MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were: Rob Helmick, Russ Legg, Michael Whitley, Toby Stauffer, and Sean Wheeler, Planning Department; Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Johnson opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the Land Use Code and County Budget. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.
Chair Johnson then noted that items 1 – 3 are on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
1. COTNER SUBDIVISION LOTS 138 AND 139 LOT CONSOLIDATION, FILE #10-S2976: This is a request to combine two adjacent lots, Lots 138 and 139, Cotner Subdivision into one lot. This project is accompanied by a companion variance request for an addition and an existing house to be closer to the Local County Road (38’) than the required setback distance (60’). The Board of Adjustment hearing for the variance request will occur on August 24th, 2010.
There have not been any objections to this proposal by the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Department of Health and Environment; The Engineering Department; Development Review Section; and The Assessor’s Office.
The proposed Lot Consolidation of Lots 138 & 139 in Cotner Subdivision will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots and no other services will be affected. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation of Lots 138 & 139, Cotner Subdivision, (File #10-S2976) subject to the following conditions :
1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by February 23, 2011 or this approval shall be null and void.
2. The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions that apply to the original lots.
2. MCLEAN MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL, FILE #10-Z1805: This is a request for approval of a Minor Special Review to allow a Home Occupation within a detached building and generate up to ten trips per day. The request includes an appeal to Section 4.3.10.B.1.a of the Land Use Code to allow the Home Occupation to occupy more than 50% of the floor area of the dwelling. The home on the property is 1,085 square feet and the Home Occupation is proposed to occupy a 572 square foot detached yurt which is 52.7% of the size of the home.
The subject property is a 37.3 acre parcel in Rist Canyon situated on Old Camp Road approximately 0.8 miles east of the intersection of Tip Top Road and Old Camp Road. The property is zoned O (Open) and has an existing residence constructed in 1986. The surrounding properties are all 35 acres or larger and are developed with single-homes, a church camp and a guest ranch.
The applicant proposes to use a yurt as a studio for conducting movement therapy. The yurt and would not be equipped with utilities. The Home Occupation would be conducted seasonally as the weather allows. If the yurt is erected for no more than 180 days a year it would be considered a temporary structure and would not require a building permit. Two to three client visits are expected on normal days with occasional groups of two to five clients.
Home Occupations require Minor Special Review approval if they are located in detached accessory buildings that received a building permit after June 19, 2006, if they occupy more than 800 square feet (not to exceed 1,200 square feet), and/or if they generate more than six vehicle trips per day (not to exceed 10 vehicle trips per day). The applicant is requesting a Home Occupation within a detached accessory building and is seeking permission to generate up to 10 vehicle trips per day.
Besides the requirement that Home Occupations not occupy more than 50% of the floor area of the dwelling, the proposed Home Occupation would comply with all other applicable Home Occupation standards found in Section 4.3.10.B of the Land Use Code.
Four neighbors attended the neighborhood meeting but there were no concerns about the proposed Home Occupation.
This request includes an appeal to Section 4.3.10.B.1.a of the Land Use Code to allow the home occupation within a detached structure that is more than 50% of the size of the square footage of the dwelling. The home on the property is 1,085 square feet and the Home Occupation is proposed to occupy a 572 square foot detached yurt which is 52.7% of the size of the home. All appeals to Land Use Code requirements must comply with the review criteria found in Section 22.2.3 of the Land Use Code.
The following is a brief summary of the review agency comments:
1. Planning Staff support the Minor Special Review as described in this report. There are no remaining Planning Department concerns with this request.
2. The Engineering Department has no issues or concerns with this request and noted that Transportation Capital Expansion Fees will not be required for this Home Occupation.
3. The Health Department has no issue with the proposed use but recommends that well water be tested for bacterial levels at least once per year.
4. The Code Compliance office has no concerns with the proposed Minor Special Review but noted that the 1986 permit for the home expired without all required inspection approvals. The current property owners have applied for a letter of completion.
5. The Building Department determined that a building permit would not be required for the yurt as long as it is not erected for more than 180 days.
