize a letter to be sent to the Pinewood Springs Road Board, along with a resolution for them to sign, requesting their signatures and approval of the resolution and selection of one of the four options by August 30, 1996 or Larimer County will immediately adopt option #1 and remove the roads in Pinewood Springs from the list of county maintained roads, in addition to removing any and all equipment that belongs to Larimer County.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to send the letter to the Pinewood Springs Road Board concerning road maintenance in the Pinewood Springs General Improvement District #2.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

4. OPERATIONAL POLICY FOR THE PARKS DEPARTMENT: Mr. Lancaster requested Board approval of the Operational Policies for the Parks Department, as discussed and revised during Policy Worksession last week.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Operational Policies for the Parks Department as requested, and authorize the Chair Pro-Tem to sign same.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

P96-02 OPERATIONAL POLICIES FOR THE PARKS DEPARTMENT

5. RECOMMENDATION ON SELECTION OF AUDITOR: Ms. Block provided the Board with the recommendation of the audit selection committee for the next term of external auditors for Larimer County. As noted in the memo received previously regarding this recommendation, Ms. Block stated that Larimer County's policy is to request proposals for external auditors at least every five years and eight proposals were received and evaluated by the audit selection committee. Ms. Block noted that the committee members were the Finance Director, Chief Accountant, Senior Accountant, and a representative of the Pension Board and Social Services; the committee interviewed the three top candidates and their recommendation is that the Board engage Anderson & Whitney (A & W) as Larimer County's external auditors for the year ended December 31, 1996 and the four subsequent years, subject to satisfactory performance. The 1996 fixed price audit fee is $76,900 with an estimated 1,503 hours of audit work and the fixed fee for all five years is $412,150. Ms. Block stated that the audit committee selected Hunt, Spillman & Associates as their second choice for auditor; their 1996 dollar cost bid was $75,105 for approximately 837 hours of audit work.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board of County Commissioners award the annual audit contract to Anderson & Whitney, renewable up to five years, as recommended by the auditor selection committee.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

6. UPDATE ON HEALTH INSURANCE: Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Maroney provided an update for the Board on health insurance issues and recommended a course of action for the health insurance program for 1997. Mr. Jacobs reminded the Board that during their last meeting with the Board, the high claims experience Larimer County was experiencing and the significant premium increases expected in 1997 were discussed; they left that meeting with instructions to have our benefits consultants at Mercer "test the waters" by asking FHP for proposed rates if they were to bid on the County's health insurance package. After receiving the bid from FHP, it was evident that it would not be in the County's best interest to bid out the health insurance program for 1997 and the Employee Medical Insurance Advisory Committee agrees with this stance. It is the consensus of everyone that it is in the County's best interest to keep our current triple-option plan with CIGNA and to work towards doing all we can to control our group's claims costs. Ms. Maroney stated that they will work with Mercer, CIGNA and providers in our area to ensure that we are getting the best discounts possible and they plan to work with Mercer to help design and implement an effective employee education and involvement process to help control costs. Ms. Maroney noted that another health insurance issue to address for 1997 is whether or not to open up participation in the current FHP "frozen enrollment" group as FHP informed us late last year that they would no longer be interested in offering coverage on a "frozen" basis beyond 12-31-96, as has been the case since 1988. This has been discussed at length with Mercer and the Employee Medical Insurance Advisory Committee and all agree it makes sense to allow a true "open enrollment" into the FHP HMO. Jean Moore, Benefits Consultant from Mercer, submitted a handout comparing the current 1996 CIGNA rates and the 1997 FHP proposal, which were 29.9% higher than the current CIGNA rates and in line with what they anticipate CIGNA's renewal rates will be for 1997. Ms. Moore informed the Board that they just received word that FHP was just acquired by PacifiCare Health Systems of California; she noted that initially they won't see much of a change, but long term there will be a change. Ms. Moore reviewed the vast difference in costs for hospital stays between Poudre Valley Hospital and the hospitals in Denver and the Surgical Center in Fort Collins; Ms. Moore stated that they hope to negotiate costs with Poudre Valley Hospital in a partnering role.

