(#115, #116. #117 & #118)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with John Barnett, Director of Planning. Chair Pro-Tem Disney presided and Commissioner Hotchkiss was present; Chair Duvall was detained. Also present were: Al Kadera, Subdivision Administrator; Jerry White, Zoning Administrator; Jill Bennett, Comprehensive Planner; Rex Burns, Engineering; Rich Grossmann, Environmental Health; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Mr. Barnett informed the Board that the Timnath Lake Estates (#93-SU0412) item on today's agenda has been withdrawn by the applicant.

Mr. Barnett stated that the following is a consent item and will not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Commissioners or members of the audience.

1. CRESTVIEW ESTATES (#94-SU0465): NE 1/4 36-08-69; NORTH:


This is a request for Preliminary Plat to divide 2 acres into 4 lots of .44 acres to .53 acres for single family dwellings; there is an existing residence on Lot 1. Staff Findings include: 1) The proposed Crestview Estates is consistent with existing zoning of the site and with existing development in the immediate area; 2) This project is an in-fill development which is encouraged in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area; 3) It is appropriate to approve a waiver of the public street capacity requirement for an in-fill project consisting of just four lots; the proposed lots will not adversely affect traffic on Country Club Road; 4) Approval of Crestview Estates, with the following conditions, will not result in any significant negative impacts on surrounding properties, utility services, transportation facilities or the natural environment.

The Staff/Urban Growth Area Review Board Recommendation is for approval of the waiver of the public street capacity requirements, with the condition that the waiver fee be collected for each lot when a building permit is issued for a single family dwelling. A note shall appear on the Final Plat concerning the payment of this fee; and approval of the Preliminary Plat for Crestview Estates, with the following conditions: 1) The Final Plat for this project shall be completed in strict conformance with the conditionally approved Preliminary Plat with all requirements of the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution; 2) All concerns expressed by the County Engineer shall be addressed in the Final Plat documents; 3) All improvements required to serve these lots shall be included in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement which shall be secured by appropriate collateral to guarantee the completion of the improvements; 4) Homeowners' documents shall include a provision for participation in the maintenance of Ridgecrest Road. The applicant should determine if Crestview Subdivision has a homeowners association or other mechanism for maintaining the streets. These lots shall participate at the same rate as the other lots in the neighborhood; 5) The following notes shall appear on the Final Plat: A) An off-site street waiver fee shall be collected when a building permit is issued for a single family dwelling on each of these lots; B) The Larimer County Park Fee for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area shall be collected when a building permit is issued for a single family dwelling on each of these lots; C) Engineered foundation plans shall be required for all construction on this site; D) Passive radon mitigation systems shall be installed in each new residential structure on this site and the results of a radon test shall be submitted to the Planning Division before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued; E) Prospective lot owners should be aware of the potential nuisance created by wild animals. Pets should not be allowed to roam freely and harass wildlife and food should be kept inside; 6) The applicant shall provide a plan to ensure that at least one street tree is planted in the front yard of each of these lots; this can be required by covenant and the developer can provide an incentive to complete the landscaping; 7) Setbacks must be consistent with neighboring properties.


Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff/Urban Growth Area Review Board Recommendation and approve the Crestview Estates Preliminary Plat (#94-SU0465), with conditions as outlined above.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

At this time, Chair Duvall joined the meeting.


N 1/2 NE 1/4 22-06-70; WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 27 AND SOUTH


52 ACRES; O-OPEN ZONING (09-12-94).

This is a request to expand quarrying operations by expanding the active mining area and extending hours of operation to include Saturdays. Mr. White provided the project background, reviewed the major concerns and issues, and submitted photos of the site showing the transition of the quarry since 1976; he also submitted 7 letters of opposition and a petition with 64 signatures from Masonville property owners opposing the expansion of the quarry, 27 letters of support, and 4 letters requesting certain conditions be imposed, if the request is approved. Mr. White informed the Board that the applicant recently received the 1993 Mined Land Reclamation Board Award from the State Mined Reclamation Board in recognition of outstanding reclamation of their area. Staff Findings are: 1) As proposed, the expansion of the mining operation would not be consistent with the intent and purposes of the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution or the County Land Use Plan; 2) As proposed, the quarry would not be harmonious with surrounding land uses, and would likely have a negative impact on the residential areas nearby; 3) Property values for residential uses in the area might be negatively impacted by the proposed expansion; 4) The proposed expansion would not be beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare.