6. No other individuals or referral agents contacted Planning staff with comments on this request.
The Development Services Team believes that the McLean Minor Special Review application meets the Minor Special Review criteria, meets the requirements for a Home Occupation in a detached accessory building, and meets the appeal review criteria. As proposed, the use will not adversely affect adjacent properties. The Development Services Team finds:
1. The proposed use is compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and in harmony with the neighborhood.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the County Master Plan.
3. The request complies with the requirements of the Land Use Code.
4. The proposed use is not anticipated to have substantial adverse impacts on other property.
5. The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.
6. The applicant has demonstrated that this project can meet applicable additional criteria listed in Section 4.3 of the Land Use Code (Use Descriptions).
7. Approval of the appeal will not subvert the purpose of the standard or requirement.
8. Approval of the appeal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or property values in the neighborhood.
9. Approval of the appeal is the minimum action necessary.
10. Approval of the appeal will not result in increased costs to the general public.
11. Approval of the appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Code.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the McLean Minor Special Review for a Home Occupation in a detached accessory building and generating up to 10 trips per day and appeal to Section 4.3.10.B.1.a of the Land Use Code, File #10-Z1805, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the McLean Minor Special Review, File #10-Z1805 except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the McLean Minor Special Review.
2. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval, or fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor Special Review, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Minor Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Minor Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Minor Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Minor Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Minor Special Review approval.
3. The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property. Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Minor Special Review approval.
4. Within 90 days from the date of approval, the owner shall obtain all outstanding inspections and make all applicable corrections required for all previous work in the existing home.
5. A building permit shall be obtained for the yurt if it is erected for more than 180 days a year.
6. This Minor Special Review approval will automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.
3. DONALDSON SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #09-Z1764: This application was heard by the Larimer County Planning Commission at their regular July 17, 2010 meeting. At that time the request was on the discussion agenda for two issues that at the time of agenda setting remained unresolved. The location of and disposition of the on site sewage disposal system, was one issue that is now resolved with the condition #10 and, the issue of the uses approved was the subject of discussion by the applicant and the Larimer County Planning Commission. At the meeting the Team suggested that the full range of Trade uses was inappropriate to approve. The discussion with the Larimer County Planning Commission focused on the Term of “similar uses”. This language was found acceptable by the Larimer County Planning Commission and the applicant. So no modifications to the condition #9, was made
Planning Commission and Development Services Team Recommendation:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Donaldson Special Review, file #09-Z1764, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved with the following conditions, clarification to Condition 9 that the definition of “similar uses” would be in relation to traffic count, number of employees, and waste generation, and change to Condition 10 to state, “The existing septic system absorption field shall be protected with a barrier curb and planted with a suitable grass cover within 120 days of this approval.”:
1. This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.
2. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Donaldson Special Review, File # 09-Z1764, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Donaldson Special Review.
3. Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners
4. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.
5. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.
6. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.
7. The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property. Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property, who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants, shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.
8. The applicant shall pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) within 120 days of the recordation of the Findings and Resolution approving the Special Review.
9. The applicant proposes to include the full range of trade uses in the approval. This cannot be supported due to the limited services available to the site and the nature of our evaluation cannot/did not examine the potential full range of those uses. The only uses approved are those of a nursery/tree farm and landscape maintenance or similar uses.
10. The existing septic system absorption field shall be protected with a barrier curb and planted with a suitable grass cover within 120 days of this approval.
11. A final site lighting plan must be submitted, reviewed and approved with in 120 days to insure that there is no conflict with the operations of the airport.
12. The applicant must provide a separate isolated pad designed to contain materials and possible spills or eliminate their outdoor storage, within 120 days.
13. The use must be separated from the existing home on the property within 120 days. The Land Use Code does not allow for multiple principal structures on a single parcel.
14. The access to CR 9 must be improved pursuant to the requirements of the Engineering Department, within 120 days.
15. At the time of a land division, the additional Right of Way identified as needed for the adjacent county roads must be dedicated.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. WARREN EXEMPTION TRACTS B & C ACCESS EASEMENT VACATION AND WATTS FEE APPEAL, FILE #10-S2977: This is a request to vacate a portion of a 50’ access easement along the common lot line of Tracts B and C Warren Exemption. The lots will still receive access from this easement; the easement will just be vacated along part of the property boundary where it is not necessary.