Commissioner Disney asked how much investigation has been done regarding self insurance. Mr. Jacobs responded that they have not investigated this as a project as he was not aware the Board wanted him to do that; he noted that this would be a really big investment and a big project, but if the Board wants him to do it, he can undertake it as a study and figure out how much it would cost and then return to the Board with a proposal. Ms. Moore stated that this would not be a good time to do this because the claims have been coming in significantly higher than the premiums being paid to CIGNA, and has been the case the past five years. Chair Pro-Tem Duvall stated that this subject came up at the Executive Council Meeting last Monday and needs to be explained to them; therefore, she asked Ms. Moore to draft a one-page letter explaining why it would not be in our best interest at this time to enter into self insurance. Commissioner Duvall also stated that we need to be responsive to the employee's concerns about CIGNA and she suggested possibly preparing a Matrix showing the different options to be offered and include this enrollment information with the September or October paychecks so they will have time to review the options before making their decisions regarding insurance in November. CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to approve the following steps for the health insurance program for 1997: 1) County remain with the CIGNA triple-option plan (with continuing efforts to manage and control claims costs, both by working with providers and by educating employees about cost-saving options); and 2) County open up the enrollment for the FHP HMO. Ms. Maroney noted that opening up the FHP HMO to all our employees may be an incentive for CIGNA to be more cooperative.

7. REVISION TO COUNTY MANAGER'S AUTHORITY POLICY: Mr. Lancaster requested Board approval of the revised Policy regarding the authority granted to the County Manager, as discussed during the Policy Worksession with the Parks Department.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the revision to the Policy for Authority Granted to County Manager, with the addition of Section II-E regarding approval of option contracts for real property up to $10,000, and authorize the Chair Pro-Tem to sign same.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

P96-03 REVISED POLICY REGARDING AUTHORITY GRANTED TO

THE COUNTY MANAGER

8. WORKSESSION:

-- Request for Clarification regarding the Appointed Chief Deputies Salaries: Mr. Lancaster requested clarification from the Board regarding the appointed Chief Deputy's for other elected officials salaries; Chair Pro-Tem Duvall responded that the Board is studying these salaries to determine the number of employees they supervise, the responsibility they have, etc. Mr. Lancaster will ask Human Resources to do a reclassification on the whole group to determine the impact and when the study is complete, it will be brought to the Board.

-- Invitations: Ms. Hart reviewed the pending invitations with the Board and they indicated to her which events they could attend.

9. DOCUMENT REVIEW:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Minutes for the week of July 29, 1996, as submitted and amended.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Schedule for the week of August 12, 1996, as submitted and amended.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following documents as listed on the Consent Agenda on Document Review for August 7, 1996:

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS: Second Quarter Report for 1996 and Special Reserve Fund from Public Trustee; and Request for approval of Sheriff's Department Policy #350.02. LIQUOR LICENSES: County approval was granted to Sparks General Store - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO.

A96-107 AGREEMENT CONCERNING TOAD IMPROVEMENTS ON

COUNTY ROAD 30 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND THAYER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP,

LLOYD ST. CROIX, TRUSTEE U/W/O KENNETH THAYER

(Project #181)

A96-108 AGREEMENT CONCERNING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON

COUNTY ROAD 21C BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND KENNETH HOWARD AND JUNE R.

HERSH (Project #171 - Overland Trail)

A96-109 SUBLEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (Loveland

Office Space)

A96-110 AGREEMENT FOR SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE BETWEEN

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SIERRA

COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. (Provision of PLUS - Gold

"Software Maintenance"

A96-111 AGREEMENT FOR SOFTWARE INSTALLATION SERVICES

BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND

SIERRA COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. (Provision of PLUS)

C96-47 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES,

NORTHERN, INC. (Services to Homeless Mentally Ill through

PATH Grant from State)

D96-25 QUIT CLAIM DEED BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF THORNTON (Project #119)

Motion carried 2 - 0.

10. LEGAL MATTERS:

At this time County Attorney George Hass, Assistant County Attorney Jeannine Haag, Barbara Case King, Sheriff's Department Legal Advisor, and Risk Manager Kate Tremblay joined the meeting for Legal Matters.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session at 10:20 a.m. to discuss pending litigation.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The Board came out of Executive Session at 11:00 a.m.; no action taken.

______________________________________

JOHN CLARKE, CHAIR

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

( S E A L )

ATTEST:

__________________________________

Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.