County Offices, Courts and Landfill will be closed on Monday, July 4 for the Independence Day Holiday. Critical services at Larimer County are not disrupted by closures.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 , 5:30 - 8:30 p.m.,
Boyd Lake Room, Larimer County Courthouse Office Building, 200 W. Oak Street, Ft. Collins, CO
Steve Johnson, Commissioner
The May 10, 2011, meeting of the Parks Advisory Board was called to order by Chair Linda Knowlton at 5:35 p.m. The minutes of the April 12, 2011, meeting were approved.
REPORTS–if any - None
PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda - None
GENERAL INFORMATION: (Questions – 5 min.)
§ Natural Resource Events for May: See website http://www.larimer.org/naturalresources.
Regional Study & Open Lands Program
Master Plan update – staff are working on a scope of work in conjunction with Fort Collins and Loveland
distributed the new Natural Resources Recreation Map, which have
just come out.
§ Linda reminded members that election of officers will occur at the June meeting.
ADA Trails Policy –
Meegan Flenniken, Resource Program Manager. (See
The Federal policy governing ADA trail accessibility has been changed to permit power-driven mobility devices on trails. The new ADA rules apply to trails on local lands. Our policy on motorized vehicles on trails needed to be updated to comply with the new rules. A public hearing is scheduled for Thursday, June 9, at the courthouse. Information was sent out to about 40 organizations.
Meegan reviewed each provision of the policy (attached.) The new policy defines devices which are allowed, and those which are not. Prohibited devices include:
§ Over 500 lbs
Wheel width that exceed the width of the natural or
The policy limits use to weekdays and allows only the person with the disability on the device. The rules do not require that changes be made to our trails to make them more accessible.
Board and staff comments:
Mark DeGregorio: What did the rule change entail?
Meegan: The ruling doesn’t specify what type of mobility device qualifies – could be a pick-up truck. There were four factors that were permitted to assess acceptable uses (see policy.)
Steve Johnson: Is there a way to communicate to people the width of the trails? [See attached list of our trails, by type, which is posted online.]
Linda Knowlton: What if someone arrives at the trailhead without knowing the limits? [Ongoing public education.] She reports that Ft. Collins has seen zero mobility devices at this point.
Frank Cada: He assumes if someone had a heart attack, we would allow more than one person on a device? [Yes.] Underpowered vehicles could become a problem on rough terrain – how is that addressed? Is it the responsibility of the operator? [Yes.] .
Linda Knowlton: The trail ratings take that into account?
Meegan: No – the trail assessment is based strictly on width of the trail – we did not attempt to rate the trails by terrain or difficulty. For us to evaluate every section of each trail would be very difficult. That is why the policy limits liability. Trail conditions may change depending on the time of year, as well.
Dan Rieves: We’re trying not to create another level of bureaucracy with this policy – trails are rated in other contexts and we did not want to add another layer of assessment to that. We tried to make the policy open and accessible, but have enough teeth in it if needed. This policy will be very fluid and will respond to whatever happens.
Steve Schweitzer: An all-terrain vehicle requires 2 arms and 2 legs to operate safely – why are such devices included?
Meegan: Disabilities may include other things like migraine headaches, etc., which do not affect physical mobility in that way.
Russ Fruits: The policy prevents someone from riding their motorbike on trails claiming they have a disability.
Gary noted that Meegan spent a lot of time developing the policy, working with the County Attorney and the City of Ft. Collins.
Update on Youth, Families and the Outdoors GOCO Pilot Project – Rob Novak, Education Specialist
GOCO came to us to request that we assist with a study of this topic, in preparation for a grant cycle to address these needs. Brett Bruyere and Lisa Evans are experts retained to assist. A core team has been assembled, including Mark DeGregorio, representing the Parks Advisory Board.
There will be a public survey and inventory of all programs related to nature-based programming directed at children and an inventory of all facilities. The study will rate them on naturalness, and map all of it, with the intent of identifying gaps and barriers. The consultant hired was Design Workshop. The next step will be an advisory group, and Mark will also serve on that, beginning at the end of May. We are now collecting GIS data. We hope to have preliminary results by fall, and complete the study by next spring. Rob will return to report to this and other boards periodically throughout the process.
Board and staff comments:
Frank Cada: GOCO is paying for the pilot program? Ultimate goal is to coordinate all these programs?