The access easement also runs along the boundary of Tracts A and C; that portion of the access easement will remain. All three properties in the Warren Exemption, Tracts A, B, & C, will still have access from the easement.
The applicant also requests relief from the application fees for the easement vacation and the associated variance application, file# 10-BOA0807, to be heard by the Board of Adjustment on August 24th, 2010. The amount of fees for both applications is $700.00, $200.00 for the Access Easement Vacation and $500.00 for the Variance application. The applicant requests relief given that he is living on a fixed income and that the situation was inherited from the previous owner.
The Larimer County Engineering Department, Health Department, and Code Compliance Section have no objections or concerns with this request.
The Development Services Team finds that the application meets the criteria of the access easement vacation, the proposed request will not leave any land without access and all of the comments from the review agencies have been considered.
If the direct costs of the processing of both applications are paid then the fee waiver request is consistent with the review criteria.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Warren Exemption Tracts B & C Access Easement Vacation and Watts Fee Appeal, File # 10-S2977, a request to vacate a portion of a 50’ access easement along the common lot line of Tracts B & C of the Warren Exemption, and waive a portion of fees associated with this application and variance request 10-BOA0807, subject to the condition as listed below:
1. The direct costs of application processing, copying, postage, notices, and public hearings shall be paid. The direct costs are estimated to be $200.00, this would result in a $500.00 application fee waiver.
Ms. Stauffer explained that the applicant “inherited” this problem when they purchased the property. She supported a reduction in the costs associated with this application, since she was able to process both the vacation and fee appeals at the same time, thereby utilizing less staff time and streamlining the effort.
There was no public comment on this item.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the easement vacation and the Watts Fee Appeal, and set the fee at $200, instead of $700.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. OTTE EXEMPTION APPEAL, FILE #10-G0198: Mr. Wheeler explained that notice regarding this exemption appeal had been posted in the newspaper, but it was not circulated to the surrounding property owners for their review and comments; therefore, he requested that this item be tabled to a future date.
Discussion ensued, and the Board directed Mr. Wheeler to bring this item to Planning Commission first, and then back to the Board of County Commissioners for final review.
6. ORDER & ASSESSMENT FOR COSTS INCURRED PURSANT TO THE RUBBISH ORDINANCE, FILE #10-CC0202: Costs and expenses to remove and dispose of rubbish were incurred by the County pursuant to the County’s Rubbish Ordinance. These costs and expenses were not paid by the property owner as requested. Pursuant to the Rubbish Ordinance, unpaid costs incurred to remove and dispose of rubbish may be assessed as a lien against the property. Staff is, therefore, requesting the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Order and Assessment.
1. A Notice of Rubbish Ordinance Violation was posted at the property and served on the property owner, tenant and attorneys representing the lien holder on July 15, 2010.
2. The property owner or tenant did not remove the rubbish as required.
3. An entry and seizure warrant was issued by the Larimer County Court authorizing the County to enter the property to remove and dispose of the rubbish on July 23, 2010.
4. The County removed and disposed of the rubbish on July 30, 2010. Before and after photographs of the property will be available at the hearing of this matter.
5. A Bill of Costs for the removal and disposal costs plus five (5%) percent for inspection and incidental expenses was served on the owner, tenant and attorneys representing the lien holder on August 2, 2010 with the request the amount owing be paid to the County within fifteen (15) days.
6. The owner, tenant and/or lien holder have not paid the amount owing.
7. Pursuant to the Rubbish Ordinance at paragraph 7.3:
“In the event that the bill [of costs] remains unpaid after 15 days, the costs may be assessed as a lien against the property until paid and shall have priority over all other liens except general taxes and prior special assessments. If the costs remain unpaid after 90 days from the date of the bill [of costs] such costs together with a ten percent (10%) penalty for collection expenses shall be certified to the Larimer County Treasurer for collection in the same manner as other taxes are collected.”
Notice of this hearing was posted at the property, a copy was hand delivered to the tenant, and copies were mailed certified and regular mail to the owner and lien holder of record.