The Staff Recommendations are for denial of the request to designate 20 acres as a mining area; denial of the request to allow mining of the South Quarry; and approval of the Yard Area, North Quarry (including fueling area) and the connecting roadway, with a number of conditions regarding hours of mining activity, road impacts and traffic, and reclamation. The Planning Commission recommendation differs from the Staff recommendation in that they recommended denial of the request to designate 20 acres as a mining area; but approval of the request to allow mining of the South Quarry, and approval of the Yard Area, North Quarry (including fueling area), South Quarry, and the connecting roadway, with fifteen conditions.

Lucia Liley, attorney representing the applicant, addressed three questions: 1) What is permitted right now to occur on the site? 2) What is the current operation and how does that differ, if any, from the permitted uses? 3) What is being proposed and how is that different from the current operation? Ms. Liley stated that today's request is not intended to significantly change the way the operation is now being conducted, and it is not an attempt to change the intensity or size at any given point of that mining operation. Ms. Liley noted that the applicants have spent approximately $20,000 to hire a mediator to attempt to satisfy the concerns of the neighbors and because of this cooperation, most of the closest and most directly affected neighbors of this operation are not opposed to and do support this proposed application. Ms. Liley stated that the intent of the application is not to significantly change what is being done now or to increase the intensity of the actively mined areas; the two things they are asking are: 1) The Board permit 2.5 acres of active mining, as recommended by the Staff, but to include both the north and south quarry areas, with active mining defined as both the actual quarrying and the on-going concurrent reclamation, not to exceed the 2.5 acre total and not increase the visibility at any time; and, 2) Approve some acreage on this 52-acre site that would be deemed an expansion area which would permit the applicant, once he has exhausted the existing 2.5 acres, to move into the expansion area, but never greater than 2.5 acres at a time and always subject to the same conditions being proposed for this 2.5 acre operation; this would not change the intensity but permit them to have some certainty, both the neighbors and the owner, as to what mining is going to occur and where and what performance standards would be attached to it.

At this time the hearing was opened for public comment. Those speaking in support of the proposed application were: Chris Jenkins, Shannon White, Dick Clark, Judy Sprague, Stan Ebel, Larry Brunmeier, Ned Sprague, Pat Conner, Phil Sprague, Phyllis Chance, and Leonard Loukonen. These persons stated that the noise from this operation is minimal, the applicants are good neighbors and have done everything possible to try and address the neighbor's concerns, good reclamation efforts have been made, the applicant is responsible and a man of his word, all the new houses in the area have created more problems than this quarry, the quarry has been there for years and people shouldn't move into this area and then complain about its existence, etc. Those persons speaking in opposition to this request were: Bob McGlasson, Barbara Fisher, Bob Glock, Susan McGlasson, Peggy Burch, Mark Vaughn, Catherine Vaughn, and Kathy Mahan-Green. These persons cited their concerns that expansion of quarry operations will cause a reduction in property values, loss of esthetics of a growing evolving residential community, violations have occurred under existing permit, damage to the hills, lack of inspection for meeting standards, lack of enforcement of conditions, noise impact, opposition to weekend hours and starting operations at 7 a.m., reclamation, precedent setting, etc. Most of these citizens stated they do not want to close the operation down, but do not want the operation expanded. John MacFarlane noted he was neutral regarding this request; however, even though the Spragues are responsible people, he is concerned what will happen in the future when this property is sold. To mitigate this concern, Mr. MacFarlane proposed two changes: Condition #11 requires that the stone cutter shall be located and operated in a manner that best minimizes the visual and noise impacts from its operation--he wants this condition tightened so that the new owners will be required to take the same measures that Mr. Sprague does to mitigate noise and require them to consult with the adjacent homeowners regarding effectiveness; he also proposed that some sort of visual planting be done along the north and south quarries, if approved, and he offered to donate water to help these trees survive.

Ms. Liley addressed the concerns raised by the citizens; she reminded them that this is an existing mining operation and this proposal will not change the active mining area or intensity over what now exists--actually, what is being proposed outlines stricter conditions than now exist, and will continue on with the new owner if the property is ever sold. Ms. Liley noted that the expansion area will create some stability and certainty in the area because everyone will know what is going to happen in the future. To address the concern that the operation should not be expanded from 1 acre to 2.5 acres, Ms. Liley noted the 1985 permit was for 1 acre of active quarrying and did not address the reclamation area; the 2.5 now recommended is a combination of active quarrying and reclamation and only about 1 acre of actual quarrying would be going on at any given point in time and the rest of the 2.5 would be on-going concurrent reclamation. Ms. Liley stated that if the Board only approves the north quarry, the applicant would prefer to withdraw their application because of the stricter conditions to be required.

At this time, the public testimony was closed and comments were solicited from the Board. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated that a compromise is needed--the Masonville area is growing and becoming rural-residential with mining; he concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Staff and Mr. MacFarlane's suggestions. Chair Duvall expressed concern when urbanization starts putting encroachments on activities that should and can only take place in the county, such as agriculture, stone cutting, etc. Chair Duvall thinks there should be an expanded reclamation plan submitted for the whole area; she concurs with the recommendation of staff to deny the opening of the south quarry. Commissioner Disney requested clarification of several conditions; i.e., does the County have the "where-with-all" to inspect overloaded trucks and how this will accomplished. Commissioner Disney complimented Mr. Sprague for his on-going reclamation efforts in this area, and he also wants to see a reclamation plan to be made part of the conditions so it is part of the record and future generations will know what agreements have been made. Ms. Liley stated that the applicant submitted a detailed reclamation plan to the State and could be included in the conditions. Discussion followed; Mr. Barnett suggested that the Board table this matter to a date specific to allow time for staff to review the reclamation plan and incorporate the suggested conditions into the proposed application.


Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board table the Carter Lake Enterprises Special Review (#94-ZR0469) until October 17, 1994 to allow time for the Planning Staff to incorporate clarifications regarding noise mitigation, planting of trees, and a detailed reclamation plan into the conditions for approval.

Motion carried 3 - 0.


REZONING (#93-MS0345): SE 1/4 04-07-69; 1/4 MILE WEST OF




30 LOTS; FA-FARMING ZONING (09-12-94).

This is a request to develop a Planned Unit Development on 16.24 acres for 30 lots with townhomes attached in 2 to 4 unit groups and 14.16 acres of common open space and to rezone from FA-Farming to R-Residential. Ms. Bennett provided the project and site description and reviewed the major concerns and issues; she noted that this application is atypical from most applications coming before the Board as it is being developed by the prospective residents of the project. Ms. Bennett noted that transportation and traffic issues are of the most concern to the adjacent property owners; she reviewed the several variance requests from the Planned Unit Development Resolution. Ms. Bennett submitted the resolution just approved by the City of Fort Collins supporting this application and approving the off-site street waiver with two conditions: 1) The standard fee be paid per unit at the time of building permit, and 2) The residents would join an improvement district if one is formed in the future in this area to improve off-site streets. Ms. Bennett noted that the applicant has submitted a traffic impact report; in addition to finding no significant impact at the major intersection, their engineer did an evaluation of the potential on the quality of life in the residential area surrounding this project, and found there would be no significant change in quality of life. Ms. Bennett stated she has received an equal number of letters in opposition and in support of this application, but noted that about one-third of the residents in Liberty Meadows signed a petition in opposition. Ms. Bennett also addressed the concern about access to the adjacent properties to the east and west. Staff Findings include: 1) The proposed Greyrock Commons Planned Unit Development is generally consistent with the Larimer County Land Use Plan, the Intergovernmental Agreement, and the Planned Unit Development Resolution concerning proposed use, density of development and urban design; 2) Approval of the proposed Master Plan, preliminary phase plan and rezoning, with the following conditions, will not adversely impact adjacent uses, the transportation system, provision of services or the natural environment.

Commissioner Hotchkiss asked Mr. Burns about the existing drainage problems in this area; Mr. Burns responded that there are drainage problems all around this area, but the applicant has worked with the engineer to devise a system of drainage for this project and this area which is workable and, hopefully, will not add to these problems.

Doug Swartz, representing the Fort Collins Cohousing Committee and the eleven families intending to live in this development, if approved, informed the Board that they have been working on this project for over two years and consider this a pro-active project which will result in a very workable neighborhood. Mr. Swartz provided an overview of the project, how it fits in the vicinity, and addressed some of the UGARB concerns, such as: the site design and how it will connect with existing neighborhoods, the 100 ft. setback requirement, and the location of the roads into Liberty Meadows. Karen Spencer reviewed the efforts which have been made to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors noting that they have gone door-to-door to talk to the neighbors and have held two open houses to explain the project. With regard to the impact on Irish School, she noted that currently the school is 142 students below capacity and also noted that according to the traffic impact study, the increased traffic will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Ray Mow, representing Merrick Company which did the traffic impact study, reviewed the Liberty Drive daily volume and residential street volume thresholds and noted that the traffic impact would be within an acceptable standard. Jim Leach, project manager, submitted a booklet of pictures to the Board showing other quality planned cohousing communities which he has developed; he noted that the residences will be individually owned homes and utilities will be separate for each home. Dominique Gettliffe, architect, described the architecture and layout of the homes and presented two illustrations for review.

At this time the hearing was opened for public testimony; those speaking in support of the proposed Greyrock Commons were: Dr. Susan Lawton, Bill Weddell, Vic Barnard, Cindy Griffin, Lori Bayless, Ruth Barnard, Jim Wartz, Diana Christian, Kara McMillan, Bill Pace, John Hartman, and an unidentified woman; two letters of support from Mary Lou Evans and Ann Azari, Mayor of Fort Collins, were read aloud. John Hartman, resident living northwest of the project, interjected publicly that he would like to swap easements to reposition his access through the Greyrock Commons rather than along the fence line of Liberty Meadows. To summarize the comments of these persons supporting the proposal, they think the concept of cohousing is exciting and could possibly change the current growth patterns, the idea has much merit and will create a cohesive neighborhood, and this design will enhance the neighborhood. It was pointed out that this site could be developed with 3 to 5 units per acre if this concept is not approved and there is a need for this type of affordable housing. Vic and Ruth Barnard stated they live in a cohousing unit in Lafayette and wouldn't consider not living in this type of cohousing development; they noted that this cohousing concept is very successful in Denmark. Those speaking in opposition to the project were: Donna Goins, Angela Harden, Rob Wilson, Lynn Klaus, Mike Henggler, Tony Ties, and Linda Ties; they cited their concerns of dissimilarity of the project to the adjacent subdivisions, safety for the children, consequences if this concept doesn't work, the incompatibility of multi-family dwellings in the middle of single-family detached homes, continuance of the open space area into the future, impact on schools. They also noted that the 100 ft. variance is not justified, the traffic impact study is subjective, the issue of increased number of animals and pets in the area has not been addressed, and they requested speed bumps and/or signage be installed to slow down traffic., Ms. Bennett responded to the group that these homes are considered single family homes, they are individually owned, they just do not have side yards.

Mr. Swartz responded to some of the concerns raised and noted the Greyrock Commons residents are just as concerned about child safety and are willing to work with the existing neighborhoods to reduce speed in the area and do whatever else is necessary for child safety. In summary, he stated that Greyrock Commons is a carefully planned infill development which meets the goals, objectives and regulations of both the Larimer County P.U.D. Resolution and the IGA Agreement for the Fort Collins UGA; this is a forward-looking project which will result in a great neighborhood and that is what has guided their planning from the start. Mr. Swartz emphasized that this area is part of the UGA and will develop rapidly over the next few years and compared with many projects that could be proposed for this site, Greyrock Commons will have low impact on the adjacent neighborhoods.

At this time, the public testimony portion of the public hearing was closed and comments from the Board were solicited. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated that he sympathizes with the neighbors; however, the fear of the unknown is the problem and it is unwarranted. Chair Duvall stated that she favors this type of housing, it is innovative and the direction we need to go in the future; however, she would like to see some safeguards included in the conditions for the existing neighborhood regarding traffic control and to explore the idea of a conservation easement so the open space area is protected.

The Staff Recommendations are for approval of the Master Plan for Greyrock Commons Planned Unit Development, approval of the rezoning from FA-Farming to R-Residential, and approval of the following variances: 1) Approval of the Off-Site Road Waiver, with the condition that a street impact fee of $700 per unit be paid at the time of building permit issuance and that owners agree to join a road improvement district if one is formed in the future; 2) Approval of the private road system with 24' pavement width without curb, gutter and sidewalk, provided requirements of the County Engineer are met; 3) Approval of the proposed lot size variance; 4) Approval of the proposed structures other than detached single-family residences within 100' of the southern boundary of the project. After the lengthy discussion, the Staff recommendation for conditional approval of the Phase Plan for Greyrock Commons Planned Unit Development was amended as follows: 1) All conditions and requirements of the County Engineer, the Poudre Fire Authority, the Elliot lateral, and the New Mercer Ditch Company, and the utilities must be reflected in the Final Plat and final utility and drainage plans; 2) An annexation agreement must be submitted with the Final Plat' 3) An Amended Plat for Briarwood Minor Residential Development must be submitted at the time the Final Plat is submitted; 4) The following notes must appear on the Final Plat: A) Off-Site Road Improvement Fees of $700 per unit shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance and the residents will agree to join an improvement district, if one is formed in the future, to improve off-site streets; B) Park Fees shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance; C) Radon testing shall be required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; D) All construction shall be consistent with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report; engineered foundations shall be required; E) Road maintenance is the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association of Greyrock Commons Planned Unit Development; F) An annexation agreement has been executed for this property; 5) Access agreements with adjacent property owners must be finalized prior to approval of the Final Plat; 6) The cul-de-sac bulb shall remain as public right-of-way; 7) Speed control measures shall be provided by appropriate signage and speed control devices in the pavement surface, as approved by the County Engineering Department; 8) The applicant shall explore the concept of creating a conservation easement on the designated native planting area. It was noted that the Urban Growth Area Review Board Recommendation is for denial of the proposal.


Commissioner Disney moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff Recommendations and approve the Greyrock Commons Planned Unit Development, Rezoning, Variances, and Phase Plan, with conditions as amended (#93-MS0345).

Motion carried 3 - 0.

4. BUCK SUBDIVISION (#94-SU0469): SW 10-08-69; EAST SIDE OF


36 ACRES; 3 LOTS; RE-RURAL ZONING (9-12-94).

This is a request for a Preliminary Plat to divide a 36 acre lot, with an existing residence, into 3 lots of 10, 10 and 16 acres for single family residential use. Mr. Kadera reviewed the site location and noted this would have been a consent item except opposition was raised at the Planning Commission concerning the effect of new residential development in the area on existing agricultural operations and concern for what type of homes will be constructed. Mr. Kadera stated that additional conditions for approval were added and Mr. Buck has submitted a proposed set of covenants for the subdivision which will be amended to address these concerns. Staff Findings include: 1) The proposed Buck Subdivision is consistent with the zoning of the site and with existing lots in the immediate area; 2) The Land Use Plan identifies this area as "Rural" which suggests low intensity uses that do not require urban services; it appears that the proposed lots fit this description; 3) Paved access to this site on County Road 19 alleviates some concerns about dusty gravel roads that require considerable maintenance; 4) Approving the proposed Buck Substation, with the following conditions, will not result in any significant negative impacts on surrounding properties, utility services, transportation facilities or the natural environment.

The Staff/Planning Commission Recommendations are for approval of the Variance to permit a cul-de-sac that is 1,089 feet long, rather than 660 feet as permitted by the Subdivision Resolution, with the condition that residential fire sprinkler systems be installed in any new residential structures on this site; and approval of the Preliminary Plat for Buck Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1) The Final Plat for this project shall be completed in strict conformance with the conditionally approved Preliminary Plat, including all notes on the Preliminary Plat submitted for review; 2) The Final Plat shall be completed in strict conformance with the minimum requirements of the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution; 3) The area east of the 100-foot setback line from Dry Creek shall be identified as "Non-Buildable" on the Final Plat; 4) In addition to dedicating the additional right-of-way for County Road 19, the Final Plat shall identify the 100-foot setback from the centerline of the County Road; 5) The note concerning radon tests shall be modified to require passive radon mitigation in any new residential structures, with a radon test conducted after construction; 6) A note shall appear on the Final Plat concerning the use of this area by wildlife that might lead to conflicts with lot owners. The Division of Wildlife and the County will not be responsible for damage or injury caused by wildlife; 7) The applicant shall submit a written commitment from the Northern Colorado Water Association for domestic service to these lots; 8) The applicant shall identify the source of water to fill the pond and submit that information to the State Engineer with the Final Plat application. The source of irrigation water shall be forwarded to the Water Commissioner for review with the Final Plat application; 9) The Final Plat application shall include a plan for distributing irrigation water to the proposed lots. The homeowners documents shall identify the low owners rights and responsibilities with regard to the irrigation water. Maintenance and payment of fees shall be specifically addressed; 10) A note shall be added to the Final Plat to notify prospective lot owners that the Parks Department is interested in acquiring an easement for a non-motorized trail along Dry Creek; 11) All improvements required to serve these lots shall be included in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement which is secured by appropriate collateral to guarantee that the improvements will be completed; 12) The following note regarding agricultural uses in the area shall be placed on the Final Plat and in the covenants: Prospective lot owners should be aware of the existing agricultural activities in this area. Agricultural uses often result in noise, odors, and/or dust that might not be compatible with residential uses. Larimer County will not take any action to stop or hinder legal agricultural uses of property in this area. The applicant shall be required to provide Staff with the names and addresses of all the agricultural operations within one mile of this subdivision so they can be notified of the action taken by the Board during today's public hearing; 13) The protective covenants will address housing style and architectural features.

Russell Buck, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that of the 36 acres, only 10 acres is conducive for agricultural use, other than pasture; he also noted that there are a considerable number of homes built on surrounding properties. Dennis Craig spoke in opposition to this request stating that he wants to preserve the feeling of country, which now exists, and noted that the adjacent neighbors are also opposed. Mr. Craig concurs with the additional conditions which Mr. Kadera suggested and requested they also be included in the covenants.


Commissioner Disney moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff/Planning Commission Recommendations and approve the Buck Subdivision (#94-SU0469), with conditions as amended.

Motion carried 2 - 1; Chair Duvall dissenting.

The meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.




The Board of County Commissioners met at 10:30 a.m. in regular session with Bob Grewell, Director of Finance. Chair Pro-Tem presided; Commissioner Hotchkiss was present. Chair Duvall will be out of town the remainder of the week. Also present were Dana Klausmeyer, Controller, and Frank Lancaster, Interim County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Mr. Grewell submitted a written report to the Board from Jeffrey Barnes, CPA for Hunt, Spillman & Associates, outlining the progress of the audit for Larimer County: 1) They are completing the June 30 Mental Health audit which is due to the Division of Mental Health by the end of September; 2) Mr. Barnes will be showing the Relationship Awareness video at the Department Head Meeting on October 21, 1994 and extended an invitation to the Board to attend: 3) Ms. Klausmeyer recently submitted the schedule when the Finance Department's information will be available for the 1994 audit and they are in the planning stages for that engagement.

Mr. Grewell discussed Ms. Klausmeyer's resignation with the Board, noting that she has been with the Department for 13 years and has done a terrific job. Mr. Grewell invited the Board to attend the farewell reception for her this Friday, September 16 from 2 to 4 p.m. in the Commissioner's Hearing Room. With regard to Ms. Klausmeyer's replacement, Mr. Grewell will fill in until the position is filled. Mr. Grewell indicated he would like to have a meeting with the Board in the near future to discuss the position as he understands that it is the Board's intention to make this position appointed rather than classified; the Board concurred and an Executive Session will be scheduled soon for this discussion.

With regard to the request for proposal (RFP) for a re-examination of the Automated Resource Management System (ARMS), the county's financial management software, Mr. Grewell would like to delay sending out the RFP for at least a month to allow time to do it correctly.

Chair Pro-Tem Disney asked about the status for hiring a person for the loss prevention position in Risk Management; Mr. Grewell updated the Board and noted that, after reviewing the applications submitted, the recommendation of the committee was to readvertise for the position. Mr. Grewell will keep Mr. Lancaster apprised of the progress for hiring someone for this position.

Chair Pro-Tem Disney expressed appreciation to Ms. Klausmeyer for her years of service to Larimer County and stated that the Board is sad to see her leave, but wish her the best.

The meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m.


(#119 @ 1600)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:00 p.m. in regular session with Ralph Jacobs, Director of Personnel. Chair Pro-Tem Disney presided; Commissioner Hotchkiss was present. As noted previously, Chair Duvall will be absent the remainder of this week. Also present were: Patsi Maroney, Compensation & Benefits Specialist; Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Administrator; and Frank Lancaster, Interim County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. Family and Medical Leave Act Policies: Mr. Jacobs requested the Board to amend Sections 624 and 613.A.5 of the Larimer County Personnel Manual. Mr. Jacobs stated that Larimer County is required to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; Section 624 of the Personnel Policy Manual contains the policies by which the County carries out its compliance obligation and these policies have been revised following a long and extensive process of consultation with department heads and other employees. Mr. Jacobs reviewed the changes to be made to both sections and outlined the advantages and disadvantages for the Board. Mr. Jacobs stated he has talked to members of the Executive Council about these revisions and only one concern was raised by the Sheriff's Department, which has been addressed; in addition, copies of these policy revisions will be distributed to all department heads in the County with instructions for them to share the revisions with their employees.

Commissioner Disney recommended sending a note of appreciation to those employees who contributed comments regarding these revisions..


Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board adopt the revisions to amend Sections 624 and 613.A.5 of the Larimer County Personnel Manual, as recommended by Mr. Jacobs.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

2. Cafeteria Benefits Study: Ms. Maroney reported on the results of the flexible benefits "cafeteria plan" study recently conducted by Jane Jensen, benefits consultant at the Mercer Company. The County has had a "basic" cafeteria plan since 1989 whereby employees have a choice between three different health insurance plans and the option of using pre-tax dollars through the Flexible Spending Account plan. The reason for the study was to consider expanding our current "cafeteria plan" within the limits allowed by the I.R.S. in order to be more beneficial to both the County and to the employees. Ms. Jensen's recommendation is: 1) The County expand the benefits we offer by adding a voluntary vision plan and voluntary supplemental life insurance for employees and their dependents; 2) The current sick leave benefit should be altered and converted into a short-term disability coverage; and 3) The County should go to more of a "total compensation" model. Ms. Maroney stated that they are beginning the process of getting employee input about the proposed changes and implementation of these changes will not take place before January 1, 1996. Ms. Jacobs noted that the most controversial part of these changes is the shift to short-term disability insurance.

Commissioner Hotchkiss expressed a concern with the mechanical aspect of "cafeteria style" choices; he cautioned Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Maroney to consider the cost and the possibility of adverse selection when considering expansion of the "cafeteria plan".

3. Other: Commissioner Hotchkiss asked Mr. Jacobs if they have an estimate for increased costs for the medical and dental packages for next year; Mr. Jacobs stated that have a meeting scheduled next week with Blue Cross/Blue Shield regarding the medical package and will have more information for the Board after that meeting.


Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board go into Executive Session to discuss several personnel matters.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.; no action taken.




The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular session with Frank Lancaster, Interim County Administrator. Chair Pro-Tem Disney presided; Commissioner Hotchkiss was present. As noted previously, Chair Duvall is out of town the remainder of this week. Also present were: John MacFarlane, Parks Director; John Hafnor, President Horsetooth Field of Dreams Association; Sheriff Richard Shockley; Sgt. Bill Nelson, Emergency Operations; Erik Nilsson, Emergency Management; Captain Gary Darling; Operations Division; Elizabeth Lowes, Manager Information Services; Bob Keister, Budget Manager; and Dick Anderson, Facilities Manager. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE ON A "LICENSE FOR BALL FIELD OPERATIONS AT HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR" (HORSETOOTH FIELD OF DREAMS): Mr. MacFarlane submitted a License (Agreement) for the Horsetooth Field of Dreams and requested Board approval and the Chair Pro-Tem's signature. Mr. MacFarlane stated that this license will allow the Field of Dreams Association to build, maintain and operate a youth ballfield at the Inlet Bay area of Horsetooth Reservoir; this land is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and leased by Larimer County for recreational use; this field will be open during the daytime and available for public use. Mr. MacFarlane noted that this license has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney George Hass and there is no cost to the County, except that Mr. MacFarlane has agreed to remove the trash. Mr. Hafnor stated that postcards were sent to the adjacent property owners and an open public meeting was held at which 42 people attended and everyone was very supportive of the ballfield.


Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve the License for Ball Field Operations at Horsetooth Reservoir, and authorize the Chair Pro-Tem to sign same.

Motion carried 2 - 0.



ASSOCIATION (Ball Field at Horsetooth Reservoir)

2. COMPLAINT FROM RESIDENT IN CEDAR COVE: Mr. MacFarlane stated that after the 1976 flood, the Parks Department dealt with the Federal Government and using Parks money purchased a large number of parcels in the Big Thompson Canyon; they have tried to keep these parcels open space and natural areas. Now, an individual has built a rather large horse barn on a parcel, knowing it was owned by the County; Mr. MacFarlane told him to remove it and gave him a deadline for removal. This man called Commissioner Disney and would like to lease or buy the property; the County cannot sell the property under the terms of ownership when the county was given deed to the property after the 1976 Big Thompson Flood, and if they lease the property, Mr. MacFarlane will have numerous requests to lease other parcels. CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to enforce current policy and the horse barn must be removed from the site.