Rob: GOCO is funding study to collect baseline data, so they can formulate a grant cycle. GOCO hopes to take a leadership role on this issue. They want to see how agencies work together, and how that can be done more effectively.
Gary: We feel fortunate to be selected out of the whole state for this role.
Frank Gillespie: The purpose is to provide background for a new grants program directed at children in the outdoors?
Rob: Yes. We are the guinea pigs to develop a study process which can be replicated in other areas of the state?
Russell Fruits: He doesn’t see a lot of outdoor recreation representatives named. [Rob provided a more thorough listing of all the representatives on the study group, which include Colorado Youth Outdoors and others.]
Big Thompson Flood Parcels – Charlie Johnson, Sr. Land Agent
§ Area 7 – Indian Village
Linda noted that four Board members and a County surveyor went on the tour of the properties. The group walked around; some climbed to the top of the hill at the Narrows, where the buildable lot might be. One item that came up was at Indian Village. At the last meeting, one person said we should not sell that area. After seeing it, she sees good reasons why we might want to sell it.
Charlie encourages all Board members to go on these tours – there’s nothing like seeing it on the ground.
Frank Gillespie noted that seeing the properties enhanced his perception quite a bit. Frank Cada said he had not seen the properties from the north side of the river, and that was very interesting and helpful.
Howard and Lena Carmens, owners of the Indian Village parcel, spoke to the Board:
The properties were originally purchased by Larimer County to make a park out of them. 35 years later, nothing has been done with it. They almost purchased that piece of property before the flood – after the flood, nothing was left. He wants to know how much taxes he’d pay if he owned it.
He doesn’t’ care if he has it or not, but in the future would like to see it fenced where the ditch goes across. People who pull off the road don’t know where private property begins. When his wife walks outside, and someone is doing their business in his yard, it’s not ok. They were told the County intended to put restrooms and parking there and fence it, and make it into a park –but it never happened. What happens in that canyon matters to all of us. All he did was to block it so people can’t pull in behind his vehicle. They’ve been broken into 3 times. There’s been an issue about public fishing access. His is the only property level enough for a wheelchair to come down to the river. Lots of weddings have happened there. He’s never prevented anyone from having access. He just wants a short fence to prevent people from trespassing.
It’s not a big maintenance deal – it would take half a day to clean it up and make it look like a park. There’s been no grass or anything on their side of the highway. He’d like to have a piece of property he can be proud of and sell someday. If we sell it to someone else, are they going to keep it cleaned up and maintained? If we put down some topsoil and grass seed, it would make a big difference. The original deal was if the property was leveled, a certain company could park their equipment there. He invited all the Board members to come and take a look; come in and say hi. He doesn’t want anyone parking there at his end of the property. Other than that, he doesn’t care what we do with it.
Dan: On the current lay-out, where would the fence be located?
Howard: From the ditch towards their place, on the downstream side. Doesn’t’ care what type of fence. Just keep people from walking through there. He welcomes people parking there, because it helps his business. The County has been a good neighbor. Behind him is the City of Loveland. Putting in a nice paved circle drive would be a good idea, would provide a place to turn around in the road for one thing, as well as fishing access.
Linda Knowlton: What is your desire in terms of ownership of the property next to the store?
Howard: If it’s not a great expense, he’d be interested, but would be fine with the county keeping it, if they take care of it. Just need it to look as good as possible. It’s always bothered him that more effort was not put into making US 34 look better after the flood.
Linda thanked him for coming.
Board and staff comment:
Steve Schweitzer: Has Charlie or his staff done any research on what it would cost to fence this area? [Hayden fencing cost less than $1000.] He would also like to know the costs involved in the tree trimming, grass seeding, clean-up, etc., which the folks would like to see done.
Frank Cada: Right now, their motor home is parked on the County property. Is there some kind of win-win where the County permits him to park his motor home there in exchange for his maintaining the property?
Forrest Orswell: Asked Linda to elaborate on her comment.
Linda Knowlton: If we want to sell that piece up to the ditch, which is filled with big rocks, she sees no problem with that. However, what she’s hearing is no pressure to sell it. She noted how difficult it must be to get down to the river there – filled with huge boulders, and Loveland owns the river anyway.
Gary Buffington: Re: the operations of the Canyon areas – we’re into more natural areas, not planting grass, etc. Private property owners can do that kind of landscaping, but our budget does not allow that level of maintenance.
Charlie Johnson: Reported that he has had little time to work on this project this month, beyond the tour. He did talk to the County surveyors, and they agree that they can work on our projects, but their other work takes priority over the Big Thompson. However, they have some time now, so can work on it soon. The County surveyors have done a lot of work for Natural Resources over the years, and they like doing it.
§ Area 5 – Narrows
Board and staff comments:
Charlie Johnson: He thinks it would still be useful to discuss whether the Narrows property should be sold as a building site or preserved as open space. If the value were around $200,000, would we want to sell it as buildable/?
Linda Knowlton: Before the tour, she thought no. But after seeing it, and realizing the terrain is such that the building site would not be that visible from the river or other homes, she thinks we should investigate it as a buildable site. If feasible, it could be in the County’s fiscal interest to sell it.
Frank Cada: For him, it would have to be a considerable sum to override the value of keep the space as it is now. It would most benefit the neighbors by leaving it as is.
Dan Rieves: One neighbor would take advantage of the opportunity to buy it and resell it as a buildable site, making the profit the County could have made.
Mark DeGregorio: He does not want to see another house there.
Frank Gillespie: He thinks it would be more visible than the existing house already built there.
Steve Schweitzer: How does the property value affect fishing access? If property were sold as not buildable, how would this be structured to provide a walkway for fishing? Would we do the same if we sold it as buildable? He thinks we should look to the seventh generation, and act in their interest, which is to keep it open for future generations.
Charlie Johnson: We would retain the river corridor and a walkway on the shore, in either event.
Frank Gillespie: If sold to another besides the Hansons, would the access go right through Hansons’ property? [Yes.]
Fuss Fruits: It’s pretty short sighted to sell it for operational funding, unless it’s enough to create a trust fund. Even $100,000 profit will be gone in a few years, and then what did we gain by selling it? If we sell it without restrictions, the next owner will just sell it and make the profit. What’s the time and expense to investigate whether it’s a buildable site?
Gary Buffington: Does the cost to investigate matter to the Board, or is it the aesthetic value that matters to the Board?
Frank Gillespie: It would be interesting to know the value, and consider that.
Dan Rieves: It levels out on top, and appears to be a more reasonable buildable site than the site of the other house upstream. If you’re motivated and have a pocket book, the obstacles can be overcome.
Linda Knowlton: The Board should have the information to consider what will be foregone if we do not sell it.
Mark DeGregorio: It’s been sitting there for 35 years; there’s no rush.
Charlie will continue to research and develop an estimate on the value. But he is very busy, and it depends on the surveyors and when they have time to work on it. There is quite a bit of survey work to be done on both parcels.
Gary asked the Board whether they want to stay focused on these 2 parcels or look at others in the meantime.
Linda noted that it is not good for the public comment period to be so far removed from the time that action is taken. As new information is developed, there is more for the public to comment upon. She also noted that the Board is under pressure from the fishing community to take action. She doesn’t want to get them stacked up, waiting for staff action.
Dan Rieves: Could there be an intermediate action item on these areas to move it forward?
Charlie thinks he can be prepared with some recommendations, at least on Bartels, within the next 2 months. The Board agreed to wait and see.
Horsetooth South Bay Campground – Additional proposed full service campsites – Mark Caughlan, Horsetooth District Manager
In the master plan, this area was identified as cabin sites. Dan displayed a rough layout of the proposed sites. Staff is seeking direction on which layout if preferable and what level of public process is appropriate. Two conceptual plans were displayed. It will cost $75,000 to do utilities. The cost is about $12,500 per site, for a total of $250,000 for 14 sites. For only 9 sites, it would be about $187,000. The cost is so high because of the slope. The back row of sites is only about 50 feet from CR38 E, which will generate significant comments from neighbors.
Board and staff comments:
Linda Knowlton: Are you planning to take both options to the public? [no]
Frank Cada: Have you done a cost-benefit analysis?
Mark Caughlan: These will pay for themselves in 10 years. Full service campsites are full 60 nights a year. Full service cabins were considered, but would cost $100,000 more per site.
Steve Schweitzer: Good pay-back.
Dan Rieves: Full service campsites are in extremely high demand. The full proposal would be to build it all as early as this winter, with a placeholder for future cabins at the same site. If cabins are in the mix, do we take that to the public now or when/if funding becomes available?
Steve Schweitzer: Has there been any initial contact with neighbors? [Not yet.] We should go with the 14 sites – lower cost per site. And share the whole 3-phase plan with the public, including cabins.
Linda Knowlton: What is the deviation from the master plan? [The Master Plan included 8 cabins.]
Mark DeGregorio: He anticipates some resistance from neighbors. We must see if it will fly politically with neighbors. He also wonders about the desirability of sites near the road, but sees that existing sites are always full, so it must not matter.
Dan Rieves: If a year goes by before we can fund the cabins, then the stakeholder process would have to be done again.
Gary Buffington: If the cabins receive negative public comment, is it possible to bring that idea back later? Budget dictates that for this year, all we can afford is the campsites on the lower road.
Forrest Orswell: If we don’t have the money any time soon, don’t fight that battle now.
7:20 STANDING AGENDA ITEMS:
Park District updates and Parks Master Plan Implementation Progress report – Dan Rieves, Visitor Services Manager
§ Field Manager training, round 2, was all day today, in preparation for opening of the Estes area campgrounds on Sunday, 5/15.
§ Carter is full. Horsetooth will be filled in the next 2 weeks.
§ Campgrounds were nearly full at all the reservoirs this past weekend.
§ Next week is Ranger Excellence School, with approximately 90 attendees.
§ Joint press release with Carter Lake Sail Club about their Jr. Sailing Program – we are beginning to do more marketing with partners.
§ Estes area inspections with Bureau of Reclamation.
§ Mary’s Lake new shower building is almost done, and it is a beautiful building.
§ East Portal is starting to thaw out – there was still 4 ft. of snow last week.
§ Chris doing presentations for the local homeowners and the Convention and Visitors Bureau in Estes.
§ Mary’s Lake has a good rating now on Trip Advisor – much better than before we took over.
§ Estes Valley Recreation & Park District contributed some ADA money for new picnic tables and fire grates.
§ Reclamation recreational managers from around the country met at our facility this year.
§ Reclamation is using our marina license as an example for other managers of how to write a good license.
§ Run-off is supposed to be 200% of average; flooding is a concern.
§ ANS (zebra mussel) inspections – over 1000 had been done by the end of April. Horsetooth is the second busiest body of water in the state for ANS inspections.
§ We are getting great compliments on the new swim beaches at Horsetooth.
§ Group use reservations are increasing now that the swim beaches are open.
§ Free yoga classes will be offered this summer on the swim beach at S. Bay, partnering with Raintree Athletic Club (day permits required.)
§ The youth mentoring fishing tournament at Horsetooth last weekend was very successful.
§ Campground hosts started last week.
Board and staff comments:
Steve Schweitzer: Noticed the Rowing Club trailer has been relocated.
Mark Caughlan: All their equipment should be moved to
the new location at the Inlet Bay Marina by 5/16. They are very happy with
their new location. They are moving forward with plans to build a new building
located at the marina, in cooperation with Glenn Werth, the marina owner.
DIRECTOR’S REPORT - Gary Buffington
Gary presented a spreadsheet showing revenues and expenses related to the Big Thompson properties for sales, projects and operations. Every time we open a public area, operations increase. Revenues from sales have decreased dependence on General Fund, but will never fully fund operations.
Board and staff comments:
Frank Cada: It seems like we’ve focused on selling properties that are too expensive to maintain. Maybe we should focus on those we’ve identified as to be sold, and get it done to generate revenue, instead of focusing on properties we decide to keep, like the Loveland Fishing Club priorities. How much of the costs are associated with selling the properties, versus the steady ongoing maintenance costs? Are we getting the property tax revenues from these properties? [No, but that’s fairly minimal.]
Gary: The problem is that all the properties are on the river, and will require the same painstaking public process and evaluation.
Mark DeGregorio: How much of the costs shown went into the areas opened as parks? [Almost all of it.]
Dan Rieves: The importance of the level of service cannot be minimized. Glade Park is now a great stop. However, the operational costs have tripled as the quality has been upgraded.
Gary: Our General Fund allocation has been cut the last 2 years by the Commissioners. In 2012, there is talk that some programs will be cut entirely. Although we have lobbied hard to save the funding for these parks, as well as our volunteer program, education program, weed program, etc., it’s a difficult decision for the Commissioners, when they are facing a $4 million deficit. If we lose those funds, where do we make it up? It will come in reduction in the level of service.
Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Linda Knowlton, Chair
Next regular meeting will be on June 14, 2011, at the Bison Visitor Center, 1800 S. County Road 31, Loveland, CO
Public can view agenda and minutes at www.larimer.org/parks
Larimer County Natural Resources Number: DNR - 1
Departmental Policy Page 1 of 5
SUBJECT: Use of Power-Driven Mobility Devices on Trails by Individuals with Mobility Disabilities
DATE: April 1, 2011
EFFECTIVE PERIOD: Until superseded
REVIEW SCHEDULE: Annually
PURPOSE: For compliance with ADA Part 35 (Title II) Regulations concerning
use of power-drive mobility devices by Individuals with Mobility
Disabilities, for consistent response to inquiries about the use of power
driven mobility devices on trails managed by the Larimer County
Natural Resources Department and for enforcement of policies
concerning use of power drive mobility devices on trails managed by
the Larimer County Natural Resources Department.
SCOPE: All Natural Resource Department Employees
RESPONSIBILITY: Director; Natural Resources Department Managers
Effective March 15, 2011, the Department of Justice (DOJ) revised its rules effectuating Subtitle A
of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 with respect to the use of power-driven
mobility devices by individuals with mobility disabilities on lands owned by public entities.
Larimer County Natural Resources Department completed an assessment of all trails it manages to
determine reasonable modifications to its policies and practices to allow the use of power-driven
mobility devices by persons with mobility disabilities and to define the types and classes of devices
that are appropriate for each trail. Information about the devices that may and may not be used on
each trail will be posted on the Departmental website. Larimer County desires to accommodate
individuals with mobility disabilities while ensuring that power-driven mobility devices do not have
a significant negative impact on the immediate environment, natural or cultural resources, or visitor
safety. A number of assessment factors were used to evaluate the types of power-driven mobility
devices acceptable on County-managed trails including type, size and speed of device,
environmental, natural and cultural resource impacts, visitor safety, and trail use volumes.
For purposes of this policy:
Mobility Device means Other Power-Driven Mobility Device and Wheelchair collectively.
Other Power-Driven Mobility Device means any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other
engines––whether or not designed primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities––that is
used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf cars,
electronic personal assistance mobility devices (EPAMDs), such as the Segway® PT, or any
mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a
wheelchair within the meaning of this section.
Wheelchair means a manually-operated or power-driven device designed primarily for use by an
individual with a mobility disability for the main purpose of indoor, or of both indoor and outdoor
1. Except as provided in Sections 2 and 3 below, individuals with mobility disabilities shall be
allowed to use the following on County trails:
b. Manually-powered mobility aids (e.g. walkers, crutches, canes, braces or similar
devices designed for use by individuals with mobility disabilities); and
c. Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices
2. The following may not be used on County trails:
a. Gas-powered Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices;
b. Devices heavier than 500 pounds;
c. Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices and golf carts that have an outside wheel width
between left and right side wheels that exceeds the width of the natural or paved trail
(or any trail providing access to another trail of wider width) thereby causing the
wheel(s) to roll over vegetation and resulting in environmental, and potentially
cultural resource damage.
3. Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices may not be used on County trails if such use causes
damage to the trail or facilities.
4. Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices must travel on low-pressure tires, remain on
designated trails, and be capable of turning around within the trail tread in a safe manner.
5. Wheelchairs and Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices may not be operated at speeds
greater than 5 (five) miles per hour (mph) and must be designed to have a maximum speed of
20 mph or less.
6. Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices may be used on County trails only on weekdays to
coincide with lower visitation/use volumes with the exception of those trails at Eagle’s Nest
Open Space, Ramsay-Shockey Open Space, River Bluffs Open Space, and County-managed
sections of the Pleasant Valley Trail – all of which have lower use volumes.
7. Only the person with the mobility disability is allowed on the Mobility Device.
8. Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices may not exceed a 55 decibel (dBA) maximum sound
level as heard 25 feet from the device.
9. A person using a Mobility Device may be asked to provide a “credible assurance” that the
Mobility Device is required because of the person’s disability. Credible assurance may
include: showing a valid State-issued disability parking placard or card or other State-issued
proof of disability. In lieu of a valid State-issued disability parking placard or card or other
State-issued proof of disability, a verbal representation, not contradicted by observable fact,
that the Mobility Device is being used for a mobility disability shall constitute credible
10. A person using a Mobility Device may not be asked about the nature and extent of the
11. The Mobility Device user, or a competent assistant to the user, should be advised that even
though sections of trail may appear to be passable with a Mobility Device, there is no
assurance that it can be done safely. Trails are subject to the weather and other environmental
conditions and change over time.
12. Safe use of any approved Mobility Device is the user’s responsibility. The Mobility Device
must not be operated in a dangerous or reckless manner that jeopardizes the safety of others.
13. The Natural Resources Department accepts no responsibility for storage of the Mobility
14. The Natural Resources Department accepts no liability for damage to the Mobility Device or
injury to the user under any circumstance.
15. The Natural Resources Department accepts no liability for damage or injury to others caused
by the use of a Mobility Device.
16. The Natural Resources Department reserves the right to suspend the use of a Mobility Device
on County trails or facilities if such suspension is necessary to meet a management objective
of the Department.
17. Users of Mobility Devices are subject to all other park/open space policies and regulations to
the extent such policies and regulations are not inconsistent with this Policy.
18. This Policy may be amended at its annual review date or any other time the Natural
Resources Department in its discretion determines such amendment to be necessary or
19. Larimer County will post on the Natural Resources Department website the Other Power-
Driven Mobility Devices allowed at specific parks/open space and on specific trails.
20. Special needs not addressed in this Policy or requests for exceptions will be addressed
through the Natural Resources Department Special Event Application Process.
21. Grievance and Considerations
A. Grievance: Any mobility disabled person who believes he/she has been aggrieved by the application of this Policy may file a grievance using the following procedure:
Step 1. File the Grievance
Within ten days following the incident giving rise to the grievance, the grievant shall submit
a written grievance to the Director of the Department of Natural Resources. The grievance
shall include at least the following information:
a. Name, address, and phone number of the person filing the grievance.
b. Name, address, and phone number of the person alleging a violation of this
Policy, if other than the person filing the grievance.
c. Description of the alleged violation, including date of the incident, names of
persons involved, and details of the incident.
d. Description of the remedy sought.
e. Whether a complaint has been filed with the Department of Justice or other
federal or state civil rights agency or court and if so, provide the name of the
court or agency, name and address of a contact person, the date the charge or
case was filed, and the charge or case number.
Step 2. Acknowledgement
Within 5 working days of receipt of the grievance, the Department of Natural Resources will
send a written acknowledgement to the grievant that the grievance has been received.
Step 3. Informal Resolution
Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the grievance, the Department of Natural Resources
will conduct and complete such investigation as it deems necessary to determine the validity
of the alleged violation. If appropriate, the Director of Natural Resources will arrange to
meet with the grievant to discuss the matter and attempt to reach an informal resolution of the
grievance. Any informal resolution of the grievance shall be documented in writing and the
case will be closed.
Step 4. Written Determination
If an informal resolution of the grievance is not reached in Step 3, within 45 calendar days of
receipt of the grievance, the Director of Natural Resources will issue a written determination
as to the validity of the grievance, and a description of the resolution. The Director shall
mail a copy of the determination to the grievant by both first class mail, postage prepaid and
by certified mail, return receipt requested.
Step 5. Review of Determination
If the grievant is not satisfied with the Director of Natural Resources' written determination,
the grievant may, within fifteen calendar days of the date of the grievance, file an appeal with
the Public Works Director. The appeal shall describe all facts, circumstances and law which
grievant asserts support grievant's contention that the Director of Natural Resource's decision
is in error.
Within fifteen calendar days of receipt of the appeal, the County Manager shall issue a
written determination. The Public Works Director’s written determination shall be final.
B. Considerations: Resolution of any specific grievance will require consideration of
varying circumstances, such as the specific nature of the disability; the nature of the
access to the service or facility at issue, the health and safety of the grievant and
others, the degree to which an accommodation would constitute a fundamental
alteration in the service or facility or cause an undue hardship to the County.
Accordingly, the resolution by the County of any one grievance does not constitute a
precedent upon which the County is bound or upon which other complaining parties
For questions or more information regarding Larimer County Natural Resources Trail & Facility
Assessment for Other Power-Driven Mobility Device use, please contact Gary Buffington, Director
at (970) 619-4560.
COMPUTER FILE LOCATION: Departmental Policy/DNR-General/DNR-01 Use of Power-Driven Mobility Devices on Trails by Individuals with Mobility Disabilities.doc