Mr. Gray briefly explained the situation, as described above, and presented “before and after” photos of the property. He requested the Board of County Commissioners approve the Order and Assessment to bill the property owner.
The property owner was not present, and there was no public comment on this item.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Order and Assessment, as presented.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. SHOW CAUSE HEARING FOR COLUMBINE SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #09-Z1745: On June 14, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Columbine Special Review for the existing Columbine Resort Lodge and expanded camping uses. The Boards action included conditions of approval that were intended to insure that standards for these types of uses would be constructed and that compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood could be achieved.
On July 19, 2010, at the Public Comment portion of the County Commissioners Administrative Matters meeting neighbors of the Columbine Lodge informed the Commissioners that compliance with the conditions had not commenced and that activities on the site continue to operate in the flood plain and without regard for neighborhood compatibility. Furthermore, the neighboring resident indicated that activities such as urinating in public and camping outside of the approved areas were occurring on the property.
The conditions of approval for the Columbine Special Review included typical language that prior to operation of the use, certain if not all, required site improvements need to be completed before the use commences. The Development Services Team monitors these conditions through the Building Permit process and the Development Construction Permit process. However, The Development Services Team does not typically monitor site activities, especially those that occur during the off business hours, and thus is not usually aware of activities until they have occurred, which is the currently the case.
In accordance with Condition 3 of the Finding and Resolution for the Columbine Special Review this hearing is being scheduled to understand what the specific issues of the neighborhood are and what conditions are not being complied with. As part of this hearing the Board of County Commissioners will determine future courses of action which can range from precluding any activity on the site until all improvements have been made to revocation of the approval of the Special Review.
Mr. Jensen was notified of the complaints and indicated that he would be available at the hearing to respond to the concerns raised by the neighbors.
The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners require that all Camping activities of the Columbine Special Review cease until all required improvements and permits have been completed, inspected and finalized.
Mr. Lafferty explained the situation, as outlined above, noting that the specific complaints were of individuals urinating on the ground; port-o-potties not being installed; and a water tap not installed and made available to campers.
Chair Johnson opened up the hearing to the complainant first, and Kristy Lahnert addressed the Board. Ms. Lahnert stated that she has witnessed individuals urinating on the ground adjacent to her property, RV’s and campers in unauthorized areas, and a lack of port-a-potties. However, she stated that two port-a-potties have been installed since she filed her complaint with the commissioners.
There were no other complainants in attendance.
Columbine Owner Michael Jensen, stated that they have done a lot of work in cleaning up the property, and that they are extremely sensitive to the surrounding neighbors. He explained that the water faucet has been installed, the RV’s have been moved, two port-a-potties have been installed, and they are posting signs for camping areas limitations. He also noted that security guards are patrolling the grounds and communicate via walkie talkies.
Kim Peyton, Kim Bullard, Patrick Tyler, and Jennifer Stonezipher all spoke in support of the Columbine Lodge owners, noting that the changes that have taken place are extremely positive and that they are working constantly to implement changes and reach compliance.
Columbine Manager Becky Jensen, stated that she has worked long hours for three years implementing an amazing change since when they first purchased the property. She assured Ms. Lahnert that she will continue to do so, and invited Ms. Lahnert to continue providing feedback so that she could address the issues as they arise.
There was no formal action taken; the Board agreed to allow the Jensen’s to continue operations; however, cautioned them to the lines of communication open and initiate feedback when things are taking longer than expected, such as moving RV trailers, or installation of port-a-potties.
The hearing recessed at 4 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. to take public testimony on the Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were: Frank Lancaster, and Deni LaRue, Commissioner’s Office; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Michael Whitley, Planning Department; Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Johnson explained the history of legislative acts that allow local authorities to either ban or allow medical marijuana facilities within local jurisdictions. He explained that they are trying hard to do what is right for the community as a whole. Commissioner Donnelly asked everyone to keep their comments friendly and respectful, and Commissioner Gaiter stated that they are not looking at restricting care givers and individuals, but are focused on gathering comments pertaining to the facilities themselves.