3. DISCUSSION REGARDING RELOCATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND EMERGENCY SERVICES: As requested by the Board several weeks ago, Mr. Anderson investigated several possible sites for the relocation of Emergency Management and Emergency Services in order to vacate space in the Courthouse for expansion of the Planning and Information Management Offices. The option of relocating to the North Shields Facility would cost approximately $325,000, which includes $10,000 for the relocation of micrographics into the existing Emergency Services office. Sgt. Nelson stated that the idea of relocating to the North Shields Facility has been met favorably with the department, as it will allow them to be with their equipment in a centralized location; the move will be beneficial to the County. Sgt. Nelson noted that disadvantages to the move, which may not have been considered and included in the cost for moving, are cleaning and maintenance of the facility, utilities, mail delivery, copy machine, etc. Sheriff Shockley stated that the Board must decide if this relocation is to be permanent or will they be relocated when the Detention Center is expanded. Commissioner Hotchkiss expressed astonishment for the cost of relocating and asked for clarification why they were requesting four times the amount of space that they have in the Courthouse and queried if this North Shields location isn't in the floodplain; he was assured that this site is on a peninsula and not in the floodplain. Chair Pro-Tem asked for a recap of the cost for moving the Planning Department out of the Courthouse, either into rental space or into a modular. There was discussion of the option for putting a modular at the North Shields location for Emergency Services; Chair Pro-Tem Disney requested Mr. Anderson to explore this possibility and cost. After further discussion of other options, the Board stated they are receptive to the idea of relocation, but they directed Mr. Anderson and Emergency Management and Services Staff to "wring the water out of the towel" on space, etc. in an attempt to reduce the cost for relocation. Also, Chair Pro-Tem Disney requested a spread sheet be prepared showing the costs for the various options; the Board would like this information within two to three weeks

4. DISCUSSION REGARDING ETS DIRECTOR: Subsequent to taking all the required steps and advertising internally for the vacant position of Employment and Training Services Director, the Board took the following action:


Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board appoint Ms. Joni Friedman to fill the vacancy of Employment and Training Services (ETS) Director at a salary of $45,471; this appointment to be effective immediately.

Motion carried 2 - 0.


-- Mr. Lancaster requested the three Commissioners sign a letter of support to the National Endowment for the Arts for funding for the Rocky Mountain Dharma Center Development Project; the Board quickly obliged.

-- Mr. Lancaster advised the Board that once a month Mr. Gluckman, Assistant County Administrator, will conduct Administrative Matters.

-- Mr. Lancaster submitted a tentative listing of dates, times and locations for "County Seat for a Day" meetings from October 1994 through December 1995 with one scheduled every other month; the Board approved the schedule.

-- Bob Keister noted that on June 14 of this year, the Board authorized the acceptance of a lease purchase agreement for leasing equipment from Documatrix Corporation for the Clerk and Recorder's Office. Mr. Keister advised that the Board should authorize the pay off of the lease, pay the penalty, and buy the equipment outright, as the interest rate on this lease purchase is 9.4%. Mr. Keister recommended that in the future if departments come to the Board and ask to lease purchase an item under $100,000, the Board should consult with Mr. Keister before authorizing the lease purchase, to determine if funds are available to purchase the item and avoid paying high interest costs. Today, Mr. Keister requested authorization from the Board to pay off the aforementioned lease purchase and buy it outright; he noted the County will be paying a $3,000 penalty, but saving $6,000 in additional interest costs.


Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board authorize the expenditure of the necessary monies, at the current pay-off rate, to pay off the lease purchase agreement with Documatrix Corporation for four microfilm reader printers for the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder's Office; these monies to be derived from the Capital Expenditures Fund.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

-- Mr. Lancaster asked which Commissioner will attend the Department Head Meeting this Friday, September 16; as Commissioner Disney will be Denver that day, Commissioner Hotchkiss stated he will attend.

6. DOCUMENT REVIEW: The following documents, of a routine nature, were considered by the Board:


Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve the Minutes of September 5, 1994 and the Agenda for the week of September 19, 1994, as submitted.

Motion carried 2 - 0.


Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve the Public Utilities Commission Application.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

LIQUOR LICENSES: County Approval was granted to the Charco Broiler - 6% - Fort Collins, CO. and the Summit Restaurant - 6% - Loveland, CO.


Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve the following documents:







(Authorization of Loren B. Schall, Assistant District Attorney, to

represent and defend the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder in a

civil proceeding)

Motion carried 2 - 0.

At this time, Marla Hehn, Assistant County Attorney, and Bob Grewell, Director of Finance, joined the meeting for Legal Matters.

Mr. Grewell reminded the Board that in 1979 Larimer County issued $1,200,000 in industrial development bonds; in 1984 there was $1,050,000 remaining and taken over by another company. Mr. Grewell stated that there is now $350,000 remaining of that original issue and the issuer has asked that it be split into two different notes of $260,000 and $90,000 and he requested authorization from the Board and the Chair Pro-Tem's signature to execute these two replacement bonds (R58A and R58B), as reviewed and approved by Ms. Hehn.


Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve the reassignment of these industrial development revenue bonds, and authorize the Chair Pro-Tem to sign.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.




( S E A L )



Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk

September 12, 1994