Mr. Ressue also presented some history and background on the legislation that allows for medical marijuana centers, noting that the Board can chose to implement, adopt a ban, or put it to a vote of the citizens for final decision. He further noted that what the commissioners decide does not affect the centers already approved within the municipalities.
Mr. Ryan explained the public health importance of developing sanitary rules for infused products (such as expatriation dates), where the marijuana is manufactured, risks for accidental ingestion by children and animals, etc.
Chair Johnson then opened up the hearing for public comment.
Erica Freeman, Brian Freeman, Jerry Esehbaugh, Sarah Gustin, Deanne Frederickson, Jill Coxon, Mark Loader , Malia Wright-Smith, Jamie Welsch, Abby Kremer, Andrew Mowery, Pete Boyle, Dylan Smith, Allison Ward, Gabe Fowler, John Keller, Ivan Ankeny, Jason Specht, Jeff Johnson, Gianna Billen, Steve Sweeney, Monte Barry, Robert Chase, Timothy Tipton, Michelle Crawford, Lukas Rethke, Richard Alexander, Jeff Fuller, and Lisa Yielding all expressed support for the medical marijuana centers and asked the to approve of them. Most cited personal experience as a care giver, or recipient of medical marijuana, and stated how critically important it was to have accessibility to the medication, especially for those that do not have medical insurance. Some also had pending applications for facilities in the county, noting that they have invested a lot of money to open and operate a professional establishment for the community. Others also stated that it is a way to stimulate the economy, and quoted statistics that state it has been proven to reduce crime rates in communities.
Larry Cecil, Colin Hornback, Jathan Trevena, Larry McEnany, Brian DeBuse, Marie Hornback, Sheriff Jim Alderden, Mary Edwards, Tad Loader, Elaine Spencer, and Wayde Krueger were all opposed to the implementation of medical marijuana facilities in the county. Most cited that the law was being abused and it’s simply now a means to legalize drug use; they feared it would de-value property and increase crime in the community.
Martha Simmons, Glenn Parker, and a few others felt strongly that the decision should be made by a vote of the citizens and asked the Board to refer this issue to the November election.
Chair Johnson closed public comment and commissioner discussion ensued.
Commissioner Gaiter shared his personal experiences with pain and suffering due to medical issues, and stated that he understands the need for medicinal use of marijuana; however, the concern he heard most was being able to access it. Commissioner Gaiter reiterated that the decision they make regarding the distribution centers will have no impact on care givers within the county, as they will still retain their constitutional rights under the law. Additionally, the new distribution center model will still be available within the Fort Collins city limits. He also explained that although the overwhelming majority this evening was in support of approving the centers, he had a great many e-mails from individuals that could not attend, yet were opposed to it. Ultimately, Commissioner Gaiter stated that he was in favor of banning the facilities in the county.
Commissioner Donnelly also shared some personal experiences with a family member diagnosed with cancer, which is why he voted for the initial legislation in 2000. However, Commissioner Donnelly stated that the does not agree with the dispensing method and questions whether it is an appropriate land use for rural areas of the county. He too, stated that he was in favor of banning the facilities in the county.
Chair Johnson agreed, stating that the municipalities are better equipped and have the infrastructure to handle the impacts of this type of facility.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution to prohibit in unincorporated Larimer County all medical marijuana businesses that cultivate, manufacture or sell medical marijuana or medical marijuana infused products, including medical marijuana centers, optional premises cultivation operations and medical marijuana-infused product manufacture.
Motion carried 3-0.
The hearing adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2010
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were: Bob Keister, Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; George Hass, Jeannine Haag, Bill Ressue, David Ayraud, and Karen Rittwager, County Attorney’s Office; Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Troy Munster addressed the Board regarding the Department of Human Services (DHS). Mr. Munster relayed his personal experiences with DHS and he asked the board to consider where the department is spending money, as he feels it is being wasted on unnecessary testing. He then invited the Board to attend his next hearing on September 10, 2010. The Board thanked Mr. Munster for his comments.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 16, 2010:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of August 16, 2010.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 30, 2010: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as listed below:
08242010A001 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND DON KEHN CONSTRUCTION FOR PROJECT NO. 293, REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 29-0.6-20, OVER THE HOME SUPPLE DITCH
08242010A002 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF LARIMER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE ON AGING, AND MEALS ON WHEELS OF LOVELAND-BERTHOUD, INC.
08242010A003 AMENDMENT TWO TO COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT CONTRACT L10CSBG27, BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS
08242010A004 AMENDMENT TWO TO COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT CONTRACT L10CSBG27R, BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS
08242010R001 RESOLUTION ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR INCLUSION TO THE LARIMER COUNTY VENNER RANCH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 18
08242010R002 RESOLUTION CALLING AN ELECTION IN LARIMER COUNTY REGARDING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE LARIMER COUNTY PUEBLA VISTA ESTATES PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 48, AND PROVIDING OTHER DETAILS RELATING THERETO
08242010R003 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE GRANT APPLICATION FROM LARIMER COUNTY TO THE STATE BOARD OF THE GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO TRUST FUND FOR HERMIT PARK OPEN SPACE EDUCATION AREA, PHASE I
08242010R004 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE GRANT APPLICATION FROM LARIMER COUNTY TO THE STATE BOARD OF THE GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO TRUST FUND FOR HERMIT PARK OPEN SPACE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, PHASE II
MISCELLANEOUS: Workforce Investment Act (WIA) PY09 Close-out Package.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were approved and/or issued: Vern’s Liquor – Retail Liquor Store – LaPorte; Schrader County Store 440 – 3.2% - Fort Collins; Hacienda Real – Hotel & Restaurant – Fort Collins.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. COUNTY ATTORNEY’S BUDGET: Mr. Hass requested an increase to his general retainer funding for 2010. He presented a letter that outlined the percentages of work performed by his office for the different areas billed: general retainer, human services, and risk management, noting that it is most difficult to predetermine the proportion of work that will be requested by each area. He stated that with a bigger percentage of the workload being driven by the general retainer funds, and less by risk management, he is requesting $160,000 to cover the increase. Discussion ensued, and the Board agreed that increasing the general fund retainer would be the best course of action to take.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve increasing the County Attorney’s General Retainer Funding by $160,000 for 2010, to be appropriated from the General Fund Reserves.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. BOARDS AND COMMISSONS APPOINTMENTS: Ms. LaRue presented the following recommendations for Boards and Commissions and requested approval on the same:
Board of Adjustment: Paul Devenny and Timothy Jaworski, appointed to fill an unexpired term beginning August 24, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2011.
Office on Aging Advisory Council: Dean Cunningham, appointed to fill an unexpired term beginning August 24, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2012.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve of the appointments to Boards and Commissions, as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. RESOLUTION REFERRING MODIFICATION OF TERM LIMITS FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO THE 2010 BALLOT: Mr. Lancaster presented the resolution for the ballot language proposing to extend the District Attorney’s term of office from two terms to three terms. Discussion ensued, and noted that the Sheriff was inadvertently left off of the resolution. Mr. Lancaster stated that he would correct that oversight prior to the Chair signing the resolution.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution referring modification of Term Limits for the District Attorney to the 2010 Ballot.
Motion carried 3-0.
08242010R005 RESOLUTION CALLING AN ELECTION IN LARIMER COUNTY REGARDING MODIFYING THE TERM LIMITS FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FROM TWO TERMS TO THREE TERMS
8. COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster presented the Abstract of Assessments, which certifies the findings of the Board of Equalization, and explained that it must be approved by the Board so the Assessor’s office could submit it to the state by August 25, 2010.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 2010 Abstract of Assessments.
Motion carried 3-0.
Mr. Lancaster then asked if the Board had decided who would sit on the panel to choose the next CPA Firm for county audits. Commissioner Gaiter volunteered to be a part of this panel.
9. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board discussed their activities at events during the past week.
10. LEGAL MATTERS:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402 (4) (b) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
The Board came out of Executive Session and the following action was taken:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County Attorney to file suit against Travelers Insurance regarding claims against the Fairgrounds Building.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11 a.m.
STEVE JOHNSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk