CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 2, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 2, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Robert Poirot called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Fabyan Watrous and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 2002 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE COLORADO WORKS PROGRAM AND THE COLORADO CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Ms. Dicken stated that this contract was the same as the prior year. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding of the Colorado Works Program and the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS CONTRACT FOR AN INTERN POSITION AT CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMPLOYEE CONTRACT WITH TIM MAUCK FOR THE INTERN POSITION AT CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Human Resource Specialist Gail Buckley attended. Mr. Small stated that this Department of Local Affairs contract was s 2-year contract for an administrative intern. Mr. Small requested that this contract be signed the following week at the Board of County Commissioners meeting to make it effective on January 8, 2002. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Department of Local Affairs contract for an administrative intern for a 2-year period. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Buckley stated that she had spoken with Mr. Mauck regarding his employment contract with the County. Mr. Mauck would review the contract and be prepared to sign at the Board of County Commissioners meeting the following week. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to approve the Employment Contract for Tim Mauck for the administrative intern position to January 8, 2002 at 11:15 a.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR FAX MACHINES AT CLEAR CREEK COUNTY OFFICES: Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger presented. Ms. Krueger stated that this was the same contract from previous years. She also presented the maintenance contracts for the copy machines. The fax machine contract had a $540 per year maintenance contract and the copy machines were billed by the copy. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the maintenance contracts for the copy and fax machines. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Krueger presented a capital request for a new copier for the downstairs offices. The new machine would cost $20,000 but the old machine would trade in for $12,000. This copy machine purchase amount was budgeted and would avoid a lease purchase agreement. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the capital request for a new copier for the downstairs offices. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMPLOYEE REPLACEMENT FOR ZONING/ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TECHNICIAN: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue this hearing to January 15, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. to allow more time for research. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QUIT CLAIM DEED TO GREG MARKLE AND BOB AND ANN TIMBERMAN FROM CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Resident Greg Markle presented. Mr. Markle made the following statements: • He was doing a boundary line adjustment on his property up Trail Creek Road and needed a new title policy. The title company found an exception that held up this policy. • At the turn of the century, a man named Teasdale owned the 50 states mining claims.

1 These were not patented. • Mr. Markle owns the Lucy claim and was attempting to buy a portion of the Dakota Claim but there was another mine claim, the Mountsfield, that was encumbering onto both the Dakota and the Lucy. The Armstrong and the Great Divide claims were also encumbering and they were all acquired by the County through tax liens. • The Mountsfield was owned by the county in a tax lien issue. • Other mine claims would be affected by the Mountsfield too, i.e. the California and the Texas. • Mr. Markle stated that there was an urgency to solve this problem as a neighbor was building on his land and they needed to complete a boundary line adjustment in order to satisfy their mortgages.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue this hearing to January 22, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. to allow time for legal research by County Attorney Bob Loeffler. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

OPENING OF BIDS AND APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL NEWSPAPER FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY IN 2002: Owner of the Clear Creek Courant newspaper Craig McMullin presented. Planning Director Carol Wise, Secretary Cyndie Ruschmyer, Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen, Treasurer Geri Thompson, and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Commissioner Poirot opened the sealed bid and asked Mr. McMullin for any differences. Mr. McMullin replied that the rates were the same as the previous years but the privately supported legals were different. There was an agreement made when Mr. McMullin bought the paper that privately supported legals would decrease in discount by 10% each year and then hold at 30%. The rate for the publicly supported legals was the same as the previous year.

Ms. Wise stated that her department had continually experienced problems with the legals in the Courant newspaper. The maps were unreadable, notices were mixed up, delays in publishing, etc. She requested some type of consequences be attached to these problems. Ms. Ruschmyer added that there had been many errors and it was very time consuming to track them down. Mr. McMullin asked if all errors were reported to his attention as he had only received nine emails of problems and two were not the fault of the paper. The seven errors remaining were the only errors in 201 legal ads published. Ms. Ruschmyer stated that it would be very time consuming to email for every error.

Ms. Thompson stated that she preferred the statement forms that the Courant used to send the advertisers. This statement helped the Treasurer’s office with the tax lien sale each year. Ms. Wise agreed to meet with Mr. McMullin to work on past problems to prevent them in the future. Mr. McMullin agreed to put the statements back in process for the Treasurer’s office. He asked Mr. Small if the Warrant Registers could be received a week earlier. Mr. Small agreed to try and work on this. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that even though he had some problems with legals in the past, the paper had allowed him to submit notices after the deadline. Ms. Ruschmyer asked for a quicker confirmation of receipt of ads to the advertisers. Mr. McMullin replied that he would ask his staff to respond in a quicker fashion.

Ms. Thompson noted for the record that the Courant prices for the tax lien sales were one of the highest in the state. She had confirmed prices with other Treasurer’s offices. Mr. McMullin replied that the Courant was cheaper than the neighboring paper, the Canyon Courier. Mr. McMullin added that they would be uploading the Courant information onto a Colorado Press Association web site to reach more people. This was free of charge and included legal notices. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to appoint the Clear Creek Courant as the legal newspaper for Clear Creek County for 2002. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COUNTY HOLIDAYS FOR 2002 AND MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2002: Treasurer Geri Thompson attended. Commissioner Watrous presented an employee survey of what the employees preferred to have as their holidays based on the State holiday schedule. Most employees preferred to observe the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday on July 5th allowing for a 4-day weekend. Ms. Thompson stated that the Board

2 of County Commissioners should consider informing staff sooner if they are going to close the courthouse early on Christmas Eve or New Year’s Eve. This would need to be in the papers 10 days prior to the date. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the observance of Martin Luther King Jr., holiday as July 5th and to consider Christmas Eve as a half day. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Meeting Schedule for the Board of County Commissioners as every Tuesday and the second and fourth Wednesdays. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and asked if the Board of County Commissioners wanted to change the regular meeting day to Wednesdays? Commissioners Poirot and Watrous declined. The vote was unanimous to keep the meeting day as Tuesdays and the second and fourth Wednesdays.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND OTHER APPOINTMENTS: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to appoint commissioner Fabyan Watrous as the Chairman of the Board for 2002. Commissioner Poirot seconded. The vote was two in favor and Commissioner Watrous abstained. Commissioner Poirot then motioned to appoint Commissioner Sorensen as the Vice Chair of the Board. Commissioner Watrous seconded. The vote was two in favor and Commissioner Sorensen abstained.

Regarding other appointments, Commissioner Watrous made the motion to appoint Commissioner Sorensen as the representative to the CCI Agricultural, Wildlife and Rural Affairs Steering Committee, the CCI General Steering Committee, and the CCI Transportation and Telecommunications Steering Committee. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-09, AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITORIES FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY 2002: Treasurer Geri Thompson had approved the depository list. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve Resolution #02-09, amendment to designation of depositories for Clear Creek County 2002. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-06, APPROVING THE 2002 BUDGET FOR THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. He stated that the District Attorney budget was approved in the County budget process and the District Attorney requested a separate resolution accepting this budget. This budget was agreed upon by both parties on December 11, 2001. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve Resolution #02-06, budget for the Office of the District Attorney for 2002. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-02, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT, #01-TSUP-16, FOR WEST END ADVENTURES TO EXTEND AN EXISTING TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #99-TSUP-01, WEST OF IDAHO SPRINGS &CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST OF TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT FEES TO BE WAIVED: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. Applicant Bill Macy attended the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen asked Mr. Macy when he was annexing into the City of Idaho Springs. Mr. Macy replied that a letter had been submitted to the former City Administrator Jack Russalesi and it was never scheduled. He was unsure where his letter of request was in the process.

Mr. Rollenhagen presented the following information regarding the case: G This application was first approved two years ago. G The property was located at 10 Colorado Boulevard , west of Idaho Springs. This parcel was formerly known as the West End Market. G The request was to extend the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit in order to allow temporary business use of an MR-1 zoned property during the process of annexation into Idaho Springs, or during a rezoning process to a more appropriate zoning designation. G The requested term for this permit was two years.

3 G Mr. Rollenhagen stated that in February of 2000, the Board of County Commissioners had approved a Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit for this property to use it as commercial during the process of annexation. One condition of this permit required that if the applicant had not successfully completed an annexation into Idaho Springs, a rezoning application was to have been submitted the County in time to complete the process by the expiration of the date of the permit. G Neither a rezoning application, nor annexation had been completed. There fore the applicant has requested an extension of Special Use Permit #99-TSUP-8, for another two years to allow them time to have the property annexed or rezoned. G Historically, the property had been used for commercial purposes. In 1964, the County blanket-zoned all private property to a residential designation with no regard to how individual parcels were actually used. This was how this MR-1 parcel came to be. G Because of this designation, the commercial use on this property in 1964 became a “legal non-conforming use” which was a lawful use of the building. A legal non-conforming use may remain in use on the property indefinitely unless the use was discontinued for a period of 12 months. The commercial use on the property ceased to exist for a period of more than twelve months, therefore, the property lost its legal non-conforming status. G This building was located on two separate parcels with a property line running through the middle of the building. Mr. Boscamp owned the western portion of the parcel and received a Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit in August of 2001 for two years so his permit would expire in 2003. Mr. Boscamp had the same conditions placed on his permit. G The Planning Department had been encouraging the City of Idaho Springs to annex these properties. The Planning Department had also considered trying to rezone the property for commercial but due to the lot size, it would not comply with any of the County commercial zoning regulations. The only zoning that would fit was Planned Development (PD). G The second issue for the Macy property was that of signage. There were two signs, Mountain Technology Inc., and West End Market. These signs did not have a permit as required by the County zoning regulations. Mr. Macy agreed to take down the Mountain Technology sign. G Mr. Rollenhagen stated that if Mr. Macy removed the Mountain Technology sign, this would solve one issue. G He presented a draft resolution and recommended that the applicant pursue annexation for this property.

Mr. Macy stated that there would be four properties involved in the annexation process and the City would not annex only part of one of these lands. Commissioner Sorensen suggested that the County organize these four property owners to annex together. Ms. Wise replied that they also had suggested this but the Planning Department could not complete this process for the residents. The property owners would have to take the initiative to get the process started. Ms. Wise asked if the City had any problem with connecting newly annexed properties to water and sewer? Mr. Macy replied that they did not have any problems as the tap fees were paid in advance.

Mr. Macy asked about the financial guarantee. Mr. Rollenhagen recommended that there be no financial guarantee for this permit. Mr. Macy stated that the rezoning process cost an applicant $1300. He could not afford this fee. Commissioner Sorensen recommended the annexation process instead for this property. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit and Resolution #02-02 with the stipulations and conditions proposed. Ms. Wise noted that with the sign regulations were written that historic signs could be removed. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that both of these signs could remain for the permit fee of $45. Ms. Wise noted that this historic sign had also lost its legal non-conforming status when the building lots its status. Commissioner Sorensen suggested recognizing both signs with one permit application and fee and add a condition that if Idaho Springs values this West End Market sign as historical value, they will annex the property.

Commissioner Sorensen suggested reducing the fees to just advertising fees but ending the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit to the same time frame as the Boscamp owner for August of 2003. Mr. Macy disagreed. Commissioner Sorensen wanted the two owners on the

4 same time schedule. Commissioner Watrous amended her motion to include the condition #2 to obtain a sign permit, remove the financial guarantee, and the permit term would end on December 6, 2003. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the County could force the rezoning by refusing the land use. This would also motivate them to possibly annex instead. Another option was that the County could seek a rezoning on its own with just permission from the property owners. The problem was that these lands would violate the County zoning regulations in parking and setbacks. New regulations would have to be written or the County would have to create a new zone. Commissioner Sorensen suggested the Board of County Commissioners meet with Idaho Springs City Officials to discuss the situation. Mr. Loeffler stated that otherwise, the Board would have to approve these Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit’s every two years.

Regarding the sign issue, Commissioner Watrous suggested that the permit be just for the Mountain Technology sign. Commissioner Sorensen agreed and stated that Idaho Springs could deal with the historical status of the West End Market sign. Mr. Macy did not want to apply for the sign permit. Mr. Loeffler requested that Mr. Macy obtain this permit and in the meantime the County could amend their sign regulations to include historic sign status. Commissioner Watrous amended her motion to include the taking down of the Mountain Technology sign and to leave the West End Market sign. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the waiver or reductions of fees , Commissioner Watrous suggested waiving fees except for the amounts needed to cover County expenses. Mr. Rollenhagen replied that the Planning Department could waive all fees except the legal notice fees. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to waive all fees except for the legal notice fees. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Poirot left at this time for another meeting.

CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF THE COUNTY LANDS KNOWN AS THE ARRASTRA AT MILL CREEK, SNYDER MOUNTAIN SITE, AND THE LILA B. MINING CLAIM TO THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel and Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young presented. Ms. Leben-Vogel presented the following information: G She presented a draft resolution for the Lila B mining claim. G Attached to this resolution was a statement of management intent from the Open Space Commission on how the land would be managed. G The land would have the same goals and objectives as the Mountain Basin Project with regards to resources and roads. The use of low impact recreation would be allowed.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve Resolution #02-10, concerning designation of the Lila B. Millsite #18200 to the Clear Creek County Open Space Commission for long term management. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding Snyder Mountain, Ms. Leben-Vogel made the following statements: G This parcel was different as it was former BLM land. G This parcel was presented to the Planning Commission first, before bringing it to the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Commission did approve the transfer of management to the Open Space Commission for this site. G This land would include an easement for a cell site. G Ms. Leben-Vogel would notify the Secretary of the Interior that this land would be kept in County ownership. G This parcel also had a statement of management intent from the Open Space Commission for long term management. Mr. Young added that this statement would be updated in the year as they worked on this parcel with Ajacent Property Owner Denver Mountain Parks.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve Resolution #02-11, concerning designation of Snyder Mountain site to the Open Space Commission long term management. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

5 Regarding the Arrastra Site, Ms. Leben-Vogel made the following comments: G This parcel was located at the bottom of Mill Creek Road. G The parcel totaled 28.8 acres. G This parcel was recommended for eligibility to be included in the National Historic Places and was later expanded to include the quarry portion which totaled 900-feet of property across Mill Creek Road. G The property was subject to 8 easements at this time. Seven of these easements were preexisting and transferred under patent to Clear Creek County. One easement had since been issues called Arrastra Way. G The BLM recommended that this area be used for the best and highest use. G When the parcel was zoned, it was zoned NR-U. This was no longer a zoning so the zoning was changed to NRR. G This property was also taken to the Planning Commission for approval prior to the Board of County Commissioners and it was approved. G One section of the Arrastra had been separated off as the County Lands Department was unsure if they wanted to convey this portion to Ajacent Property Owners or with the Arrastra. This portion was not included in the discussion today. This portion was part of an expired contract but not with Fox Gulch LLC.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Board had discussed this parcel and they were willing to continue the hearing on the Arrastra to allow time to solve issues with grazing. Mr. Young added that he had met with nearby resident Tim Nobel about the parcel. Mr. Nobel had concerns with turning radius to get on and off Wild Wagoner Road. Mr. Young had then met with Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen about the turning radius and Mr. Allen agreed to consider this when doing work on Mill Creek Road to possibly widen it at this intersection. Mr. Nobel also brought up the idea of a soccer field in this meadow. Commissioner Watrous stated that residents had called her and they were opposed to a soccer field. Mr. Young stated that he had informed Mr. Nobel that the Clear Creek Metropolitan Recreation District handled the organization of recreation. The Open Space Commission was more dispersed recreation like hiking, etc.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Board felt that there was no harm in continuing this discussion on the Arrastra. Therefore, she recommended that the Open Space Commission hold a public meeting at the Dumont School House to discuss public recreational uses of the land. She added that the Open Space Commission could meet with the Clear Creek Metropolitan Recreation District to discuss possibilities too. The Board of County Commissioners would meet with the owner of the grazing lease and the CSU professor who did an examination of the grazing area. Commissioner Sorensen added that there were also some old foundations on the property that needed to be considered. Mr. Young replied that he had met with the BLM historic archaeologist and they thought it needed more research. Mr. Young discovered some foundations consisting of Clear Creek brick. He thought it could’ve been an old mill. Mr. Young did not think that more homesites along this road would be a good idea as it would increase the impact of the use of the road and reduce the value of the property. Commissioner Sorensen was uncomfortable leaving this land without some type caretaker whether recreational or historic use due to the chance of vandalism. The Board requested that the Open Space Commission write a detailed management plan for the area. County Attorney Bob Loeffler requested that this plan address the grazing of cows on the property. Mr. Young stated that historically the County grazing activity was much larger but with the residential growth, the grazing sites had decreased. Ms. Leben-Vogel added that the owner of the grazing lease, Jim Cannady, also had water rights that were junior and recognized by the Water Court. There was never an easement granted for this water and Mr. Cannady may not need one. Mr. Loeffler was unsure if Mr. Cannady had the historic right to use the ditch but he could have the right to transfer water across the land to his parcel. Commissioner Watrous suggested continuing the hearing to research some of these questions.

Mr. Young had concerns about more people wanting easements across this parcel. He was worried about the vulnerability of the parcel until a decision was made. Commissioner Watrous stated that the Board of County Commissioners were sensitive to these issues and that was why they needed a detailed management plan from the Open Space Commission. The Board was not in favor of more access to anyone across this land. Mr. Young agreed to come back to the Board of County Commissioners in three months with a plan. Mr. Loeffler noted that the portion of land

6 discussed earlier that was separated from the Arrastra parcel was the subject of a purchase with an Ajacent Property Owner. The Open Space Commission had informed Mr. Loeffler that it would be better if this portion was separated from the Arrastra but they were willing to accept it if they had to. The Board agreed to meet back in three months with Mr. Young and Ms. Leben-Vogel.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF IMMUNIZATION CONTRACT FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. Ms. Barta stated that this contract was the same as the prior year but with $85 more due to an increase in births in the County. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Immunization Contract for the Nursing Department. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 8, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF REAPPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Planning Commission members Steve Schultz and Gail Gilzsmer had submitted letters requesting reappointment to the Planning Commission for another term. Bob Smith had resigned from the Planning Commission at the end of his term and requested that another member of the business community replace him on the board. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to reappoint Steve Schultz and Gail Gilzsmer to the Planning Commission for another term. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-01, MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENT #01-PDA-5, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CLEAR CREEK BED AND BREAKFAST, TO ADD A 3-CAR GARAGE, LAUNDRY/UTILITY ROOM, STORAGE AND OFFICE SPACE, LAWSON: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Applicant Martha Michael, Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following presentation: G The property was located at 2717 County Road #308, which was a portion of the Linn Millsite MS #1047B. G The parcel was approximately .62 acres in size with an existing 3979 square foot residence/Bed and Breakfast on the property zoned Planned Development. G Permitted uses were all uses permitted in the MR-1 Zoning District, subject to any restrictions associated with this district, and a five bedroom bed and breakfast, and retreats that will not exceed the capacity of a bed and breakfast. G A variance was granted to the exiting 20-foot tall sign with a front setback of 7 feet and a side setback of 20 feet. G The applicant was requesting the addition of a two story, 2700 square foot, three car garage with space for a new laundry/utility room on the main floor and storage/office space and an additional sitting room for guests on the second floor. G No additional guest rooms were proposed. G On October 2, 2001, a variance was granted for the proposed front, side , and rear setbacks. G Referral agencies and Adjacent Property Owners were sent notice on November 5, 2001.

7 G Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on November 28, 2001. G CDOT responded that they had “no conflicts provided access to the I-70 Frontage Road was not widened or the use increased.” G Clear Creek County Lands Department responded that “we have reviewed the proposal and have no conflicts”. G Dan Dalpes, owner of the Western Inn, responded “we have no problem with this use and access across our property as long as she allows us access across her property.” G The Division of Water Resources approved the use of the ground water from the existing well for a commercial business, described as a bed and breakfast facility. G No change in occupancy was proposed and the applicant wished to move the existing laundry facilities to the new larger space, therefore, an increase in water usage was not anticipated. G The property was connected to the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District. G County Road #308 was a primary road and had first priority in snow plowing and was maintained by the State. No increase in traffic or additional impacts to services were anticipated. According to the Assessor’s office the new addition should increase taxes by approximately $540. G The Planning Commission recommended approval in their public hearing held December 19, 2001 and Staff recommended approval per the draft resolution #02-01.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-01, Major Plan Amendment #01-PDA-5, amending the Official Development Plan for Clear Creek Bed and Breakfast. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Emergency Services District Board.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson and Fire Chief Kelly Babeon presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Mr. Abrahamson made the following presentation: G He had been researching records to see when the Emergency Services District was formed and how it became the Ambulance Department Enterprise Fund within the County government. G Mr. Abrahamson was looking for ways to ease the burden of the ambulance bills to local residents, i.e., discounts to local residents. G One mechanism is a contractual relationship between the Ambulance Department, the municipalities, and the Emergency Services District. G The concept was that the municipalities would be given the opportunity to contract with the Ambulance Service to provide services to their area. There would be a monetary stipulation with rate schedules for residents. G Medicare did allow this mechanism. G The mechanism would be an annual tax bill as opposed to paying the same amount as non- residents. G This could be a separate tax if the municipality chose it or it could come out of any funding source that the political subdivision chose, i.e., sales tax. G The municipalities would contract with the County and the municipalities would pay the County out of whichever fund they chose. This would confirm with the Medicare which would allow you to discount the price to local residents on the theory that their tax dollars were buying it. G The unincorporated areas would be covered by the Emergency Services District contributing a certain amount per resident for a certain amount of time. G The Emergency Services District would fund this through an ad valorem tax to the unincorporated areas not covered by Evergreen Fire Protection District or the municipalities. G Option #2 would be a special district that covered the whole County including municipalities whose sole mission was the Emergency Services District. Commissioner Sorensen asked if this would affect the Enterprise status of the Ambulance Department? Mr. Abrahamson replied that it would not as the County and the Ambulance Department had de-Bruced on all but property taxes.

8 G The revenue generated by the Ambulance Department did not affect the spending cap imposed by TABOR.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this proposal was to be sold by contract, like an insurance plan. This proposal would pay the Ambulance for services which is the function of an Enterprise fund. Regarding a new special district, Commissioner Sorensen asked if Mr. Abrahamson had reviewed the Big Thompson model? Mr. Abrahamson replied that he had not but the Big Thompson model was a part of a hospital district with different ground rules. This proposal allowed for the difference in pay to be paid out over a period of time as opposed to all at once when the patients received the bill. Secondly, any of the municipalities could choose not to participate. This would have no affect on the ambulance services. The purpose of this proposal was to provide a different funding mechanism.

Commissioner Poirot asked if this would increase taxes. Mr. Abrahamson replied that this had to be decided by he Emergency Services District Board of Directors. The voters had approved a 4.569 mill levy when the Emergency Services District was formed. Mr. Loeffler replied that there was a temporary mill reduction on with this mill levy because it had reached its maximum. The voters could approve to lift the TABOR maximum limit. The County could not propose a mill levy increase until the voters approved to de-Bruce.

Mr. Abrahamson stated that each municipality paid the same amount each year to the Clear Creek Fire Authority. The amount paid to the Ambulance fluctuated each year. Commissioner Sorensen asked if the County government could contract with citizens in this manner. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that he would research this proposal to ensure that it was actuarially sound. Commissioner Sorensen asked if any other areas had this plan in place? Mr. Abrahamson replied that Gilpin County had this in place but it was not government based. They received a check each month from the municipalities and they were private nonprofit. Commissioner Poirot asked if any groups in the County were pushing for this proposal? Mr. Abrahamson replied that this had been discussed at the Clear Creek Fire Authority. Commissioner Sorensen asked how collections were going at the Ambulance Department. Mr. Abrahamson replied that 41% of the transports were local residents. Of this 41%, 41% have an outstanding balance. The local residents represented a higher outstanding balance than they should. There was also no difference in amount of insured versus non-insured between residents and non-residents.

Second topic:

Mr. Abrahamson stated that the Ambulance and Fire Departments had been researching the status of the land at Technology Park. He asked if they needed to look for another location on Floyd Hill or if this land at Technology Park was still a possibility. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that he thought the Clear Creek Fire Authority and Ambulance Departments had an interest in developing this land at Technology Park for a station. He added that Saddleback Development Corporation had agreed to pay fees in lieu of a land dedication since the County thought they had the Technology Park land. Commissioner Poirot recalled speaking with the developer Dan Brown about this issue. Mr Brown had agreed to build a facility and rent it to the County Emergency Services groups. He wasn’t wanting to give the County the land outright, but to build a facility and collect rent. This was Mr. Brown’s belief after the development was approved. Commissioner Sorensen added that nothing was ever deeded to the County during this hearing. Mr. Loeffler stated that by coincidence the Board of County Commissioners was in the process of discussing and pursuing this issue with Mr. Brown. Mr. Loeffler wanted to be sure that the Ambulance and the Clear Creek Fire Authority were still interested in this property. Mr. Abrahamson replied that the Ambulance Department had recently submitted a gaming grant to build a facility there and they were submitting the land dedication as part of the grant match. Commissioner Poirot thought there was a strong gaming connection with a Floyd Hill facility and the gaming traffic on U.S. Hwy 40. Mr. Abrahamson added that a facility in this area was also a part of the Evergreen Fire Protection District 10-year plan. Mr. Loeffler agreed to meet with Mr. Abrahamson and Mr. Babeon to discuss a facility for the area.

The Emergency Services District Board then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County

9 Commissioners.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMPLOYEE CONTRACT WITH TIM MAUCK FOR THE INTERN POSITION AT CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Chief Accountant Carl Small and Human Resources Specialist Gail Buckley presented. Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver and Tim Mauck attended the hearing. Mr. Small made the following statements: G This employee contract for a 2-year employment contract which was a part of an internship program. G The dates were changed to begin on January 7, 2002 and end on December 31, 2003. G This contract allowed for a evaluation at the end of each 12 month period.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the employment agreement as modified for Tim Mauck for the intern position at Clear Creek County. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF SPORTSMEN’S CLUB LEASE IN DUMONT: In attendance were Clear Creek Sportsmen’s Club members Lou Kingsley, Raymond Eaves, County Engineer Ed Rapp, Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly, resident Donna Moody, Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson, Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association representative Bob Jones, and Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver. Commissioner Watrous stated that she was concerned about the lead in the area and asked the club if they could set aside $1000 for the lead clean up on the site. Mr. Kingsley agreed to set aside the funds for this purpose. Mr. Eaves thought from the last hearing that it was difficult to say where the lead originated from due to the strong mining history in the County. Commissioner Sorensen thought that at the last hearing the club had agreed to contact the NRA to set up a meeting to discuss a clean up plan. Mr. Eaves replied that they had done this and the due to the EPA regulations, rainfall was not a hazard.

Mr. Rapp stated that if the gun club were to relocate, it would be an easy clean up as the lead was not that deep in the ground. There was an active face to collect the lead. Mr. Jones added that there would be copper in this active face too.

The Board expressed concerns on hours of operation and night shooting. Mr. Eaves replied that the only night shooting was done by law enforcement for training. The members were not allowed to use the club at night, only law enforcement. Commissioner Sorensen asked how the club enforced no night shooting. Mr. Eaves replied that they did not have a night watchman or caretaker. They only had an honor system with members not to shoot at night. He added that this membership was open to the public and each member had a combination to the lock. Mr. Kingsley stated that they could post the property with hours of operation with exceptions for law enforcement and state that no night shooting was allowed for regular members.

Commissioner Watrous stated that the Zoning Department had submitted a letter stating that the club had a zoning violation with their signs. Mr. Kingsley agreed to take the signs down. Commissioner Poirot stated that in the past they had discussed the prevention of high caliber weapons on the property. He requested that any gun over a 50 caliber bmg should not be allowed. Mr. Eaves agreed to add a small sign to the membership to this effect. Mr. Eaves agreed to post these signs for the membership and include it in the club newsletter however he did state that the club had no way to enforce these rules. County Attorney Bob Loeffler agreed to change the lease to reflect these signs and new rules.

Commissioner Sorensen requested that the club complete a reclamation plan in case the club relocated or closed down. She wanted to know that the area would be environmentally safe if the club left the site. Mr. Rapp volunteered the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association to assist the club with writing a reclamation plan for the site. Mr. Jones thought the price to reclaim the site would not be extensive. Ms. Moody disagreed stating that many of the sites that had closed cost around $700,000-$1 million to clean up. The County nor the club could afford a clean up of this type. She felt that the County needed to start planning now. Mr. Rapp disagreed stating that the clean up would entail scooping out the lead from the front face and cleaning the area.

10 Commissioner Sorensen requested a description of what would be accomplished in the gun club clean up. Mr. Loeffler stated that he could prepare a lease to reflect these requests and the clean up plan would have to be completed prior to the renewal of the next lease. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the renewal of the Sportsmen’s Club lease for 2002 with the terms described by the County Attorney to be incorporated into the 2002 lease and the actual clean up plan to be presented before the 2003 lease. This revised lease would include the mention of signage stating the hours of operation, no 50 caliber bmg guns, and removal of the signs which were a zoning violation. She added that if these requests were met now, the County could consider a longer lease period for the club. Commissioner Sorensen gave the club a deadline of November of 2002 and then a longer lease would be considered. Mr. Jones agreed to have a reclamation plan completed by March or April of 2002. Mr. Kingsley and Mr. Eaves agreed. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 9, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of : • Discussion of settlement of the County’s claim against the Thomas Allen Estate, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(e); • Discussion of potential sale or lease of County lands (former BLM lands), pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(a); • Conference with County’s attorney to receive specific legal advice regarding a lawsuit, Fox Gulch, LLC v. County, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b); • Conference with County’s attorney to receive specific legal advice regarding the settlement of Mad Creek Development v. County, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b).

Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 15, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 15, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and

11 Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND JEFFERSON COUNTY: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract between Clear Creek County and Jefferson County for Child Support Enforcement. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. County Attorney Bob Loeffler reopened the case and requested to hold this contract until the Assistant Attorney had met with Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken. Mr. Loeffler was concerned about preventing a situation that occurred in the previous year with a jail inmate having to pay child support. Commissioner Poirot noted that the contract also needed some administrative corrections. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing until the County Attorneys were ready to process the contract. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-07, TO REVISE THE MAPPING DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE: Mapping Director Matt Taylor presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Mr. Taylor presented the following information: • The Assessor maps were now produced in color instead of black and white. • The complete set of Assessor Maps were $4 each and now they are $15 each. • A complete set of Assessor maps totaled 284 maps. • The master address maps were $1.50 each and they would stay at this price. • A complete set of master address maps totaled 232 maps for $261. • Road, subdivision, tax, and zoning maps would remain at $10 each. • Research from other counties was gathered to arrive at these market fees. • Mr. Taylor stated that some agencies purchase entire sets of maps, i.e., CDOT, URS, etc. • The Mapping Department was presently updating the township maps. • A new fee was included for custom maps. This price would include the cost of paper, ink, and staff time. This price was $20.

Commissioner Watrous felt that this $20 fee for custom maps was too low and requested that Mr. Taylor reconfigure this price based on the hourly rate of himself and his staff. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-07, to revise the Mapping Department fee schedule with the modification of the custom map price to include the actual hourly wage of Mapping employees. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-14, ENDORSING A LOCALLY PREFERRED OPTION FOR A MONORAIL: Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen composed the resolution based on ballot results from the November election for a monorail proposal. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-14, endorsing a locally preferred alternative. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSION AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MEMBERS: Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly and Chris Johnson attended the hearing. Commissioner Watrous expressed concern with Mr. Johnson being a Planning Commission member and working with Chip Webster, a developer of the Cascade Creek area. County Attorney Bob Loeffler understood this concern and stated that Mr. Johnson would abstain from any voting regarding the Chip Webster development and the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson agreed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to appoint Chris Johnson as a Full Member of the Planning Commission and Matt Sailor as an Associate Member of the Open Space Commission. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL ISSUE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

12 CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMPLOYEE REPLACEMENT FOR ZONING/ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TECHNICIAN: Chief Accountant Carl Small, Human Resource Specialist Gail Buckley, Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly, Land Use Service Unit Manager Deb Kirkham, Planning Director Carol Wise, Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson, and Zoning Specialist Staci Ryder attended the hearing. Ms. Kirkham stated that the Land Use Department had prepared a time breakdown of how this position was utilized. This time breakdown displayed that the time spent on zoning enforcement would be reduced by 72% if this position were not replaced. It would be difficult to satisfy citizen complaints without this position. Ms. Wise added that much of this position’s time was devoted to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Small stated that this position was budgeted for in the 2002 budget. Ms. Kirkham added that Mr. Etcheson and Ms. Ryder had developed some time percentages spent on the Environmental Health cases. Without this position, it would decrease the time to respond to complaints and the time for issuance of permits. Ms. Wise stated that with the County’s enthusiasm for following through and prosecuting these zoning cases, this position was needed more than ever. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the replacement of the Zoning/Environmental Health Technician. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENTAL AGREEMENT WITH EAGLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC. FOR THE CLERK’S OFFICE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT: Clerk and Recorder Pam Phipps presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Phipps stated that the County Attorney had reviewed the contract and approved its form. Mr. Small had concerns regarding the contract and possible need to rearrange equipment in the Clerk’s office with new electrical outlets. He was concerned that this may be an undue stress or expense. Mr. Loeffler stated that this contract had been reviewed with Eagle Computer Systems and they had made the changes the County had requested. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the rental agreement with Eagle Computer Systems, Inc. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the asked if the Eagle was replacing the hardware every three years. Ms. Phipps replied that this was correct. She added that if anything happened to the equipment, Eagle would replace it. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS FROM FRANK LOWE FOR LANDS EAST OF IDAHO SPRINGS: County Attorney Bob Loeffler presented. Mr. Loeffler stated that Mr. Lowe wanted to give these properties to the County. One property was part of the Lowe division of land east of the rafting company. There was a Special Warranty Deed for this parcel. The other parcel was near the City of Idaho Springs land, descended toward the creek, included a small mine shaft, and traveled to the other side of the creek up the rock face. There was a quitclaim deed for this parcel. He stated that Mr. Weaver thought one of these parcels would be useful should the County have a road-widening project. Mr. Lowe submitted that he was conveying the land to the County and they could in turn, convey it to Idaho Springs if they so chose. Commissioner Watrous thought this should be considered as one had to travel across Idaho Springs land to access one parcel. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-16, accepting deeds from Frank Lowe for land east of Idaho Springs. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SECURITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND IRAN EMESON TO SECURE PERFORMANCE OF BMP’S UNDER EXCAVATION PERMIT: County Attorney Bob Loeffler presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler made the following statements: • Mr. Emeson had obtained an excavation permit to fill some holes on his land in the St. Mary’s area. • A condition of the permit was that he complied with the County BMP’s including drainage and revegetation work. • Mr. Emeson was required to provide a performance guarantee of $500 so if necessary the County would have the money to fix the drainage and revegetation. Mr. Emeson had submitted the performance guarantee.

13 Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the pledge and security agreement with Iran Emeson. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Loeffler suggested that the Board of County Commissioners authorize Mr. Vogel to approve a certain dollar amount security agreements such as this. The Board approved Mr. Vogel to authorize pledge and security agreements of no more than $2500. The Board requested that the County Attorney be kept apprized of all pledge and security agreements no matter what the amount. Mr. Loeffler agreed.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 22, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 22, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A PERSONNEL ISSUE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Poirot stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-12, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #01-EX-17, FOR REGULATION FLEMMING FOR A 5-ACRE TRACT IN HYLAND HILLS: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Reg Flemming, and Jack and Dorothy Mills attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following presentation: • The parcel was a total of 5 acres and was accessed by Beaver Brook Canyon Road. • The subdivision was approved in 1977 but the land survey plat was not recorded. • The Division of Water Resources returned a well permit application for additional information providing evidence of how the parcel was created. The applicant was requesting that the Board of County Commissioners formally acknowledge this property as a legally created parcel. • The Division of Water Resources had issued a well permit in 1978 but it had since expired. Mr. Flemming had applied for this new permit and the Division would not recognize a permit for this parcel until it was acknowledged as a legal parcel. • 90% of this parcel was between 0 and 8% slope. • The applicant had submitted an ISDS permit and had submitted engineered plans that met County regulations. • Site Development Department had reviewed the property and determined that a driveway would work. • This property had been assessed as a stand-alone parcel and building site since 1978. Total taxes paid for 2000 were $1224.44. • Public notice had been published and adjacent property owners had been notified. No objections had been received. • Staff recommended approval of this case.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that with the other lots in this area in the same subdivision, would they be recognizing other parcels as well? Ms. Kastens replied that there were five lots in this subdivision but they were not recognized in 1977. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that if this one lot were recognized as a legal parcel then the others would be recognized too. Ms. Kastens stated that four of the five parcels were 5 acres and one was 26 acres. These parcels

14 bordered the Elmgreen property. Four of these five parcels already had homes on them. Mr. and Mrs. Mills were in approval of the recognition of these properties. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Exemption by Resolution #01-EX-17, recognizing all five parcels created in 1977. Ms. Kastens stated that she would add an exhibit recognizing all five parcels to the resolution. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COUNTY VEHICLE USE FOR ON-CALL SUPERVISORS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following presentation: • Mr. Allen stated that he had received Chief Accountant Carl Small’s notice of policy with employees using County vehicles. • Over the past 18 years, it had always been the Road and Bridge policy for the on-call supervisor to take the County vehicles home to be on call. This would allow the Sheriff to call on Road and Bridge in emergencies and the on-call staff could respond directly from home. • Mr. Allen had tried to find this policy in writing somewhere but the policy was so old he could not find any documentation. • The East End Foremen for Road and Bridge had been employed for 18 years and he could confirm this policy. • This policy allowed the Road and Bridge on-call staff to examine emergencies first before calling in more staff. • These on-call vehicles were equipped with snowplows, toolboxes, and traffic control devices. • The other use of the on-call vehicles was to examine neighborhoods early in the morning to see which roads needed the most snowplowing first. • The Road and Bridge staff tried to have the mail and school routes completed by 7:00 a.m.

The Board understood the Road and Bridge use of on-call vehicles but they had concerns with the IRS issues that Mr. Small had mentioned. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that he had reviewed the regulations on this and that the IRS saw two values for this event. One value was the use of the vehicle and the other value was the event for which the vehicle was used. Values still had to be assigned according to the IRS regulations. Mr. Allen stated that once the vehicles leave the home of an on-call employee, they were at work. Regarding commuting, it could require more time to go to Road and Bridge Department first to get a vehicle than to drive one from home directly to the emergency. Mr. Allen stated that they had always used on-call vehicles from the homes of on-call employees and this policy had been in place for 18 years. Commissioner Sorensen stated that if the County Auditor Bondi and Company had seen no issue with the Road and Bridge use of these vehicles then Road and Bridge could maintain their policy. Commissioner Poirot agreed. Mr. Allen added that no employees had ever abused this use of the on-call vehicles in the past. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the County vehicle use for on-call supervisors for Road and Bridge Department and not have them subject to taxable compensation. She added that if Bondi saw this differently, the Board could reconsider. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Poirot stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to convene as the Board of Health. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-15, RESCINDING RESOLUTION #99-126, CEASE AND DESIST ORDER FOR 1315 GUANELLA PASS ROAD: Environmental Health Department Chris Etcheson presented. Realtor David Jamison attended the hearing. Mr. Etcheson made the following statements: • He stated that the required repair work was completed to correct the failed sewer issues.

15 • The Town of Georgetown had worked together with the County and the owner of the property. • The Town had sent a memo to the County explaining the work completed and that the problems were solved. • Mr. Etcheson recommended that the Cease and Desist order be lifted.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler agreed stating that he had reviewed the documents and it was appropriate to remove the Cease and Desist Order. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-15, rescinding Resolution #99-126, Cease and Desist Order for 1315 Guanella Pass Road. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR GREG MARKLE AND BOB AND ANN TIMBERMAN FROM CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: County Attorney Bob Loeffler presented. County Assessor Diane Settle and County Appraiser Debbie Zarlengo attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler made the following statements: • Mr. Loeffler stated that Mr. Markle wanted the County to quit claim their interest in the Mountsfield claim as it conflicted with his claim the Lucy, the Grover Cleveland, and what he wanted to purchase in the Dakota. • The County acquired this land in a failed tax payment a long time ago. • The County did not take deed on this parcel until 1960. • The County had the tax deeds for the Armstrong, the Great Divide the Mountsfield, and the Massachusetts. • The County Assessor had informed Mr. Loeffler that these parcels really had no value as they were very steep and had no access. • A quit claim deed was needed to clean up these parcels. • Mr. Loeffler suggested writing to other landowners that were affected by these parcels and inform them that the County could quit claim deed to them too.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to quit claim to Mr. Markle to clear up his conflicts and to inform other affected property owners that their parcels could be cleaned up too with a quit claim deed from the County. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 23, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EQUIPMENT LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EDM CORPORATION AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AMBULANCE: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Abrahamson made the following presentation: • This lease agreement was for the Ambulance staff to utilize a demonstration ambulance to assist at the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City Utah. • EDM would allow the County to make any changes needed to the contract. • The lease amount totaled $1.00.

16 • There was a built-in contingency of $150 per day if the ambulance was not returned by March 1, 2002. • The insurance issues were addressed and the day the ambulance left Clear Creek County it would be covered under Park City Utah’s insurance policy. • Park City Utah would cover the fuel, wear and tear of the vehicle. • The liability insurance was also covered by Park City Utah. • The Clear Creek County Ambulance staff would be considered the Park City Ambulance staff and they would be operating under the Park City Ambulance Director while in assistance. • The Clear Creek County Ambulance was sending five staff members for this assistance. • Park City would provide housing for the staff but not tickets to the events. • Mr. Abrahamson stated that the Clear Creek County Ambulance personnel would not be short on staff during the assistance period.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the equipment lease agreement between EDM Corporation and Clear Creek County Ambulance. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GOCO GRANT AWARD FOR KING MURPHY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the GOCO grant for King Murphy Elementary School contingent on the County offices filling in the approved budget lines on the grant. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss the following matters: • Receive specific legal advice regarding the settlement of Thomas Allen claim, pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) & (e), to determine negotiating strategies and instruct negotiators; • Receive specific legal advice regarding litigation, Fox Gulch LLC v. County, pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • Receive specific legal advice regarding the acquisition of property to determine negotiating strategies and instruct negotiators, pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(a), (b), & (e); • Receive specific legal advice regarding SBOE order regarding possessory interests, pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); and • Receive legal advice regarding Tim Nobel easement, pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b).

Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept.

DISCUSSION WITH THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT: Human Resources Specialist Gail Buckley presented. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the recommendation from Ms. Buckley regarding compensation for Craig Abrahamson beginning on January 1, 2002 with further discussions to be held on severance pay. He also approved salaries for Bert Weaver, Deb Kirkham, Carol Wise, and Beth Luther. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Watrous suggested these salary adjustments be retroactive to January 1, 2002. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 29, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 29, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

17 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FOR 14 PARCELS OF COUNTY LAND FOR MARQUETTE GROUP ET AL, CONSOLIDAATED EMPIRE MINES LTD: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith stated that the proposal was to transfer 14 parcels of County land to Marquette Minerals et al, owned by Ray Heon. All of these parcels were just west of the Division of Wildlife conveyance. These parcels were very small totaling 1.25 acres and sold for $1078. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deed for 14 parcels of County land for Marquette Minerals et al, Consolidated Empire Mines Limited. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF UNSEALED BID FOR COUNTY LAND: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith stated that parcel #1837-23-4-00-960 came up for bid before the Board of County Commissioners on December 18, 2001. No bids were received for this parcel. Apparently, a bid had come to the County offices and ended up in the wrong office because the envelope was addressed incorrectly. Therefore, County Lands Department received the bid three weeks late. County Attorney Bob Loeffler requested that the Board of County Commissioners consider this bid at this time. Commissioner Watrous opened the bid from Virginia Nigy. The minimum bid was $265 and Ms. Nigy’s bid was $265.83. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the bid from Virginia Nigy for $265.83. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS FOR COUNTY LANDS: TWO DEEDS FOR THREE PARCELS FOR THE BROWN PARTY IN SECTION 31; ONE DEED FOR ONE PARCEL FOR THE COLORADO INVESTOR’S TRUST IN SECTION 28; TWO DEEDS FOR THREE PARCELS FOR THE MARATHON INVESTMENTS/BEAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN SECTIONS 25 AND 30; ONE DEED FOR ONE PARCEL FOR THE MARQUETTE GROUP ET AL CONSOLIDATED EMPIRE MINES, INC, IN SECTION 21; ONE DEED FOR ONE PARCEL FOR THE NUNNERY PARTY IN SECTION 32; ONE DEED FOR ONE PARCEL FOR THE ROMINE PARTY IN SECTION 27; ONE DEED FOR ONE PARCEL FOR THE SHUNTA PARTY IN SECTION 28; ONE DEED FOR ONE PARCEL FOR THE BLILEY PARTY IN SECTION 25; ONE DEED FOR THREE PARCELS FOR THE MADONNA PARTY IN SECTION 26. THE ABOVE PARCELS ARE IN T3SR73W AND T3SR74W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel attended the hearing. Mr. Smith stated that all lands were zoned M-2 except for one which was zoned Buffer. All lots would be combined with contiguous properties. No new building sites would be created. One of the Madonna parcels was a stand alone parcel which was part of the Virginia Canyon Flood Mitigation negotiations. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve all of the Special Warranty Deeds for the property owners. Commissioner Poirot seconded. Mr. Smith clarified that these lands were outside of the Division of Wildlife land conveyance. Commissioner Sorensen asked who Colorado Investor’s Trust was represented by. Mr. Smith replied that he had been working with Cookie Lockhart of Steamboat Springs. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH SASI FOR THE County LANDS DEPARTMENT: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small and Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel made the following presentation: • Larry Storms of SASI made a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners on January 8, 2002. • This included a proposal based on an hourly consultant rate. • She requested that the Board of County Commissioners consider this proposal to assist the County Lands Department with telecommunications issues. • There were four main projects that the County Lands Department needed SASI’s assistance. • The County Lands Department estimated a total of 30 hours for these projects. • These four main projects would be multi-user sites. • Mr. Storms hourly rate ranged from $75-80 per hour. • Mr. Storms would be paid for out of the County Lands Department budget.

18 • Ms. Leben-Vogel had been working with the Sheriff’s Department on this proposal and they were eager to begin the project. • Ms. Leben-Vogel was going to aim for the $75 per hour range.

The board agreed that County Lands Department should aim for the lower hourly rate given what was happening in the telecommunications industry at present. County Attorney Bob Loeffler agreed to work with Ms. Leben-Vogel on the wording of the contract. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the contract for services with SASI for the County Lands Department pending language negotiation and approval by the County Attorney and the rate negotiation with SASI not to exceed $85 per hour. Once these issues were cleared the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners could sign the contract without another hearing. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

PRIORITIZATION OF EMS PROVIDER GRANTS: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small and Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Mr. Abrahamson made the following presentation: • The Clear Creek Fire Authority decided not to apply for this grant. • This grant for the Ambulance Department would fund two projects if awarded. • The first project was for updating the ambulances with a n intercom/hearing protection system. • The two freightliner ambulances were very loud and the paramedics needed this system to hear in the ambulance. • The two road rescue ambulances were not as loud but with the sirens, this system was needed. • A company called Firecom made these intercom systems. The system allowed the intercom system to tie into the hearing protection system, the radios, and other communications. • The Ambulance Department was requesting that this grant fund half the project and the Ambulance budget would fund the other half totaling $5664 each. • There would be an intercom system in each of the four ambulances if the grant application were awarded. • The other project was a computerated dispatch system based with medical software. • The Sheriff’s Department wanted to implement this system within the next year. • Mr. Abrahamson felt the medical dispatch portion of the communications was weak. • The department had good fire and ambulance responses and communications with two- way radios. • The other component was the community education piece. • There were some EMT trained dispatchers but the new dispatchers still needed training. • The dispatchers were presently still using a manual system of index cards. • If the dispatchers had computerated dispatch, it would bring up better protocols for certain medical situations. • This computerated dispatch would also provide a CAD system for dispatch. It would track all class and how the dispatcher completed interrogation. • The total cost for this computerated dispatch software was $12,000 and the grant application was asking for half of this cost. • Mr. Abrahamson felt that they would have to work to find their half of the funding but it was possible it could come from the Communications Budget.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if this could come from the E911 revenues. County Attorney Bob Loeffler replied that there was a special rule for E911 revenues. A County would have to spend revenues on all other items allowable by statute first and then they could be spent on a project like this one. Mr. Loeffler did not think that the County would be able to spend all E911 revenues and fund this project. Most of the projects allowed by E911 revenues were very expensive and would consume the total of the E911 revenues. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to prioritize the Ambulance department’s grant application as the County’s first priority for the EMS Provider Grants. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE COMPLIANCE ALLIANCE CONTRACT FOR THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT: Human Resource Specialist Gail

19 Buckley presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small and Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Ms. Buckley made the following presentation: • Ms. Buckley stated this was a renewal contract with Compliance Alliance. • Compliance Alliance provided the required drug testing for Road and Bridge employees. • Ms. Buckley supported this contract, as it was cheaper to remain in this pool than to have the County perform the testing.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that he noticed the contract had a $200 limited liability clause for failure to perform. The consequence was that if the County were in violation with the Department of Transportation, Compliance Alliance would only be liable for up to $200. He added that the County had a good relationship with Compliance Alliance and this issue should not be of concern. Ms. Buckley agreed stating that the liability would be greater if the County performed their own testing. Mr. Small expressed concern with performing drug testing within a certain amount of time of an accident. Ms. Buckley added that if Compliance Alliance did not perform a test within a certain amount of time, the County could test with another company and collect from the $200 from Compliance Alliance. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract with Compliance Alliance. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PACIFICARE CONTRACT FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY EMPLOYEES: Human Resource Specialist Gail Buckley presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Buckley made the following presentation: • Ms. Buckley reviewed the contract with PacifiCare and the coverage was what was proposed in December 2001. • The monthly rate for employees was what had been negotiated and what the County had budgeted. • The County had retained the classification of employees as had been in the past. • One new problem was for employees that lived in Summit County. PacifiCare did not have service in Summit County so employees that lived there would have to see doctors in the service area. • PacifiCare would not cover employees living outside their service area but they had made an exception for two County employees. • If the County obtained too much staff from Summit County, PacifiCare would have to reconsider. • This had not been an issue in the past and Clear Creek County had rarely had employees living in Summit County. • The doctors in Summit County had joined together and refused HMO plans. • PacifiCare would accept these two County employees as long as they chose a PCP in the service area. • PacifiCare could refuse these employees if their bills were too high or if too many employees began residing in Summit County. • PacifiCare was making an exception for these two employees and if the number of employees residing in Summit County increased, they reserved the right to discontinue this exception. • These new issues would have to be considered when hiring new employees.

Ms. Buckley asked County Attorney Bob Loeffler if the County would have to provide medical coverage for employees living outside the service area. Mr. Loeffler replied that no, but the County would have to inform the potential employees during the interview process that certain areas were excluded from health insurance coverage. This would make the employee decide whether to work for the County or whether to move to the service area. Commissioner Sorensen asked if certain potential employees could be excluded from the health insurance plan for a bad health history. Ms. Buckley replied that yes, this could happen as insurance companies had a way of finding health history on every person. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the PacifiCare contract for Clear Creek County employees for 2002. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Poirot asked Mr. Small if it would hinder the program if former military staff were to refuse the County health insurance and take another. Mr. Small replied that the 75% needed to have the health insurance plan was based on 75% of the people that did not have other health insurance options. The vote was unanimous.

20 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAHP CONTRACT FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Barta stated that this was an offer from the Colorado Action for Healthy People (CAHP) to fund Meg Leonard as a part time temporary employee for 12 weeks to perform a study. Instead of a contract, CAHP wanted to do this in the form of a purchase order. Ms. Barta still needed Board of County Commissioner’s approval for this purchase order. Any funds left over after the study would go back to the Nursing Department budget. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the purchase order for the CAHP contract for the Nursing Department. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-08, TDR CASE #02-TDR-01, FOR JAMES AND TINA CARINO TO TRANSFER BUILDINGS RIGHTS FROM THE EDITH LODE (M-1) TO THE OLA LODE AND MILLSITE (M-2), UTE CREEK ROAD: Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Applicant’s James and Tina Carino, Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel, Zoning Specialist Staci Ryder, Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Planning Director Carol Wise, and Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: • This case was Transfer of Development Rights Case #02-TDR-01. • The request was to transfer the residential development rights of a M-1 mining claim over to a M-2 mining claim in order to use the M-2 claim for residential purposes as permitted in the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations for M-1 zoning districts. The M-1 zoned claim would, simultaneously, assume all permitted uses in a M-2 zoning district and lose its M-1 rights. • This parcel was located on the right side of Ute Creek Road, going approximately 1.6 miles up from Colorado Hwy 103. • The M-2 parcel was known as the Ola Lode and Millsite. • The M-1 parcel was known as the Edith Lode. • These two claims were contiguous. • Currently, the Ola Millsite contained structures including a residence, a shed and other miscellaneous improvements. The applicants were currently living here. The Code Enforcement Officer had issued citations for these violations and these violations were being addressed in the courts. The Planning Commission did not address violations and staff had not taken these violations into consideration during the review of this application. • Responses were received from referral agencies. • A letter was received from the Site Development Department regarding culverts, existing water drainage, and disturbance of existing wetlands. The existing driveway, with improvements listed in this letter, would meet all design standards. • A letter was received from the Environmental Health Director which stated that the proposed ISDS plans were in substantial compliance with the ISDS regulations. There were, however, some slight adjustments, but that they could b addressed at the permitting stage. • A comment from Fire Marshall Brett Dieux mentioned that if chains were required to drive up Ute Creek Road given the ice that accumulates on the road, the chances of the Clear Creek Fire Authority providing adequate coverage would be “slim to none”. Mr. Dieux also mentioned that he would be agreeable to requiring a disclosure note to be put on a deed or other applicable recorded document that stated that this property may not be adequately serviced by Emergency Services due to the condition of the access. • A comment from Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen stated that the Road and Bridge Department found no negative impacts to the public road caused from this TDR. The Road and Bridge Department supported this transfer. • Adjacent Property Owner John Montgomery had no conflicts with this proposal. • Regarding access, the application appeared to comply and be in agreement with most all the Review Considerations in the TDR Process Guide except for when the guide considered access. Ute Creek Road, at this location was not a County maintained road. In the application, the applicants had indicated that they plan to maintain the road sufficiently for themselves to get in and out of the area. However, no maintenance schedule or standards had been submitted as to how the road would be maintained. This issue also

21 must be considered because the issue of whether emergency vehicles could safely drive up the road had not been adequately addressed. During the summer months, a four-wheel drive vehicle could safely arrive to this property. However, during the winter months, the road can be virtually impassible during times of heavy snowfall or other times of inclement weather. As the Clear Creek Fire Authority indicated, the access could prohibit fire protection during times when chains were required to drive up Ute Creek Road due to ice. • In support of this access, the proposed residential development would not require a private road, or driveway to be constructed crossing over other private property , or to be constructed for any considerable length, as several residential developments in this County currently require. Therefore, any additional disturbance of forest land for construction of a driveway or private road was not required for this residential proposal. It was Staff’s opinion that development along existing access should be encouraged while development on properties with no existing access should be discouraged. • The house currently had a driveway but not a permit so this permit would have to be applied for. • The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this case and recommended approval. The motion was not unanimous. The Motion passed 4 to 3. Access to the site was the primary issue in deliberations, and was also primarily what caused the controversial vote. • Mr. Rollenhagen presented two resolutions, one for approval and one for denial. • The approval resolution required the applicant to apply for a Special Use Permit for the use of their trailer to live in until a building permit was obtained to build a home. • Mr. Rollenhagen presented a wildfire hazard map of the area. This home was in the low wildfire hazard area. The high wildfire hazard area was at the Edith Lode.

Ms. Carino stated that she and her husband wanted to be in compliance with the County regulations. They were also attempting to clean up the zoning violations. Ms. Wise reminded the Board of County Commissioners that the obtaining of the Special Use Permit would not forgive the zoning violations on the property. Ms. Ryder added that two court hearings had been scheduled to hear the zoning violations. The most recent one was rescheduled to March 12, 2002. Ms. Wise noted that the trailer would have to be brought into ISDS compliance before a Special Use Permit could be obtained. Ms. Carino stated that currently, they had an RV with a toilet that had to be emptied at a dumping station. She and her husband had considered a compost toilet. In the meantime, the Carino’s had been hauling junk off the property, most of which did not belong to them.

Ms. Moody stated that there was a controversy over the access issue when the Planning Commission heard this case. Another issue at the Planning Commission case was that there was no well permit for this applicant. She expressed concern over the TDR process and sending sites. Sending sites were not supposed to be able to hold residential development. She added that the paperwork for these sending and receiving sites would be a nightmare in the upkeep of up to date maps in the County offices. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the intent of the TDR process was to switch the zoning between parcels and officially change the zoning designations. These parcels could comply with this. The sending and receiving parcels would obtain new zonings and new restrictions with these zonings. These parcels would not be able to change their zoning again. Ms. Wise added that a TDR had to be completed in this situation as a rezoning would not accomplish a solution. Commissioner Watrous stated that these documents would be recorded and anyone researching the case would obtain the correct zoning with the corresponding restrictions on these properties.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler asked about the waiting period that the Carinos went through with the Planning Department. Ms. Wise stated that there was a moratorium on cases for awhile due to lack of staff and too many cases. Additionally, the Planning Director at the time, Susan Pacek, wanted to complete the writing of the TDR process before handling any cases. The TDR process was approved in January of 2001. Ms. Ryder added that there were zoning violations involved in the meantime. The Carinos had been given notice of these in February and August of 2001. The Carinos waited until December of 2001 before responding to the zoning notices. Now the Carinos had been summoned to court on these violations.

22 Ms. Carino noted that they did have a well permit for the property at present. They had not dug the well yet but the permit had been obtained. Regarding access, Mr. Vogel stated that the claim they were looking to rezone through the TDR process was a much more feasible site not only for building, but also for ISDS.

Ms. Thibault made the following statements regarding the case: • She had concerns that the Carinos thought that this process of TDR would rescind all zoning violations and this was not the case. • She requested that the Board of County Commissioners address this portion of the case as the TDR would not take care of the zoning violations. It was a step in the right direction but not a “cure all”. • The court hearing on the zoning violations was scheduled for March 12, 2002 and the County was prepared to move forward on this issue. • The next step was a Special Use Permit had to be requested by the Carinos for the trailer on the property since it was still not allowed with a TDR. • There was also an ISDS situation and Mr. Etcheson had stated that this could be complied with. • Obtaining a TDR approval would not solve the problems with ISDS or with the trailer without a Special Use Permit.

Mr. Etcheson noted that the Carinos had not applied of an ISDS permit. He had reviewed a plan for their future home should they accomplish rezoning. Ms. Carino did not think they could apply for an ISDS until this TDR was approved. She added that they did not know of the possibility of a Special Use Permit until December of 2001. Mr. Etcheson stated that even with a Special Use Permit for the trailer and taking the RV to the dump station, this did not comply with County ISDS regulations. They would have to obtain a composting toilet.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the “catch-22" of this case was that the Carinos needed to rezone to get certain permits in order to achieve compliance. If they did not get approval of the TDR , they were in violation of zoning. If they did not get approval of rezoning, they were still in violation due to zoning issues. Also, with the TDR, they still needed a Special Use Permit for the trailer in which they were living until their primary residence was built. The “catch-22" was that the Carinos had no chance of achieving compliance without the TDR approval. Ms. Wise stated that they could achieve compliance by removing the junk from the property and living somewhere else.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed concerns with the access and public safety issues of living in this area and having emergency services coverage during certain times of the year. She didn’t think that having a parcel located beyond the County maintenance of the road and the difficulty of Emergency Services accessing the parcel would be suitable for development. Mr. Vogel noted that even if this TDR was denied, they could still build on the Edith Lode since it was zoned for residential development and this would create more of a disturbance. Regarding building on a non-maintained road, Mr. Vogel stated that this was done all over the County and with the County Lands Department. Many of these areas had steep roads that were not maintained by the County and very difficult for Emergency Services, i.e., Wild Wagoner Road, Blue Ridge Road, etc. Commissioner Sorensen replied that she didn’t think it was the County’s policy to encourage this.

Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that three years ago, she was the one who encouraged the Carinos to wait for the TDR process. She encouraged them to buy the adjacent M-1 claim and the Carinos had done this in anticipation of competing the TDR process. Commissioner Poirot asked what the impact would be if this hearing was continued until after the court case on the zoning violations. Ms. Thibault replied that there would be no difference as the zoning violations would be there regardless of the zoning. Her concern was whether the Carinos were going to clean up the property or not. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that a short continuance could be productive in that the County could see if the Carinos would clean up the property before the court date and this may have influence on the Board of County Commissioners decision of the rezoning.

23 Ms. Carino stated that they could not design an ISDS system until they were rezoned therefore, why would they submit an application for a Special Use Permit? They would agree to apply for an Special Use Permit once the rezoning was approved. Mr. Etcheson suggested that the Carinos build the ISDS system with septic and leach field and then they could have their temporary trailer drain into the septic system while building their primary residence.

Commissioner Poirot stated that he agreed with Mr. Vogel that the M-2 claim was a better access and building site than the M-1. He also agreed with Ms. Leben-Vogel that not only she, but the Board of County Commissioners had encouraged residents to pursue the TDR process. He suggested that the County give the Carinos a short continuance of the rezoning hearing. Commissioner Sorensen was impressed that the Carinos had made the investment to buy the M-1 claim to complete the TDR process. She asked for clarification of the zoning violations: one was that they lived on an M-2 claim, second they lived in a trailer on this claim without a permit, third was that they did not have an ISDS in place? Ms. Ryder replied that this was correct and that the Carinos had also built structures around the trailer and had junk vehicles.

Commissioner Poirot suggested a two week continuance to allow the Carinos time to apply for the Special Use Permit, and obtain a compost toilet. Mr. Etcheson added that the Carinos would also need a gray water system. Commissioner Sorensen agreed stating that she did not want to see the Carinos lose their investment in this M-1 claim. If they could make progress in the zoning violations during this two week extension, it would be easier to decide the TDR case. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing for two weeks to give the applicant time to apply for the Special Use Permit and to clean up the zoning violations. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that there was not much use in applying for the Special Use Permit at this time however, the zoning violations issue could be worked on. Commissioner Poirot amended his motion to continue the hearing to February 12, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. to negotiate with the County Attorney and the Carino attorney as to what could be done. The Carinos would also allow staff full access to the property to fully evaluate the zoning violation situations. The Carinos agreed. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 5, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 5, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ANNUAL FIRE OPERATING PLAN WITH COLORADO STATE FOREST SERVICE: Colorado State Forest Service representative Allen Gallamore presented. Sheriff Don Krueger, Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly, Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association representative Bob Jones, Fire Chief Kelly Babeon, and Silver Plume Fire Department representative Rick Gaubautz attended the hearing. Mr. Gallamore made the following presentation: • Mr. Gallamore presented the 2002 Annual Fire Operating Plan with amendments. • Mr. Gallamore stated that he had planned this meeting before the fire season to make sure that everything was up to date. • Sheriff Krueger and Chief Babeon had approved the amendments to Annual Fire Operating Plan. • The plan had been updated to reflect the guidelines that were part of a new Intergovernmental Agreement between the State Forest Service and Federal agencies.

24 This IGA affected the Colorado State Forest Service and how they worked with local governments. • Some language had been updated in the plan to reflect the new authorization protocol in Clear Creek County. • The new plan also reflected the new aviation protocols. • The cost reimbursed to counties was documented in this new plan. • Mr. Gallamore noted that Jefferson County no longer had a helicopter for wildfires but Boulder County did. Through the IGA and reimbursable costs, this helicopter could be used for fires in Clear Creek County.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the 2002 Annual Fire Operating Plan with the Colorado State Forest Service. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Gallamore noted that Jefferson County would have a water bomber plane by May 15, 2002.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF KEVIN WRIGHT TO THE CLEAR CREEK TOURSIM BOARD AND RECOGNITION OF 2002 MEMBERS TO THE CLEAR CREEK TOURISM BOARD: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to appoint Kevin Wright to the Clear Creek Tourism Board to replace Mary Jane Loevlie. Within the motion, Commissioner Sorensen recognized the entire 2002 Clear Creek Tourism board as: Roman Krafczyk, Kevin Wright, Cindy Olson, Lori Short, John Rice, Ann Jedele, Leah Greska, Dan Ebert, Bob Smith, Alice Lietch, Tom Wilson, Dan Lovato, Cindy Condon, Craig McMullin, Salley Smith/Mary Riddle Clark, Executive Director Stephanie Donoho. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DECISION MEMORANDUM AND CAPITAL REQUEST FOR A 1-TON TRUCK FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT: Service Unit Manager of Road and Bridge Tim Allen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following statements regarding the capital request: • During budget time, this request was approved. • He didn’t want to pay for this expenditure so early in the year but their current truck had required a lot of maintenance. • Maintenance costs on the old truck had been at $14.25 per mile. He wanted to remove this old truck from service. • The new truck he was recommending had a flatbed included. The Road and Bridge Department could mount a plow and sander onto this truck. • This new truck had a brand new Allison Transmission. • The cost for the new truck was less than what Mr. Allen had budgeted because it did not come with a dump bed on it. • The one-ton trucks were used for the harsher roads as they could handle better than the graders.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the capital purchase of the one-ton pickup truck for the Road and Bridge Department. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and asked if this would cause a cash flow situation by purchasing this truck so early in the year. Mr. Allen replied that he had confirmed with Chief Accountant Carl Small that there would not be a problem. The vote was unanimous.

Mr. Allen requested that the Board of County Commissioners sign the HUTF reports for Clear Creek County. This report was routinely sent to inform the State of mileage and status of roads. County Attorney Bob Loeffler approved the HUTF reports and requested that the Board of County Commissioners sign them. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the HUTF reports for Clear Creek County. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-05, CONCERNING EXPENDITURE OF FOREST RESERVE APPORTIONMENT FUNDS: The Forest

25 Reserve Apportionment Funds were routinely reviewed annually. Chief Accountant Carl Small stated that the State had called and cautioned the County that there could be an adjustment to these numbers and the County may have to refund some of these funds. He added that if so, the County and the School District could just refund the money. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-05. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 12, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVALOF DELTA DENTAL CONTRACT FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY EMPLOYEES: Human Resources Director Gail Buckley stated that this was a renewal of the Delta Dental Contract for Clear Creek County employees and for 2002, it reduced the amount of employee contribution. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Delta Dental Contract. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

PRESENTATON FROM THE “WE THE PEOPLE” CLASS AT CLEAR CREEK HIGH SCHOOL: Students Chris Wilson, Julie North, Linnea Pearson, and parent representative Mary Jane Loevlie presented. Ms. Loevlie made the following statements: • This “We the People” class was started in 1987. • Congress had put a timeline in their budget to put this program in all 50 states. • Clear Creek High School had won the State championship and was now proceeding to compete at the national level. • The “We the People” class had been introduced to the Colorado legislature. • The class was under the direction of Bob Warmack. • There were six panels at the competition level and they would all address the various aspects of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the roles of citizens in a democratic government. • At the competition, each student had to be equally prepared, as they had to participate equally. • The competitions were similar to Congressional hearings. • The class was trying to raise $27,000 in order to attend the national competitions. Congress paid for the airfare. The deadline for this fundraising was March 15, 2002. • The national competition was to be held in Washington, D.C. on May 4-6, 2002. • The class was requesting a donation from the Board of County Commissioners to assist with offsetting the costs of the trip for the students.

The students then made a presentation of a sample competition and presented different issues regarding the Alexis DeTocqueville’s, Democracy in America.

26 The Board of County Commissioners declined to donate to the class, because such donations were not within the purposes for County expenditures of tax dollars. They added that they were responsible to their constituency on which projects they donated. The Board of County Commissioners congratulated the students and wished them luck at their upcoming competition.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-08, TDR CASE #02-TDR-01, FOR JAMES AND TINA CARINO TO TRANSFER BUILDING RIGHTS FROM THE EDITH LODE (M-1) TO THE OLA LODE AND MILLSITE (M-2), UTE CREEK ROAD: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue this hearing to February 26, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. to allow more time for research and an Agreement to Abate with the Carinos. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE LETTER FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR HERITAGE PLANNING GRANT: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Contract Change letter for the Emergency Management Heritage Planning Grant to extend the grant expiration deadline to six months later in order to complete the scope of services. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LAND OFFER FROM DAN DALPES FOR COUNTY LANDS: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. She stated that she had an offer for this County land parcel totaling 1.3 acres for $650 from Adjacent Property Owner Dan Dalpes. County Lands had established a fair market value of $935 but Mr. Dalpes thought this price was too high. Commissioner Sorensen asked if there was usable land on these 1.3 acres to which Mr. Dalpes could expand his economic use or was it Buffer. Ms. Leben-Vogel replied that this land was zoned as Buffer so Mr. Dalpes could not expand onto the land. He could not even expand the mobile home size due to County zoning regulations. She added that this area was a rock fall hazard area and the liability shifts to the property owner. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the bid from Mr. Dalpes of $650 for the 1.3 acre County Lands parcel. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WAIVER OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE FEE FOR SHARON ROBERTS, SOUTH SPRING GULCH: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Applicants Steve and Sharon Roberts, and Planner I Tony Atencio attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following presentation: • Sharon Roberts and Bill Kazel had applied for a Boundary Line Adjustment Exemption for their properties located on South Spring Gulch Road. • They would like to use the centerline of this road as the new boundary between their properties. • Service Unit Manager of Road and Bridge Tim Allen had requested they dedicate a Right of Way easement for S. Spring Gulch Road. • The applicants had agreed to do this, however, due to the width of the easement, Ms. Roberts would need a variance for a proposed shed. • Since the need for this variance was caused by a request from the County, both Planning Staff and Road and Bridge were requesting the fee for this variance be waived. • Since growth was occurring in this area, the Road and Bridge thought this was a good agreement.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that these two parties were trading lands and both would have access off of South Spring Gulch Road. Ms. Kastens noted that the Roberts’ and Mr. Kazel agreed to a 40-foot easement but not a 60-foot easement. This would allow Road and Bridge Department to put in better drainage. She added that Roberts’ would not do the easement if they had to pay for the variance. Mr. Loeffler thought this was a good agreement and would provide for better drainage. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the waiver of the Board of Adjustment variance fee. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

INTERVIEW AND APPOINTMENT FOR THE VACANCY ON THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to appoint Suzanne Brown as an

27 Associate Member to the Open Space Commission based on her resume and interview information. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 13, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of: ‘ To receive legal advice specifically regarding the Idaho Springs Water Treatment Plant upgrade pursuant to section Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(B); Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of: ‘ Receiving legal advice regarding Youth Service Department; ‘ Discussing employment agreements; ‘ To discuss zoning enforcement issues; ‘ To discuss a claim by Tim Nobel; all pursuant to section Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(B). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of: ‘ Matters to be kept confidential by Federal or State law, rules and regulations, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 39-5-120, 39-6-106, and Division of Property Tax Manual 6.15 pursuant to section Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(C); ‘ and County’s position relative to matters pertaining to the Henderson Mine Abatement and Settlement Agreement, pursuant to section Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(E); ‘ and documents protected by mandatory non-disclosure provisions of Part 2, Article 72, Title 24, commonly known as the Open Records Act, Colorado Revised Statutes 24-72- 204(3)(A); ‘ and trade secrets, privileged information, confidential commercial, financial, geological, and geophysical data furnished by any person, in this instance the Henderson Mine, pursuant to section Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(G). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing. The meeting adjourned. ______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 19, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in

28 attendance were Commissioner Jo Ann Sorensen, County Attorney Bob Loeffler and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Robert Poirot was out of town.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE CSBG GRANT FOR HUMAN SERVICES: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Ms. Dicken made the following presentation: • The Human Services Department had received a CSBG grant for their department. • This grant dealt with issues such as low birth weight, out of home placement, the high school drop out rate, etc. • If there were any funding surpluses with this grant, the Human Services Department put the funds out for a mini-grant process to needing organizations. • Many youth groups were funded with these surpluses and Nursing Director Jean Barta was attempting to coordinate all the youth groups. • Some of the CSBG funding was used for emergency services, i.e, oxygen, safety glasses, etc. • The CSBG board would be adding Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault to their commission.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the CSBG grant for Human Services. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT FOR HUMAN SERVICES: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Dicken stated that this contract was signed previously but held until concerns of the Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault were resolved. Ms. Thibault had met with Jefferson County and resolved the concerns. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Child Support Enforcement Contract with Jefferson County and Clear Creek County Human Services. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-13, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT-01, FOR MAD CREEK DEVELOPMENT, TO SELL AND REMOVE 20,000-30,000 CUBIC YARDS OF LANDSCAPING ROCK: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. In attendance were applicants Clay Hurst and Sabrina Rae, Adjacent Property Owners Frances and Jim Craft, John Voorhees, Bruce Able, Lori Randall, Kathy Dudding, Ryan Zabel, Aaron Cessna, Sally Buckland, Sheila Sands, Mayor of Empire Lori Short, U.S. Forest Service representative Deb Ryon, Zoning Specialist Staci Writer, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Planner II Fred Rollenhagen, and County Assessor Diane Settle.

Ms. Wise made the following presentation: • The property involved four mining lodes: The Abeel, the Bimetallic, the Jim Blaine, and the Tiger lodes. • The current zonings are M-2. • The request was to allow removal and sale of 20,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of surface landscaping rock from a talus slope on the property. • The requested term was for one year, if in full compliance with the stipulations and conditions of the Special Use Permit. • Legal notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on January 23, 2002 and Adjacent Property Owners were notified on January 23, 2002. • A site visit was made to the property on the previous Thursday. • Agency responses were received from the Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Zoning Specialist Staci Writer, the U.S. Forest Service, CDOT, and the Town of Empire. • Copies of the Adjacent Property Owners’ letters were included in the presentation. • Staff had concerns regarding access. If the proposed access was allowed by the Forest Service to be used, there should be no traffic impact upon the nearby residential areas. An

29 alternate access would require further staff review. CDOT will assess any impact to the highway traffic when an access permit was requested. • Ms. Wise stated that she did have a letter from the Forest Service staying there was no access easement across their land at this time. • There was an easement and Special Use Permit for the owners of the Mountain Meadows RV park to use part of this area as a camping ground. The Forest Service would have to review any applications for access permits as to whether it would negatively impact that use. • Ms. Wise received a letter from the RV park owner concerning the negative impacts with regard to any access through his campground area. • Parking and turnaround areas were noted on the map on the Abeel and the Washtenaw Lode. • The upper loading area would be located on the Jim Blaine Lode. The areas of disturbance were shown as white dots on the map and they spanned over four claims. • If the access that was proposed were to be approved by the Forest Service, the concerns raised by the Adjacent Property Owners relating to traffic would be minimal as Mad Creek Development Corporation would be entering the property from further east. However, the rock removal would occur above the residential areas. • A letter was attached from the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD) exempting Mad Creek from a mining permit based on their application and testimony at a public hearing in November of 2001. • Mad Creek was proposing to only remove the top layer of the rock and not down to the bare soil. The MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD determined that Mad Creek would not be extracting rock from the ground so no permit was required from them. • Staff and the applicant agreed that the proposed use, as described, was not mining since there would be no soil disturbance or construction, but does require a Special Use Permit for the commercial sale and removal of landscaping rocks. • Staff noted that there were zoning violations on the Jim Blaine Lode. There were vehicles , junk, and a mobile home on this parcel. There was also an illegal division of land from the Jim Blaine and Bimetallic Lodes where parcels were sold to an Adjacent Property Owner without a County-approved subdivision process. • The applicant stated in their narrative that noise from equipment was the only anticipated impact, no greater than that currently existing from U.S. Hwy 40 and the gravel quarry across the highway. No water use or soil disruption or night operation would take place. Minimal amounts of exhaust from equipment would occur. Staff stated that concerns had been raised by neighbors regarding how dust would be controlled. Some water would have to be used to provide even minimal dust control. Setting specific daytime hours of operation may address the noise concerns raised by neighbors. • The applicant’s narrative stated that all sanitation requirements would be met. One or two portable toilets, serviced by a private company, would be provided. Two or three trash barrels would be provided, and trash would be hauled by the applicant to the local trash compaction or dump facility. Staff stated that this appeared to meet County requirements. A copy of the service agreement for the portable toilets should be provided to the County. • The applicant’s narrative stated that parking would be adequately provided. The applicant had large amounts of land and parking available. The average number of vehicles on site would be three or four cars for workers, one or two trucks, and two or three pieces of equipment. Staff stated that there appeared to be sufficient land available for County requirements. Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel should be contacted for a Driveway Permit. • The applicant’s narrative stated that adequate buffer and screening would be provided when appropriate. The applicant explained that there would be little to no need for screening due to sufficient buffer space between the subject area and neighboring uses. Fencing may be needed around the equipment when not in use. Staff stated that this appeared to meet County requirements. • The applicant’s narrative stated that the use would not be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the present or future inhabitants of Clear Creek County, nor inconsistent with Section 1-Title Authority, and Interpretation, Subsection E. • Staff felt a plan for protection of the residential areas below the work site should be provided, including proposed retaining walls, fencing and gates. If work was performed in

30 the areas indicated to Staff at the site visit, and access was designated specifically by the roads to the east of the residential areas, truck traffic would not appear to negatively impact the residences close to the highway. The Site Development Inspector would require a BMP permit and construction fencing. The slope in the areas of removal was approximately 30% and greater. Also, removal of rock from this area would not prevent additional rocks from falling onto it in the future. • As explained by the applicants to the staff, the activities and access were proposed to be well away from the residential areas. Abatement of the zoning violations and documentation of the applicants’ right to use the proposed access across Forest Service lands for this proposed operation would address staff’s primary concerns. Limiting the hours of equipment operation, fencing to protect the children in the neighborhood, a dust suppression plan, and provision of a service contract for the portable toilets should serve to mitigate negative impacts on the adjacent residential areas. • Staff would also request that the illegal subdivision of the Jim Blaine and Bimettalic Lodes be corrected with a boundary line adjustment process, with submittal of the application prior to any Special Use Permit taking effect. • The uses proposed would not appear to have an undue burden on the neighborhood if the proposed access were legal and designated for this project. • Staff wanted the hours of truck traffic to be set from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, Monday through Friday.

Mr. Hurst made the following presentation: • He understood the concerns over large-scale operations. • Three years ago Mad Creek Development Corporation (MCDC) met with the Planning Commission to discuss multi unit housing on this property due to the need for housing in Clear Creek County. • MCDC met with the Planning Director at the time and she had concerns with the rock behind the parcel so MCDC was told to remove the rock from the slopes to make the area stable. • MCDC investigated the slopes and they were stable but the issue of removing the rock and not impacting the properties below was the challenge. • The plan was to remove only the top layers of rock. • MCDC planned to remove the top layer and use retaining walls and chain link fences to secure the area. • MCDC found out that the rock was nice rock and could be sold for profit. • The rocks would be hand picked and no tractors would be used to remove the rocks. • The rocks would be palletized. • The rockslide area was 3-4 feet deep with rock. • There would be no soil disturbance in the rock removal. • The State Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) stated that the rock removal would not have an impact on water or erosion. • There were some steep slope areas on this parcel. These were the areas that would require fencing. • The rock areas were approximately 300-500 feet from any residential buildings. • One concern of nearby property owners was that the rock would come down in a slide and cause problems. The MLRB did not see this as a concern. The largest rocks would only be approximately 80 pounds. • There should not be any mudslides once the rock was removed. This was an important issue with the MLRB. • Regarding the easement issues, MCDC had unpatented mining claims and the right to travel onto patented claims. • MCDC did meet with the Forest Service and the District Ranger was not aware of this. • The MLRB did find that there was a plan in 1979 for operation of assay work. • With regard to access issues, there were some valid unpatented claims filed right now and had been that way for 30 years to do assay work. • MCDC had no intention of using the roads that traveled through the trailer park or the townhomes. • The MCDC goal was to keep this operation away from the residential areas.

31 • MCDC was in a lawsuit regarding the Arapaho Trailer Court leach field and the court found and ruled that MCDC adversely possessed this roadway in the Arapaho Trailer Court. • MCDC had used this road for over 25 years. • MCDC was doing this work to stabilize the slope and it could bring profit for the company. There would be homes built on this land when the area was rebuilt. • The former Planning Director told MCDC that this rock removal needed to be done. • Mr. Mark Scott did not want to discuss a 6-8 foot security fence around the entire property. He did not want to block off access of the residents in the area from walking their dogs in this area. He wanted a chain link fence further up so the residents could still use the lower land.

Regarding the dust issue, Ms. Rae stated that the only dust that would result from this operation would be the minimal dust from the trucks entering the property. By handpicking the rocks, there would be no dust. She stated that the applicants were willing to meet with the Forest Service to analyze how to minimize dust on the access road. The forklift and bulldozer that would move the pallets of rock would not cause any dust. Mr. Hurst added that there were no contracts for any rock at this time. There were interested parties and it was hard to say how many trucks would be needed. The operation would be limited to the amount of time it took to remove the rock. Twenty trucks per day in use was not the plan.

Mayor of Empire, Lori Short, made the following comments: • The Town of Empire had not submitted a formal complaint but they did unanimously oppose this use. • This use lay within the Town of Empire 3-mile plan boundary. • This use was inconsistent with the Town of Empire Master Plan. • The Town of Empire saw this area as a small controlled growth area with light retail. • The concerns of the Town of Empire were erosion, stability of the hill, the close proximity of the Town of Empire’s watershed. • The watershed had a 5-mile boundary and would this use affect their water? • Traffic, and financial stability of this area for reclamation were concerns of the Town. • How would the area be reclaimed? • Were there guarantees that this project would be started and seen to the finish? • What if the fences were left up there and how was this incorporated in the Special Use Permit? • The Partners for Access to the Woods Project had senior right of way for a bike path through this area.

Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel expressed the following concerns: • Regarding the BMP plan for the project, the County regulations stated that any earth disturbing activity over 2500 yards required a BMP plan, a final grading plan, and revegetation. It also required BMP mitigation to control erosion. These would all be required of this project. • Mr. Vogel’s second concern was the geologic report. By removing the top layer of rock, it did not mean that it would stabilize the slope. • Mr. Vogel’s stated that in his opinion, removing the top layer was opening the area for a slide due to potential erosion. • Regarding the driveway permit, Mr. Vogel asked to see legal access. He had been working with Deb Ryon of the Forest Service to address the concerns on the Forest Service side. • The proposal stated 20,000 to 30,000 cubic yards. This, broken down in one year, would be 30 cubic yards per truck and 1000 trucks per year and four trucks per day. All of these factors should be addressed. • The slope was 30% at the bottom and between 30-45% on the upper part of the property where the rockslide was located.

Forest Service representative Deb Ryon made the following statements: • She had met with the applicant and left him information regarding the proposal.

32 • The Forest Service did have a process for reviewing applications and applying for road access. • The applicant needed to submit an application and then prove that they had no other legal access to their site. • The applicant had to show that they were not negatively impacting Forest Service lands. • It may be up to the County to decide where they wanted that activity to take place. • It may be up to the County to decide if they wanted the applicant to use residential access. • The Forest Service would not give access until they found out from the County what the County wanted. • Any permit the Forest Service would give had to have a certain level of environmental analysis. • The Forest Service only examined impacts on the Forest Service lands and not on the private lands. • The Forest Service permit, if issued, would only be short term and only for this type of operation. • There would be no authorization for any future residential use of the road. That could be met through private land access. • Another issue of concern for the Forest Service was the Mountain Meadows Campground. The Forest Service could overlap permits but would have to consider existing use and the impacts. • The Forest Service would look at mitigation to the lower area and mitigate which could include seasons, time and days of use. The Forest Service would ask for County input on this. • Unpatented mining claims in this area had nothing to do with the commercial operation of common materials. They only had to do with the mining of precious metals on Forest Service lands. The removal of common materials had no weight on this process at all. The Forest Service did not recognize the unpatented mining claims as access to this land at all. If the assay plan of operation was from the 1970’s, it was no longer viable.

Mayor Short stated that regarding the access and the 20-year rule, she understood that if the access was used for surveying, it was still a use.

Adjacent Property Owner John Voorhees made the following statements: • Mr. Voorhees had owned his land since 1978 and MCDC had no access across this land. • He had put up fences and still Mark Scott had trespassed. Mr. Scott was continuing to leave junk in the area. • Regarding adverse possession, Mr. Voorhees was involved in a suit. He had sold part of his land and the buyer in the suit won in court against Mark Scott. • MCDC never had access across his land and he should not be using it illegally. • He had put up fences many times and they were continually taken down.

Adjacent Property Owner Bruce Able made the following statements: • He had concerns regarding the staging and turnaround areas as they were proposed right next to his land. • He was concerned about erosion on the road that traveled up the hill and the potential for dust. • His biggest concern was the larger trucks turning around next to his property.

Alpine Realty representative Lori Randall made the following statements: • She was the property manager for the Empire West Townhomes. • When Mark Scott could not get access through Voorhees, he traveled through the townhome property illegally and tore down their fences.

Empire West Townhomes Board of Directors member Kathy Dunning made the following comments: • She presented a letter that was sent to Mark Scott about illegally crossing their property. • She expressed concerns as Mark Scott had been cited for junk and he was not following County rules.

33 • How did the residents of the townhomes know that Mark Scott wouldn’t do what he wanted anyway? • A bulldozer was a large piece of equipment to load rock. • Once the County gave him access, the townhome residents felt Mark Scott would do whatever he wanted like with the junk issue. • She presented a petition signed by everyone living in the townhomes and they opposed this use. • They had seen Mark Scott on their property on February 9, 2002. He had come in through the Forest Service lands and exited across their lands. It was easier for Mark Scott to transport his garbage/junk across their lands. • The townhome owners had submitted photos to the County of the junk that Mark Scott had been cited for, and he was not complying on this issue either. • Mark Scott had been seen removing large rocks from this area with an end loader and hauling them onto a large truck across their lands.

Adjacent Property Owner Jim Craft expressed concern on disturbance to ground water and the effects on the leach field.

Zoning Enforcement Official Staci Writer made the following statements: • There was a lot of junk on this property. • MCDC was cited for this junk on September 28, 2001. It was handed to the County Attorney on November 7, 2001. The County was waiting to summons MCDC. • Mark Scott responded with a letter that he had the legal right to do what he was doing. • Regarding the mobile home on the property, Mark Scott had stated that this was just for storage. • Mark Scott told the County that his property was rezoned and he was allowed to have his stuff there. Ms. Writer told him that he could not have any junk on the property. • She added that Mark Scott thought that since he was illegally subdivided then it would be okay. Ms. Writer informed him that this was not allowed.

Mr. Craft stated that it appeared that Mark Scott had been allowed to do many things that the County had not charged him for illegal action on. If this project were approved, who at the County would enforce it? Ms. Dunning agreed stating that he had been cited for junk but he still continued his activity. Mr. Craft added that Mark Scott had illegally crossed his land as well. Ms. Writer stated that she was waiting to summons Mark Scott through the County Attorney and then they would proceed to court. Ms. Dunning asked how the junk would be removed from the land. Ms. Writer replied that nearby property owners would have to decide whether they would allow it to be removed across their land in order to get rid of it.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that he was waiting to see if the zoning violations were resolved with the possible Special Use Permit. The County was not giving anyone permission to trespass on another person’s land. Mr. Loeffler requested time to research the 20-year rule on access. If the road was on the Forest Service land, then there were no prescriptive rights. This was not allowed against governments. He had discussed the road through the Voorhees property with Mr. Hurst in the past and was unable to find that it was public. This was found to be a private easement. Mr. Vogel requested that access be determined prior to approval of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Loeffler stated that the applicant had made their application on the premise that they would use the access across the Forest Service land. If the Special Use Permit were approved, it would have to be conditional on obtaining a permit from the Forest Service. Mr. Craft asked about access for public utility as he had an easement for power lines. Mr. Loeffler agreed to look into this issue.

Sally Buckland stated that she had concerns as holder of Certificate of Purchase on these claims. She asked about the County granting a permit prior to the redemption date on June 20, 2002. Mr. Loeffler replied that this was legally irrelevant. MCDC owned the property at present and no one else did. MCDC can ask for land use approval as the owner. The interest of the people who bought the Certificate of Purchase (foreclosure) was not a title interest that the County was entitled to take into account on land use hearings. There was a redemption right until the June date for the applicant to redeem the certificate.

34 • Mayor Short stated that rock removal on 30-degree slopes did not fit in the Town of Empire Master Plan. • Ms. Dunning asked if MCDC would have to get insurance for any accidents that could happen with this use. Commissioner Watrous replied that this could be included in the Special Use Permit stipulations.

Regarding the discussion of slope stabilization with the former Planning Director, Ms. Wise said she had spoken with former Director Susan Pacek and that Ms. Pacek said she had no recollection of this discussion of rock removal for slope stabilization.

Ms. Rae made the following statements: • She was a member of MCDC board of Directors of which Mark Scott was a part. He was not the only entity on the board. • She requested that the Board of County Commissioners review this application as being from a corporation of many members and not just as Mark Scott. • She clarified that the MCDC preference for access was across the Forest Service lands. This would be the least impact on Adjacent Property Owners. • MCDC would look into the proposed lawsuit against them. • MCDC would research Mr. Vogel’s requested requirements. • She requested a copy of the Empire Master Plan. Mayor Short agreed to assist in this. Mayor Short stated that the Town of Empire did not have control in this area but they did have review. She asked that the Board of County Commissioners consider the Empire Town board’s comments. • Ms. Rae requested to attend an Empire Town board meeting. Mayor Short agreed.

Mr. Hurst made the following statements: • The slope issues were addressed with the MLRB and they did not think the water would be impacted. • He recognized everyone’s concerns. • With regard to the amount of rock, the MLRB stated that this was a minimal amount of rock and not a concern for them. • He did not think the corporation would be removing too much rock. • The 30-degree slopes began further up the slope and they would not be building on these slopes. Any homes would be located on the flat portions. Mr. Able stated that MCDC did not own the flat portions of the property.

Commissioner Sorensen asked in what capacity Ms. Rae worked for MCDC. Ms. Rae replied that she was employed by MCDC as the project manager, from getting the Special Use Permit to the disposal of the rock. She was not an attorney or a geologist. Commissioner Sorensen asked who the other members of the corporation were. Ms. Rae replied that Mark Scott was 51% owner. The other members were Jack and Kitty Brown, Louise Vogel, Marilyn Marxuach, and Clay Hurst. Commissioner Sorensen asked if a geologic analysis was prepared for this project. Mr. Hurst replied that Pat Mosch had performed a geologic survey on the area. Commissioner Sorensen asked about the conflict with the trail for Partners for Access to the Woods. Mr. Hurst replied that MCDC was in favor of this trail.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if the County had regulations with regard to turnarounds and driveways from nearby adjacent property lines. Mr. Vogel replied that there were no setback requirements but there were standards, i.e., minimum width and minimum curves. This would be addressed in the driveway permit, which would require a detailed site plan.

Mr. Able stated that the map that Ms. Wise sent out was not accurate as to how the unpatented claims were located. Mr. Vogel added that it appeared from BLM records that the unpatented claims expired the prior year. Mr. Hurst replied that they had been made current.

Commissioner Sorensen asked about the land being prepared for residential use when it was still zoned M-2. She clarified that if the Special Use Permit was approved, it was not an incremental approval of a zoning change to this land. This permit was to remove rock and not to build homes. Mr. Hurst agreed stating that MCDC saw them as separate issues. Ms. Rae added that MCDC

35 saw this permit as the first step towards rezoning. Mr. Hurst noted that the discussion with former Planning Director Susan Pacek did happen and he was in the room during it. Ms. Pacek had told the applicant that rock removal had to occur before development. Mr. Loeffler replied that the conversation with Ms. Pacek was irrelevant and this application stood on its own. Regarding the rights of the holder of the Trustee’s of Certificate of Purchase, Commissioner Sorensen was surprised that someone with a large financial interest in this land had no right to be considered in this land use decision. This was in conflict with the MCDC position brought forth a couple of years ago. There was a MCDC president that signed off on documents for a rezoning and now they were coming back and saying that he wasn’t representing the interest of all the people in the corporation. It was argued that this land use decision ought not to stand since the corporation did not approve the President’s actions. Now, the Board had a case with someone with large financial interest in this land and their wishes did not have to be considered in this application. This appeared contradictory. Mr. Hurst replied that he did not think the other party had a possessory interest in the property right. It was more of a lien until the period of redemption had passed. Ms. Rae added that the interest they did hold does become substantial after the redemption period. This was the same as buying tax liens on property. No court would recognize anything held on the land until the period of redemption had passed.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the County regulations could provide that the land use application had to be made by the title owner and the lien holder but at present they were not written this way. Until the redemption date, the certificate holder was only a lienholder. The County regulations gave the lienholder no standing. Mayor Short asked if the lienholder became the titleholder, did this void the Special Use Permit? Mr. Loeffler replied that, no, the permit attached to the land. Ms. Ryon added that this was correct, unless it crossed Forest Service land. Then their access permit would terminate with the landowner.

Ms. Randall asked that a measuring device be installed to not allow the applicant to remove more rock than was requested in their application.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the hearing in order to obtain a geologic analysis, give the Town of Empire more opportunity to review the use with the applicant, allow time to research the layout of the trail through this property, and to clear up the Forest Service access question. Commissioner Sorensen still had concerns with the Certificate of Purchase (foreclosure) and the zoning violations. Commissioner Sorensen set the continuation date for April 16, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WAIVER OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FOR CARL STODDARD, SOUTH SPRING GULCH: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Administrative Assistant Cindy Condon, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver presented a draft resolution. Commissioner Watrous stated that she had received a letter of objection regarding the case. Mr. Weaver read the letter into the record. The letter was from William and Terry Schaefer. Mr. Weaver stated that Mr. Stoddard had not paid any impact fees and had received a building permit 1.5 years ago. Mr. Weaver noted that there was no County designation for this road to which Mr. Stoddard referred. Code Enforcement Official Lynette Kelsey attended the hearing. Ms. Kelsey stated that this was Mr. Stoddard’s second building project. The building permit for this project had not yet been issued and it would be $1200. Mr. Weaver stated that a memo from Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen noted that a $4100 improvement on this road could be a credit towards traffic impact fees if this was a County maintained road. Mr. Weaver stated that the County had allowed this in the past. Commissioner Watrous requested time to see what Mr. Stoddard completed before giving him a credit. County Attorney Bob Loeffler replied that the traffic impact fee resolution allowed for credits but not in situations such as this one. The credit was not supposed to be allowed until the work was completed. Secondly, the work had to meet County standards.

Mr. Weaver requested more time to consider the case with respect to the Schaefer letter. Given the complaints from the Schaefer’s, it did not sound like Mr. Stoddard followed the County BMP regulations. For the future hearing, Commissioner Sorensen requested to know if the County

36 really had to fix one of Stoddard’s previous projects. Ms. Kelsey noted that there were three other homes off this road and this proposed one by Stoddard would be the fourth. Mr. Weaver agreed to work with Mr. Loeffler on this case. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to March 5,2002 at 2:30 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF STANLEY SEGMENT OF BIKE TRAIL ENHANCEMENT CONTRACT: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver stated that this was a large State contract and he needed more time to review it. He requested a two week continuation. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to March 5, 2002 at 3:30 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF CSBG GRANT FOR THE YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM: Administrative Assistant Beth Luther presented. Ms. Luther stated that the Youth Services program had applied for a CSBG mini-grant through the Human Services department and had received $2670 for their program to assist with paying for YEP trips. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the grant award for the Youth Services program. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 26, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SIGNING OF LETTER FOR THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION TO SUBMIT MATCHING FUNDS FOR A GOCO GRANT: Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young presented. Trust for Public Lands representative Katy Paris, Open Space Commission members Pete Helseth, Sue Howell, and Fran Enright attended the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to commit matching funds of the Open Space Commission Fund totaling $150,000 and a letter of support. Commissioner Poirot seconded. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the Open Space Commission had proposed to make a $600,000 GOCO application for which it proposed to contribute $150,000 as the local match requirement. Mr. Young stated that the GOCO application would be from Trust for Public Lands. The vote was unanimous.

PUBLIC HEARING FOR COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING THE CSBG GRANT FOR HUMAN SERVICES: Human Services Director Cindy Dicken presented. Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault and Administrative Assistant Candy Morehouse attended the hearing. Ms Dicken stated that one requirement of the grant was to hold public hearings regarding the grant. Human Services had submitted a grant application for a CSBG grant and had received funding. Funding was increased from the prior year. The Board for the CSBG grant would have another application process for CSBG mini-grants. A portion of the grant was for Emergency Services for people within federal poverty guidelines. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve

37 the CSBG grant for Human Services as outlined in the grant. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-08, TDR CASE #02-TDR-01, FOR JAMES AND TINA CARINO TO TRANSFER BUILDING RIGHTS FROM THE EDITH LODE (M-1) TO THE OLA LODE AND MILLSITE (M-2), UTE CREEK ROAD: Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Applicants James and Tina Carino, Zoning Enforcement Official Staci Writer, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson, Planning Director Carol Wise, Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault, and Planning Commission member Donna Moody attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following statements: • He stated that this was a continuation of the prior hearing. • He had met with the applicants on what requirements they would complete. • Citizen Steve Schultz had submitted comments regarding this case in his personal opinion on the denial of the case. • The Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault had composed an Agreement to Abate for the applicants regarding the zoning violations on this property. • The agreement included dates for the ISDS to be completed and the building permit processes. • The applicants agreed to sign the Agreement to Abate if their TDR case was approved by the Board of County Commissioners.

Ms. Thibault made the following comments: • After the last hearing, she met with the Carinos and all the departments involved with this case worked together to correct the zoning violations and to outline a timetable for the permits needed. • Ms. Thibault did inform the Carinos that if they signed the Agreement to Abate, they would have to plead guilty to the zoning violations in court. • The County would then ask the District Attorney if she would approve a deferred judgement based on the stipulation that the Carinos would comply and agree to the terms of the Abatement for a period up to three years. • The Special Use Permit and the zoning violations stipulation would have to work simultaneously. • If the TDR was not approved, then the Agreement to Abate was null and void.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that if the Board of County Commissioners wanted to approve the TDR application, the zoning enforcement was taken care of through the criminal process. With the deferred judgement, this motivated the applicants to do all the steps necessary to bring their property into compliance according to a timetable. If the applicants failed to complete these steps, or in a timely manner, they would go to court and be sentenced. This plan was a motivation for the applicants to move forward on the zoning violations.

Ms. Carino stated that most of the zoning violations would be completed by August. Ms. Thibault stated that the temporary dwelling was not in compliance but a Special Exception would be in place. This agreement for the Carinos assumed that they would comply with their permits and were deemed sufficient for the Special Use Permit and the building permit granted. Mr. Loeffler added that the Carinos would have to have their building completed by the summer of 2003. Ms. Wise did not think there was a three year limit. Special Exceptions were granted for a period of time and it would be tied to the building permit. This Special Exception was to be granted by the Board of Adjustment as well as the term of it. This Special Exception permit was different from a Special Use Permit.

Ms. Moody made the following comments: • Regarding the Planning Commission hearing, the draft resolutions were reviewed but the resolution for denial was not discussed. • The Planning Commission vote was 4-3 and the people voting no, understood that the denial resolution was not covered.

38 Ms. Wise stated that the concern of the Planning Commission was whether they understood what the vote actually was. The Planning Commission had concerns on the property’s condition but thought this would be dealt with by the courts and the Planning staff. Mr. Loeffler noted that the court case had been continued so the Board and the Planning Commission did not yet know the outcome of this case. Mr. Loeffler stated that if the Planning Commission moved to approve an application, it rendered the denial resolution irrelevant. Since four Planning Commission members approved the application, it made the denial resolution a moot question.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if the present structures on the property met with the County code for living quarters other than the ISDS issue. Ms. Thibault replied that this would entail a site visit. Mr. Rollenhagen added that since there was not a building permit, the structure was never inspected. Ms. Thibault stated that the requirements of the Special Exception would deal with this issue. Ms. Carino stated that their structure was very sound. Commissioner Sorensen wanted the wording changed so that a Building Inspector would inspect the structures. Ms. Wise replied that the Board of Adjustment would consider the report from the Building Inspector when considering Special Exceptions and whether the Building Inspector found the structure safe or not. Ms. Wise added that the County could not assure whether the Board of Adjustment would approve the Special Exception or not for the applicant. Ms. Thibault was adding a clause to the resolution stating the repercussions if the Special Exception was not approved. Mr. Loeffler stated that the applicants could still construct but they could not live on the parcel if this happened..

Mr. Loeffler asked the applicants if they had planned on pleading guilty in accordance with the Agreement to Abate. Ms. Carino replied that they would plead guilty and sign the Agreement to Abate. Mr. Loeffler suggested that the Agreement to Abate include a clause for what happened if the Carinos did not abate. The Carinos agreed with this plan and were ready to proceed with the process. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the hearing to March 12, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sorensen then made the motion to authorize the Zoning Enforcement Specialist to sign the Agreement to Abate with the Carinos on the language was acceptable relating to Special Exceptions and reflected the consequences if there was no compliance. Commissioner Poirot seconded. Commissioner Sorensen added to her motion that the dates may change on this agreement. Commissioner Poirot amended his motion and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: Richard and Linda Yowell, Lowe Division of Land, East of Idaho Springs: Linda Yowell attended the hearing. County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Ms. Settle stated that this home was listed as having 4 bedrooms instead of two. Ms. Settle recommended reducing the valuation to reflect only the two bedrooms. Ms. Yowell agreed. Ms. Settle stated that the taxes would be amended for 1999 and 2000, and 2001 was already amended. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a reduction in value. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Steve and Brook Barry, two parcel on B 66, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Barry party. Ms. Settle recommended denial on one lot as the Barry’s claimed the Town of Georgetown was denying him access. Ms. Settle was requesting a letter in writing from the Town to this effect. She added that the Barry’s owned a lot in front of these lots that access could be gained from. Ms. Settle recommended denial on the lot that had access and an adjustment for the lot that did not have access and did not appear buildable. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial on R- 09540 and partial approval on R-09538. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Cassandra Schenk, B27, L C, Silver Plume: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Schenk party. Ms. Settle stated that the condition of the home should be valued at fair instead of average. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment in the condition of the home. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Leland and Mary Grebe, TR D TR 2, Circle K Ranch: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Grebe party. Ms. Settle stated that these

39 property owners had submitted an appraisal and the Assessor’s office decided to reduce their value. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Verona, Alberta, & Sherwood Zimmerman, B23, MS #586B and Imps, Silver Plume: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Zimmerman party. Ms. Settle stated that this home in Silver Plume should be listed as a fair location instead of good and the condition of the home should be rated as fair too. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Herbert Geyer, L79, U1, Winterland Subdivision: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Geyer party. Ms. Settle stated that this house needed to be adjusted as having no finished basement and only one bathroom. This would reduce the value of the home. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment to reflect the correct number of rooms. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mary Himschoot, Pittsburg TR 2, Soda Creek Road: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Himschoot party. Ms. Settle stated that this parcel had been divided and the one parcel had a home and the other parcel had the leach field. Ms. Settle requested to value the leach field parcel as residential instead of vacant since it could not be built on due to the leach field. She was unsure of why this parcel was divided this way. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of listing the parcel as residential instead of vacant land. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Kaufman Family Trust, Mining Claims: Vina, Oretta, Strip, Perry, Triangle, Mill Creek Area: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Kaufman party. Ms. Settle stated that two of these claims were valued as mining claims and the rest were not. She wanted to value all the parcels the same. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of valuing the mining claims equally. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The claims would be valued at $200 per acre. Richard Bragg, Casino Tunnel #4993, Virginia Canyon Road: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Bragg party. Ms. Settle stated that this claim crossed the gulch and was very steep. She wanted to correct the topography rating on the parcel and reduce the value. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor‘s recommendation of an adjustment in topography. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. William and Brenda Wallace, L43-ADE and Imps, Circle K Ranch: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Wallace party. Ms. Settle stated that she recommended denial on this protest as comparables supported the value of this property. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Wayne Waddington, B E Lot 15 & 16, Silver Plume: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Waddington party. Ms. Settle recommended denial on the lot with the home and a partial downward adjustment on the vacant lot. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial on the home and partial adjustment on the vacant lot. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-22, NAMING OF ROAD OFF OF LITTLE SQUAW PASS ROAD IN PINE VALLEY SUBDIVISION TO BLACK EAGLE ROAD: Mapping Director Matt Taylor and Secretary III Cyndie Ruschmyer presented. Resident Gary Wyman attended the hearing. Ms. Ruschmyer stated that she had received another letter from this Homeowners Association with 2 of the 3 homeowners in approval of a road name but the third family did not approve. Mr. Wyman stated that he and his family had picked a name and they thought the process was over. Mr. Taylor stated that the County had given a list of names to the homeowners that would not conflict with the Jefferson County road names. The Mapping Department was also trying to suggest names that would not confuse Emergency Services. Ms. Ruschmyer stated that she could give the homeowners another list of names to

40 choose from. Commissioner Poirot stated that if they did not agree on a name, the name would be Black Eagle Road. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the hearing for two weeks to allow the homeowners to agree on a name. The continued hearing date would be March 19, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded. Mr. Taylor informed Mr. Wyman that the address numbers would change for the homes. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) REGARDING CONTROL OF CONFIDENTIAL DATA: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Mr. Small stated that annually the State updated their MOU’s with the County governments and towns regarding their distribution of confidential data on sales tax. This MOU stated that the County would safeguard this data and maintain accurate records. The State was the agent for collecting County sales tax. He requested that the County continue to receive this information. This was not a new agreement and the County would receive it annually. The State was the only group that would actively pursue an audit. This data was good information for the County Assessor. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the MOU for Confidential Data. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-20, RESOLUTION TO CREATE THE SLACKER HALF MARATHON/5K RACE FUND TO COLLECT RACE PROCEEDS AND SPONSORSHIPS FOR CHARITY: Chief Accountant Carl Small and Clear Creek Courant reporter Stephanie Vessaly attended the hearing. Mr. Small made the following statements: • This fund would serve as the agent and the County would be the agency. • This would be a trust fund where the funds would be accumulated and held. • This was not a budget fund of the County. • This was separate County control. • This resolution stated that when the race expenses were tabulated, the money would come from race revenues to pay these expenses and would come from this fund. • The expenses would be paid out of the Special Projects Fund and this fund would be reimbursed by race collections. • Any remaining funds would be divided in three equal parts for the three charities. • The Treasurer’s office was allowed to collect a 1% administration fee on funds deposited unless the Board of County Commissioners refused to allow this. This would cover the administration fee for the Treasurer’s office. • Mr. Small stated that he had received comment that some staff were opposed to this and did not think this should be a tax supported activity.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the Treasurer’s office should collect their fee. Ms. Luther stated that this was a temporary fund until the race obtained its 501C-3 status. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-20, to create the Slacker Half Marathon/5K Race Fund to collect race proceeds and sponsorships for charity. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-35, RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER THOMAS A. BENNHOFF FOR 25 YEARS OF MERITORIOUS SERVICE TO CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-35, in appreciation of Chief Probation Officer Thomas A. Bennhoff for 25 years of meritorious service to Clear Creek County. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

41 MINUTES - FEBRUARY 27, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 27, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice for the following: • The County Attorney to bring enforcement action on certain zoning violations per CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • To conference with the County Attorney to receive legal advice regarding eligibility to purchase former BLM lands per Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b); • To conference with the County Attorney to receive legal advice regarding Fox Gulch litigation per Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b); • To conference with the County Attorney to receive legal advice regarding waivers of fees per Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b); • To conference with the County Attorney to receive legal advice regarding personnel matters to dicsuss specific personnel but not regarding the Board of County Commissioners or elected officials per Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(f); • To conference with the County Attorney to receive legal advice regarding Tim Nobel easement per Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b); • To conference with the County Attorney to receive legal advice regarding personnel policies per Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The Board of County Commissioners concluded the executive session. The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 1, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 1, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of: • To conference with the County Attorney to receive legal advice regarding Beaver Brook Residences Development and the zoning applicable to it as allowed by CRS 24-6- 402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The Board of County Commissioners concluded the executive session. The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 5, 2002

42 The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 5, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Jo Ann Sorensen, County Attorney Bob Loeffler and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Robert Poirot was absent.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FEE WAIVER FOR IDAHO SPRINGS WATER TREATMENT PLANT: Idaho Springs Mayor Dennis Lunbery and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended. Service Unit Manager of Land Use Deb Kirkham presented. Mayor Lunbery made the following statements: • In the initial conversation, the Board of County Commissioners graciously offered to waive these fees. • The City had been working through the process of public ways and was presenting to the Board of Adjustment at a hearing tonight. • The City requested the County to waive the fees listed for the Idaho Springs water treatment plant by Ms. Kirkham.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that in the spirit of making sure the City had water and under the right standards, that the County should waive the fees for the Idaho Springs water treatment plant. Mayor Lunbery stated that the detailed design review was under way and the City was paying the cost of this. Design reviews had been completed by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Their concerns were with the systems and they had no problems with the designs. The water treatment plant building was out of the flood plain and the concern of the easement would be addressed at the Board of Adjustment hearing later. Mayor Lunbery stated that there would be less staff at this new site than previously but there were requirements by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment that staff had to be on site when producing water. The plant would be alarmed and would operate most of the time without an operator. This would reduce traffic and personnel. Commissioner Sorensen noted that the bulk of the fees being waived had to do with traffic impact fees. Mayor Lunbery stated that they had used the County requirements for the wind and snow loading. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to waive the fees for the City of Idaho Springs water treatment plant totaling $14,360.30. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMBULANCE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN SUMMIT AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTIES: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Abrahamson stated that one of their fleet ambulances was having trouble and Summit County had offered to loan them an ambulance under contract. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the contract was acceptable. Mr. Abrahamson stated that this ambulance would be returned to Summit County as soon as the Clear Creek County ambulance was repaired. This vehicle would have the depreciation accounted for in the operating budget. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the ambulance loan agreement between Clear Creek County and Summit County. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-18, TO ESTABLISH A NOXIOUS WEED ADVISORY BOARD: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Allen requested to continue the hearing until West End Road and Bridge Foreman Patrick Buckley and County Attorney Bob Loeffler could research the resolution more in depth. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to March 26, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH SUE THIBAULT, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY: County Attorney Bob Loeffler presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler stated that this was an employment contract for Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault. This position was not in the Compensation Plan for County employees but she would receive the same benefits. This contract set the salary for the position of the Assistant County Attorney. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the employment contract with Sue Thibault, Assistant County Attorney. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

43 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAHP GRANT AWARD FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE WIC CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta and Clear Creek Metropolitan Recreation District Director Mark Cucinella presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. The CAHP grant was based on physical activity and nutrition. This was a one-year grant for $10,000 and Ms. Barta hoped that the community would continue this program. Commissioner Sorensen thought this grant was a great way for people to change their lifestyles. Mr. Cucinella stated that this program was restricted to those people that had some medical need for these services. It would be open for $100 for anyone participating. These services were priced competitively and the grant was paying 70% of the cost. Ms. Barta stated that the targeted population had to fit certain guidelines for fat composition, based on metabolism and certain weight for height ration. This study was also linked to cancer as some research showed that obesity and lack of exercise predisposed people to cancer. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the CAHP grant award for the Nursing Department and the Rec District. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Barta presented the WIC Contract Change Order. She stated that WIC was standard each year and the funding had been declining. Sixteen percent of the County caseload came from Gilpin County so Ms. Barta would be approaching their Board of County Commissioners for supplemental funding. Ms. Barta noted that her WIC caseload was increasing due to income guidelines and the economy at present. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the WIC Contract Change Order. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-19, REZONING CASE #266, FOR PORTIONS OF HAVENS MILLSITE AND LODE FROM M-1 TO CTR AND BUFFER, ALAVARADO RAOD, FOR SUZNE RAYMOND, WEST OF LAWSON: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Applicants Suzen Raymond and Dan Stonebraker, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Environmental Health Department Chris Etcheson, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Planning Director Carol Wise, Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel, Planner I Tony Atencio, and Adjacent Property Owner Merinel Williams attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following presentation: • The applicants were Suzen Raymond and Dan Stonebraker. • The original request was for a split zoning of Commercial-Tourism/Recreation and Buffer, however, after discussion during the Planning Commission, the request was to change the zoning designation of the Havens Millsite and Havens Lode from the current zoning designation of M-1 to Commercial - Tourism/Recreation to allow for a river rafting company and provide for associated tent camping. Camping would be limited to rafting customers and not available to the general public. • The property was 8.07 acres of vacant land and located approximately 1/8 of a mile west of Lawson on Alvarado Road. • Zoning of the surrounding properties varied from Commercial Neighborhood to the immediate east, Commercial Retail Office to the immediate west, M-1 to the south and I- 70 on the north. • The very west end of Lawson included various parcels zoned Mobile Home, MR-1, M-1 and one Planned Development which allowed for workshop space for manufacturing, processing, and fabrication of building components. • Access to the property was proposed from two locations on Alvarado Road, which the County maintains as a primary 1 road and was designed for up to 1500 vehicles per day. Tim Allen, County Road and Bridge Supervisor, had stated concerns with the eastern entrance, which may need to be moved westward to allow for the required minimum sight distance of 250 feet. Recent traffic counts for this portion of Alvarado Road indicate minimum traffic impacts were anticipated from the proposed business. • The business was anticipated to increase property tax revenue by $2225 with the addition of the first building. These taxes would increase again when the second structure was built in approximately 5 years. Sales taxes would also be collected for on-site sales of

44 t-shirts and other rafting accessories. Since most rafting trips were only a ½ day, off-site sales taxes were also anticipated to increase. • A site characteristics analysis indicated the northern most portion of both parcels were located with an area of 100 year flood. Prior to any site disturbance on the property north of Alvarado Road, the exact location of the floodplain will need to be determined by a licensed engineer. • The Havens Millsite was adjacent to the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District boundary. The Sanitation District had stated that they would not allow this property a sewer tap because it was outside of the District’s boundary. The applicants originally proposed a contained system utilizing a vault for employees and structure related sewage disposal and two vault privies for the camping and rafting customers. Mr. Etcheson stated that prior to consideration of a permit for vault privies, the applicant would be required to demonstrate clear refusal of the a documented petition to enter into the district and connect to the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District. Detailed engineered plans would be required prior to issuance of any building permit and camping would be prohibited until the business structure was established. The applicants had hired an engineer for a detailed site analysis, who Ms. Kastens received a fax from, stating, due to recent weather conditions, had not bee able to perform a percolation test or other site analysis. • The applicants had received a well permit for the Havens Millsite that allowed for commercial uses, however, theses uses were restricted from any purpose outside the business structure. Since campers would not have access to water from the well, they would provide their own water. Disposal of any camping wastewater would be provided. • Referral agencies and Adjacent Property Owners were sent notice on the 23rd of January and notice for this hearing was published in the Courant on January 30th. • Adjacent Property Owner, Clarence Padilla, owner of the Link Millsite, stated he was 100% for the zoning change. • Clear Creek County Lands stated their department was currently working with an engineer to evaluate the feasibility of a sewer line extension from the Rocky Mountain Village to Lawson, which would follow Alvarado Road and serve the three County owned commercial properties. • 17 written statements in support of the rezoning were received from various County residents. • Comments were received from the County Sheriff’s office, Ambulance, Environmental Health Department, Site Development, Road and Bridge, Central Clear Creek Sanitation District, Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation, Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association, and these comments were outlined in the staff report. The Colorado Division of Wildlife, CDOT, and the Dumont-Lawson-Downieville Homeowners Association did not respond. • The Planning Commission recommended approval as outlined in their resolution and Staff felt the proposal, as presented in the site plan, met all zoning requirements within the C-TR district and recommended approval pursuant to draft resolution #02-19.

The Board expressed concerns with the property’s ISDS situation. Ms. Kastens stated that the Planning Commission required that the property could not be developed until it had an ISDS plan that met with County regulations or unless they could connect with the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District. Mr. Etcheson added that he did try to get information from Central Clear Creek Sanitation District and their only response was that a tap was not available. Mr. Etcheson thought it would be better for the applicant to connect with Central Clear Creek Sanitation District than to have a vault system and have to haul water. Mr. Etcheson required from the applicant a clear denial letter from Central Clear Creek Sanitation District and that it was within their rights to deny. One Planning Commission member had suggested that the applicant’s connect with another parcel they had that was already connected to Central Clear Creek Sanitation District and extend the line to this new parcel. This would entail a pumping system to pump the waste back up to the connected parcel. Ms. Kastens stated that the applicants were now considering a traditional septic system that would have to be pumped. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the Planning Commission realized that this was a zoning hearing and they could not base their decision on a specific type of sewage approach. It was left to the Environmental Health Department and their regulations.

45 Commissioner Sorensen asked what the range of uses was for the C-TR zoning. Ms. Kastens replied that the following uses could be done: filling station, outdoor recreation, fairgrounds, rodeo ground, putt putt, indoor recreation activities, bowling, mine tours, cultural facilities, tourist related trade, retail facilities, craft fairs, meeting hall, assembly hall, riding stables, short term rental units, lodging, restaurant, and a telecommunications site. The site was not conducive to a filling station due to close proximity to the creek.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that she did discuss with the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District the possibility of expanding their system. They informed her that they was close to their 80% capacity at which time the State would require them to provide an expansion plan. This was their rationale for not offering service to people outside the district. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the 80% capacity required an expansion plan and at 95% it required more construction for more capacity at the plant. Ms. Kastens stated that Senior Planner Lisa Leben- Vogel had been working with an engineer who stated that expansion of the plant to cover this section of Alvarado Road would pay for the expansion plan for the district. Commissioner Sorensen stated that if this was true, this hearing decision would be easier but until then, approving the case was approving a range of possibilities that could be detrimental. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that no matter what was done on the property, it still had to meet ISDS regulations. Mr. Etcheson agreed stating that the ISDS regulations did address commercial uses such as this one. If the commercial use utilized over 2000 gallons per day, they would have to obtain a permit from the State.

Mr. Vogel stated that in 1995/1996, he was on the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District board. Once the district reached a certain percentage they were required an expansion plan. In 1995, the district was at 60% capacity and now they were close to 80%. Another issue to consider with this property was that camping was already happening on the parcel and there were no services at all. Secondly, the type of business proposed was only seasonal during the summer. Mr. Vogel had concerns with regard to the floodplain and building inside of it. Regarding tailings near the parcel, Mr. Vogel had examined this and it was more of a waste rock than tailings.

Mr. Stonebraker stated that if the property rezoning was approved, they still had to abide by all County regulations before doing anything. With the vault system, if their customers smelled sewage, they would not return. The applicants would assure that the system was operating properly. The applicants did not want a bad location and smell.

Ms. Moody expressed concerns with regard to traffic. She did not think they had considered the event of 10 buses running people back and forth for rafting trips to this area. In the summer, the traffic was a bad situation at the intersection in Downieville. Ms. Kastens replied that traffic was investigated at the Lawson culverts. These counts were taken during the Christmas holidays. During large ski weekends, the numbers were the same as summer traffic due to skiers using the frontage road to avoid highway traffic. Road and Bridge did not address the Downieville area, as this was State roadway. Commissioner Sorensen requested to investigate traffic with regard to this type of business and its commercial zoning. She asked what the neighboring zonings were in the area. Ms. Kastens replied that adjacent zonings were C-NE and C-RO and the County Lands’ parcel was C-RO. Commissioner Sorensen stated that running 10 buses was better than dozens of cars and more responsible. Ms. Kastens added that Road and Bridge Supervisor Tim Allen stated that Alvarado Road was designed for 1500 cars per day and the current count was 435. County Attorney Bob Loeffler asked if this was rezoned commercial and would use Alvarado Road to connect to a State road, would that require an access permit. Mr. Vogel replied that it would not. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Board had been working on ways to control traffic on the frontage roads to be only used by locals and not overflow from the highway.

Ms. Williams expressed the following concerns: • She had concerns that were long term and short term. • Ms. Williams was a resident of Lawson and lived a ¼ mile from this property. • She did not feel the zoning districts were similar in the area to this property. • She had concerns on traffic and use of the frontage road. She thought a traffic study should be required.

46 • Ms. Williams did not like the idea of seasonal traffic but wanted more year round retail businesses. • Ms. Williams thought the County should be replacing the dwindling resources of the Henderson Mine with year round businesses. • Tourism and seasonal businesses employment was very low paying and the County did not need more of this. • Another impact of seasonal and tourism employment was the lack of affordable housing the County. • The County needed more commercial businesses but not more tourism based businesses. • This property and the County lands parcels were needing a type of sewage disposal that was beyond what was currently available. • She thought the Board of County Commissioners had to consider all the possible uses that could be at this location. • Tourism businesses had the most impact and the least financial benefit.

Mr. Stonebraker stated that his company had employed many students that lived in Lawson. They were attempting to bring young people into the industry. He would rather see a young person working for their company than a fast food restaurant. Ms. Kastens stated that the applicants operated their business in the previous year out of leased space in Idaho Springs.

Commissioner Sorensen recognized that people were already camping on this parcel without services. By having a legal entity on this parcel, the informal camping would disappear and this would benefit the health and welfare of the County. She understood the sewage disposal issue and she was in favor of the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District expanding to accommodate this area and the County lands. Commissioner Sorensen asked if there was a way to take a second look at traffic impacts and estimates. Ms. Kastens replied that there was a book to be acquired that had analyzed traffic impacts but it was very expensive to purchase. Commissioner Sorensen stated that possibly a conditional approval could be done requiring commercial businesses to connect to Central Clear Creek Sanitation District if the district expanded. County Attorney Bob Loeffler replied that the Board of County Commissioners could not do this, as this was a zoning hearing. Mr. Etcheson added that the ISDS codes stated that if a business was located within 400 feet of a sewer district, they could not have an ISDS permit but had to connect to the district. Ms. Kastens stated that the applicants were pursuing an engineer to examine the area and provide a detailed site analysis to see if a full ISDS would work. Mr. Etcheson replied that if the hearing was continued for traffic impact research, he could research the ISDS issues.

Commissioner Sorensen had concerns with the rezoning and with the inevitability that the sewer district would have to be expanded and the new applicants would have to help pay for this expansion. She did not want the current users to have to pay for the expansion of this system. Commissioner Sorensen wanted to continue the hearing to allow more time for traffic and ISDS research. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to April 2, 2002 at 2:30 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and asked for traffic numbers traveling east on the frontage road from the Easter Seals Handicamp. Ms. Raymond stated that they had requested the engineer to perform the ISDS study. They had preferred to connect with the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District but they had refused them. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DR. KATHERINE DRAPEAU AS THE MEDICAL ADVISOR FOR THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Service Unit Manager of Human Services Cindy Dicken, Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson, Emergency Manager Laura Nay, Service Unit Manager of Land Use Deb Kirkham, and Dr. Katherine Drapeau attended the hearing. Ms. Barta stated that Dr. Drapeau was very familiar with Clear Creek County and had performed as the Medical Advisor for Summit County in the past. Dr. Drapeau was in favor of this appointment. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approval Resolution #02-34 appointing Dr. Katherine Drapeau as the Medical Advisor for the Clear Creek County Public Health Department. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

47 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BIOTERRORISM PLAN AND THE SIGNING OF THE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, and Emergency Manager Laura Nay attended the hearing. Ms. Barta made the following statements: • She was presenting the Bioterrorism Plan and the Mutual Aid Agreement as two different documents. The Bioterrorism Plan was for discussion and the Mutual Aid Agreement had been reviewed by County Attorney Bob Loeffler and was ready for signature by the Board of County Commissioners. • Mr. Loeffler agreed that this was a standard agreement and accepted the agreement to form. • The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment kept records of all mutual aid agreements in the State. • The Mutual Aid Agreement was in the case of an emergency epidemic.

Ms. Nay stated that the County had always had an Emergency Plan but since the events of 9/11/01, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the State Office of Emergency Management had tried to work with a plan that covered both disease control and natural hazards. Mr. Loeffler agreed stating the Emergency-Operating Plan would take into account the Mutual Aid Agreement. If another area needed help, the County was bound by this agreement to help them and vice versa. Commissioner Sorensen asked if this agreement was signed, who was the local contact? The public nurse? And alternates? Ms. Barta replied that anyone in the position to determine when more help was needed was the point of contact. Ms. Nay stated that normally the County would have an incident command system and the Sheriff would delegate operations. This incident command would create a call down list. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the point of contact did not necessarily need to be the person with technical background but the person who knew who to contact. Mr. Loeffler thought the point of contact should be accessible and technical and the phone call would probably originate with dispatch. Once the County made a call out for help, it would mean the County made a financial commitment.

Ms. Barta stated that the County had to update the State every month and this was really a public health issue. She made the following additional comments: • This plan being a public health issue was difficult for the Public Safety Committee to understand. The Public Safety Committee already had an Emergency Plan. • The Public Health Department was not attempting to take over any other plans. They had formed a subcommittee that came up with the Bioterrorism Plan that was simple and easy to use. • There were three components to this Bioterrorism Plan. One was to update the County plan with an addendum. This addendum was a list of all duties of personnel involved in Bioterrorism. The second component was the Good Samaritan piece and how to protect emergency services officials if they step in to help. The County needed to have a 5-day supply of antibiotics, protective equipment, and training, and the funding for all of this. There needed to be employment rules, i.e., no vacations during certain times of the year. The last component was to have the County plan approved by the State.

Ms. Nay stated that the County Emergency Plan had been reviewed before the implementation of the Emergency Services District. However, the prior Board of County Commissioners had never approved it. Since then, the County had experienced Project Impact. The Public Safety Committee now needed the Board of County Commissioners to approve this revised County Emergency Plan and the Public Safety Committee had already approved it.

Mr. Etcheson stated that there had been a question as to the extent of the roll of the County Health Officer. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the County regulations referred to a Health Official. The definition of Health Official was known as Health Officer. The State law states that the Health Officer had to be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners and that it had to be a physician. However, these State statutes were very old and referred to duties of the Health Officer that were no longer done anymore, i.e., rabies control etc. Commissioner Watrous stated that when appointing Mr. Etcheson to this role, it was the intent of the Board of County

48 Commissioners to have him oversee things like ISDS, Environmental Health Department, and water issues. Mr. Loeffler stated that the County regulations could be amended to not require the Health Officer be a physician. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Board had always referred to the physician as the Medical Officer for the Nursing Department. Mr. Etcheson stated that this issue was brought up over a discussion of contagious diseases and developing plans for the various entities on how to control diseases. Commissioner Sorensen felt that there was overlap with the Health Officer and other health related departments. Ms. Barta felt that person-to-person spread of diseases was not the Health Officer’s area but a physician’s. Mr. Etcheson stated that the Health Officer relied on advice from the Medical Advisor, the Nursing staff, and the Environmental Health Department. Together this group brought together information in the community to understand an outbreak. The function of the Health Officer was to protect health. Mr. Etcheson stated that this needed to be clarified in order to write the Bioterrorism Plan. Commissioner Sorensen suggested researching other counties to see how they had resolved this problem.

Mr. Loeffler stated that the Medical Advisor was appointed to do certain things for the Nursing Department and this was not listed in the statutes. The Health Officer was appointed to perform other duties and he was interested to see what other counties did in the absence of a Public Health Department. Commissioner Watrous wanted to answer these questions before signing the Mutual Aid Agreement. Mr. Etcheson wanted to know if this person was an employee and if they needed to stay in town during certain events. Commissioner Sorensen requested knowing who would have the authority to call our resources and commit the County fiscally without consulting approval from anyone else. Commissioner Sorensen requested to see other examples of duties of Medical Officers and Health Officers and requested feedback from the Service Unit Managers on this issue.

In response to the Mutual Aid Agreement, Chief Accountant Carl Small stated that when the Ambulance Department responded to a need, they billed for it. Under Tabor, the Board of County Commissioners would declare an emergency under fiscal needs. The Board of County Commissioners had the appropriations and budget that they were limited to. The Department Heads were also limited to this resource. Five days of vaccines and the ability to provide the response should not be difficult.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to April 9, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen requested that the committee come up with recommendations and the Service Unit Managers needed to be involved.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WAIVER OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FOR CARL STODDARD, SOUTH SPRING GULCH: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, and Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following comments: • He had performed a site visit with Road and Bridge Director Tim Allen and there were some points on this road where it was very dangerous. • He requested the Board of County Commissioners’ final action on this case and recommended that the Board deny this request. • The resolution that the Board of County Commissioners had approved on Traffic Impact Fees did not allow what Mr. Stollard was proposing. • The resolution only allowed credits to traffic impact fees if the road was a County maintained road. This was not a County maintained road. • Approving this request was not a good precedent in the theory of impact fees.

Given this information, Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to deny the request of waiver of traffic impact fees for Carl Stoddard. Commissioner Watrous seconded given also the negative feedback from neighbors. Mr. Weaver agreed to call Mr. Stoddard and inform him of the request. The vote was unanimous.

49 CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF STANLEY SEGMENT OF BIKE TRAIL ENHANCEMENT CONTRACT: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver requested a continuation of this hearing to allow for more time to review the contract with CDOT. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to March 26, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 12, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 12, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Bob Loeffler and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL REQUEST FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Mr. Allen made the following statements: • Currently the Road and Bridge fleet was in need of replacing 3 pickup trucks. • The Road and Bridge Department had budgeted $90,000 for replacement of three pickup type vehicles in 2002. • With this purchase, the department would have the required amount of small trucks which would be specified for the tasks they were expected to perform. • The vehicles would assist with regular snow removal routes. • Two of these trucks would replace pickups which were just sold by a sealed bid vehicle sale. • The price quoted to Road and Bridge was $87,400. This purchase required a minimum of 60 days to take possession. • The Road and Bridge Department wanted to order these vehicles now so they would be in use within 2 months.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if this request could not be coordinated with the capping at the landfill project. Mr. Allen replied that he had saved the department $25,000 in the purchase of the one-ton truck and this would be used for the new accounting software if approved by the Board of County Commissioners later today. Once these things were in place, Mr. Allen would reevaluate the landfill project and follow the advice of County Attorney Bob Loeffler and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. If the drainage and revegetation work was completed, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment should be happy. Mr. Allen wanted to first obtain water testing.

Of these three trucks, one would be stationed at the Brookvale shop with a plow for snow removal and utility. The other trucks would be located at the Dumont shop. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the capital request for three new pickup trucks for the Road and Bridge department. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD MEETING: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Fire Chief Kelly Babeon attended the hearing. Mr. Abrahamson presented the Physician Advisor Agreement with Dr. Vellman for the Clear Creek Ambulance Department. This agreement would be renewed annually. This had been used for 6 years. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Physician Advisor Agreement between Clear Creek Ambulance and Dr. Vellman. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

50 Mr. Abrahamson made the following updates: • The new ambulance had needed repair and the Road and Bridge Department had fixed it. • Another issue to discuss was that some vehicles of the Clear Creek Fire Authority were still titled to the Emergency Services District, i.e., the freightliners and the Dodge. • County Attorney Bob Loeffler and Mr. Abrahamson were working on this transition.

Mr. Babeon made the following updates: • The Clear Creek Fire Authority wanted to hire a private contractor to work on their computer system and to service the entire system. • It was hard to wait for the County Information Services staff to repair problems. This staff was very overloaded at present. • The person managing the Clear Creek Fire Authority website had time to devote to working on their system at a rate of $45 per hour. • The Clear Creek Fire Authority wanted to include the Ambulance Department in this project. • The Clear Creek Fire Authority and the Ambulance Department would split these costs at a 50/50 rate. Mr. Abrahamson agreed that this was a good idea as they were having problems as well. • This project would require 2 hours of setup and maintenance would be on a sporadic schedule.

Chief Accountant Carl Small stated that he had heard no complaints from these two departments regarding computer assistance. If the Information Services department was behind, he had not received any requests for more staff. Mr. Small stated that other departments had branched off to their own computer support contractors, i.e., Sheriff, Clerk, etc. The impact to the county would be that of the Ambulance Department leaving the County computer system. Commissioner Poirot stated that Information Services may be acceptable to this as the time it took for them to travel to the Ambulance building could be worth hiring an outside service. Mr. Small stated that the County could review this annually and see if another employee in Information Services would be cheaper than having several outside services. The Board suggested having a working session with the Information Services department to discuss these issues. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve this separation of the Clear Creek Fire Authority and the Ambulance Department for computer services provided the Information Services department did not have a problem with it. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ROAD AND BRIDGE CAPITAL REQUEST FOR A ROAD STRIPING MACHINE: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Floyd Hill resident Orley Burgess attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following presentation: • Clear Creek County had typically been budgeting approximately $45,000 for pavement striping of their own maintained roads. • Even with this dollar amount it had been difficult to schedule striping contractors to stripe our roads during the spring and summer. In the past the County had to wait as long as September to have this work performed. • During the fall and spring months there were times where a road would require a touch up on the pavement markings. • The Road and Bridge Department had been unable to get the touch up paintings completed. • A striping contract would chip away a striping budget swiftly with mobilization costs if called to setup more than one time. • E-Z Liner Industries manufactured an airless palletized striper that would fit onto one of the Road and Bridge flat bed pickups. This operation required 2 operators but with the amount of land mileage the County had would only translate into 80-100 man hours to completely stripe all of the County pavement. • This truck was equipped with a guide wheel which was visible from the drivers seat to steer the vehicle along the existing striping. The carriage had a steering control to make sure the stripes matched the existing ones. • Road and Bridge had budgeted for this machine.

51 Mr. Burgess asked how many personnel it would take to do a mile of striping. Mr. Allen replied that this would entail two people with the stopping of traffic etc. Mr. Burgess stated that he and Mr. Allen compared the contract cost versus the purchase of this product and the cost of the product would be recovered in two years. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the capital request for Road and Bridge department to purchase a road striping machine. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-08, TDR CASE #02-TDR-01, FOR JAMES AND TINA CARINO TO TRANSFER BUILDING RIGHTS FROM THE EDITH LODE (M-1) TO THE OLA LODE AND MILLSITE (M-2), UTE CREEK ROAD: Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Applicants James and Tina Carino, Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson, Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer, Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault, Building Permit Coordinator Lynette Kelsey, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Planning Director Carol Wise, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, and Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen presented an additional letter that was received from Adjacent Property Owners to this parcel. Ms. Thibault made the following presentation: G Ms. Thibault stated that since the last hearing she had met and worked with the Carinos on the Agreement to Abate. G The agreement was signed by the Carinos and all the departments were in agreement with the stipulations. G This agreement was to take care of the zoning violations over a period of time since this was a multi-faceted process. G If the TDR was approved, the agreement would work simultaneously with it. G The Carinos had their court hearing this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. G The Carinos would be entering a plea of guilty to the zoning violations and they had agreed to abide by the Agreement to Abate with the timeline included. G If there were violations of the deadline dates, the Carinos knew they would be in breach and be held accountable in court for the violations.

Mr. Etcheson stated that he had been working with the Carinos on additional plans of septic and adding to the existing structure to allow for sanitary facilities during reconstruction. The Carinos were prepared to make application for a septic permit and were within the time frame of the agreement. Ms. Writer agreed with Mr. Etcheson.

Commissioner Sorensen asked what the remedies to the County would be if the applicants failed to perform within the timeline. Ms. Thibault replied that the agreement stated that if the applicants did not meet their deadlines, they would be in breach of this contract and they would have 60 days to remove the zoning violations. If the applicants did not abate the zoning violations set out, this would also be a breach of contract. If the applicants received all permits and were granted the Special Exception to allow them to live on the property, the temporary living quarters would have to be removed prior to the expiration of the building permit and Special Exception or 60 days after a Certificate of Occupancy. If the applicants were denied a Special Exception, they could still build a new facility but could not live in the temporary living quarters. These quarters would have to be removed within 60 days. If the any of the above breaches occurred, the County could enter the property and remove the zoning violations and bill the Carinos. There was nothing to completely assure the County that the taxpayers were not footing the bill, but if the Carinos did violate or breach this contract, they could suffer severe fines and serve jail time. Ms. Thibault also added that the County could lien the property should a breach occur and the 60 day limit expired. Commissioner Sorensen wanted to believe that this breach would not happen even though it had occurred in other areas of the County. Mr. Vogel noted that the value of the property would probably cover the clean up and another benefit was that the County owned the landfill and they could dispose of the junk at no cost.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that with this case, there was an application for a TDR from an adjacent parcel. One condition was that the receiving property had to be in zoning compliance and this property was not. This agreement had been fashioned so that if the Board of County Commissioners was approving the TDR, the agreement would satisfy the element for these

52 conditions. The Board of County Commissioners was really approving the TDR based on the conditions in the Abatement Agreement. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-08, TDR Case #02-TDR-01, for James and Tina Carino to transfer building rights from the Edith Lode (M-1) to the Ola Lode and Millsite (M-2), Ute Creek Road contingent on the approval of the Abatement contract with the County Attorney. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. Mr. Rollenhagen suggested including the Findings of Fact with regard to the Abatement Agreement. Commissioner Sorensen stated that she had struggled with this issue and the TDR process in certain areas of the County. She understood that the Carinos had been in this process for a long period of time but she requested that the staff consider changes to the TDR policy and regulations to see if any changes needed to be made. Commissioner Poirot agreed but stated that this was the only way to solve the problems at hand with this applicant. Commissioner Sorensen agreed stating that they were improving this one situation but she did not want to see other TDR cases like this. Ms. Wise stated that the Planning Commission also had concerns with the transfer of zonings and whether they were actually transferred or if it was done by deed restriction. Commissioner Poirot thought it should be the actual transfer of zoning and development rights. The zoning would have to be changed on the sending sights. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the resolution would have to be written with unusual clarity. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF HOTEL/RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR H.W. STEWART INC., D.B.A. ECHO LAKE LODGE: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended. Ms. Reimer made the following presentation: G The applicant had turned in all fees and forms. G The Sheriff and other departments were in approval. G This was a seasonal business and the license would be held until after an inspection by the Fire Marshal.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Hotel/Restaurant Liquor License for H.W. Stewart Inc., d.b.a. Echo Lake Lodge. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL REQUEST FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT FOR ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. West End Foreman Patrick Buckley, Secretary of Road and Bridge Kim Yordt, Information Services Director Mary Johnson, and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following presentation: G In 1995, the Road and Bridge Department purchased an accounting software designed to track operational costs. The software was activity based and incorporated pavement management, work orders, time tickets, purchase orders, etc. into the accounting system. The idea was to provide initial data for equipment, employees, and materials. G The software was extremely complex to set up and maintain. The Road and Bridge department finally completed setup and began using this software exclusively in January 1997. Throughout the following years, this department had experienced continual problems and had to fix them on a daily basis. Sometimes the software failures left the system inoperable for days at a time. G A major problem of the software had been with reporting and data retrieval. G The program was now having trouble keeping equipment costs and employee hourly rates consistent. G This created additional problems since many of the roads were in the HUTF system and the software could not follow changes in these roads. G The Road and Bridge Department had an annual contract fee for updates and support for the CitiTech software. This fee had been paid annually since the initial purchase. This department had not had any success with this program since its setup. G This year a new version was supposed to be released which was very different from the existing program. It had been designed to include special modules for GASB 34 and Work Planning and Budgeting. This new version would require a conversion with the CitiTech database. From past experience, this would mean more problems and downtime.

53 G The new version of this program would also entail new annual contract fees. The new rate would be 15% of the original software cost. The original cost of the software was $17,500 which would increase the contract fee to $1000 higher than the previous year. G A new program was on the market offered by Tracker Software Corporation. This software, PubWorks, was well referenced by other local governments. The PubWorks program was used by Boulder County, Mesa County, Lake County, etc. Each of these groups gave excellent referrals. G The department felt that the PubWorks would fit their needs and be problem free. Information Services Director Mary Johnson had also reviewed the software. G The cost of the new software was $6200 for the PubWorks and $8500 with the inclusion of the Fleet Accounting Module. This would give the department the ability to keep a digital record of all the maintenance activities. G Mr. Allen recommended that the capital request be approved for the $8500 to include PubWorks and the Fleet Accounting Module. After many years of problems, this new system could be used to update and provide more productive reports and analysis.

Ms. Yordt agreed with Mr. Allen in that many times she had to send her files to CitiTech to have them cleaned up so they would print out correct reports. This was very time consuming and added more time when the data entry work had to be caught up.

Ms. Johnson made the following statements: G The CitiTech software never had performed the way it was sold to perform. G A software like this upgrade would take a year to set up. G In the five years that the department had used CitiTech, they had never gotten a report that meant anything. G She did not think that Road and Bridge should use this software any longer. G She recommended either returning to the old dBase and Lotus system or the PubWorks software. The PubWorks program was a data base system and easy to use the files once they were created. It had the same database platform as the Information Services system. Mr. Allen added that with the PubWorks program, Audrey Lamb could input old records and catch up the previous years’ files. The other advantage to the PubWorks was that certain entries could be corrected, unlike the CitiTech system. Mr. Allen added that he had this funding due to the savings in the purchase of the one-ton truck.

Chief Accountant Carl Small stated that it would be well worth it for Road and Bridge to have a good program to track their projects and costs. This program would also assist with grant writing for the Road and Bridge department. This program would help with knowing which roads had been maintained and to what extent.

Mr. Allen stated that the owner of PubWorks had sent a demo to allow the Road and Bridge staff to practice with the software and if the County purchased the software, the owner held training sessions. Ms. Yordt stated that the training sessions would be half day sessions.

Ms. Johnson stated that Road and Bridge always needed a job costing program for grants. The one obstacle was the the CitiTech data was not usable so the old information would have to done by a staff person with data entry. She was still going to try to let PubWorks convert the files if possible. Ms. Yordt stated that Mesa County thought it would cost approximately $2000-$2500 to convert the files. Ms. Johnson stated that the County had the databases back to 1994 and it could provide information on project costs etc. Mr. Allen stated that his department did get requests for reports on projects and this old information would be helpful. Commissioner Poirot suggested trusting the old information with a disclaimer that some errors may occur. He did not see the reason to spend money and time on old information that may not be used.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if it was possible that Road and Bridge could return to using the old dBase and Lotus files. Mr. Allen stated that he and Ms. Johnson had discussed this. He just did not want to keep sending money to CitiTech. Mr. Allen did think the PubWorks program would be more effective than the old dBase/Lotus files. Ms. Johnson agreed stating that PubWorks had more projection on road segments than what the department had before.

54 Commissioner Sorensen asked if there was an annual fee for PubWorks. Mr. Allen replied that yes, it was 15% of the original purchase price annually. PubWorks was free of charge for the first six months and then $90 per month. It was billed quarterly. Ms. Johnson stated that this annual fee was the standard rate. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the capital request for accounting software for the Road and Bridge Department. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED AND CONTRACT TO SELL COUNTY LAND TO ALLEN PORTER: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Allen Porter, Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Smith made the following comments: G This sale had been in place for some time. G The sales price was set for $9000 and closing documents would be signed today. G Mr. Smith stated that B Group Limited owned the mineral rights and Mark Levin was their manager. G Mr. Smith stated that B Group appeared to not want the surface rights. G This land was acquired by the County through a tax lien.

Mr. Porter understood that B Group Limited had the mineral rights. He had sent them a letter and they had never responded. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deed and the Contract To Sell County land to Allen Porter, known as the Jim Jeffries Claim. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REAPPOINTMENT OF OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MEMBERS: Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. The Board of County Commissioners had received letters of reappointment interest from Open Space Commission members Pete Helseth and Frank Young. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to reappoint Pete Helseth and Frank Young to the Open Space Commission for another term. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 13, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of: # to receive specific legal advice regarding HB 02-1342, pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); # to receive specific legal advice regarding an alleged zoning violation, pursuant to CRS 24- 6-402(4)(b); # to receive specific legal advice regarding litigation, Fox Gulch LLC v. County, pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); # to receive specific legal advice regarding discussion of acquisition of property and determination of negotiating strategies and instruct negotiators, pursuant to CRS 24-6- 402(4)(a), (b), and (e); # to receive specific legal advice regarding negotiation strategies and instruct negotiators regarding an intergovernmental agreement about emergency telephone service system, pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e);

55 # to receive specific legal advice regarding Tim Nobel easement, pursuant to CRS 24-6- 402(4)(b).

Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 19, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 19, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Vice Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Chairman Fabyan Watrous was out of town.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT FOR COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler and Planner II Holland Smith attended the meeting. Ms. Leben- Vogel made the following statements: • This was a standard Public Service Easement form. • The County Attorney did have concerns with this form. • This land would be identified in the Land Survey Plat in an exemption case held on April 30, 2002. • Xcel Energy was the owner but they could not hold land as an entity so Public Service was the land holder. • The County Surveyor Greg Markle assembled a standard survey with centerline. There would be 10-feet on each side of the centerline. • She asked if the language could be changed in this easement.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the utility companies were the least flexible with changes. He recommended that changes occur in the top portion of the easement to reflect a 20- foot easement. This would solve the concerns. Mr. Smith added that Xcel was a large energy holding company and it operated over several states.

Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that this was one of fifteen easements with the Colorado School of Mines. This easement would continue across the Blair and Mosch properties. County Attorney Bob Loeffler suggested that the easement lines on the maps be bolded so there was no confusion in the future. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Easement for Public Service in Section 25, T3SR74W provided that additional language describing the centerline survey was attached. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-22, NAMING OF ROAD OFF OF LITTLE SQUAW PASS ROAD IN PINE VALLEY SUBDIVISION TO CROW RIDGE ROAD: Mapping Director Matt Taylor and Secretary III Cyndie Ruschmyer presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Ruschmyer stated that the residents had agreed on this name. Mr. Taylor agreed stating that the residents had chosen this name of Crow Ridge Road and the Mapping Department was in approval of this name. Commissioner Poirot made th emotion to approve Resolution #02-22, naming of road off of Little Squaw Pass Road in Pine Valley Subdivision to Crow Ridge Road. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

56 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMPLOYEE REPLACEMENT FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended. Ms. Barta made the following presentation: • The first part of the request was to hire a temporary nurse for 16 hours per week. • The second request was to split the 40-hour per week nurse job into a 24-hour health educator and a 16-hour per week nurse. • The third request was to ask that the salary for both of these positions earn $18.23 per hour. • The health educator position would be mostly for the tobacco coalition. • This would be a cost savings because the County would not be paying benefits and most of the funding for the educator would be from the tobacco and fitness grants. • The nursing salary would come from the Prenatal Plus and Home Program and the Nurse Home Visitor Program. • There would also be funding from the State Nursing Contract and the WIC program. • When the salary survey was completed by Lee and Burgess, it resulted in a $15.89 per hour pay scale for these positions. Ms. Barta thought it would be difficult to find a qualified employee at these wages. • Ms. Barta continued that the position had been budgeted at the $18.23 per hour wage and she wanted it to remain at this level. • Most areas were paying at the $33 per hour level and it would be difficult to recruit at half this amount. • Ms. Barta had tried to hire at this level in the past and had no applicants. • Many other counties paying these lower salaries were still without a County Nurse, i.e., Park County, Lake County etc. • Life Care was also paying more than the salary presented by Lee and Burgess. • Ms. Barta felt that the salary was incorrect as a nurse had to obtain special State regulatory licensing, college, and testing. There were people in the Compensation plan being paid more without any of these qualifications. • Public Health had done a great deal in the community over the past few years in that they had brought many of the bad numbers down. • Presently, the school nurse and the nurses with Columbine made more money than what the Lee and Burgess survey suggested.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Human Resources Department wanted to advertise first to make sure the County could not acquire applicants at the lower salary. Commissioner Poirot thought that nurses would rather work in this area than in Denver. Commissioner Sorensen suggested running the advertisement first and requesting salary history information from the applicants. This would justify the Human Resources Department revisiting the survey completed by Lee and Burgess. County Attorney Bob Loeffler thought that requesting salary history may deter some applicants. Secondly, if applicants were from the metro area, their salaries would be much higher.

Commissioner Sorensen requested that Ms. Barta run an advertisement for two weeks at the Lee and Burgess salary. In the meantime, the Human Resources Department could revisit with Lee and Burgess on their determination of the salary they presented. Ms. Barta was worried about the length of the vacancy in these positions. The Board agreed to allow Ms. Barta split the positions into the health educator and the nursing position. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to April 9, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. at 10:45 a.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FEE RETURN OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE FEE FOR MICHAEL AND SELMA PARADIS, TIMBER PLACE: This hearing was determined to be an administrative case and cancelled.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND DENMAN, GRAY, AND COMPANY, INC.: Human Resources Director Gail Buckley presented. Ms. Buckley presented the following information: • This was the renewal of the same contract from the previous year.

57 • In year 2000, this company had discontinued charging the County for services and now the insurance companies paid them in commissions. • This was a great company and Ms. Buckley recommended renewing the contract with them.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if this company retained the right to hand this agreement off to some other company. Ms. Buckley replied that yes, this could happen but she did not think it would as they had worked with the County for 8 years. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the County was not paying them anyway and the County could terminate this at any time. This was not an agreement that Denman and Gray could sell to another company. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the agreement with Denman, Gray, and Company, Inc. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REAPPOINTMENT OF OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MEMBER: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to reappoint Marion Anderson to the Open Space Commission for another term. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 26, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 26, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS FOR COUNTY LANDS: TWO DEEDS FOR TWO PARCELS FOR THE BONANZA LAND LLC IN SECTION 23 & 34; TWO DEEDS FOR TWO PARCELS FOR THE CARR PARTY IN SECTION 29; TWO DEEDS FOR THREE PARCELS FOR THE DURCHOLZ PARTY IN SECTION 22 & 21; ONE DEED FOR TWO PARCELS FOR THE NOBLIT PARTY IN SECTION 23; TWO DEEDS FOR TWO PARCELS FOR THE ROMINE PARTY IN SECTION 27 & 28; ONE DEED FOR ONE PARCEL FOR THE STANDEN PARTY IN SECTION 20; ONE DEED FOR ONE PARCEL FOR THE TBM LAND CONSERVANCY IN SECTION 26; T3SR73W AND T3SR74W: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: • This hearing was to consider 11 Special Warranty Deeds for County lands. • Nine of these parcels were zoned M-2 and two were zoned Buffer. • All lots would be combined with continuous parcels. • She presented two Combination of Lots Agreements to be approved. • The representative for the Bonanza Land Company was Darryl Knutsen.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the eleven Special Warranty Deeds as listed and the two Combination of Lots Agreements. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and asked if any of the recipients were in disagreement with the County. There was discussion on this but these transfers were already in process.

There was discussion on the clarity of easements included in the deeds. It was advised by County Attorney Bob Loeffler that there were many roads across parcels in the County and the Board of County Commissioners did not want to make all of these public. He advised that the Board wait until situations mature in certain areas before making roads public. The vote was unanimous.

58 The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Human Services. Minutes for the Board of Human Services are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-18, TO ESTABLISH A NOXIOUS WEED ADVISORY BOARD: County Attorney Bob Loeffler presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended. Mr. Loeffler stated that some corrections were made to this resolution. The resolution now included participation from the Forest Service, the Town of Empire, and property owners owning more than 40 acres. The towns/city, Forest Service, and the Division of Wildlife would pick their representative to this board. The Board requested time to discuss the membership further. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to April 2, 2002 at 11:30 a.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF STANLEY SEGMENT OF BIKE TRAIL ENHANCEMENT CONTRACT: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: • He requested to continue this hearing as this contract was very complicated and the bridge in Idaho Springs was not yet completed. • Mr. Weaver was working with CDOT’s Jim Bemelen on the options for funding. • A second option would be to achieve a long range goal of having easements and alignment for construction from Empire Junction to the Town of Empire. Some of this Stanley segment funding could be transferred to the Empire project. • Mr. Small stated that $100,000 with a 20% match was set in the Conservation Trust Fund and earmarked for this project. • All of these funds were CDOT enhancement dollars. • Future projects would be bid in feet instead of dollars.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the hearing to April 2, 2002 at 10:55 a.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR SCOTT AND JOEL PEARL: Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement for Scott and Joel Pearl for Lots 26 & 27 in the Imes Subdivision. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. Commissioner Watrous stated that these lots would have to remain combined and could not be divided unless written consent by the Board of County Commissioners. The vote was unanimous.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: County Assessor Diane Settle and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(c) and (e). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 27, 2002

59 The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 27, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT THROUGH THE COLORADO DIVISION OF HOUSEING, FOR JEFFERSON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND RESIDENTS IN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this contract was standard and acceptable for the County to sign. This program did provide services for Clear Creek County residents. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Emergency Shelter Grant for Jefferson Center for Mental Health. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of: • Receiving specific legal advice regarding the disposition of property and to determine negotiating strategies and instruct negotiators, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6- 402(4)(a), (b), & (e); • Receiving specific legal advice regarding zoning regulations/sign regulations, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b); Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 2, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 2, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR TELEPHONE SYSTEM AT THE COUNTY OFFICES: Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Krueger made the following statements: • This was the same company that the County had been working with for many years. • Ms. Krueger had budgeted $9550 for this line item and had saved some money as the actual amount due was $7990. • Since this was an upgrade in equipment, it would save the County money in maintenance fees.

Mr. Small noted that this contract was renewable each year. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the maintenance contract for the telephone system. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CHANGE IN AGENDA: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to change the amend the agenda from a working lunch to a break for lunch. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

60 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT FOR THE COUNTY-WIDE MASTER PLAN: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: • The Master Plan Steering Committee had met with the finalists in the choosing of the consultant. • One hour interview with THK, CMI, and RNL were conducted. • Mr. Weaver stated that the Master Plan Steering Committee recommended that THK be selected as the County-wide Master Plan consultant. • THK had allocated funds to formulate visitor/recreational uses of the County.

Commissioner Sorensen, who was also a member of the Master Plan Steering Committee, stated that pros and cons were formulated for each proposal. THK was providing an economist that would review the economic changes in Clear Creek County. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to enter into a contract with THK to be the County-wide Master Plan consultant. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF STANLEY SEGMENT BIKE TRAIL CONTRACT: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Mr. Weaver requested a continuance for one week. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to April 9, 2002 at 2:45 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS TO THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES: Personnel Review Board representatives Diane Settle and Joan Drury presented. Ms. Settle made the following statements: • Human Resources Specialist Gail Buckley could not attend the hearing. • The Personnel Review Board had reviewed metro Denver salaries and did not feel these were fair salaries to compare Clear Creek County jobs with. • The Personnel Review Board used the Lee and Burgess counties and municipalities for their comparisons. • These comparisons were only revealing the minimum staring salaries for each position. • The Human Services Director and the Chief Accountant position salaries were similar to what Clear Creek County was offering. The Road and Bridge Supervisor came out higher than other counties. • These salaries reviewed did not include the Service Unit Manager stipend.

Commissioner Poirot expressed concern with regard to the Human Services Director and how the level of expertise was accounted for in salary levels. Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken expressed concern as to why metro area salaries were not used in the comparison. Ms. Settle stated that they did not want to use metro area counties as they were larger and had more staff. Mr. Small stated that the study may need to include more counties in the Human Services Director comparison as some of the counties/municipalities used by Lee and Burgess did not have a Human Services Director position.

With regard to the Chief Accountant position, Commissioner Poirot expressed concern in that this position did not require a CPA certification but having one could make a difference in salary. Ms. Dicken expressed concern as the same comparisons were not used for her position as with the other employment positions within the County. Ms. Settle explained that some of the comparing agencies did not have her position so they were not used.

The group discussed a future meeting with the Personnel Review Board and continuance of this hearing. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to April 16, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. There was discussion on how to point these positions to include them in the County Compensation Plan. Commissioner Poirot seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-18, TO ESTABLISH A NOXIOUS WEED ADVISORY BOARD: County Attorney Bob Loeffler presented. Mr. Loeffler stated that the municipalities would choose their representatives to this

61 board. Commissioner Poirot suggested an Intergovernmental Agreement with each municipality regarding this board. This would assist in what the municipalities could donate to the County- wide prevention of noxious weeds.

Commissioner Watrous thought that landowners owning more than 40 acres could be a member of this advisory board. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this resolution was fashioned so as not to list names but o include this group of landowners. Commissioner Sorensen suggested that if the participants on the board could not supply a financial donation to the program, perhaps they could supply personnel to combat the noxious weeds. County Attorney Bob Loeffler suggested that West End Foreman of Road and Bridge and Noxious Weeds Manager Patrick Buckley figure a budget for the noxious weed program, then contact the municipalities to determine what they could contribute in order to get the program started. The Board agreed. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to not continue the hearing further and allow Mr. Buckley to pursue the budget and municipality participation. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-21, REZONING CASE #267, PD TO MR-1 FOR THE CITY OF GOLDEN AND OWNER OF THREE LOTS IN BLUE VALLEY ACRES, UNIT 7: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler and Planner Steve Glueck of the City of Golden attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following statement: • Michael and Diane Newman, David and Sharon Baker, and Randy Smith were the applicants. • The City of Golden was the owner/applicant. • In August of 2001 the Board approved Rezoning Case #264, Santa Fe Mountain Ranch Official Development Plan. • Since that time, existing encroachments from lots in Blue Valley Acres onto the City of Golden’s land were discovered. • The US Forest Service has agreed to purchase this portion of the watershed, however, they will not complete the sale until the encroachments have been resolved. • In order to resolve these encroachments, the City of Golden would like to sever a .45 acre parcel from its’ land and sell it to the three owners of the adjacent Blue Valley Acre lots. • Boundary Line Adjustment Case #02-AX-1 has been conditionally approved that severs this tract from the Golden parcel and reconfigures it to be combined with the three adjacent lots. • This approval was conditional upon approval of Plan Amendment Case #02-PDA-4 and approval of this rezoning. • Plan Amendment Case #02-PDA-4, which amends the Official Development Plan to exclude this .45 acre tract from the plan, has also received conditional approval. • This approval was conditional upon approval of this rezoning. • Subject Property was a .45± acre parcel adjacent to Blue Valley Acres, Unit 7 at the end of Elk Way and Mountain View Dr. This specific parcel was designated as a “preservation area” in the Official Development Plan approved in Rezoning Case #264. • The preservation areas in this Official Development Plan allowed for minimum impact recreational uses, wildlife habitat management, preservation of open spaces and other similar uses. • The property currently has the Newman’s shed and landscaping materials, and the Baker’s fenced horse corral. • While no encroachment exists from Randy Smith’s vacant property, the U.S. Forest Service requested it be included for ease of surveying and property line location. • The applicants were requesting the MR-1 zoning district designation to coincide with the zoning of the lots it will be combined with by the Boundary Line Adjustment. • Surrounding Properties were zoned MR-1 and the City of Golden’s property was zoned Planned Development (PD) with specific areas of homesite development and land preservation. • The Colorado Division of Wildlife, MALT, SOLVE, U.S. Forest Service and the Open Space Commission were all notified on the 5th of February and no responses have been received. Adjacent property owners were also notified on the 5th of February and no response has been received. Public Notice of this hearing was published in the Clear Creek Courant on 6 March. • The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning request during their public hearing on March 20 and Staff recommends approval pursuant to draft Resolution 02- 21.

62 Mr. Glueck noted that the City of Golden was giving these landowners this land for the cost of them paying for the rezoning and boundary line adjustment fees. The City of Golden had paid for the Planned Development amendment fee. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approval Resolution #02-21, Rezoning Case #267, PD to MR-1 for the City of Golden and owner of three lots in Blue Valley Acres, Unit 7. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-36, REZONING CASE #268, MR-1 TO AG FOR THE ANDERSON RANCH, 2001 AMENDMENT FOR PARCEL A: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler Andy and Frances Toth attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following presentation: • Andy and Frances Toth were the owners and applicants. • Subject Property was Parcel 2A of the Anderson Ranch 2001 Amendment and 35.6 + acres in size, located at 392 Willow Creek Road. • The property currently has the Toth’s single family residence, a 90' x 210' fenced riding arena, a 60' round training pen, six loafing sheds, eight horses and several acres of pasture. • The Applicants were requesting an Agricultural zoning district designation to allow for the boarding and training of horses and the raising of cattle. • Surrounding properties were all zoned MR-1, but historically this area was farming and ranching. • The 160 acre parcel to the east currently runs horses and the property on the north runs cattle. • Referral Agencies and adjacent property owners were notified on the 27th of February and Public Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on March 6. • Environmental Health and Site Development responded they have no conflicts. • Road and Bridge responded that the requested use was consistent with historical use. • This will not impact County Road System or maintenance and they have no conflicts. • Emerge responded that they defer to the adjacent property owners. • No response was received from the Sheriffs Office, Colorado Division of Wildlife or the • Evergreen Fire Protection District. • Lynda Stanek, owner of the 160 acres to the east, responded that she has no conflicts. • Mike Fuentes, owner of the 52± acres to the immediate west, faxed a response stating he has no conflicts. • Well Permit #238120 was issued for this property and limits the use of ground water for this well to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside 3 single family dwellings, the irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns and the watering of domestic animals. • The applicants have a ‘Manure Management Plan’ in place which is outlined in the packet you received last week. • The property was accessed by Willow Creek Road which ends at the property to the immediate south. Willow Creek Road was a private road once it enters into Parcel 1 of the Anderson Ranch. Adequate parking is available and the applicants estimate an increase in traffic by approximately 19 trips per month. • Tax Information and site characteristics were outlined in the staff report. • The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this rezoning request during their public hearing on March 20 and Staff recommends approval pursuant to draft Resolution 02- 36.

Commissioner Poirot asked if this parcel had a road connecting to Brook Forest Estates. Mr. Toth replied that it did not. This access was further down the road from their home. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-36, Rezoning Case #268, MR-1 to AG for the Anderson Ranch, 2001 Amendment to Parcel A. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT FOR ROCKY MOUNTAIN VILLAGE FOR EVENT ON APRIL 20, 2002: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Reimer stated that all forms and fees had been submitted and there was no opposition to this permit. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Events Permit for the Rocky Mountain Village for an event on April 20, 2002. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-19, REZONING CASE #266, FOR PORTIONS OF THE HAVENS MILLSITE AND LODE FROM M-1 TO CTR, ALVARADO ROAD, SUZEN RAYMOND, WEST OF LAWSON:

63 Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. In attendance were Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Applicant Dan Stonebraker, VSO Officer Rick Scott, Adjacent Property Owners Merinel Williams, Donna Moody, Chuck Harmon, Tim Goymerac, business owner John Enochs, business owners Mark Young, John Hendryx, Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Director Peggy Stokstad, Adjacent Property Owners and business owner Mike Caistor, and resident Ben Ziff. Ms. Kastens made the following statements: • Suzen Raymond and Dan Stonebraker were the Owner/Applicants, and Dan Stonebraker was present today. • The request was to change the zoning designation of the Havens Millsite and Havens Lode from the current zoning designation of Mining One to Commercial - Tourism/Recreation to allow for a river rafting company and provide for associated tent camping. • Camping will be limited to rafting customers and not available to the general public. • Total acreage proposed to be rezoned is approximately 5 acres of vacant land and located approximately 1/8 of a mile west of Lawson on Alvarado Road. • This area of the County has a very wide variety of zoning with County lands adjacent on the east and west zoned for commercial uses. • During the public hearing on March 5, the Board requested additional information on available options for wastewater disposal and potential traffic impacts from the most intensive uses allowed in the C-TR zoning district. • The applicants have hired an engineer and a percolation test was completed March 31. • The results of this test were faxed to Ms. Kastens yesterday. • Environmental Health Specialist Chris Etcheson has reviewed the results and I spoke with the engineer today, who stated he believed a system could be installed to meet County ISDS Regulations. • Staff conducted a traffic impact analysis, which was included in your packets. • CDOT was notified, but no response has been received. • Road and Bridge Supervisor Tim Allen stated he had been in contact with CDOT engineers recently and they were conducting a study of the Downieville interchange for possible improvements to traffic flow at that location. • The Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 1 during their public hearing on February 20 and Staff recommends approval pursuant to draft Resolution 02-19. • Ms. Kastens had received a letter of support from the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation today and this letter was read into the record and stored in the Planning Department files.

Mr. Etcheson stated that the septic part of this project was reviewed and a letter was received from the applicant’s engineer. Percolation tests were performed and the results were acceptable. Ms. Kastens added that the test holes were performed south of Alvarado Road and would meet the setbacks along the creek.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that even the more intense uses of this zoning district were allowed as these uses were within the design standards of Alvarado Road. Ms. Kastens added that the applicants were willing to dedicate additional right of way to accommodate drainage other than presently existed. Ms. Kastens added that this road was not a CDOT road therefore an access permit was not needed.

David Stoud made the following statements: • Mr. Stoud was an off-season employer. • He felt that the applicant was dependable and honest and this would carry over into his business.

Mike Caistor made the following statements: • He had recently completed his own project in Lawson. • He was running for president of the Dumont-Lawson-Downieville Homeowners Association. • The applicant was offering to work with the Historic Society to bring in a building that was visually historic so it would blend with the area. • The applicant was presently working to offer a deed of land for Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver’s bike project. • The applicant was offering their parking lot for a “park and ride” shuttle system. • The applicant was trying to be a good citizen in the community.

Chuck Harmon made the following statements: • He was a member of the Mill Creek Historical Society. • He had met with Mr. Caistor a week prior to this hearing. • He was unaware of this project.

64 • Mr. Caistor informed him that the applicants would work with the Historical Society to have an esthetically acceptable building. • This was a welcome sign that the applicant was interested in the Historical Society’s input. • The Mill Creek Historical Society would continue to work with the applicant on an appealing building.

John Enochs made the following statements: • He was the owner of the End of the Line Store in Georgetown. • He had been a friend of the applicant for some years. • He wanted to express his approval of this project in the County. • He was excited to have another business in the County.

Rick Scott made the following statements: • He was the VSO Officer for Clear Creek County. • He had met with the applicant and they appeared community-oriented. • The applicant was interested in offering veterans and residents discounts.

Donna Moody made the following statements: • Ms. Moody appreciated that the Board of County Commissioners researched the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District issue and the traffic concerns. • She was unsure of how many of the attendees of the hearing in support of this project actually lived in the area that the buses would travel. • She thought this was a good project but it would be better in a different location.

Tim Goymerac made the following statements: • He lived in Lawson. • Most of the traffic was from the skiers. • He could not access his home on the weekends during ski season. • He did not see a downside to this project. • Advantages were that there would be no smokestacks, it would clean up the present area, and would provide controlled recreation. • It would be less traffic and more employment for residents. • The applicant would also be cleaning up the creek as well. • The only downside may be interference with fishing and the noise of people having fun. • It was inevitable that people would come to this area for hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. If the County could control it, this was the way to do it.

Commissioner Poirot asked what the economic impact was of the rafting companies in Clear Creek County. Mr. Small was unsure of this. Mr. Stonebraker presented an economic impact report of the rafting industry for the last 10 years.

Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver made the following statements: • Property taxes were paid by rafting companies. • The rafting shop in Downieville used a shop that was a snowboard shop in the winter and the additional use of this facility was a good idea. • The primary impact of the rafting business was sales and property taxes.

Mr. Stonebraker noted that his company did pay the City of Idaho Springs a certain fee per person for the use of their park facility. Mr. Weaver stated that the County was working on a similar fee structure. The County needed this revenue to provide restrooms, changing stations, etc, to accommodate this industry. Mr. Scott noted that with these incoming businesses, they could participate in the Adopt-A-Highway program to clean up along their roadways.

Ben Ziff made the following statements: • He had known the applicant for years and had worked with them. • He was a resident of the County. • He thought the applicant would handle the environmental and traffic issues very well. • He thought the applicant would be a good addition to the business community.

Mark Young made the following statements: • He owned Renaissance Adventure Guides. • His company used the applicant’s company as a vendor. • His company location was in Golden. • He had chosen to work with the applicant.

65 • The applicant was very environmentally conscious.

Commissioner Poirot agreed that more business in the County was a good economic impact. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-19, Rezoning Case #266, for portions of the Havens Millsite and Lode from M-1 to CTR, Alvarado Road, Suzen Raymond, West of Lawson. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen stated that she and Commissioner Watrous had attended the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District meeting to discuss expansion of their district to encompass this area. The County could not expect one business to underwrite the expense of expanding this district but the County did want landowners to the west to tie in with the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District in the future. The second issue of focus was the traffic concerns. She requested that the applicant emphasize to their employees and customers that they were traveling through a residential neighborhood with many children and pets. With this being a tourism business, it was a valid issue that the County would like to see more diversification, but at present, the County needed to work with the businesses it had. The County needed to use what it had responsibly. The vote was unanimous.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the purchase of real property as allowed by COLORADO REVISED STATUTES 24-6-402(4)(a), regarding specific legal questions with water systems as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b), and to determine negotiating strategies for both of the above as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(e). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR OUT OF STATE GIS CONFERENCE FOR MAPPING DIRECTOR: Mapping Director Matt Taylor presented. Mr. Taylor made the following statements: • He requested permission to attend this conference to learn more about the upcoming GIS software. • The conference was July 8-12, 2002. • This conference would teach the County GIS department what other areas were doing and how the software had changed. • GIS was a technical field and changed rapidly. • There was free advice and free training to be gained. • This conference did offer inexpensive pre-conference training courses. • These courses could not be taken elsewhere. • This conference was budgeted for in the Mapping Department budget.

The Board of County Commissioners expressed concern as last time they approved this conference for the former Mapping Director, he resigned. Mr. Taylor understood this and stated that the former Mapping Director ended up not attending this conference. He had planned on staying with the County for five years before seeking other employment. Mr. Taylor agreed to sign an educational agreement for this conference which stated that if he resigned from the County within a year of the conference, he would reimburse the County for the conference expenses. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Decision Memorandum for out of state GIS conference for the Mapping Director. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 9, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 9, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Vice-Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in

66 attendance were Commissioner Robert Poirot, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Chairman Fabyan Watrous attended the meeting later in the day. County Attorney Robert Loeffler was absent.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT (ESD) BOARD MEETING: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Abrahamson made the following statements: • The Fire Chief would not be attending this hearing. • He brought up the potential facility on Floyd Hill and when the land acquisition could begin with this. He added that the County Attorney was handling this situation. The board agreed that the County Attorney should work on this project. Commissioner Sorensen felt that a facilities plan would be a good start for this project. She added that the gaming traffic had a large impact on the need for this facility. • Mr. Abrahamson stated that the situations in this area were as difficult now as they would be with the Black Hawk tunnel proposal. This was due to having to travel to the top of Floyd Hill and then returning to accidents westbound. • He agreed that any raised structures in this area would increase the Emergency Services challenges. • There was discussion on which ESD would respond to accidents in and around the Black Hawk tunnel. Having an additional agency in this area would complicate response to accidents. • Mr. Abrahamson stated that it would be ideal for the Silver Dollar Metropolitan District to build a facility at the bottom of Floyd Hill but he did not envision them committing operating expenses. • Mr. Abrahamson stated that his department experienced a $9000 gaming impact in the last year and they had lost money. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Gaming community was ignoring the fact that their clientele was taxing the ESD in Clear Creek County.

Commissioner Poirot stated that if the Silver Dollar Metropolitan District agreed to put up a station on their side, Clear Creek County could implement an Intergovernmental Agreement to operate the station. Commissioner Sorensen agreed and stated that a station was still needed at the top of Floyd Hill. This would assist with the accidents that were occurring on the acceleration and deceleration ramps to I-70. Mr. Abrahamson suggested a way to have competitive grant programs/revenue sharing for the gaming impact funds to be appropriated to emergency services and road and bridge impacts.

Regarding the Technology Park potential facility, Mr. Abrahamson reminded the Board that they had declined a station at Saddleback since they were under the understanding that one was to be located at Technology Park. Commissioner Sorensen stated that based on the growth and call volume on Floyd Hill and the discussions with the Silver Dollar Metropolitan District, a three year window was enough time to secure a facility on Floyd Hill. Mr. Abrahamson agreed and added that the Saddleback development had funding to put towards the Floyd Hill facility.

Mr. Abrahamson stated that he supported highway improvements as long as they provided a benefit to the local community. The Silver Dollar Metropolitan District was creating an impact with no benefit to the County. These impacts should be mitigated in advance.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMPLOYEE REPLACEMENT FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the hearing to April 10, 2002 at 12:30 p.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT TO CONVEY 5 ACRE FEET OF VIDLER WATER TO THE CLEAR CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EXERCISING A PURCHASE OPTION TO ACQUIRE 5 ACRE FEET OF VIDLER WATER: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following statements:

67 • He requested a continuance of this hearing until the County Attorney came back in town. • Water Attorney Paul Zilus had submitted a draft water agreement and Mr. Weaver requested that the Board of County Commissioners review this agreement. • He suggested a sales price of $15,000 per acre-foot, which included administrative fees. The County was obtaining Vidler water at a cost of $14,000 per acre-foot. • The School District was indicating that they had the cash to purchase this water from the County.

Mr. Small suggested a fixed fee structure based on need circumstances. This would allow potential buyers to know the fees in advance. He suggested that the County Attorney be involved in setting this fee structure. The fee structure could be set in a resolution of the Board and modified if fees increase in the future. There would be different rates for Henderson water and Vidler water.

There was discussion of the amount of water that the County had to sell and who would be eligible for Henderson water and who would have to buy the higher priced Vidler water. Commissioner Poirot suggested different selling prices based on what the buyers would be using the water for. Mr. Weaver suggested utilizing as much of the 25 acre-feet from the Vidler and storing the Henderson water in the Idaho Springs reservoir. Mr. Small stated that if the County only leased at cost, they would never recover enough money to build a storage facility for the water. Mr. Weaver thought that Georgetown, Silver Plume and Empire would be needed to lease water from the County. The County also had the option to purchase 100 acre-feet from the Vidler tunnel. Mr. Small suggested leasing the Vidler 25 acre-feet that the County had and utilizing this revenue to purchase the 100-acre feet options from the Vidler tunnel. Mr. Weaver agreed and stated that the sooner this option was purchased the better, as the price would be increasing over time. Mr. Weaver added that the Upper Bear Creek District was selling water rights for sale at $35,000-$40,000 per acre foot.

Mr. Small noted that if the water was only leased, this may never encourage buyers to actually purchase the water. He suggested giving each purchaser the option to either buy or lease. This would help the County to possibly increase water revenues to build storage facilities. Mr. Weaver stated that now the Road and Bridge Department was in need of purchasing water for the summer dust control.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to April 16, 2002 at 10:30 a.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A 40-FOOT ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG EXISTING ROAD TO WILSON LODE MS#19944: Senior Planner Lisa Leben- Vogel presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Joan Drury attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that this easement was across an M-2 claim of County land off of Trail Creek Road. The parcel was being taken through a boundary line exemption process and a capping of an open mine. The property also had an unpatented claim and the owners of that claim were aware of this easement. This easement was for a road and utilities. The easement was 60-feet across at that top and 40- feet across in the existing roadway to meet driveway standards. The easement was for Greg Markle. The County land parcel was #1835-31-1-00-960. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the road and utility easement along an existing road to the Wilson Lode. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BIOTERRORISM PLAN AND SIGNING OF MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson, and Medical Advisor Dr. Katherine Drapeau attended the hearing. Ms. Barta made the following statements: • Ms. Barta presented meeting minutes from the prior Bioterrorism committee meeting. • The primary contacts for the Mutual Aid Agreement would be, in order: Jean Barta, Dr. Drapeau, and Emergency Manager Laura Nay.

68 • These people would know that when resources were committed, the County could respond fiscally and physically. • Many counties had the Nursing Director as the first responder as was suggested for Clear Creek County. • Mr. Etcheson suggested that the County commit to this plan by resolution. This resolution could deal with the authority to commit funds. • Ms. Barta stated that the committee also completed research on the differences between a County Health Officer and the County Environmental Health Department. • Ms. Dicken stated that it was the committee’s preference to have Dr. Drapeau as the health officer and Mr. Etcheson as the ISDS/Water officer. Mr. Etcheson agreed that the County should recognize the difference in these two positions.

Ms. Dicken suggested a note in the resolution for the Mutual Aid Agreement that the Board of County Commissioners would be the overall authority on saying yes or no to the committing of funds. The three responders would then be reachable by pager to implement resources and funding. The board agreed that they should be notified in these situations since the County would be fiscally committing themselves.

Ms. Barta stated that the State offices would also have to approve the County plan. There were three components to this plan. The first portion was the Emergency Plan for the County. The second portion was the addendum and the list of responders. The final portion of the plan was a resource book of medications and personnel protective equipment. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Mutual Aid Agreement for Public Health Preparedness. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS:

Don Gibson, St. Mary’s Subdivision Lot 665 & 666: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Don Gibson and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Gibson made the following statements: • He was asking for a reduction in property value from the Board of County Commissioners.

• His property was not south facing. • His family had owned this land since 1919. • This property was only used for a summer cabin and not a year round residence. • He was paying a year round water tap fee for and using the water for only 4 months. • He had spent much money to keep the place in good condition. • He did not want to be priced out of this area.

Ms. Settle stated that her office was only valuing one of the two cabins. Commissioner Watrous suggested valuing the cabins as poor instead of fair. Ms. Settle stated that this would reduce the value by $10,000. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to make the downward adjustment in condition of the improvements. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

David Smith, Pine Valley Subdivision, Old Squaw Pass Road: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. Smith and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Settle stated that this property was located in the Pine Valley area. She had accepted Mr. Smith’s comparable and recommended a downward adjustment in value to $562,400. Mr. Smith made the following statements: • He appreciated the rising values in the County. • He felt the comparables used to determine his value were in much better condition. • He had not improved the condition of his home. • He did recognize that he had more acreage and he was not contesting this value. • He disputed the value increasing $80,000 in one year. • This current of the period of the market was not increasing this rapidly.

Ms. Settle stated that she had not been inside this home to determine the condition. She was willing to delay this decision if Mr. Smith allowed a site visit. Mr. Smith agreed to a site visit.

69 Commissioner Poirot made the motion to allow Ms. Settle the site visit and if the condition was below average she could make a downward adjustment in value. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

David Cekovsky, Alps Mountain, Denver View Mining Claim: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. David Cekovsky and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Cekovsky made the following statements: • His mining claim was at the top of Alps Mountain Road. • The road was not in good condition. • There were no improvements to this land. • There was no water on this land. • He had compared his taxes to a friend’s property lower on this road and his taxes were more expensive. His friend’s property also had improvements and a well.

Ms. Settle stated that she had made a small downward adjustment in value due to the road. Commissioner Watrous made the suggestion to value the mining claim at $10,000 due to the road and the property location. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to value the land at $10,000 to equal the value of other adjacent properties. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-49, Willis Bergen, Brook Forest Estates: County Assessor Diane Settle stated that this abatement was continued since the property owner could not attend the hearing.

#02-50, James Dejarnette, c/o Stephen Wolff , Pt Union Pl #14545, Fall River Area: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Dejarnette/Wolff party. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was to correct some of the Assessor’s records. The location should be valued as average. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the location value correction. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-51, Rose and Stephen Kramer, Silver Queen Condo, Georgetown County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Kramer party. Ms. Settle stated that this parcel was shown in her records as two parcels. In fact, this parcel was just one parcel and never divided. This abatement was to correct this discrepancy. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to correct these records. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-53, Neal Cully, Hope, Hope #2, General Jackson Mining Claims, Virginia Canyon County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Cully party. Ms. Settle stated that Mr. Cully owned three mining claims and she was recommending adjustments to have them valued similarly. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to value the three claims similarly. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-55, Joseph Sloan, Success Acres Mining Claim, Virginia Canyon: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Sloan party. Ms. Settle stated that her office had been assessing Mr. Sloan for more acreage than he actually owned. Therefore, she recommended this abatement to correct this record. Mr. Sloan was in agreement with this adjustment. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to correct the acreage. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-56, June Jones Paulding and Scott Paulding, Lot 673 and Imps., St. Mary’s Subdivision: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Jones party. Ms. Settle stated that this was a cabin in the St. Mary’s subdivision and she recommended a downward adjustment in value due to condition of cabins. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment in value. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

70 #02-57, Jack and Barbara Lopez, 139 W. Park Ave., Empire: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Lopez party. Ms. Settle stated that this was a Bed and Breakfast and needed to be adjusted to reflect 1/3 of the building as residential and 2/3 of the building as commercial. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to correct the residential/commercial portions. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-58, Joel and Linda Wendling, PL VY L 53, Hwy 103: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Wendling party. Ms. Settle stated that this parcel was also a Bed and Breakfast and the values for residential and commercial were reversed. This abatement would correct these portions to be 43% commercial and 57% residential. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to correct the residential/commercial portions of the Bed and Breakfast. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE STANLEY SEGMENT BIKE TRAIL CONTRACT: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: • He stated that he was still not ready to sign this contract. • He wanted the County Attorney to review this contract further. • He requested that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to sign the contract to design and build the bike trail once the confidence of the County Attorney was satisfied. • He was waiting to see if a portion of this contract could be transferred to the Empire bike trail project. • He was also waiting on the Idaho Springs bike trail bridge project to be completed. • No one had protested this contract and project thus far.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to authorize the Chairman to approve the contract once the County Attorney was satisfied with it. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE ORDER FOR PUBLIC RESTROOM AT DUMONT FAIRGROUNDS: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver and Clear Creek Metropolitan Recreation District Director Mark Cucinella presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: • Mr. Cucinella had assembled a group of volunteers to construct this public restroom. • Mr. Weaver was requesting the Board of County Commissioners approve a purchase order for $18,874. • Mr. Weaver had received word from Coors that they would be providing $22,050 for this project. • The restroom would have a brick faced façade. • The County Road and Bridge Department would complete the site preparation. • Biological Mediation Systems would place the concrete tank upon delivery. • This building would be painted to match the adjacent Ambulance facility. • The volunteer group would complete the electrical, footings, framing, roofing, etc. • Mr. Weaver and Mr. Cucinella requested that the County waive the building permit fees to expedite the process so the facility would be ready for the rodeo events. • They did not think they would need a variance as they had the appropriate setbacks.

71 Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the purchase order for the public restroom at the Dumont Fairgrounds and to waive all fees for which the Board of County Commissioners had the authority to waive. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 10, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 10, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Jo Ann Sorensen, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

PRIORITIZATION OF GAMING IMPACT ASSISTANCE GRANTS: In attendance were Mayor Lori Short of Empire, Mayor Dennis Lunbery of Idaho Springs, and Mayor Lynn Granger of Georgetown. Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen made the first presentation for the Gaming Grant application for Road and Bridge Department. Mr. Allen made the following statements: • This grant application was for the Road and Bridge Virginia Canyon drainage improvements due to flooding incidents in this area. • The average daily traffic had increased 360% over the past 10 years. • This road totaled 5.7 miles as County Road #279. • It was imperative that the drainage be improved as this road was a collectory road. • Engineering would be performed on this project by Parson’s Engineering.

Mr. Joe Flannigan made the presentation from the District Attorney’s office for their office grant application. Mr. Flannigan made the following statements:

• This grant application was the same as the prior year’s application. • This grant application covered operating expenses and salaries for the Clear Creek County office. • The request totaled $45,792. • The Juvenile Diversion group used gaming statistics when the parents worked in the gaming industry.

The Mount Evans Hospice grant application was explained by Commissioner Watrous with the following statements: • Mount Evans Hospice lost $88,000 on cases they took care of in Clear Creek County due to Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements being decreased. • This grant would assist with the shortfalls in Clear Creek County and allow the Hospice to pay their employees competitively with the gaming industry. • The Hospice was asking for $17,000 in this grant.

Sheriff Don Krueger made the presentation for the Sheriff’s Department grant application. Sheriff Krueger and Director of Emergency Management Laura Nay made the following statements: • This grant was asking for manpower, vehicles, administrative staff, dispatch staff, and upgrading communications. • The upgrade to communications would include remounting transmitters for officer safety. • This upgrade would also include additional components of the CAD system for dispatch. • This new upgrade would also better track gaming impact.

Mayor Lunbery made the presentation for the City of Idaho Springs gaming application with the following statements:

72 • Part of the gaming application was for law enforcement in the form of night vision equipment and camera equipment to help better establish case information. There was much drug activity in Idaho Springs originating from the Gilpin County area and this equipment would aid in the prevention of it. • Idaho Springs was also requesting a front end loader to aid with street maintenance due to the impacts on Riverside and Virginia Canyon from gaming traffic. • Many residents of Idaho Springs were employed in the gaming industry.

Judi Brown of the Clear Creek Advocates made the following presentation regarding their grant: • Ms. Brown was requesting an increase in funding for this application to hire a full time assistant. • The Advocates were being called on more incidents than in recent years, i.e., homicides, death notifications, etc. • The Advocates had programs for children, adults, adolescents, and a food bank. • The Advocates had made 1000 contacts in the prior year. • The full time assistant could be hired with other funding as well, i.e., DA&AP and J.C. Pennys. • The Advocates had 30 volunteers and 9 board members.

Nolan Knox and Rose True of Volunteers of America (VOA) made the following presentation regarding their grant application: • Mr. Knox was the Directory of Nutrition Services for the VOA and Ms. True was the program coordinator at the Senior’s Center in Idaho Springs. • The VOA operated a transportation for seniors in Clear Creek County as well as Meals on Wheels and a congregate nutrition program. • The VOA operated out of the Senior’s Center in Idaho Springs. • This request in the grant application was for personnel due to the competing gaming salaries. The cooks and drivers were being lured toward the gaming salaries. • The VOA was facing a 40% decrease in funds and a project deficit in transportation. • The VOA would be seriously struggling in the upcoming years due to lack of funding. • Some funding for the VOA was obtained from the Older Americans Act.

The Board suggested that the VOA request more funding. The VOA agreed.

Dave Adamson, Planning and Development Director of Columbine Family Health, presented an explanation of their grant application with the following statements: • Columbine was requesting $16,000 to help unsponsored and uninsured care. • Columbine was experiencing an increase in this population at their Idaho Springs clinic. • This funding if acquired would be used to leverage over other funding to help sustain the clinic. • The Idaho Springs clinic grew 30% over the past year. • Columbine was considering expansion of this clinic, however, parking and space was an issue.

Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson made the following presentation for the Ambulance Department grant application: • The Ambulance Department was requesting replacement of their oldest ambulance. • These older models became a maintenance problem. • The cost for the new ambulance was $110,000. • In 2001, the Ambulance Department had 136 gaming related calls. • The Ambulance Department was a self-supporting agency. • The costs per call for the Ambulance Department were approximately $468 per call, with personnel, operating, etc. • The Ambulance Department was also covering the Hwy 119 and U.S. Hwy 6 area.

Mayor Lori Short and Officer John Castrodale made the following presentation for the Empire gaming grant: • Empire had begun tracking gaming impacts in the early 1990's.

73 • Empire Police Department responded to many calls in the Empire Junction area and west of Empire. • There were 8 residents in town that worked in the gaming industry. • Empire did not want to duplicate what the County Sheriff’s Department was requesting but they did have a need for a back up system to communicate due to the black out sections in their area. • Empire experienced 8000 cars per day through their corridor and they needed to have full time communication. • Empire suggested possibly adding to the Sheriff’s request to include some type of communication upgrade to solve their black out problem. Ms. Nay agreed. • This communication problem was an immediate problem and a concern for delivery of services and officer safety. • The Bellevue repeater did not work in the Empire area and Georgetown and Saxon did not work here either. • Empire was requesting the $10,000 in equipment and Empire was putting forth 1/3 of this amount.

The Mayors and Commissioners discussed the grants and their priority. The following list was the order of priority listed by the group: • #1 Sheriff’s Department • #2 County Road and Bridge • #3 Ambulance Department • #4 Town of Empire • #5 City of Idaho Springs • #6 Volunteers of America • #7 Clear Creek Advocates

• #8 District Attorney’s office • #9 Columbine Family Health • #10 Mount Evans Hospice

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMPLOYEE REPLACEMENT FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. PRB representatives Joan Drury and Diane Settle attended the hearing. Ms. Barta made the following presentation: • Classified ads were placed for two weeks in various papers and on the County web page. • As of this date, there were 7 applicants for the Health Educator and one applicant for the Nurse. • Ms. Barta presented salaries for these positions from neighboring counties as many of the residents move to adjacent counties for higher pay. • Ms. Barta questioned why experience was not reflected in the Lee and Burgess salary survey.

Ms. Settle explained that the new wage scale was built to account for new employees coming in with no experience. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the new salary survey was requested to be followed by the PRB. Hiring people based on experience and to be competitive would sacrifice the integrity of the new wage scale plan and the Board did not want to do this. Ms. Barta stated that the wage comparisons found by Human Resources Director Gail Buckley appeared low. She recommended that the new employee be hired at the higher competitive rate as it was grant funding which paid the salary. Commissioner Watrous stated that the Board of County Commissioners had agreed with the PRB on the previous day that they would keep the wage scale plan in tact and stay with its recommendations until July of 2002. The Board of County Commissioners would not approve salaries outside this survey at this time.

Ms. Barta did not agree with the salary survey for her department’s positions as one only increased by 70 cents and the Nursing Supervisor increased by $2 per hour. Ms. Barta stated that when this salary survey was completed, Lee and Burgess should have spoken with the incumbent and they did not. Additionally, she was never questioned about the positions in her department by Lee and Burgess. Commissioner Sorensen stated that based on the numbers presented by Ms.

74 Barta, the County did appear to be low. Commissioner Sorensen suggested that Ms. Barta give a limited timeline to replacing these positions and meet with Ms. Buckley for other hiring strategies. Ms. Settle agreed stating it would provide for more time for research by Ms. Buckley and Ms. Barta. The Board agreed to not increase the hiring salaries at this time and to have Ms. Barta continue to advertise until the positions were filled.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM FOR CONTRACT FOR SERVICES FOR THE BEANPOLE GRANT: Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Director Peggy Stokstad presented. This addendum would be to extend the grant period for the Beanpole Grant. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the addendum to the Contract for Services for the Beanpole Grant. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 16, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 16, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SIMPLEX GRINNELL CONTRACT FOR A FIRE PANEL: Building Maintenance Supervisor John Black presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck attended the hearing. Mr. Black stated that the County did have to meet ADA standards with fire protection and this was taken care of. Simplex Grinnell would be able to work with the existing wiring. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract with Simplex Grinnell for a fire panel. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT TO CONVEY 4 ACRE FEET OF VIDLER WATER TO THE CLEAR CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF GEORGETOWN AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EXERCISING A PURCHASE OPTION TO ACQUIRE 4 ACRE FEET OF VIDLER WATER: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Mr. Weaver requested that the County approve this deed and option to purchase 4 acre feet at the $14,060 per acre foot for the school district. The County would then convey 4 of the 25 acre feet it acquired from the City of Golden through the Vidler Tunnel. The County would use this revenue gained to purchase 4 acre feet of the 100 acre feet of option water from the Vidler Tunnel. This $14,060 per acre foot should be enough for the County to also cover the expense of their water attorney.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this contract was not complete and he recommended waiting as Alan Leak, Water Engineer, did not know what position the County would be in should the call for water be greater than the capacity at the Vidler Tunnel. He added that only one call on the option water could be made per year.

Regarding storage of the Vidler water, Mr. Weaver noted that the County could store the Vidler water at the Idaho Springs Reservoir since Idaho Springs was limited by junior storage rights. He suggested entering into agreements with Idaho Springs to share in the revenues of selling clients water. Mr. Weaver suggested only storing would could be leased out of the creek at present. Eventually Henderson and Vidler water could be stored.

75 Mr. Small noted that the County was leasing most of the Henderson water and it was underutilized in the winter months. He added that the Henderson water had to be ordered at four months at a time and one month in advance. Commissioner Poirot asked if the Town of Georgetown would allow the County to store 3 acre feet of water at the cost of one acre foot. Mr. Weaver did not think that was possible this year. The Georgetown Lake was not in the position to be an operating augmentation pond as there were too many metals on the lower levels of the lake water. Secondly, there was a hydroelectric plan that had recently received its license to operate at 32 cubic feet per second or 2 acre feet per day.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler requested time to work with the County water attorney on the best strategy of selling water to the school district. Secondly, he wanted to research a sale and not a lease to the school district. Mr. Small stated that if the County decided to lease water ti would have to be at a high enough price to purchase the option water from Vidler. He recommended a fee structure be in place. Mr. Weaver stated that presently, Georgetown and Silver Plume were requesting water from the County. Mr. Weaver stated that the bargain price for water for municipal needs had been $400 per acre foot but should be higher for irrigation needs. Commissioner Poirot agreed stating that anything other than domestic use should be at the County cost plus administrative fees.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue this hearing to April 23, 2002 at 2:30 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

DISCUSSION WITH THE PERSONNEL REVIEW BOARD REGARDING FLOATING HOLIDAYS: County Assessor Diane Settle, Deputy Clerk and Recorder Joan Drury, County Clerk and Recorder Pam Phipps, Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken, Human Resources Specialist Gail Buckley, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger, and Open Space Commission representative Sue Howell attended the hearing. Ms. Drury made the following presentation: • The Personnel Review Board had performed a review of how other counties handled their holiday schedule. • The County employees, over time, had lost some holidays. • Most other counties researched gave 87 hours of holiday time. This totaled 27% of the counties in the state. • Every year Clear Creek County had moved a holiday to another date for observance to allow for a longer holiday period. • The Personnel Review Board suggested an additional floating holiday to prevent the moving of other holidays. • This addition of another holiday would only take the County over the normal holiday time by one hour. • The floating holiday could be voted on by staff and moved to any day to accommodate schedules. • Mr. Small added that this did not have a budget issue attached to it. The number of hours paid are the same annually whether a holiday or not. However, this did take away from the eight hours functioning on the job. This work would either have to be made up or more staff would have to be hired.

Mr. Abrahamson stated that his department would be more impacted as they would have to pay holiday time to be off and then have to pay additional staff to cover this. The Board stated that they would have to discuss this issue of adding the floating holiday. The Board stated that they were opposed to moving holiday observance around in the future.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY GRANT FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE MILL CREEK ARRASTRA SITE: Open Space Commission representative Sue Howell presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young, and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Ms. Howell made the following statements: • This grant was assembled by Open Space Commission member Fran Enright and Eric Witty to examine the Arrastra site.

76 • The grant was for $8500 and no matching funds. • The grant would be completed by the end of June 2002 and with no disturbance. • The Open Space Commission felt they needed to know what had been in this area so it could be presented in a community forum. • Mr. Young added that the State Historical Society wanted the Open Space Commission to apply and they were using the County as a test case in which they would expedite the granting. The State Historical Society also suggested the archaeologist.

Mr. Small stated that Mr. Witty would have to subcontract with the County to receive a 1099. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the application for the State Historical Society Funds. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Ms. Howell agreed to make people aware of what was happening in the area while the archaeologist was present. Mr. Young agreed to bring the discovered information to a community forum. Commissioner Sorensen also suggested doing a press release to the papers and posting a notice at the Dumont Post Office. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF HEARTPLAY CONTRACT WITH THE YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM: Administrative Assistant Beth Luther, Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Luther stated that this was the same contract as in previous years and had decreased in amount. County Attorney Bob Loeffler requested a copy of HeartPlay’s insurance policy. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the contract with HeartPlay provided that a certificate of insurance be provided in the amount satisfactory to the County Attorney. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-13, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT-01, FOR MAD CREEK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, TO SELL AND REMOVE 20,000-30,000 CUBIC YARDS OF LANDSCAPING ROCK: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. In attendance were Applicant representative Sabrina Rae, Adjacent Property Owners Frances and Irwin Craft, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Adjacent Property Owners Kathy Dudding, Bruce Able, Sally and Phil Buckland, Zoning Technician Tracy Bennetts, Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer, Applicants Mark Scott and Marilyn Marxuach, Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, Forest Service representative Deb Ryon, Mayor Lori Short of the Town of Empire, and Lori Randall. Ms. Wise made the following statements: • This case was opened on February 19, 2002. • The conclusion of that hearing was continued to this hearing in order to obtain a geologic analysis, to allow the Town of Empire more time to review the proposal, to allow more time to research the PAWS trail, to clear up any zoning violation issues, and to work out the Forest Service access issues. • Commissioner Sorensen also had concerns with regard to the Certificate of Purchase existent on this land. • As of this date, none of these issues had been addressed by the applicant.

Ms. Rae made the following presentation: • Regarding the Best Management Permit and a BMP Plan: Clear Creek County Resolution #01-94 states that “excavating means any act by which soil or rock is cut into, exposed, dug quarried, removed or relocated”. Both Mad Creek Corporation and the State of Colorado find that the removal of rock from Mad Creek’s proposed site does not constitute excavating. Furthermore the State geologist found that the “petitioner plans no excavation of rock and no surface disturbance that would require reclamation” “ as the petitioner is not extracting the material in questions from its natural occurrences on affected land.” Mad Creek plans no grading other than that which is exempt under said regulations for routine maintenance of private roads. There are no additional hazards or safety concerns to the public. Handpicked rock will not cause any kind of rockslide problems, according to the state findings. Mad Creek Corporation may put up a construction fence between the

77 working area and the areas below for any liability reasons, if our insurance company finds it to be necessary. • Regarding the ‘approved geologic report completed by a licensed engineer’: Commissioner Sorensen cannot ask for additional requirements that are not part of the County regulations, according to the settlement agreement. Furthermore, the State of Colorado provided ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ that give the conclusions of their findings by the State geologist. If the County wants to pay for and get a second geology report, they may. It cannot however delay the approval process, the rock removal (or anything associated with Made Creek beginning, operating, or finishing the removal of rock), nor anything else which would cause further work or cost for Mad Creek. Any such actions would be considered a breach of the agreement and we would be entitled to damages no less than $500,000, according to our attorney. • Regarding a Driveway and Building Site Excavation Permit: According to County zoning regulations Section 7 C-4 and Section 7 (M-1) and Section 2 C-8, the only roads and/or driveways requiring permits are new or redesigned roads or driveways. Mad Creek showed the inspector Tim Vogel and Carol Wise that the roads and driveways already exist and will be used as is, except for routine maintenance which is exempt under Resolution #01-94 of County regulations. Mad Creek plans no building for this site. • Regarding the State Highway Access Permit: Mad Creek Corporation has spoken with CDOT; has an application and will submit the application when Clear Creek County pays the application fees, as agreed upon in their settlement agreement. • Regarding Access: All parties agreed that Mad Creek, the County, and its citizens would prefer Mad Creek Corporation to use the Forest Service land for access. Mad Creek Corporation has obtained an application for this process, which the County agreed to help facilitate (according to County transcripts from previous meeting of the Board of County Commissioners) or to change access through private lands (see terms of settlement agreement). The Forest Service cannot give access until the permit is granted. • Regarding the Town of Empire: The Town of Empire may at any time view all articles submitted for the application process in order to address their concerns. • Regarding the Forest Service: Mad Creek will be working with the Forest Service in regards to access and other issues. • Mad Creek Corporation has complied with all County, state and federal regulations regarding this process. Any additional requirements the County tries to impose will be considered a breach of agreement and will be pursued as such.

Ms. Wise submitted a letter to the Board of County Commissioners from herself and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel regarding the need for a geologic analysis. In summary the letter stated the following: • This analysis would determine whether potential hazards existed in the removal of rock from the rockslide areas of the properties. • No remote sensing data was available for this area to determine potential geologic hazard. • 60% of the property was shown to be greater than a 30% slope. • The area proposed for rock removal was an apparent talus/rockslide area. • Regulations for the Site Development Department require a BMP plan prepared by a Colorado licensed engineer for earth disturbing activities greater than 2500 cubic yards. The BMP plan would require a geologic analysis of the area to determine what BMP mitigation devices would be necessary. • By removing the top layer of rock, the underlayment rock or soil would be exposed to runoff, creating the potential for piping ( underground erosion). This process would result in the possibility of slope instability and rockslides or mudslides. • Staff did not have the expertise to determine whether removal of rock from these locations may create instabilities in the existing rockslide areas causing a risk to the safety of residents of the area beneath. • Criteria #9 for approval of a Special Use Permit states “The use will not otherwise be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the present or future inhabitants of Clear Creek County, nor inconsistent with section 1 - title, authority, and Interpretation, Subsection E. Purposes, of these Regulations.” • Section 1.E.12 of the zoning regulations sets out as a public interest: “Minimizing erosion, runoff and sediment loading from earth-disturbing activities.”

78 • Section 19.C.2.a of the zoning regulations specifically designates as a matter of state interest, and subject to County review, “Natural hazard areas.” • If the Board of County Commissioners determined that such a geologic analysis was not required in this instance, staff recommended that sufficient liability insurance to protect the life and property of residents below the proposed operation be required as a party of any approval of the proposed use, as well as an agreement with the applicant to hold the County harmless from any damages resulting from approval of the Special Use Permit. A financial guarantee should also be required, in accordance with the Special Use Permit regulations, to ensure reclamation of the slopes following completion of the project.

Ms. Rae read a letter into the record from the Mad Creek Development Corporation’s Attorney. In summary, this letter stated the following: • The Attorney, Clay Hurst, apologized for not being able to attend this hearing. • On September 6, 2000, he had met with the County attorney Gayla Daniels and the County’s litigation attorney, Steven Dawes in front of U.S. Magistrate Patricia Coan and after much negotiation arrived at a settlement which was then put on the record. • The important issues was that the County and their attorneys agreed that the County would process and issue Mad Creek Development Corporation a Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit to remove rock. Mad Creek had followed all County and state regulations regarding this process. In fact, that was to be issued prior to going to the Colorado Sate Geological Mining Land Reclamation board. It was also agreed that no matter the outcome of the processing, that event if this had been presented to the Planning Commission and denied, the planning staff and the County commissioners would approve and issue a Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit (see page 10, line 8, through page 11, line 12). • Why Commissioner Sorensen requested a geological study was confusing to Mr. Hurst, the Mad Creek Development Corporation attorney. As stated above, the County must issue the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit. The reason Mad Creek Development Corporation had to go to the Colorado State Division of Mining and Geology Mining Land Reclamation Board was to make sure the State Geologist approve the rock removal, which they did. An Order declaring that this Operation is one that does not need to do any reclamation was issued. The Geologist determined there would be no earth disturbance by removing a layer of rock from the talus slope. The geological study was completed by the State of Colorado’s own Geologist. Also why an alleged zoning violation issue is relevant was unclear. That has nothing to do with the agreement that the County will issue a Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit. • All fees associated with the permit are to be waived. The reason that was put into the agreement is because the parties agreed that Mad Creek Development Corporation would not be required to spend any money to get the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit. This is important because at the last hearing Mad Creek Development Corporation was told that it had to get a CDOT access permit and a Forest Service permit. Mad Creek Development Corporation had met with Chuck Binford and will be submitting that permit application, however because the County has charged Mad Creek Development Corporation with getting a permit it needs to pay the $100 fee to the State of Colorado when the permit is submitted. Likewise any permit fees the Forest Service requires will need to be paid (remember the Forest Service permit will be submitted once the Special Use Permit is issued). • It seemed clear to Mr. Hurst and in accordance with the U.S. District Court record that Mad Creek Development Corporation should have had its permit issued back when the Special Use Permit application was submitted on July 17, 2001. It is now 9 months since that application was submitted. “If the permit is not issued, your attorneys agreed that Mad Creek Development Corporation would be entitled to damages for breach of agreement”. Mad Creek Development Corporation has investigated the potential rock sales and has determined that it will be able to sell the rock for no less than $500,000. If the permit is not issued, Mr. Hurst expected the County, pursuant to page 20, lines 19-24, to pay Mad Creek Development Corporation a sum of not less than that amount as a remedy for the breach.

79 Ms. Rae then commented on Ms. Wise’s and Mr. Vogel’s letter to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the geologic analysis with the following statements: • She was unsure who said anyone used remote sensing data and did not see its relevance. • Mad Creek Development Corporation knew that staff and the State Geologist completed a site analysis. • In the Findings of Fact from the State of Colorado, it was stated that the petition plans no excavation of rock. Mad Creek Development Corporation was not extracting material from its natural concurrent. This project would cause no disturbance. • She informed Mr. Loeffler that the County would have to obtain a copy of the state report from the State offices. • Regarding the BMP regulations, the State of Colorado found that no excavation of rock or disturbance would occur requiring reclamation. The “underlayment” comment was an opinion of Clear Creek County and there was nothing in the regulations to back this up.

• Regarding the staff not being able to determine the instability of the slopes, the State had found no safety hazards. • The State did not qualify this removal of rock as an earth disturbing activity. • Mad Creek Development Corporation was not extracting from the natural occurrence on the land. • Regarding the liability insurance requirement, Mad Creek Development Corporation was considering a construction fence. This was the only cost that Mad Creek Development Corporation was taking on. They were waiting on the permit so an insurance policy could be purchased for this project. • Per the agreement with Clear Creek County and Mad Creek Development Corporation in District Court, all fees were to be waived which were involved in this application process.

Ms. Wise and Commissioner Sorensen stated that the State was not commenting on the activity but on the requirements for reclamation.

There was discussion on when the application was actually submitted to the County offices. Mr. Scott stated that the application for the Special Use Permit was submitted on July 17, 2001. Ms. Rae noted that the second application was submitted on January 8, 2002.

Ms. Wise stated that the settlement agreement does not say that the County will agree to approve anything. Ms. Rae replied that it was Mad Creek Development Corporation’s contention that they had complied with all County regulations and the governmental entity with regard to rockslide. The ongoing process was with the Forest Service access issue. The Forest Service wanted the Special Use Permit granted from the County before granting an access across their land. Mr. Loeffler stated that there were no assurances from the Forest Service that they would grant an access permit. Ms. Rae stated that at the last meeting the Forest Service stated that Mad Creek Development Corporation had to submit an application, show they were not negatively impacting anything and it was up to the County to determine where they wanted the access to take place. Mr. Loeffler stated that the only other access was through the trailer park. Mr. Scott replied that the fence at the trailer park would have to be removed per the RS 2477 rule. Mr. Vogel stated that the County had found this to be a private dispute between the private land owners. Mr. Loeffler asked that Mr. Hurst explain the private access as it was to his knowledge that Margaret King had granted easements to private land owners.

Regarding the fee for the Forest Service permit, Mr. Loeffler asked if Mad Creek Development Corporation expected the County to pay for this. Ms. Rae replied that yes, this was correct. The only other option would be for the Mad Creek Development Corporation to use other accesses. She continued that Mr. Vogel informed Mad Creek Development Corporation that they needed a CDOT access permit but after meeting with CDOT, CDOT informed Mad Creek Development Corporation that they did not need one. CDOT informed Mad Creek Development Corporation that this was a County issue. Mr. Vogel stated that Mr. Binford of CDOT informed him that Mad Creek Development Corporation would need an access permit. Mr. Rae replied that if Mad Creek Development Corporation needed a CDOT access permit, they expected the County to also pay for this fee. It was a part of the Special Use Permit application process. Ms. Rae added that anything that the County required as a part of the Special Use Permit application process, Mad

80 Creek Development Corporation expected the County to pay for it. Commissioner Poirot disagreed stating that he did not think the settlement agreement required to County to pay for everything associated with this project. The County did agree to waive the Special Use Permit application fee but not the access fees with the Forest Service and CDOT. Mr. Scott requested that the County Attorney and the Mad Creek Development Corporation attorney discuss these issues. He did not want Mr. Loeffler to ask further questions of Ms. Rae. Mr. Loeffler replied that the applicant had attended this hearing making statements of what they would and would not do. He was seeking clarification and if the applicant did not want to answer, they did not have to.

Ms. Rae stated that according to the transcripts of the District Court case, it stated that the County would support this process. Supporting this process would mean reaching a reasonable situation of what was required. If the Forest Service access was not an option, then Mad Creek Development Corporation would have to find another access. Also, the County must understand the ramifications of the Forest Service access.

Mr. Scott requested again that the Board of County Commissioners and the County Attorney not ask Ms. Rae questions pertaining to legal issues. Mr. Loeffler replied that this was a land use application and if the applicant did not want to answer questions, then the Board needed to address the elements of the Special Use Permit.

Commissioner Poirot stated that he did not recall receiving the hand delivered Special Use Permit application in July of 2001. Ms. Rae stated that Mad Creek Development Corporation’s point was that they opposed any continuation of this process as it had been nine months since the application was first submitted. The second application was started in January of 2002 and it was now April of 2002.

Regarding driveways, Mr. Loeffler asked if there were existing driveways on this property. Ms. Rae replied that there was the existing Forest Service access and a driveway permit should not be required for this. Mr. Loeffler asked if there were roadways internal to the property. Ms. Rae replied that they were not redesigning any of the internal roads so they would not need a permit. Any road needing grading would be exempt under Resolution #01-94. Mad Creek Development Corporation was not changing the direction of the road at all. Ms. Wise expressed concern over any reclamation or maintenance of these roads as heavy truck traffic traveled over them. This was an area where the camp ground owners had a permit with the Forest Service.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed the following concerns: • She wanted to better understand the purpose of appearing before the Mined Land Reclamation Board. Mad Creek Development Corporation had stated that the Mined Land Reclamation Board found that the applicant was not excavating. • Commissioner Sorensen understood the Mined Land Reclamation Board document to read that this type of excavation did not require reclamation yet it was still excavation. Ms. Rae replied that they had researched the records and the Mined Land Reclamation Board did not find this to be excavating. • Commissioner Sorensen wanted to review the transcripts and Article 32.5. • Commissioner Sorensen stated that excavation not requiring reclamation was not the County’s issue. The County was seeing this as excavation and would the applicant need a BMP plan. Ms. Rae still replied that the Mined Land Reclamation Board determined that the material being extracted was not removing it from its natural occurrence. It was not excavating.

Due to lack of time on the Board of County Commissioners agenda, Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the hearing to May 7, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

DISCUSSION OF HUMAN SERVICES ORIENTATION AND MANUAL WITH KEN ROSEVEAR: Ken Rosevear of the Colorado Department of Human Services and Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Rosevear presented the new orientation manual for Human Services directors throughout the State with the following comments:

81 • The State recognized the need for an orientation manual. • This manual described the different pieces of the program. • Many Human Services managers were contacted to formulate this manual. • The manual included discussions on budgets, personnel issues, merit principles, liability issues, dealing with the media and sample policy statements.

The Board of County Commissioners accepted the manual to be used by the Clear Creek County Human Services Department.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS TO THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES: Human Resources Specialist Gail Buckley presented. County Assessor Diane Settle, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Human Services Director Cindy Dicken, Road and Bridge Supervisor Tim Allen, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Buckley made the following presentation: • This hearing was to consider the positions of Grant Writer, Director of Office of Emergency Management, Workforce Center Director, and Health Educator. • The Personnel Review Board requested that these positions be included in the new employee compensation plan.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve these four positions into the new employee compensation plan. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Buckley presented the second portion of the hearing with the following presentation: • This presentation regarded the base job descriptions for the Service Unit Managers without the stipends. • This included Director of Social Services, Chief Accountant, and Road and Bridge Supervisor. • The Personnel Review Board was requesting that the Board of County Commissioners approve these four base positions without a stipend and then decide a stipend later. • Ms. Buckley presented information from the Lee and Burgess study.

Commissioner Watrous requested to see comparisons from other counties for the Director of Human Services. Ms. Buckley agreed. The Board discussed the levels of the four base positions. Commissioner Poirot stated that when Service Unit Managers were implemented the Board of County Commissioners had tried to compensate the stipend amount worth the extra responsibility. Ms. Buckley stated that the Personnel Review Board had performed their own survey for these positions. Commissioner Watrous requested the same survey data for other employees for these four positions. She also requested more time to review the base salary for the Human Services Director. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the base job descriptions and pointings for the Road and Bridge Supervisor and Chief Accountant. This acceptance did not include the stipend for the Service Unit Manager responsibilities. Commissioner Watrous seconded. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE LETTER FOR CDBG GRANT FOR CLEAR CREEK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Administrative Assistant Gayle Johnson presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended. This change would extend the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation CDBG grant period for another six months to October 17, 2002. This would allow them to deplete their funding. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Contract Change Letter for the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation for the CDBG grant. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-47, REZONING CASE #265 AND MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENT #01-PDA-02, FOR WALSTRUM QUARRY FOR ALBERT FREI AND SONS INC. AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-62, VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENT CASE #01-PDA-02, WALSTRUM QUARRY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AMENDED OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN:

82 Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen presented. In attendance were Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Tony Reynold, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, John Moody, Steve O’Brian, Applicant Ben Frei, Craig Houdeshell, Dick Woods--EMERGE, Frank Young-- Open Space Commission, Planning Commission member Christopher Johnson, Planning Director Carol Wise, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Applicants Al Frei Sr. and Al Frei Jr. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: < The parcels for this rezoning case and major plan amendment included: #1833-34-2-00- 003, #1833-34-2-00-002, #1833-34-1-00-001, and #1833-35-2-00-002. < The area was located north of U.S. Hwy 6 just east of the intersection of I-70 and U.S. Hwy 6 before U.S. Hwy 6 entered Clear Creek Canyon. < The applicant was requesting to change the zoning designation on 166 acres from MR-1 to Planned Development (PD) to expand an existing quarry operation to the north towards the Clear Creek/Gilpin County line, and to add a second access into the quarry. Two reservoir locations were also proposed for use after reclamation. This request also included amending the existing Official Development Plan (ODP) to include this proposed property. < Regarding the criteria and performance standards, the following specific standards must be met; however, flexibility may be granted where no specific standards were outlined. < Seventeen standards were reviewed by staff on this application, i.e., hazard mitigation, wildlife impact, slope, traffic, etc. < Referral responses were received from over 10 agencies, i.e., Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association, CDOT, etc. < Other submittals were presented from the Planning Department. < The Planning Commission had requested a history of what had occurred between the quarry and the County over the years, i.e., zoning violations. < A highway and pavement sweeping plan was enclosed to the Board of County Commissioners. < A list of stipulation and conditions was included in the submittals. < One stipulation, #26, discussed an acceleration lane. CDOT had asked that an eastern access be located on the Texaco Placer by a certain time in 2002. The applicants had agreed. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that even though this was a CDOT issue, the County could advise if they were mitigating traffic. < Another stipulation, #23, regarding quarry traffic, the Planning Commission requested the following language: “Traffic counts related to the mine (passenger cars, light trucks, multi unit trucks, single unit vehicles, in excess of 30 feet and other vehicles) for all accesses combined shall be restricted to 1200 movements per day. Leaving the property, then returning is considered two counts. If traffic counts are to be greater than 1200 movements per day, a Major Plan Amendment to this Official Development Plan will be required to review the impacts of additional traffic prior to the applicant applying for a new Highway Access Permit from CDOT.” < “During critical times when an aggregate extraction project requires that these traffic counts to be exceeded, the applicant shall notify the Planning Director of the reason why traffic counts are to be exceeded, the proposed traffic counts for the project, the duration that the traffic counts will be exceeded, and what mitigation efforts will be used for a period not to exceed twenty days per year. If traffic counts are to be exceeded for more than twenty days per year, an amendment to this Official Development Plan to change this Stipulation and Conditions will be required.” < Mr. Rollenhagen added that another option would be to limit the quarry traffic amount to the same limit as what the CDOT permit allowed. Commissioner Sorensen suggested a limit on gaming traffic as well. < Mr. Rollenhagen presented a resolution for the approval of a Vested Property Rights for the applicant if this proposal was approved.

Mr. O’Brian made a presentation for the applicant: < He was the consultant hired by Albert Frei and Sons. < HE handled the original permit in the 1980's < The request began as a request to add 166 acres to the existing quarry. < The expanded area was to the north. < To the south was a lot of junk left there from the construction of Hwy 119.

83 < This lower portion was not to be mined but it would be the location of the secondary access. < There was 35-40 acres disturbed in the mine at the present time. < Under the new proposal, the quarry would remove the high wall, flatten the top so the hillside beyond would be visible. This would allow additional floor space of six acres. Floor space was the most difficult challenge for quarries. < The quarry was proposing to mine into the north wall area and implement two reservoirs. < The larger reservoir would be the first to be mined. < The high wall would be removed from the west to the east across the new area in large benches. < He presented renderings of the quarry at present and in the future. < Another item added was a secondary access in 1999. The mine had gone to CDOT to request 1000 turning units. < CDOT would allow this if the quarry had installed a deceleration lane and a right turn entrance. The quarry complied and this gave them 1000 units in but only 800 units out. < In 1992, CDOT approved a total of 1600 turning trips or 800 units. < The amount allowed by CDOT was a higher limit than that set by the Planning Commission. < The quarry was presently at about 400 trucks per day---or 800 trips. < In 1992, the quarry had added acceleration and deceleration lanes. < CDOT informed the quarry that the adjacent highway was built for 2000 cars per day. < Regarding reservoirs, the quarry felt that by the time this water storage area was completed, the water demand would be present. < The last request was for the approval of a shop building to be built on the property. It would be a maintenance building behind a berm and not visible. It was considered a temporary building but would probably be on the property for 70 years. < Mr. O’Brian stated that another issue to surface was the issue of traffic at the entrance. He added that if the secondary access were implemented, there would not be as many problems. < The quarry had put in another pad to clean trucks and had paved approximately 71,000 feet of the floor of the quarry. < Since the Planning Commission hearings, the quarry had bought a sweeping truck. In May, the quarry would work with CDOT on an acceleration lane on the Texaco Placer and work on a sweeping plan. < It was evident that the quarry would not be able to prevent all dirt. The quarry in Jefferson County had a one mile long stretch of pavement and they too could not prevent the dirt on the highway. < Regarding berms, Mr. O’Brian stated that the front of the quarry had been left at 7400 feet elevation so the floor activity could not be seen from I-70. < The proposed plan would leave the front berm and reclaim the back side and the back wall would be taken down. Mr. Rollenhagen confirmed that this front berm would stay until the end of operation. The Reevy report stated that the quarry could possible remove this berm in the future. < Mr. O’Brian added that the Reevy report recommended avoiding mining in this area as it was a fault line. They could reduce the wall by a small amount but totally removing it would be very unstable. Regarding reservoirs, Mr. O’Brian stated that the larger reservoir could store 600 acre feet and this water could be used for dust control. < Regarding whether the Gaming EIS study and the proposals for widening Hwy 119 and U.S. Hwy 6, Mr. O’Brian replied that these proposals would not impact the quarry in that it would improve the quarry entrance on Hwy 119. Secondly, the quarry had been working with the railroad group to have them dispose of their materials at the quarry. If the road were widened, it would make it better for the truck traffic. < Regarding the wildlife impact and the Division of Wildlife suggesting the significant mitigation be implemented per the URS study, Mr. O’Brian replied that the Division of Wildlife had not yet contacted the quarry. Mr. O’Brian stated that the quarry worked with the wildlife often in that they had to move them out the way before blasting. The quarry did not grow rapidly so they sheep moved around the area a lot. Under the new plan, the quarry would be reclaiming even more land and creating two lakes. The quarry did inform

84 the Division of Wildlife that they were willing to work together on helping with other lands that the Frei’s own. < Commissioner Sorensen asked if the reclamation came in phases or in short windows? Mr. O’Brian replied that the State only allowed the quarry to have 40 acres of disturbance at a time. Under the current plan, only flat benches were reclaimed. Once the benches were rebuilt, the revegetation began. The Texaco Placer was already reclaimed. Stage X would be left as a parking area and graded. Stage Z was changed in the sup. Under the new plan Stages X and Y would be taken out and reclaimed. With the proposed plan, the main area of operations wouldn’t change that much. The high wall would come out and the large reservoir would be put in. Reclamation would occur in these areas simultaneously. If the proposal was stopped in the middle, the bond was large enough to finish the reclamation. At the same time, the State performed inspections every two years. If at any time, the quarry did not reclaim their areas, the State would catch this. < Mr. O’Brian stated that there was 75 years of material in the present area. There was just aggregate being mined at this time, not mineral. < Regarding the Central City and Black Hawk proposed accesses, Mr. O’Brian stated the closest proposal was the Black Hawk tunnel. The Central City group had talked with the quarry and discussed surveying some land for right of way.

Commissioner Watrous opened the hearing for public comment.

Dick Woods, EMERGE Vice President Mr. Woods made the following comments: < EMERGE realized that this land was not in their area but they did have an interest in the economics of the County. < EMERGE did support the expansion of the quarry. < EMERGE felt that this case gave the County a strong position to establish itself in continuing the quality of life here. < Regarding the resolution, EMERGE felt that the County, the staff, and the applicant had done a good job of the stipulations and conditions to meet the issues raised by the public and EMERGE. < Regarding section 2.C of the resolution, EMERGE felt that compliance monitoring was important. This was a large commercial operation and needed monitoring. < Regarding #30, enforcement, EMERGE realized that zoning enforcement was difficult for the County. This applicant had a history with the County on zoning issues and this was a credibility issue for the applicant. EMERGE suggested a financial penalty if the applicant failed to comply. < Past audiences in Frei hearings stated that they had felt that Frei had not met with past stipulations, i.e. the Texaco Placer.

Donna Moody, Planning Commission member Ms. Moody made the following comments: < She missed the meeting where some of these issues were discussed. < She expressed concern on the 800 trips per day. She wanted this to be a firm number. < She expressed concern with regard to the dust control plan for the entire quarry as she only saw a plan for the secondary access. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that the quarry had a sweeping plan for the entire quarry. Mr. Frei Jr. added that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment monitored the dust in their permitting. All equipment had to be certified and permitted. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that stipulation #24 required a road sweeping management plan and a vehicle tracking pit to be installed at the access of the quarry. The Texaco Placer was also paved to cut down on dust. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that additional vegetation will be implemented on the Texaco Placer. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that the County did not currently have dust regulations. Mr. O’Brian stated that Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment had a stringent permitting process which included production, boundaries, and more. The quarry preferred not to have compliance monitoring as they were already monitored by three State agencies. The quarry was monitored by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the Mined Land Reclamation Board, and MSHA for mine safety. Mr. O’Brian suggested an

85 annual report that addressed the stipulations and conditions each year for the County to review.

Regarding the number of movements per day at the mine, Mr. O’Brian stated that CDOT never had a problem with the 800. There was no production on Sunday’s so the mine figured their trips on a 6 day average.

Regarding the jeep road on the property, Commissioner Sorensen asked if this was covered in the resolution. Mr. O’Brian replied that the quarry had asked these people to use the quarry entrance the quarry would keep the jeep road open. The only owners above the quarry were County Lands and the cell tower companies. Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel stated that this road did date back to 1904 on the U.S. Geologic Survey maps and it would be good to include legal documented access. If the quarry were to expand, he suggested the County require the quarry to relocate the road. Mr. O’Brian stated that this road was kept gated to protect outsiders during blasting periods. He added that this road should not be impacted for about 25 years. Mr. Vogel suggested an agreement now as County Lands had plans for a reservoir in this area too. Mr. Frei Jr. stated that the quarry presently had an easement in place with the cell tower companies. Mr. Rollenhagen read the following stipulations into the record: < #4: ACCESS BY APO: Right and privileges of access are hereby granted to the owners, and to telecommunication companies with telecommunication facilities located on adjacent sites, including Clear Creek County, owner of former BLM land located to the west of the subject parcel, subject to their checking with the mine superintendent or owner and being properly equipped to meet all MSHA safety standards prior to entering the quarry. < #5: TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES NOTIFICATION: The applicant shall notify all telecommunications companies that have telecommunications facilities located on the land on which they must use this property to access, and an alternate route to the telecommunication facilities shall be secured prior to the destruction of the existing route leading to the facilities tat is adequate to the owners of the telecommunications facilities. County Attorney Bob Loeffler suggested that these stipulations include the County lands to the north of the quarry also.

Mr. Rollenhagen reviewed the resolution with the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Rollenhagen read stipulation #1 into the record: #1: USES NORTH OF U.S. HWY 6: Uses permitted are those as presented and shown in the Official Development Plan, these Stipulations and Conditions, and as presented in the Amended Use and Area Regulations as presented on page 2 of 6 of the Official Development Plan. These uses include quarry and mine work as described on page 2 of 6, and the location of one maintenance and shop building located in the building envelope as shown on the site plan. The Planning Department shall review the site plan and building plans for the proposed building prior to issuance of a building permit. Application fees shall reflect those of a Minor Plan Amendment for the Planning Department to conduct the review. The review shall encompass location of the structure to assure that is hidden from view from points outside the quarry. If there is no practical area for the structure to be placed that is 100% hidden from view, the applicant shall demonstrate the proposed location is the least visible location from points outside the quarry. If the structure will be within view from points outside the quarry, the Planning Department shall review the site plan and building plan s in regards to architectural features. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed structure is compatible with the surrounding development, natural environment and general character of the area.

Mr. Rollenhagen noted that the applicant had not submitted any building plans at present.

< Regarding Division of Wildlife access, Commissioner Sorensen wanted it included in the resolution that the applicant had agreed to work with the Division of Wildlife in mitigation efforts to reduce roadkill, i.e., a proposed bridge in the Gaming EIS study. < Regarding #2 and the silt fence on the Texaco Placer, County Attorney Bob Loeffler asked how long this fence would remain? Mr. Vogel replied that the fence should remain until the vegetation emerges from the ground. There was a 80% vegetation success rate required before removal of the fence. The fence would also have to be maintained and

86 cleaned periodically. Mr. Vogel would perform an inspection before the silt fence was removed. < County Attorney Bob Loeffler asked about the catch basin. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that this was not on the landscaping plan. He added that if the proposal was approved, the catch basin would be redlined on the Official Development Plan for review prior to recordation. Mr. O’Brian agreed to submit a revised Stage Y plan to handle this issue. The drainage plan would include clean out plans and a maintenance schedule for the catch basin. < Mr. Rollenhagen read stipulation #6 into the record: POWER LINES: All power lines and easements shall be appropriately moved and/or altered prior to mining the new portion of this Official Development Plan. < Regarding Stage X and the requirement to be cleaned up and reclaimed, Mr. O’Brian stated that the quarry was trying to clean this area and would grade this to leave it as a parking area. The Mined Land Reclamation Board plan did not call for the revegetation. If the quarry revegetated the land, they feared that people would still park there and kill the grass. Mr. Rollenhagen agreed to make the stipulation read as the Mined Land Reclamation Board permit read. < Mr. Rollenhagen read stipulation #9 into the record: MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD NOTIFICATION: The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners shall notify the Mined Land Reclamation Board of the zoning decision. < Mr. Rollenhagen read stipulation #11 into the record: DRAINAGE PLAN: The Drainage Plan shall be revised as stated under the Recommendations by Knight Piesold & Company in their Walstrum Quarry Drainage Plan and Report Review as follows: < a. Recalculate the historic and developed hydrology using representative values for percent imperviousness, overland flow and watercourse slopes, and overland flow and watercourse lengths, and the appropriate computation methods should be used. < B. Calculate the sediment inflow volume to the proposed detention/retention facilities to assure that an adequate WQCV is available. < C. Redesign the existing Sedimentation Basin and Detention Pond 3 using the revised hydrology and appropriate design methods. < D. Construction details for all proposed retention and detention areas shall be included. < The revised Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners and reviewed by Knight Piesold & Co. At the applicant’s expense for accuracy. The Board of County Commissioners, based on review comments from Knight Piesold & Co. , and a recommendation from Planning Staff, shall approve with conditions or deny the Drainage Plan. Approval of this revised Official Development Plan and rezoning is conditional to approval of the Drainage Plan. < Mr. Rollenhagen noted the read stipulations #12 through 19 into the record. < Regarding stipulation #20 and the proposed annual report from the quarry, Mr. Rollenhagen thought this could be a proactive way to review the mine annually. Planning Staff would be responsible for reviewing the annual report and the Site Development Department would perform site inspections. Mr. O’Brian agreed to the annual reports in that each year the mine would address each stipulation and condition in a report form for the County. The Board of County Commissioners deleted from the stipulation the copying of the report to the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association as they were advisory. Commissioner Sorensen requested an addition that when the annual report was submitted, that Staff contact the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to see if any complaints were filed. < Stipulations 21 and 22 were read into the record. < Regarding stipulation #23 and quarry traffic, Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the Planning Commission had limited the quarry to 1200 movements per day. Mr. O’Brian stated that the quarry now had approval for more than 1200 movements per day per their CDOT permit. He requested that this stipulation equal the same restriction amount as the CDOT permit. Commissioner Sorensen agreed stating that it was not right to limit this industry on traffic when the gaming traffic was not limited in this area. Commissioner Watrous agreed. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that if the number in this stipulation changed, the applicant would have to do a Major Plan Amendment. He suggested changing the language to say that the CDOT limit was the limit. Ms. Wise stated that a number was included in this stipulation as it was a topic of controversy at the Planning

87 Commission hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen explained that it was up to the County if they wanted write standards for roads. Mr. Vogel noted that not all of the quarry trucks were using U.S. Hwy 6, some were using I-70. County Attorney Bob Loeffler noted that if a number of movements was listed in this stipulation, each time the applicant wanted to increase this number, it would require a Plan Amendment. The County could not adopt a level of service on U.S. Hwy 6 as it was not their road. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that the County could impose stricter conditions than what the CDOT permit did. Mr. Loeffler agreed that this was correct if the case related to land use. Mr. O’Brian stated that with technology, the quarry could mitigate dust and increase production. They would then be limited by access permits. Commissioner Sorensen stated that if this stipulation remained in the resolution, it would have to be applied to every other application on a State highway. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the effect of taking out stipulation #23 would leave the limit set by CDOT. The Board agreed to leave this limit to be the same as the CDOT permit, 1400 movements per day. < Regarding stipulation #24 and the road sweeping management plan, Mr. Rollenhagen met with CDOT representative Chuck Binford to discuss this issue. Mr. O’Brian stated that it would be difficult for CDOT to sign off on a sweeping plan for the road. This was not a policy of theirs. CDOT may not sign off on private sweeping plans. County Attorney Bob Loeffler suggested that the Planning Department submit the sweeping plan to CDOT and it would be up to CDOT to comment. < Stipulations #25 was read into the record dealing with a dust management plan. < Regarding stipulation #26 and the acceleration lane on U.S. Hwy 6 for the eastern access staging area on the Texaco Placer, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to a date of August 31, 2003 to have this acceleration in place. < Stipulations #27-31 were from the original Official Development Plan and were standard conditions. < The Staff and the Planning Commission had recommended approval on this case.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-47, Rezoning Case #265 and Major Plan Amendment Case #01-PDA-02 for Albert Frei and Sons Inc. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, County Attorney Bob Loeffler noted that Mr. Rollenhagen would make the noted changes and bring the resolution back to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. The vote was unanimous.

Regarding the vested rights resolution #02-62 for approved the site specific development plan for the Walstrum Aggregate Quarry Planned Development Zoning District Amended Official Development Plan, Major Plan Amendment Case #01-PDA-02, Mr. Rollenhagen noted that standard term was three years. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-62, vested rights resolution for the applicant. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 23, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Jo Ann Sorensen and County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Robert Poirot was absent.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT’S: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements:

88 • These were five older Combination of Lots Agreement forms that had circulated at the end of 2001. • The first Combination of Lots Agreement was for John and Nancy Aune, #01-TR-106, who combined County Lands parcel #1835-20-1-00-958 with their mining claim, the Grace Lode, MS# 15603. It was confirmed that the Aune’s had paid their taxes. • The second Combination of Lots Agreement was for Laura Brown, #01-TR-090, who combined County Lands parcel #1835-31-1-00-961 with her mining claim the Mary Ann Lode, MS# 19235. • The third Combination of Lots Agreement was for Wade and Heidi Cox, #01-TR-118, who combined County Lands parcel #1835-31-1-00-956A with their mining claim the Teasdale Lode, MS#16564A. • The fourth Combination of Lots Agreement was for Laura Brown, #01-TR-090, who combined County Lands parcel #1835-31-1-00-958 with her mining claim the Kannikuck Lode, MS# 19235. • The fifth Combination of Lots Agreement was for Laura Brown, #01-TR-119, who combined County Lands parcel #1835-31-1-00-956B with her mining claim, the Mary E. Lode, MS# 19235.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the five Combination of Lots Agreements of County lands to private ownership. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-61, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT-4, FOR CHARLENE LEBERER FOR A RETREAT CENTER FACILITY LOCATED ON STEVE CANYON ROAD OFF OF SODA CREEK ROAD: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. In attendance were Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Adjacent Property Owner Curtis Lukow, Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Environmental Health Specialist Chris Etcheson, Applicants Charlene Leberer and Patrick Langley, property owners Darryl and Sandra Chauncey, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, and Realtor Danya Scott. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: • The request was to establish a retreat center and facility, dedicated to supporting health and natural healing through meditation, nutrition, education, personal growth and yoga. • The location was on the west side of the road going up Steve Canyon, approximately .9 miles form the intersection of Soda Creek Road.

The legal description was the Golden Gate Mining Claim. The retreat center was expected to accommodate between 8 and 12 people sleeping overnight. For two times per year, there would be class retreats that may involve up to 18 people. The requested term of the permit was two years. • Access was provided by a road going up Steve Canyon from Soda Creek Road. Historically, it had been maintained by the owners of the Golden Gate for their own access purposes. The applicants had expressed that they intended to continue maintaining it for their access and have provided a description as to how the road will be upgraded and maintained. • The applicant had indicated that they would use existing infrastructure for water and sewage disposal. A domestic well, currently in use, would be used for their water source, and the existing 1000 gallon septic tank and system would be used for sewage disposal. • Ms. Wise stated that the septic tank was not really up to date and the Planning Department was unsure of the leach field. • The applicants had applied for a Forest Service permit to improve the road. This process would take a year. Winter months did have restricted use. • The house would not be lived in full time. People would only be at the location on weekends. • The applicant wanted this two year term of the permit to test the viability of the proposed use. If the proposal was successful, the applicants would apply for a rezoning as Planned Development. • The applicants were under contract to purchase the land from the Chaunceys.

89 Mr. Etcheson made the following statements regarding the proposal: • He had examined the structure and received information from the applicants. • He had questions concerning water use. • This house was on record as a two bedroom structure. • He had to determine how much water per person per day to figure the average daily use. • The proposed use appeared to be twice the amount of water that the present system was designed for. • Additionally, the septic system did not appear to be large enough for the proposed use. If a septic tank was flushed too frequently, the solids would end up in the draining field. • The septic needed to be a size of 1750 gallon tank. • Secondly, where did 18 people sleep in a 2 bedroom home?

Commissioner Watrous expressed concerns with regard to water. Mr. Weaver commented that there was a likelihood that this was an unregistered well. In house use and domestic wells were different permits. A prior owner of this property had shown record of a domestic well permit. He requested that the County obtain a copy of the applicants well permit. Ms. Wise stated that the well permit and the septic were addressed in the draft resolution.

Regarding the number of bedrooms, Mr. Langley stated that the home actually had 2 bedrooms on the main floor and the potential for three bedrooms on the second floor.

Mr. Lukow stated that he owned three adjacent mining claims with low patent numbers. On the plat this area was called Whiskey Gulch. There was a road that accessed the Lexington, the 210, and the Golden Link. He was requesting access to these claims through this road which traveled through the Golden Gate mining claim. He had another access but the one through the Golden Gate mining claim was better. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this would be questioned as to whether the road was historic and if it was subject to public use.

Mr. Chauncey made the following statements: • He was the owner of the land since 1989. Since this time, no one had used the road through his land. There was a gate on this road beyond his home. This road had accessed the Lexington Mine and there was another access to this mine. This road had not been used since 1985. • The Forest Service originally had a road access in this area but they had closed it off.

Commissioner Watrous asked if the applicants/owners would allow Mr. Lukow an easement. Mr. Loeffler noted that if the road was found as historic and public, an easement was not needed. Mr. Chauncey replied he would have to consult an attorney as he had been maintaining this road for many years and to now allow someone access would be a financial consideration.

Mr. Abrahamson stated that he had no serious concerns regarding this proposal but there would be always be access problems.

Mr. Chauncey noted that the upper section of the road that Mr. Lukow wanted to use was not passable. It was in bad condition with trees growing in the road. It would require a large financial investment to reopen that portion of the road. There were no other homes further up this road. Ms. Wise stated that the claims were zoned MR-1 as there had been a home on this property for a long time. If the parcels in the area did not have homes on them they were zoned M-1. Commissioner Watrous suggested that Mr. Lukow talk with Mr. Vogel on the history of this road.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern with the response from the Clear Creek Fire Authority. Ms. Leberer stated that they had met with the Fire Chief to inspect the property. He had checked the property and the road. After this meeting, the applicants did not think there were any issues outside of required smoke alarms and fire exits. Mr. Loeffler noted that changing the use of a structure could require a different code. Ms. Wise noted that the stipulations did require the structure to comply with the Universal Fire Code.

90 Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to allow for more research on the fire code, septic systems, well permit, and Mr. Lukow investigating the history of the road to May 14, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTOMATIC EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR (AED) AGREEMENT WITH IDAHO SPRINGS AND CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES TO THE FOOTHILLS REGIONAL TRAUMA ADVISORY COUNCIL: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended. Mr. Abrahamson made the following presentation: • Last fall, the Ambulance Department had made a similar agreement with the Clear Creek Metropolitan Recreation District. • This agreement served as a model for other departments in the County. • This model was presented to the City of Idaho Springs Police Department. • If the City liked the model, they would fund 50% of the purchase for a new one. • The model would then be used for another agreement. • Mr. Abrahamson thought that this agreement and model plan would help in saving lives across the County.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the AED agreement with the City of Idaho Springs Police Department. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Abrahamson presented the second item. He stated that the Board of County Commissioners needed to appoint two County people to the FRETAC committee. He recommended himself as a facility representative and Tom Candlin as a County member at large. They were looking for a third person at present to be on this committee and were discussing this with the Clear Creek Fire Authority. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to appoint Craig Abrahamson and Tom Candlin to the FRETAC committee for 2002. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE CDBG GRANT FOR THE SENIOR RESOURCE CENTER: Senior Resource Center representatives John Zabawa, Kandy Wagonboch, and Department of Local Affairs representative Cathy Shipley presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Zabawa made the following presentation: • The Senior Resource Center had resubmitted their revised CDBG grant for expansion and operations of the Yellow House. • The Park County Board of County Commissioners were the lead applicant for this grant and had approved this revised request for funding. • The work had begun on the expansion before the grant was signed so the grant had to be revised to cover the work that was already completed. Ms. Shipley agreed and stated that since it was federal funding, the process had to be revised. • Mr. Zabawa stated that these were not new dollars only used for operational costs instead of construction. • The Senior Resource Center was utilizing a low interest loan for the $75,000 that could not be recovered in the grant.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the amendment to the CDBG grant for the Senior Resource Center. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT TO CONVEY 5 ACRE FEET OF VIDLER WATER TO THE CLEAR CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF GEORGETOWN AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EXERCISING A PURCHASE OPTION TO ACQUIRE 5 ACRE FEET OF VIDLER WATER: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver requested a continuation as he was waiting on final documents from Water Attorney Paul Zilis. County Attorney Bob

91 Loeffler agreed stating that this was a complicated process. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to May 7, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF HUMAN SERVICES: Human Resources Specialist Gail Buckley presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Ms. Buckley made the following presentation: • She presented a printout of salaries of this position. • The salaries from Jefferson, Boulder, and Douglas counties were very high. • She did consider amount of employees and population. • Ms. Buckley recommended her original proposal of $52,828 as a base salary for the Director of Human Services without the stipend for Service Unit Manager.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the recommendation of the Human Resources Specialist and adopt the salary that was brought forth for Human Services Director. Commissioner Watrous seconded. Mr. Small stated that the only other option would be to get more information state wide. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ENDORSEMENT OF THE SILVERDALE RECREATION AREA – HDPLC: HDPLC representative Cindy Neely presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Planning Director Carol Wise, and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel attended. Ms. Neely made the following presentation: # This was the first time this plan had been presented to the County. # She was requesting the Board of County Commissioners’ questions and concerns, and not a vote. # The Silverdale Recreation Area was heavily used for people walking, hiking, etc. # In the past few months people had been driving across the creek in cars to access this area. # Two years ago the area was posted as non-motorized but it was never defined with boundaries etc. # HDPLC was charged with planning low impact recreation on former BLM lands and this area seemed a good candidate for this type of recreation as well. # Another impetus for this area was the Guanella Pass Road improvements. # The Forest Service had been discussing putting its official interest to the Guanella Pass Scenic Byway here with signage and interpretation. This would entail the area having recreational amenities with a parking lot. # The Forest Service needed to make sure the parking lot was within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). # A map was presented which showed the boundaries of the recreation area. # Some of these lands adjacent to this area were owned by HGI and some were owned by the Town of Georgetown. # The footbridge was thought to be owned by HGI. # The parking lot proposed in the Guanella Pass improvements was thought to be on HGI land also. # One reason for this hearing was the historic roadbeds that lie in the Silverdale Recreation area. # The County was in charge of what happened on these roads. # These roads were pre-Forest Service roads. # Another adjacent property owner was Ken Sterrit. # HDPLC was receiving pressure from Sterrit for access to these roads. # The HDPLC had asked Sterrit to attend one of their meetings to discuss this issue. # Mr. Vogel thought that Sterrit could use the RS 2477 argument to request these roads remain open. # County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the County could qualify the road as RS 2477 but deem it non-motorized. This was done in cases where the road was physically too dangerous to drive. # The Forest Service supported these roads within the recreation area to be non-motorized. # This land was heavily filled with wetlands.

92 # The HDPLC did not want these roads opened as once one was allowed for driving, they all would be. # Ms. Neely had met with Larry Claxton stated that they did not have a use for these roads as they had an access for reaching their site. Public Service Company was interested in gating their access and giving the County a key. They also wanted to keep people away from their site due to the power lines. # The Forest Service had concerns on controlling the use of the roads, i.e., dirtbikes, ATV’s, etc. # Sterrit did not want to develop his own access as it was a matter of money. He would need a bridge across the creek and this would require an evaluation by the Georgetown Watershed Group. # Sterrit wanted to make the footbridge a driving bridge for his access. Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern with regard to expanding the footprint of the bridge. Mr. Loeffler stated that this still reverted to the question of whether this was a public road and the status of that road. # HDPLC could find no documentation on the history of this bridge. They also did not know if this road was always at this location. # Silverdale had been a mining camp in the 1880's and 1890's. At the turn of the century the Colorado Central Mill was created and there remains an old railroad grade bed. It was possible that wagons traveled this area but where they crossed the creek was unknown. # If these roads were deemed public and motorized, there had to be controls on where people could travel in this area. # This area was used everyday by residents and tourists and the property was currently posted as non-motorized. This signage had reduced motorized access by 95%. # This property was zoned m-2. # Ms. Wise noted that there were illegal structures going up on the Sterrit lands at present. # There were discussions of a Special Use Permit but nothing had been applied for. # There was a tee pee on Sterrit’s land where people were using it for ceremonial purposes. # Ms. Neely stated that Sterrit was speculating 11 homes on this land. # This land bordered the Georgetown watershed and the “Transfer of Development Right” policy forbade transfers to these types of areas. # Mr. Vogel noted that even though the land was zoned m-2, the County had nothing adopted that prevented roads from traveling across the land. # Mr. Loeffler stated that the Public Service Company could have an access and gate it but it would not be considered public. # Commissioner Sorensen stated that in the future, the County would be faced with a request on whether this road would be motorized or not. # Ms. Neely stated that the HDPLC would return to discuss the issues of roads in this area. # HDPLC had indicated their preferences in the Guanella Pass Interpretive Plan and discussed with the FHWA the proposed parking lot. # Ms. Neely stated that the second issue was that Sterrit had dug a series of holes on the Town of Georgetown’s property in order to offer gravel to the FHWA for their project. This would be another consideration for the Board of County Commissioners. # Ms. Neely reiterated that the HDPLC’s first request was to have the Board of County Commissioners commitment to preserving the public roads in the Silverdale Recreation Area as non-motorized. # Other partners had endorsed this request, i.e., HGI. The Public Service Company and the Forest Service had been briefed on this preference. # This would all be presented to be included in the Guanella Pass EIS in the coming summer.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE LETTER BETWEEN THE STATE OF COLORADO AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Environmental Health Specialist Chris Etcheson presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended. Mr. Etcheson made the following presentation: # The State of Colorado offices was experiencing a budget crunch. # The State was reducing its contract for the Environmental Health Department by $164.16 per year.

93 # There would still be the same amount of work and the County would still meet its requirements.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Contract Change Letter between the State of Colorado and the Clear Creek County Environmental Health Department. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR A UTILITY EASEMENT ACROSS THE ARRASTRA SITE AT MILL CREEK: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that since this case discussed conveying land to another person, it would have to be discussed in executive session. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session to discuss the transfer of real property pursuant to COLORADO REVISED STATUTES 36-6-402(4)(a). Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously. No written minutes would be kept of this session.

The Board reconvened into regular session. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the easement for the Public Service Company of Colorado for power lines to access the Stella and the Independence mining claims with the stipulation that the last distance to the residence will be an underground connection to the property. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 24, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 24, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL REQUEST FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following statements: # During last year’s budget hearings, the Planning Department had requested a new vehicle.

# There were six planners in the Planning Department and three secretaries utilizing one vehicle. # There were 400-500 site visits per year plus additional trainings and meeting for staff. # At the budget hearings, the Board of County Commissioners had approved the proposal for another vehicle. # The Planning Department had budgeted $14,000-$15,000 for this vehicle. # A log had been kept on the other Planning vehicle to demonstrate its use.

Mr. Small stated that this was included in the sales tax list and there was a balance remaining. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the purchase of a used vehicle for the Planning Department not to exceed $15,000. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding Mad Creek Development Corporation as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

94 The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 30, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 30, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Vice Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Chairman Fabyan Watrous was out of town.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH DIAMONDBACK ENGINEERING FOR CENTRAL CLEAR CREEK SANITATION DISTRICT EXPANSION PLAN: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. County Assessor Diane Settle and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended. Ms. Leben-Vogel made the following statements: • She had received a proposal from Diamondback Engineering to assist in accomplishing two things: one was an analysis of build out of the existing district and two was to consider expansion of the sewer line to the Rocky Mountain Village or to expand a line up Mill Creek Road. • Ms. Leben-Vogel was working with the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District on this proposal. • She had requested that Diamondback work on this project in conjunction with Triple AAA. • The County Lands Department was proposing three commercial lands to be served by this expansion. • Diamondback had experience with the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District in the past and they had defined the legal boundaries for the district. • The Assessor’s office had assisted in this project as this was a separate taxing district. • There were 65 parcels in the district area. • The contract with Diamondback was not allowed to exceed $3000.

The Board of County Commissioners made the following statements: • Commissioner Sorensen stated that she had attended the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District meeting to discuss exploring the expansion of this district. It was clear that Central Clear Creek Sanitation District was concerned with taking on new clients in the district unless they knew it wouldn’t impose a cost on the present district members. • Commissioner Poirot stated that DRCOG had been encouraging utility capacity plans and this study could assist with a local plan. • Commissioner Sorensen asked if the district had ever changed their boundaries? Ms. Settle replied that they had not.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Diamondback Engineering Services for possible expansion of the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District with a dollar limit of $3000. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO CHARLES NUNNERY, SECTION 30, T3SR73W AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT ACROSS COUNTY LANDS, T3SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Smith made the following statements: • Mr. Nunnery was presented an easement on June 19, 2001 and County Attorney Bob Loeffler had problems with the unspecified easement. • County Lands Department had then obtained an easement for Public Service access across the parcel to Nunnery on the Independence Lode.

95 • This easement was a 20-foot easement. • This easement had been delayed due to a problem in the surveying.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Public Service Easement across County lands. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Smith presented the Special Warranty Deed with the following statements: • The Special Warranty Deed for Nunnery was for parcel #1835-30-1-00-956. • The amount of the parcel was $3395. • A reservation was written into the deed for roads on the parcel and an exhibit was attached. • This did not mean these roads were declared public.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deed for Charles Nunnery. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-37, REZONING CASE #02- 37, REZONING CASE #270, FROM BUFFER TO MR-5 AND RESOLUTION #02-65, REZONING CASE #269 FROM MR-1/MR-LT TO BUFFER FOR COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT, SECTION 19 & 20, T3SR73W: Planners Sarah Kaminski and Tony Atencio presented. Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel, Planner II Fred Rollenhagen, Mapping Director Matt Taylor, County Assessor Diane Settle, Appraiser Debbie Zarlengo, Computer Operator II Mary Anne Leighton, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: G The applicant was Clear Creek County Lands Department. G The locations of the parcels were north of Dumont off of Mill Creek Road. G This was a dual rezoning case that was being processed simultaneously to propose a transfer of development right. Case # 270 was proposing a rezoning from Buffer zoning designation to MR-5. Case #269 was proposing a rezoning from MR–1/MR-LT to Buffer.

G The Case #269 subject parcel was 7.93 acres that currently had a split zoning of MR-1 and MR-LT. The parcel did not meet the minimum 35-acre requirement for the MR-LT zoning. Additionally, there was no viable access to this parcel. G The Case #270 subject parcel was 19.66 acres that currently had a zoning of Buffer and the building envelope for this parcel was approximately three acres. G Referral responses were sent out and Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson replied that he had reviewed the proposal and had no conflicts. G The Division of Wildlife had stated that for the Case #270, this parcel was 100% wildlife impact if a residence was located here. Case #270 was studied by the Division of Wildlife and they had reported that this parcel was conducive to residential development. G Most of the surrounding zonings were MR-1 and M-1. G There was an access for the Case #270 and no access for Case #269. G For Case #269, 90% of the slope was 30% or greater and it was not conducive to development. G The County Lands Department had recommended a zoning of Buffer for this parcel as there was no access and the slope was too severe. G For Case #270, the County Lands Department proposed a zoning of MR-5 and surrounding zonings were residential and buffer. G The Division of Wildlife had recommended this parcel for residential development. G The Planning Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Division of Wildlife. G The road access to the parcel for Case #270 continued on to County Lands Lot F. G The site had been examined for an ISDS location. G County Lands Department felt that this parcel should be zoned MR-5 with the low impact to wildlife. G The Paragon Lode owners had expressed interest in giving easement for power.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Rezoning Case #270, Resolution #02-37, from Buffer to MR-5 and Resolution #02-65, Rezoning Case #269 from MR-1/MR-LT to Buffer for County Lands Department, Section 19 & 20, T3SR73W. Commissioner Sorensen seconded.

96 During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen asked that in doing this simultaneous rezoning, was the Board also transferring development rights? Ms. Kaminski replied that no, they were only transferring two types of zoning and not a formal TDR. Ms. Leben-Vogel added that the current TDR policy only allowed an M-2 parcel to be a sending site. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-45, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #02-EX-02 TO DIVIDE COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 5, T34R73W AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-46, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #02-EX-03, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LANDS IN SECTION 3, T34R73W: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler and adjacent property owner Jenny Wasilowski attended. Ms. Kaminski made the following presentation: G Case #02-EX-02 would divide Government Survey Lot #1, 40.82 acres of County land into a 9.32 acre parcel, and a 31.50 acre parcel. And divide a portion of Government Survey Lot #2, a 4.7 acre tract of County land into a 2.54 acre parcel and a 2.16 acre parcel. Two parcels would be retained by Clear Creek County Lands Department and two parcels will be retained by Chip Bair, the current owner. G A Combination of Lots Agreement was not proposed for the Bair parcels as these were prepared by Stonegate Realty. G There were no well permits on the lands zoned NR-PC.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Resolution #02-45, Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-02, to divide County lands in Section 5, T4SR73W. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Ms. Wasilowski stated that she lived below this parcel and wanted to bid on some of the County lands. Commissioner Poirot replied that the County would not sell these lands until they were zoned. Ms. Wasilowski would be notified when the parcels came up for bid. The vote was unanimous.

Ms. Kaminski presented Exemption by Resolution Case #02-EX-03 with the following statements: G This exemption would divide a portion of Government Survey Lot #121, a 19.30 acre tract of County land into a 8.9 acre parcel, and a 10.40 acre parcel. One parcel would be retained by Clear Creek County Lands Department and one parcel would be combined with contiguous property owner, Terry Winters. G The Board of County Commissioners had previously agreed to sell Mr. Winters this land and he would combine it with his mining claim the Bouillon Queen #2. G The 10.40 acre parcel was zoned M-1 through a 1976 zoning. Many people were interested in this area and township zoning was still not complete. G The effect of the division between the 10.4 acre parcel and the 8.9 acre parcel was done by a previous division and allowed one parcel to be stand-alone and one to have to be combined. G The stand-alone parcel would be offered to Adjacent Property Owners once the township was zoned. G The Winters’ parcel would be zoned M-2.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-46, Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-03, to divide County lands in Section 3, T4SR73W. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Human Services. Minutes for the Board of Human Services are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-44, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #02-EX-01, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 25, T3SR73W: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler

97 and Adjacent Property Owners Boyd Quinn attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel made the following statements: • This request was to reconfigure the Existing Government Survey lots. • This exemption, if approved, would reconfigure the existing 21 Government Survey lots and one mining claim into five large parcels. The survey plat included 2 existing parcels which were zoned for residential use (Lots 6 & 7). • The subject parcels were Government Lots 4, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 27-32, 39-41, 44, 45, 47, 48, and the Extension Live Yankee Lode, #180. • These parcels had a mixed zoning of Mr-5, M-1, and M-2, for the purpose of residential and mining. • The County Lands department was working with the Colorado School of Mines on a land trade to better configure the government survey lots. • Public notice was given on 4/3/02 and Adjacent Property Owners were notified within a 300-ft boundary. • This would not pull traffic through the Silver Lakes subdivision. • The County Lands department would be performing a site visit with the Ambulance Department in the future.

Mr. Quinn made the following statements: • He had a conflict regarding five lots in Silver Lakes subdivision. • When the subdivision was first platted, this problem was done. • The conflict did not show up until a survey was done in 1990. • The Quinn’s had been paying taxes on this conflict since 1956. • Mr. Quinn had a potential buyer for one of these parcels in the Silver Lakes subdivision and needed this conflict resolved so he could sell the land. • He requested that the County expedite the Combination of Lots Agreement process.

Ms. Leben-Vogel agreed to expedite the Combination of Lots Agreement process to resolve the conflict if this exemption was approved. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-44, Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-01, to reconfigure the existing government survey lots in Section 25, T3SR74W, including the creation of vested property rights subject to recordation of the exemption. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion Commissioner Sorensen stated that this was a good move as it eliminated 21 lots and made seven thereby reducing density. The vote was unanimous.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a), (b), and (e). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPEAL OF VARIANCE PENALTY FEE FOR SANDRA JIRONE, HIDEAWAY CIRCLE: Sandra Jirone and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Jirone made the following statements: • After building their house last year, the Jirone’s had realized that they had over-excavated. • The decks would require a variance. • The builder had handled all the plans and the Jirone’s had not heard if they were within their variance. • The new decks had encroached on one side. • The Jirone’s thought they had been following procedure but the builder had allowed the decks to encroach. • The encroachment wasn’t discovered until the Building Inspector performed final inspection. • The Jirone’s were requesting a refund of the penalty fee as they did not know until the end of the process that they were outside their variance.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve a refund of $610 to the Jirone’s. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

98 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WATER AGREEMENT FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE SURVEYING CONTRACT FOR MILL CREEK ROAD: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the water agreement had two parts to it. One piece was for the engineer and one was for the water agreement itself. Mr. Allen made the following statements: • He agreed with Mr. Loeffler that this agreement did have two parts. • The Road and Bridge department needed water for dust control and was wanting to obtain it from the Bear Creek District. • There was a contract for the engineering in order to put the water agreement. • The engineering contract was between $200-$350 to have the agreement completed. • The water agreement itself totaled $375. This agreement stated that every year for the next two years, the Road and Bridge department could lease the water at this cost. • The water was totaling out to be 3.5 cents per gallon. • These agreements would total $725 to come from the Road and Bridge budget. • The department would keep a daily log on their usage.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler reviewed the contract with the Board of County Commissioners and noted that the liability could not exceed $50,000. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the water agreement. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the payment must be made before 11/2/02 for the next year’s purchase. The vote was unanimous.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Blatchley Engineering contract and accept the liability to complete the order of the water agreement. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Allen made the following statements for the surveying proposal: • This proposal was to complete the surveying of Mill Creek Road and the land acquisition. • This budgeted amount could completed either the Mill Creek Road project or the Alvarado Road project but not both. • Mr. Allen had received a proposal for Mill Creek Road, one for Alvarado Road, and one for both. • He asked that the Board of County Commissioners decide which project to proceed with as he needed to begin the land acquisition process. • Clear Creek Surveying had bid on the Mill Creek Road project. Evergreen Surveying had bid on the Alvarado Road project. • Both of these projects needed right of way acquisition for drainage and reconstruction. • Advanced Evergreen Services had bid both projects and had come out very under budget. • This year, the surveying and the land acquisition letters could be completed. • Impact fees could be used to cover these costs but the impact fees needed to be collected along these project areas. • Mr. Allen felt that Mill Creek Road was the worst of the two projects. • Mr. Allen was not comfortable with the Advanced Evergreen Services bid as it was very low and he had better results with the other surveyors.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to award the contract to Clear Creek Surveying for the Mill Creek Road project. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR THE COUNTY COPY MACHINE: Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Krueger made the following statements: • This maintenance contract was for the newly purchased Saving copy machine. • This contract was with the same company with whom the County had acquired the machine. • This contract term was for the present to the end of the year. • The warranty had expired on this machine and a maintenance contract was needed.

99 Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the maintenance contract. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER BETWEEN THE NURSING DEPARTMENT AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this contract was a reduction to the Nursing Department due to reductions at the State level. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Contract Change Order between the Nursing Department and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR BRUCE ROBERSON, TRAIL CREEK ROAD: Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this quit claim deed was for Bruce Roberson, another property owner involved in the County owned lands, not formerly BLM, that conflicted with current parcels. This was the same process that was needed to clean up the Markle and Timberman parcels. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the quit claim deed for Bruce Roberson. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Vice Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 7, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 7, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by COLORADO REVISED STATUTES 24-6-402(4)(a). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT TO CONVEY 4 ACRE FEET OF VIDLER WATER TO THE CLEAR CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF GEORGETOWN AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EXERCISING A PURCHASE OPTION TO ACQUIRE 4 ACRE FEET OF VIDLER WATER: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver requested that the Board of County Commissioners convey 4-acre feet of water of the Arduser Ditch Rights to the Clear Creek School District at $15,000 per acre foot totaling $60,000. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the conveyance of 4 acre feet of Arduser Ditch Right to the Clear Creek School District totaling $60,000. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the vote passed unanimously.

Mr. Weaver requested a continuance on the purchase option of the 4 acre feet of Vidler water. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue this portion of the hearing to 3:00 p.m. May 8, 2002. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

100 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY LANDS: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Smith made the following statements: T Lots 84, 78, 72, 66, and 64A of the Silver Lakes Homesites were in conflict with County land parcel #1837-25-1-00-955. On the advice of the County Attorney, five Special Warranty Deeds and five Combination of Lots Agreement, one for each in conflict, were presented for signature. T The first deed was for the Quinn Family Trust and Louise Thompson in section 25, T3SR74W for $100. That portion of Lot 84, Silver Lakes Homesites Tract 1 in conflict with a portion of parcel #1837-25-1-00-955. T The second deed was for the Quinn Family Trust and Louise Thompson in Section 25, T3SR74W for $100. That portion of Lot 78, Silver Lakes Homesites Tract 1 in conflict with a portion of parcel #1837-25-1-00-955. T The third deed was for the Quinn Family Trust and Louise Thompson in Section 25, T3SR74W for $100. That portion of Lot 72, Silver Lakes Homesites Tract 1 in conflict with a portion of parcel #1837-25-1-00-955. T The fourth deed was for the Quinn Family Trust and Louise Thompson in Section 25, T3SR74W for $100. That portion of Lot 66, Silver Lakes Homesites Tract 1 in conflict with a portion of parcel #1837-25-1-00-955. T The fifth deed was for the Quinn Family Trust and Louise Thompson in Section 25, T3SR74W for $100. That portion of Lot 64A, Silver Lakes Homesites Tract 1 in conflict with a portion of parcel #1837-25-1-00-955.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deeds and Combination of Lots Agreements for the County Lands Department. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-64, FOR BRENDA ERWIN, FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER, SILVER LAKES: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. In attendance were applicants Brenda and Mitchell Erwin, Adjacent Property Owners’ Bill Berry, Richard Snyder, Building Inspector Deb Kirkham, and Lou Olnhausen. Ms. Wise made the following presentation: T Since the packets had been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners, Ms. Wise had received comments from the Building Inspector Deb Kirkham and Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken. T The applicants were requesting a continuance of this hearing due to the response from Ms. Kirkham. T The subject property was located at 194 Silver Lakes Drive. T The current zoning was MR-1. T The requqest was to operate a day care facility in the applicant’s existing residence, for up to eight children for a period of three years. T The requested term was three years, if in full compliance with stipulations and conditions of the Special Use Permit. T Legal notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on 4-17-02 and Adjacent Property Owners were notified on 4/11/02. T An agency response was received from Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson who had no concerns over the proposal. T Human Services said that the State took care of licensing of these day care providers. Ms. Dicken added that any new provider who was able to get licensed would be an asset to the community. T No response were received from the Dumont-Lawson-Downieville Homeowners Association. T Building Inspector Deb Kirkham submitted a response which stated that the structure that was being proposed for the day care center had a building code violation; a second story living space was added without a permit. Furthermore, the Building Code did not allow a day care center for over 6 to occupy a second story space. The proposed use of 8 children would cause a change of use for the structure and therefore the area used for the day care would be required to meet the standards for the Education -3 category of the Building

101 Code. Ms. Kirkham added that she had not been inside the home to inspect it but could see from the outside that the second story was a part of the garage and could have life safety issues. T This room would not meet ceiling height and would have serious egress issues on the stairway. T There would be no issues if only the first floor of the home were used. Even if the number of youth were reduced to six, there would still be a problem with the use of the second story.

Mr. Erwin stated that the State offices had inspected the home and only requested a second bannister, baby gates at each end of the stairs, smoke detectors, fire escape ladders and a fire extinguisher. The Erwin’s requested time to review this situation with the State offices again. Ms. Kirkham stated that she had inspected the home when the additions to the back were done but not when the second story was finished. Ms. Erwin agreed to give Ms. Kirkham the State offices contact that had inspected the home. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that either way, the applicant must comply with the strictest regulations in order to be approved.

Mr. Berry made the following statements: T His mother in law had lived in this home and sold it. T The addition was put on in the late 1980's and early 1990's. T The steps to the second story were steep. T The second owners added the back additions, i.e., solarium. T There was a breezeway connecting the upper addition but before the Erwin’s it was only considered a storage area.

Ms. Kirkham stated that she did have a remodel permit on file but it wasn’t clear on what the remodel was. The second story could be used for storage but not for living space as it didn’t meet code. Mr. Erwin replied that this home was sold listing that second story as another bedroom. It was included as living space in the square footage of the home. Mr. Berry stated that his mother in law only used this room for storage.

Ms. Olnhausen made the following statements: T When she had bought her home 22 years ago, they were under the impression the area was only residential. T She was unsure of how this zoning on a facility came about. T She expressed concerns on additional traffic, the clientele, and the condition of the bridge that accessed the neighborhood.

Mr. Berry read a letter from an Adjacent Property Owners that could not attend the hearing. The letter in summary stated the following: T The letter expressed concern on the fencing proposed for the use and whether it would be chain link or a privacy fence. T The Planning Department had informed Mr. Berry that if the fence was not over six feet then it was a private issue not requiring a permit. Ms. Erwin replied that a privacy fence was installed for adequate screening and a chain link fence would also be used. T Mr. Berry stated that this fence would fall under the area of County right of way along the road. Ms. Erwin replied that if the County made them move the fence then the fences of the Locknikars would have to moved also. She added that the fence was not the issue of the hearing but a Special Use Permit was.

Ms. Wise stated that she had received a letter from Adjacent Property Owners, the Locknikars. They stated that they were not in favor or against the proposal but they wanted the County to consider the increased traffic impacts on Silver Lakes Drive and that the snow removal should not be compromised due to improper fencing.

Ms. Wise also received a letter from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Child Care, stating that child care facilities must comply with all local regulations and provide less than 24 hour day care. The children would be between the ages of birth to 13 and no more than two children under age 2.

102 A submittal from Roxie Dutton stated that she was in favor of this child care facility as there was a lack of these in the County. She had found the home to be clean and healthy and did not see a reason why this would impact the community. Gregory and Dana Levad submitted that the allowance of only four children conflicted with the State requirement of allowing 8 children. There was a shortage of day care facilities in the County and they were confident that the Erwin’s could provide this service. The traffic impact would be the same as neighbors having visitors. The Levad’s were in full support of the proposal.

Ms. Wise stated that staff supported this proposal due to the need of child care facilities but they were concerned with the safe environment in the community. Ms. Erwin requested that the hearing be postponed until they could research the issues of the second story and that this was not considered living space.

Mr. Berry asked if this was approved, how did the Adjacent Property Owners know that the truth would be told and no more than eight children would be there. He also did not like the fenced area for the kids as it had sticks and rocks. He requested that the term of the permit be shorter to make sure it worked. He also requested that if this was approved, that the Sheriff do more patrolling in the area and more signage be provided.

Ms. Erwin stated that she was home during the day and one car dropped the youth off after pre- school which eliminated much of the traffic. Many of the children staying with her were siblings so only one car would be retrieving them. Most of the traffic occurred when the high school kids were released from school and returned home in the area. The hours of operation proposed would be 3:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. She added that the fenced area for the children was not all sticks and rocks. This area had been cleaned up when they bought the home.

Commissioner Watrous closed public comment. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to August 6, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF GEORGETOWN AND THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL POLICE COVERAGE: County Attorney Bob Loeffler presented. He stated that this agreement was worked out with the Town of Georgetown and provided a means for the town to request Sheriff’s supplemental coverage when the Georgetown police were on vacation or if additional coverage was needed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Georgetown and the Clear Creek County Sheriff’s Department regarding supplemental police coverage. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and asked why the Board of County Commissioners were signing this agreement. County Attorney Bob Loeffler replied that the Board of County Commissioners was the contracting agency. The vote was unanimous.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-13, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT-01, FOR MAD CREEK DEVELOPMENT, TO SELL AND REMOVE 20,000-30,000 CUBIC YARDS OF LANDSCAPING ROCK AND CONSIDERATION OF WAIVER OF REQUIREMENTS FOR 1041 PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 19 OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO AREAS OF STATE INTEREST: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. In attendance were Applicants Sabrina Rae for Mad Creek Development Corporation and Mark Scott and Clay Hurst Adjacent Property Owners Frances and Jim Craft, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Adjacent Property Owners John Voorhees, Kathy Dudding, Sally and Phil Buckland, and Bruce Able, Zoning Specialist Staci Writer, Zoning Technician Tracy Bennetts, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, and Adjacent Property Owner Lori Randall. Mad Creek Development Corporation attorney Clay Hurst attended later in the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following statements: T This was a hearing continued from April 16, 2002 in order to allow the applicants to address certain issues.

103 T At the conclusion of the previous hearing, Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the hearing in order to obtain a geologic analysis, to give the Town of Empire more opportunity to review the proposed use with the applicant, to allow time to research the layout of the PAWS trail through this property, to address the zoning violations on the property, and to clear up the Forest Service access question. Commissioner Sorensen also had concerns with the Certificate of Purchase which exists on the property. T The Planning Department had contacted the Mined Land Reclamation Board and talked with Bruce Humphries of the Division of Minerals and Geology regarding this property. T Mr. Humphries informed the Planning Department that no geologic investigation was performed on this property. T Ms. Wise submitted a resolution with conditions for approval which must be met before the operations of rock removal commenced.

Commissioner Watrous opened public comment on the case.

Mr. Voorhees made the following comments: T He owned the Arapaho Mobile Home Park. T Mad Creek Development Corporation had tried to say that they had access across his land. They did not. T Mad Creek Development Corporation had won a lawsuit regarding access but it was against another property owner and it was still in dispute. T Mad Creek Development Corporation had trespassed across his land in the past. T Mr. Voorhees had put up a fence around the mobile home park as part of the regulations. T Mad Creek Development Corporation was upset with the fencing because there was not a gate to allow them access through the land.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the present application by Mad Creek Development Corporation did anticipate access across the Forest Service land and the resolution that the Planning Department had proposed was to adopt the application and provide as a condition that before commencing operations, access from the Forest Service be obtained. The application did not anticipate any other access.

Ms. Dudding made the following comments: T She was an owner in the Empire West Townhomes. T She agreed with Mr. Voorhees. T Mr. Scott of Mad Creek Development Corporation did not talk to his neighbors and had done nothing to represent himself except cross private lands illegally. T At the last meeting, Mad Creek Development Corporation did not want to put up a construction safety fence and there were children that lived below this proposed project area. T The dust control was still a concern for the townhome owners and that Mr. Scott would be using a bulldozer. T If the Board of County Commissioners approved his application, Ms. Dudding felt that Mad Creek Development Corporation would do whatever they wanted. T Mad Creek Development Corporation had been cited for illegal junk and they still had not cleaned this up. T Mad Creek Development Corporation had no regard for County regulations. T She requested that the Board of County Commissioners enforce all conditions to the permit before operations commence.

Mr. Able made the following statements: T He was the owner of the property at the bottom of the road that travailed up the hill to access the Mad Creek Development Corporation land. T He agreed with Ms. Dudding and Mr. Voorhees. T He requested an explanation of the Settlement Agreement as discussed by Mad Creek Development Corporation. T Mr. Able did not agree that Mad Creek Development Corporation owned the land at the base of the road. How would they be able to turn their trucks around without using his land?

104 T Who should the residents call when Mad Creek Development Corporation disobeyed the permit conditions?

Ms. Randall made the following statements: T She was the manager of the Empire West Homeowners Association. T The problems they had experienced were that Mad Creek Development Corporation had torn down their fencing and brought in illegal junk. T The Homeowners Association wrote Mad Creek Development Corporation a letter and Mr. Scott returned a phone call to her with very derogatory language. T Ms. Randall felt that Mr. Scott had no respect for other people’s rights. T She did not think the County had the means to keep control on what Mad Creek Development Corporation would be doing.

Mr. Scott made the following statements: T He had not torn down any fences. T Mr. Able had removed Scott’s cornerstones and did not replace them. T All of these property owners had trashed Mr. Scott’s land and never cleaned it for 20 years. T He had tried to work with the townhome owners many times. T He had met with the Sheriff on how County employees dug holes on his land. T He had helped Sam Heiter build the Empire West Townhomes. The fence from these townhomes was lying on his land.

Ms. Rae made the following statements: T She had only minimal time to review the documents that have been received since the last meeting. T She disagreed with the language that the Planning Department had used in their letter to the Division of Minerals and Geology. T Mad Creek Development Corporation had put forth their application for the purpose of informing them of this project so they could be considered for rezoning. T Contrary to what Forest Service representative Deb Ryon stated in her letter, Ms. Rae stated that the Forest Service thought the access across their lands would be less painful and more logical. Ms. Rae stated that the Forest Service also thought this was the better access due to the problems associated with the other proposed accesses. T Mad Creek Development Corporation interpreted this as that the access could be granted – not would be granted. T Ms. Rae stated that the Board of County Commissioners minutes show that Ms. Ryon labeled this as a “chicken and egg situation” in that the Forest Service would likely grant access if Clear Creek County granted the permit. T Mad Creek Development Corporation felt the access question should be decided by the County. T Mad Creek Development Corporation did obtain an application for the Forest Service access permit process and Mad Creek Development Corporation felt that the County agreed to facilitate this process. T Ms. Rae said that one thing not mentioned in Ms. Ryon’s letter was that the permits would be granted from each place before the Forest Service permit. T There was acknowledgment that the Forest Service normally would take a year to process the request. The problem was that the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit was only granted on a year basis. T Mad Creek Development Corporation wanted to bring these two decisions closer together. T Mad Creek Development Corporation did have on the tape from the prior hearing that the Forest Service would cooperate with the County to see if something could be done so that those two permits would have time to overlap. T Regarding the stipulations and conditions, Mad Creek Development Corporation had no problem with #1 regarding illegal junk on the property. T Regarding #2, Ms. Rae stated that she spoke with the Mad Creek Development Corporation attorney on this issue of the boundary line adjustment. The attorney was going to verify the records but the people buying the property should have corrected this situation. The attorney found it difficult that this was a stipulation for Mad Creek

105 Development Corporation. Ms. Wise replied that an illegal subdivision was created by he seller. The purchaser was willing to correct this and had been for many years however to correct the boundary line, both parties had to participate. T Regarding #3 and the requirement that access be confirmed, Ms. Rae asked if Mad Creek Development Corporation would have County assistance on this issue? T Regarding #4 and the requirement that a dust suppression plan be submitted subject to approval by the Site Development Inspector, Ms. Rae did not recall a dust suppression plan being a part of the proposal as given to Mad Creek Development Corporation from Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel. Ms. Wise stated that this was added based on concerns expressed by Adjacent Property Owners. Ms. Rae had trouble with conditions being added after discussions were held. Ms. Rae requested that Mad Creek Development Corporation be shown how this dust suppression would be measured and why it was needed for this project by someone other than the Adjacent Property Owners. Mr. Vogel replied that dust suppression plans fell under the BMP regulations with the County. The County wanted to see water sprayed on the roads to keep the dust down. Ms. Wise added that it was quite common to add conditions after public comment had been held on certain cases before a decision was made by the Board of County Commissioners. T Regarding #5 and a service agreement to have portable toilets on site during the project, Ms. Rae stated that Mad Creek Development Corporation had no problem with this condition. T Regarding #6 and the requirement of a BMP plan being submitted and a Driveway Permit being obtained, Ms. Rae asked who would make the decision on the driveway permit and was an excavation permit needed? Ms. Wise replied that a driveway permit and an excavation permit would be determined by Mr. Vogel. Mr. Vogel added that he would need to know if the Forest Service would require Mad Creek Development Corporation to improve the road or not. Also, an access permit from CDOT would be required. For the excavation permit, Mr. Vogel explained that this would be handled through the BMP plan. Mr. Vogel would perform regular site visits. T Ms. Rae asked if the Forest Service BMP plan would be stringent enough for the County? Mr. Vogel replied that he was unsure if the Forest Service had a BMP plan. The County’s BMP plan would address safety issues like a construction fence, a silt fence, straw bales, etc. The Mad Creek Development Corporation engineer would determine what was needed based on the project. The BMP plan would have to be completed by a licensed engineer. The engineers had to consider the geologic hazard to which BMP devices were appropriate. T Ms. Rae asked if Mad Creek Development Corporation had a licensed geologist then would they need a licensed engineer? Mr. Vogel replied that the geologist would determine if any hazards were on site and would work with the engineer to determine what would and would not work. Both of these parties would need to be aware of each others information. Mr. Vogel would provide a list of the issues that needed to be reviewed by these parties. T Regarding #7 and the performance guarantee, Mr. Hurst asked if there was a proposed amount for this letter of credit. Mr. Vogel stated that it would depend on how deep the rock was and what amount of area had to be reclaimed. The engineer would determine the amount of reclamation. T Regarding #8 and the statement of recordation, Ms. Rae stated that Mad Creek Development Corporation was in agreement with this condition. T Regarding #9 and the term of the permit, Ms. Rae stated that if they were not able to commence operations in one year, they wanted to be able to renew their permit. Ms. Wise stated that the permit presently read that Mad Creek Development Corporation had two years to meet the conditions and then one year to operate. T Mr. Hurst asked about the wording concerning the mechanical device used to move rock. Mr. Scott added that this device would be to lift the pallets onto a vehicle which would follow the stabilization route. Commissioner Poirot stated that the resolution read that pallets would be carried by a small lift. T Regarding #12 and the termination of the permit, Ms. Rae stated that Mad Creek Development Corporation agreed with this condition. T Ms. Rae asked if Mad Creek Development Corporation could have more time to review these conditions. County Attorney Bob Loeffler replied that the Board of County

106 Commissioners could approve these conditions and then it was up to Mad Creek Development Corporation to accept or reject. Mr. Hurst requested more time to review the conditions.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to May 28, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Mr. Able asked if the Board of County Commissioners would respond to some of the public comment. He requested an explanation of the lawsuit between the County and Mad Creek Development Corporation and a stipulation that Mad Creek Development Corporation would not trespass on their private lands any longer. Mr. Loeffler replied that the Board could not put a stipulation on no trespassing. The County understood the concerns but that was a private matter. Regarding the lawsuit, Mr. Loeffler stated that Mad Creek Development Corporation was involved in a lawsuit two years ago. In the settlement of the lawsuit, it was anticipated that Mad Creek Development Corporation would apply for a Special Use Permit for this rock removal operation. They were not promised they would get a permit. The settlement stated that Mad Creek Development Corporation would have to comply with all County and State regulations with respect to such an application. Mad Creek Development Corporation had made this application and the County and processed it as anticipated. The Planning Department was proposing stipulations and conditions as appropriate to satisfy all regulations State and local. There was not a preordained permit. Mr. Hurst stated that his understanding of the settlement was that a permit would be issued but Mad Creek Development Corporation would have to comply with all County regulations and complete the permitting process. Mr. Able expressed concern that Mad Creek Development Corporation had not applied for the Forest Service access permit yet. Mr. Scott replied that the Forest Service would not consider a permit until a Special Use Permit was granted from the County. Mr. Loeffler stated that Mad Creek Development Corporation and the County disagreed on the interpretation of the settlement agreement. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 8, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 8, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EXERCISING A PURCHASE OPTION TO ACQUIRE 4 ACRE FEET OF VIDLER WATER: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Administrative Intern Tim Mauck and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: • The Board signed the documents for the sale of water to the school district. • For the option to buy Vidler water rights, Attorney for the City of Golden, Glen Porzak, was out of town. • Per the initial agreement, the City of Golden had the right to hold the request for water right options from the Vidler water source for 60 days. • Next year, the County would have to consider this purchase 60 days in advance to be safe. • The County Water Attorney, Paul Zilis, would contact Attorney Porzak when he returned and try to close immediately on these options. • I f Attorney Porzak agreed, the County would purchase 4 acre feet of the Vidler water options. • Mr. Weaver presented a water bank rate schedule for the sale of water to clients who approach the County for water.

107 Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the water bank rate schedule. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Weaver presented another agreement for the storage of water in the Idaho Springs reservoir. This was an added opportunity to store the Henderson and Vidler water here. This water would not be a part of the Idaho Springs revenue stream and what was left over was not given to Idaho Springs. This agreement would be a 50/50 agreement and could be revised in 2003. Idaho Springs had the storage and the County had the water. If the Board of County Commissioners approved, this agreement would be presented to the Idaho Springs City Council on the coming Monday and the County could be storing water there next week. Mr. Weaver wanted to start capturing water right away as there were only two months of flow. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the water storage agreement with the City of Idaho Springs. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING PERSONNEL ISSUES: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding personnel issues as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 14, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 14, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a) and (e) to discuss the valuation of Henderson Mine. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WATER LEASING AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF GEORGETOWN: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Planner II Fred Rollenhagen, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, and Town Administrator of Georgetown Paul McKenna attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: • He requested the Board of County Commissioners to authorize the execution of a final water agreement with the Town of Georgetown as their Board of Selectmen were meeting this evening to consider the agreement. • The Town would discuss paying for outside irrigation. • With the sale of this water to Georgetown and the sale of the water to the school district, the County could have the revenue to purchase 5 acre feet of water options from the City of Golden through the Vidler water supply. • Georgetown needed more water than anticipated. Originally, they needed only 10 acre feet but now they were requesting 17 acre feet. This water would be used for in house and outdoor irrigation. • This need was temporary for the summer. • Mr. Weaver noted that as of last night, the City of Idaho Springs had approved the water storage agreement. • Mr. Weaver stated that the Board of County Commissioners could consider leasing water to Georgetown at two different rates. One rate would be for the in house use and the other

108 rate would be a premium rate for the outside irrigation. Mr. McKenna stated that his Board of Selectmen were also considering a water conservation ordinance. The Board had the money in the budget for 17 acre feet but they would have to determine the priority and best use of these funds. • Mr. Weaver stated that if the County obtained the 4 acre feet of water from the Vidler water options, they would have enough to meet the request of Georgetown. • The users of the Vidler water were the City of Golden, Clear Creek County, St. Mary’s, Central Clear Creek Sanitation District and the Saddleback Subdivision. • Mr. Mauck noted that the County had 25 users of the Henderson water supply.

There was discussion on selling versus leasing to Georgetown. Mr. Small noted that Georgetown had no where to store the water once they purchased it. Mr. Small stated that Georgetown should possibly be aware of the present availability of only 10 acre feet and that it could be subject to the priority need of other water users which may have an in house need. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that it would be difficult to offer the 17 acre feet to water to Georgetown and then tell them that it was subject to call for other in house use. If Georgetown had an ordinance to regulate irrigation, they would use it. Mr. Small stated that the uncertainty with giving Georgetown the 17 acre feet was that the County did not know if Georgetown was actually using this much. Mr. Loeffler stated that the County would be better off making the commitment and selling Georgetown the 17 acre feet rather than have the water sit with no buyer. Mr. Small agreed as long as Georgetown committed to purchasing the entire amount at once. Mr. McKenna stated that anything less than 17 acre feet would be in conflict with what the State was requiring from Georgetown in the form of a water plan. Mr. McKenna stated that Georgetown was researching a siphon to release quality water from the lake. The State was concerned with the quality of water released if the dam was used. Mr. Mauck stated that if the County sold Georgetown the 17 acre feet and bought 5 acre feet of the Vidler water options, they would have three acre feet remaining to revenue share with Idaho Springs. Mr. Weaver stated that if another water user came to the County for in house water, they would have to apply for an exchange.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign a water sales agreement with the Town of Georgetown based on current rates for Georgetown up to 17 acre feet depending on availability regardless of indoor or outdoor use. The minimum amount would be 10 acre feet. Commissioner Poirot expressed concern that other communities would be at the mercy of Georgetown in doing this. Mr. McKenna stated that Georgetown would not sell too high to other water users in need. Mr. Weaver stated that the other potential water purchasers could be St. Mary’s , Empire, Silver Plume, and Mill Creek Park. Mr. Small stated that water would be used by those that came forward to purchase it. The County could not be concerned with those parties that had not come forward to the County as of yet. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sorensen then motioned to allow Mr. Weaver to negotiate with the City of Golden the purchase of 6 acre feet of water from the Vidler option. Mr. Loeffler noted that when satisfied, the exercise would produce water this year and to satisfy the next option sooner than 12 months. Commissioner Sorensen amended her motion to include this statement. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD MEETING: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler noted that this was more of an Ambulance Department issue. Mr. Abrahamson made the following presentation: ‘ Last year, the Ambulance Department was approved to hire three full time paramedic supervisors. Presently, they only had two. ‘ The scheduling was set up with Type A, B, and C schedules. ‘ The result was a 56 hour work week on average. ‘ The shortest hour work week was 48 hours and the longest was a 96 hour work week. ‘ The current County policy with regard to PTO was to allow 40 hours. However, these supervisors were working more than 40 hour work weeks.

109 ‘ This would result in the supervisors taking PTO time and receiving a decreased paycheck amount as they were normally paid for 48-96 hours of work and now the PTO paycheck would only be for 40 hours. ‘ As a result, the supervisors did not want to take their time off as they would lose money in doing so. ‘ Mr. Abrahamson was proposing a plan to pay the supervisors their normal weekly pay even when they were taking PTO time. He had received a sample policy from Summit County. There would be no fiscal impact to the Ambulance Department budget. ‘ Mr. Abrahamson was requesting to change how the PTO policy was applied.

Mr. Small made the following statements: ‘ He had concerns with regard to the shifts worked by the supervisors. He was uncertain as to how they worked 96 hours in a week. ‘ He was unsure as to why the supervisors were hourly instead of salary. ‘ He felt that the Personnel Review Board should be involved in this decision. ‘ If this proposal was approved, it would be an exception to all other employees. ‘ Mr. Small was concerned that this would set a precedent for others wanting to cash out their PTO accruals. This would be a financial impact to the County.

Mr. Abrahamson replied that he was trying to avoid that situation. He also realized that if his supervisors resigned tomorrow, the County would be responsible for reimbursing them the PTO hours. Mr. Abrahamson explained that his scheduling was the procedure for a 24 hour organization. This schedule was set out a year ahead of time.

Mr. Small stated that the Personnel Review Board should be involved in this situation as they handled employee issues. The Personnel Review Board also made recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Loeffler noted that if this proposal was approved, amendments would have to be made the employee manual. Mr. Abrahamson replied that these employees were not in the Compensation Plan as the Ambulance Department was a very different type of operation.

Mr. Abrahamson stated that he did not want to circumvent policy but he did not want to pay out 400 hours of PTO if a supervisor resigned. Commissioner Sorensen suggested a change in the employee handbook to read that employees PTO would be equal to what they worked. Commissioner Watrous did not want to approve anything until the Personnel Review Board reviewed the proposal. Commissioner Sorensen suggested that the Personnel Review Board review the amendment to the handbook and the Board of County Commissioners act on the PTO issue so staff could take their time off. She requested that the Personnel Review Board review this language for the handbook as soon as possible and then bring it back to the Board of County Commissioners for approval.

Regarding the ambulance membership program, Commissioner Sorensen stated that she would like this program in place as soon as possible. Mr. Abrahamson agreed to follow up and complete this issue.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-66, DECLARING MAY AS MENTAL HEALTH MONTH: Mental Health specialists Debbie Corriero and Sue Crawford presented. Human Services representative Sharon Blum and Cornerstone representative Jill Adams attended the hearing. Ms. Corriero made the following statements: ‘ They were asking the County to recognize May as Mental Health Month and to have people access services. ‘ Jefferson Center for Mental Health had a toolkit on their website to outreach citizens. ‘ This website included self help information and health lifestyles. ‘ Ms. Crawford read the resolution into the record.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-66, declaring May as Mental Health Month in Clear Creek County. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen stated that even though services were available to the insured citizens,

110 there were many indigent people that were not covered by insurance or Medicaid that the County was struggling to get services for. The vote was unanimous.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(c) and (e) to discuss negotiating strategies and the Henderson Mine. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-41, FOR ZONE PLAN CASE #01-ZP-2, FOR T4SR73W: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. EMERGE representative Dick Woods, Miner’s Candle resident James Turner, Empire resident Steve Watts, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, County Lands Planner I Sarah Kaminski, Planner II Holland Smith, Open Space Commission members Fran Enright, Sue Howell, Marilyn Hogan, and Sarah Donahue, Adjacent Property Owner Robert Janes, County Lands Senior Planner Lisa Leben- Vogel, Planner II Fred Rollenhagen, Planner II Ruth Kastens, Adjacent Property Owners Alvin Mosch, Maggie and Alan Demers, and Joe Petit, and Planner I Anthony Atencio. Ms. Wise made the following presentation: ‘ Many staff were involved in this township zoning proposal. ‘ Many different issues were considered when determining zonings: i.e., hydrology, roads, slopes, wildlife, wildfire, etc. ‘ The U.S. Geologic Survey was contacted to obtain a map showing mineral impact areas. ‘ Areas were shown displaying commercial–Section 31 near Echo Lake, NR-PC—the southwest corner of the township, and buffer—near the Mount Evans Wilderness, zonings. M-2 (north of Hwy 103), and M-1 (Sections 5 & 6), zonings were also proposed for some areas. ‘ Section 3 contained some M-1 zonings for the Forest Service lands sold in 1998 and combined with surrounding claims. ‘ Section 2 was the location of the County Transfer Station and some industrial zonings were proposed. ‘ Section 1 contained a parcel applied for from the Forest Service and this was proposed as R-1. ‘ Sections 1 and 12 were mostly Forest Service lands and the Forest Service had requested these lands be zoned M-2 instead of NR-PC. ‘ Review agencies contacted included the U.S. Geologic Survey, CDOT, Division of Water Resources, Jefferson Soil Conservation Board, Colorado State Forest Service, DRCOG, Chicago Creek Sanitation District, Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association, Clear Creek County Metal Miners, Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation, Clear Creek Metropolitan Recreation District, Clear Creek County Sheriff’s Department, Clear Creek County Ambulance, Clear Creek Fire Authority, Road and Bridge, and Environmental Health Department. ‘ The County Site Development Department recommended that lands adjacent to the existing MR-1 parcels be zoned NR-PC or Buffer instead of M-2. He cited road access issues and environmental considerations as potential conflicts between residential and mining uses. Mr. Vogel also recommended that the Forest Service trailhead area be zoned NR-PC rather than M-2, as was proposed in the Barbour Fork location in Section 10. ‘ The Open Space Commission related Open Space Commission report for the NR-PC zoning designation for lands in Section 4, 5, and 6 which that commission wished to manage, stating that they contain several historic cabins and sites, as well as ridge lines along the headwaters of Trail Creek and South Spring Gulch. This commission also supported the proposed NR-PC and Buffer zonings for Forest Service lands in the southern two-thirds of the township, stating it would give the Forest Service a clear indication of how the County would desire to see these lands managed. ‘ The City of Idaho Springs Public Works Director Randy Rasmussen stated that the city’s watershed included Section 1, 2, 10, 11 and 12, which were currently proposed M-2 zoning. There were two water collection points and a chlorination building in the valley area. The water from this area currently was not used for drinking water, but was piped to the waterfall and waterwheel. This source was available as a future potable water supply

111 with the potential for being connected to the system for service to the city users. Protection of this watershed, as well as avoidance of construction on the service to the city users. Protection of this watershed, as well as avoidance of construction on the steep slopes particularly in the viewshed around Idaho Springs were both of concern to the city. ‘ Additional agencies contacted were Public Service Company of Colorado, IREA, Barbour Forks Homeowners Association, Spring Gulch Homeowners Association–who had questions regarding purchasing lands, Clear Creek County Lands, Division of Wildlife, SOLVE, and the City and County of Denver. ‘ The Planning Department met with the Forest Service prior to development of zoning and their suggestions were taken. Clear Creek Ranger District Director Dan Lovato attended the Planning Commission hearing and expressed his support of the zoning proposal. ‘ Adjacent Property Owners were notified and more than 49 written responses and 40 phone calls were received. The Planning Department did respond to all inquiries. ‘ One response was received from the McDonalds who had recently applied for a triangle of Forest Service lands and they had requested this be zoned MR-1. Staff concurred with this zoning as this triangle was completely surrounded by the McDonald’s property. ‘ Public comment was included in the staff report. ‘ The big discussion from the Planning Commission hearing was the consideration of M-2 zoning versus the NR-PC zoning in the area around Hwy 103.

Commissioner Watrous opened the hearing to public comment.

Frank Young, Open Space Commission Mr. Young made the following statements: ‘ The Open Space Commission supported the zoning as recommended by the Planning Commission except for Sections 8 and 9. ‘ The Open Space Commission did not agree with the M-2 zoning for Sections 8 & 9. ‘ The desire for residential and mineral potential had to be balanced for the good of the community. Much of this area of land provided open space and Forest Service lands to the residents of the County. ‘ The Forest Service land zonings were under the advisement of the Forest Service. ‘ The Forest Service lands in the County were managed for recreation, watershed and Forest Service values. This was the direction for the Forest Service in the future. ‘ The recommendations of the Planning Commission had recognized this future and had determined appropriate zonings. ‘ The County zonings would be implemented if the Forest Service lands ever became privately owned. ‘ The Open Space Commission supported the proposed zonings in Sections 4 and 5. ‘ Developments in Trail Creek and Cascade Creek would change this portion of the County and the County needed to protect the NR-PC zonings.

Al Mosch, Adjacent Property Owner Mr. Mosch made the following comments: ‘ Mr. Mosch submitted a handout regarding work completed by the Atomic Energy Commission. ‘ Some of the lands in this township could be considered radioactive. ‘ There could be a risk with zoning certain lands residential in these areas. ‘ He submitted a list of the mines that were involved with uranium mining. ‘ He had some of the metals from these mines analyzed and they were determined to be radioactive. ‘ Another mine with radioactive samples was the Martha E in Spring Gulch. ‘ One home in this area had dug a well 1000 feet deep only to find that it was radioactive. ‘ There were also many gold and silver veins in this area which could be a good source of revenue.

Dick Woods, EMERGE Mr. Woods made the following comments: ‘ Mr. Woods stated that the Planning Commission and the Planning Department had done an excellent job on this township zoning.

112 ‘ He suported the resolution and the Open Space Commission position on the lands in Sections 8 & 9 being zoned NR-PC. ‘ He stated that a compromise had been reached at the Planning Commission hearing between the NR-PC proponents and the M-2 zoning proponents.

Alan Demers, Adjacent Property Owner Mr. Demers made the following comments: ‘ He was a landowner in Section 4, owning the Grand View and the Molly Fisher. ‘ He asked if the lands adjacent to his were still proposed as MR-1. Ms. Kastens confirmed that this zoning was still proposed for those lands.

Commissioner Sorensen made the following comments: ‘ Regarding the Sections 8 & 9 and the zonings of NR-PC and M-2, why was the M-1 zoning chosen? Ms. Leben-Vogel replied that this M-1 zoning was chosen in order to combine some of these lands with Adjacent Property Owners that were zoned residential. These lots were less than an acre and not stand alone building sites. ‘ Was this the same area as the radioactivity study? Mr. Mosch replied that no, this was not the area.

Commissioner Poirot asked what difference it would make if the area was zoned NR-PC versus M-2. Mr. Young replied that with the Forest Service lands, it did not matter. However, by using the County zonings, the Forest Service would take there recommendation of the County when conveying lands.

Robert Janes, Adjacent Property Owner Mr. Janes made the following comments: ‘ He agreed with the Open Space Commission that these areas in Section 8 & 9 should be zoned NR-PC for the larger pieces and M-2 for the smaller pieces. Commissioner Sorensen noted that from the information in the U.S. Geologic Survey information, they showed the heaviest mineralization in another area but the Planning Commission still recommended a M-2 zoning. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that the Planning Commission zoned the area this way to have an easily identifiable boundary, i.e., Hwy 103. The area north of Hwy 103, was highly mineralized so the Planning Commission recommended M- 2.

Commissioner Sorensen requested more time to research the information presented regarding uranium in this area. She made the motion to continue the hearing to May 29, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-63, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #02-EX-04, TO ACKNOWLEDGE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES CREATED IN 1973 AND COMBINE THE EXISTING THREE PARCELS INTO ONE, FOR DIANE TRAHAM AND GIGI LEWIS, 164 SIESTA CIRCLE, CIRCLE K RANCH: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. In attendance were Gigi Lewis, Janine Coupe, Erik Boerstler, Kulia Pacheco, Dick Woods, Planner I Tony Atencio, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler. Ms. Kastens made the following presentation: ‘ Diane Trahan and Joanne Coupe were the owners of record and Ron and Gigi Lewis were the applicants. ‘ The Lewis’s and Ms. Coupe were both present. ‘ The request involved firve parcels of land in the Circle K Ranch Homesites subdivision, two of which were legally created with the remaining three created by deed in June of 1973 without County approval. ‘ The request was for the Board of County Commissioners to delete some of the legal and illegal boundaries to reflect current ownership and formally acknowledge this property as two legal parcels; one .858 acre and one .869 acre. ‘ All parcels involved were zoned MR-1 with existing single family residences on the two largest tracts. ‘ Both residences had existing wells and approved septic systems.

113 ‘ Public notice for this public hearing was published in the Clear Creek Courant on April 17, 2002. ‘ Adjacent Property Owners and Public Review Agencies were mailed notice on April 11. ‘ Two Adjacent Property Owners called requesting further information, neither of which voiced any objection. ‘ Staff recommended approval pursuant to draft Resolution #02-63.

Mr. Woods of EMERGE strongly recommended approval of this hearing and was in favor of consolidating parcels. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-63, Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-4, to allow illegal tracts to be combined with legal parcels. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REVISION TO ADOPTED RESOLUTION #02- 08, TDR CASE #02-TDR-01, FOR JAMES AND TINA CARINO, UTE CREEK ROAD, TO REMOVE A CONDITION LIMITING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO ALLOW PERMITTED USES AS DESCRIBED IN THE M-1 ZONING USES: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Planning Director Carol Wise, Planner I Tony Atencio, and James and Tina Carino attended. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: ‘ The request was to revise the Board of County Commissioners Resolution #02-08 to remove a condition limiting development rights on the Ola Millsite, which was the receiving site of the Transfer of Development Rights case, to allow all permitted uses as described in the M-1 zoning district regulations. ‘ The applicants were under the impression that there were no restrictions on the receiving site and that they could use the site as a M-1 zoning. ‘ The Carinos requested that this restriction be removed. ‘ Since Staff did not recommend approval of the TDR based on the building site and any restrictions, Staff recommended that these restrictions be removed. ‘ The building envelopes were used to avoid areas with steep lops and wetlands but this would be dealt with during the building permit phase. ‘ There were restrictions associated with the sending site with the M-2 zoning regulations.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the resolution formally approved was appropriate for the TDR process, but as Mr. Rollenhagen stated, the decision was not based on the envelope site. He added that if this revised resolution was approved the sending site restrictions would be removed but the restriction regarding emergency services and limited access would remain. Mr. Loeffler noted that whether this information would be conveyed by a title company during a sale was unknown. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the revision to Resolution #02-08, TDR Case #02-TDR-01, for James and Tina Carino, Ute Creek Road, to remove a condition limiting development rights to allow all permitted uses as described in the M-1 zoning uses. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-61, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-TSUP-4, FOR CHARLENE LEBERER OF A RETREAT FACILITY LOCATED ON STEVE CANYON ROAD OFF OF SODA CREEK ROAD: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. In attendance were Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, property owners Darryl and Sandra Chauncey, Realtor Danya Scott, Applicants Patrick Langley and Char Leberer, and Planning Director Carol Wise. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: ‘ He submitted responses from the Clear Creek Fire Authority. One was from Fire Marshal Brett Dieux and one was from Fire Chief Kelly Babeon. ‘ Mr. Rollenhagen submitted a response from the Colorado Division of Water Resources. ‘ Justin Perkins of the Colorado Division of Water Resources inspected the well on the property. He indicated that he thought this well could be registered as a domestic well with the restriction of irrigation of no more than one acre and no domestic animals. The next step was to apply for a late registration for use of the well as domestic. This could take 40 days to accomplish.

114 ‘ The applicants would then need to talk to the Colorado Division of Water Resources to see if this well could be used as a commercial well. The division could require a commercial well that would require more or less water than a domestic well. ‘ The use of the well must be approved before the use of the project. ‘ If more water was needed for the project, then the applicant’s would have to find an additional water source. ‘ Under the stipulations and conditions of the resolution, it stated that no more than 12 people could be at the center at one time and for the 2, class-style trips per year, there could be no more than 18 at a time for no more than three nights. It was included that no one could reside at the retreat facility and no laundry could be done. Staff was indifferent as to whether anyone lived at the facility or not. ‘ The stipulations and conditions also discussed water and the provision of adequate documentation from the Colorado Division of Water Resources that there was enough water for the proposed use. ‘ Another condition was that the existing septic system would have to be upgraded to comply with the ISDS regulations of the County or the number of guests would have to be decreased for the current system. ‘ Other conditions dealt with signs, roads and improvements, and access to the retreat center and that it could not be gated or restricted.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler suggested the removal of the discussion on the two-class-style groups per year at the facility as this was the same type of group as others that would be attending the facility. Mr. Loeffler also asked if since the road could not be gated or restricted, should the private road sign be removed? Mr. Rollenhagen suggested that this sign be removed. Regarding improving access, Mr. Loeffler thought it would be a year before the Forest Service would approve this in their portion of property. Mr. Vogel replied that Ms. Ryon of the Forest Service stated that since this road predated the Forest Service, the existing travel area could be used. If any improvements were made, the applicants would be limited by the existing footprint. Mr. Loeffler stated that until the Forest Service allowed more, the applicants were limited to grading and snow plowing the existing footprint. Mr. Vogel stated that there were several standards that could be met with regard to the road. It all depended on how many dwellings used the road for access. It could also include the need for drainage and pullouts.

Commissioner Sorensen asked what the purpose of having this case heard as a Special Use Permit instead of a rezoning was? Mr. Rollenhagen replied that during pre-application they had discussed a temporary time to test the business and if at the end of 2 years, it was successful, the applicants would apply for a Planned Development zoning. Mr. Vogel recommended that if this rezoning was applied for that the road be brought up to County standards at that time.

Mr. Weaver stated that the late registration for domestic wells took approximately 40 days to complete. He added that if the applicants were granted a well permit based on use and irrigation, it was still a change that may not be approved. The applicants would have to quantify the guests use while at the facility. Ms. Chauncey felt that this water usage only part of the week would equal that of a full time resident. Mr. Weaver replied that this was up to the Water Court to decide. Each well permit had its own independent set of conditions and stipulations. The applicants would be limited to documented historic use and not quantity if approved. It would be a second process to change the use of the water.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-61, Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit #02-TSUP-4, for Char Leberer for a retreat center facility, with the elimination of criteria #3, The use will not have an undue burden on available infrastructure. The amendment also included the removal of the term class-style groups attending the facility. Commissioner Watrous seconded. The vote was Commissioners Watrous and Poirot in favor and Commissioner Sorensen opposed. Following the vote, Commissioner Sorensen stated that she did not discourage this business but thought it should be in a more accessible location for accommodation of people.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-67, CORRECTION OF EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #00-EX-23, RESOLUTION #00-212, DIVISION OF COUNTY LANDS IN SECTION 21, T3SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Senior

115 Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel and Jack Stauffer attended the hearing. Mr. Smith stated that this was to correct Resolution #00-212 and Exemption by Resolution #00-EX-23 as these had left a parcel being divided and left in two different sections and only listed in section. This was to make the legal description accurate. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-67 to correct the former exemption and resolution. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the transfer of real estate as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE GAMING GRANT: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Mr. Allen stated that this change order was to reallocate money from one account to another within the Virginia Canyon project. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract change order for the Road and Bridge Gaming Grant. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE EPSDT CHANGE ORDER FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: This change order was to increase the State funding for the EPSDT program for the Nursing Department. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the change order for the EPSDT funding for the Nursing Department. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement for the Gustin party. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement for the Taborsky party. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 21, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 21, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice with respect to the Henderson Mine Abatements as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) and to determine negotiation strategies as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(e). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT FOR CLEAR CREEK ROTARY: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Ms. Reimer made the following statements regarding the Special Events Permit:

116 • This permit was to host the first annual Lobster Fest and Tombstone Tour on June 1, 2002 from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. • All departments had signed off on the permit in approval. • All fees had been submitted.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Special Events Permit for the Clear Creek Rotary. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM TO THE WATER SALES AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF GOLDEN AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT WITH BLACK HAWK REGARDING THE CLEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS #2, 3, 4: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: • Mr. Weaver recommended attempting to purchase 6 acre feet from the City of Golden. • The Georgetown revenue would total $25,000 and the School revenue would total $60,000. • There was a great demand for water in the area and Mr. Weaver thought it was a good strategy to purchase as much water as possible. • Mr. Small noted that there were other expenditures in the water fund that needed to be covered with water revenues like attorneys and water studies.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the purchase of six acre feet of water from the City of Golden option and to schedule a closing with the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Poirot seconded. County Attorney Bob Loeffler made the following statements: • The fact that the City of Golden agreed on an accelerated schedule was not guaranteed. • The option to purchase the water could only be exercised once a year. • This option would have to be exercised in February of each year to allow for the 60 day closing period. • The City of Golden Water Attorney Porzak did verbally agree to an accelerated schedule with Clear Creek County Water Attorney Zilis.

Mr. Weaver had contacted the Golden City Manager to close as soon as possible. The vote was unanimous.

Regarding the second item for discussion, County Attorney Bob Loeffler suggested that the Board of County Commissioners hold this hearing in Executive Session. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) to discuss water litigation with the City of Black Hawk and to determine negotiating strategies as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(e). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

Following the Executive Session, Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the settlement with the City of Black Hawk on Reservoirs #2, 3, and 4 contingent on review by Clear Creek County Water Attorney Zilis and County Attorney Bob Loeffler to assure the County that they could capture free water. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. Mr. Loeffler stated that this was a proposed settlement in two separate water cases. The vote was unanimous.

ABATEMENT HEARING FOR THE HENDERSON MINE: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. In attendance were Henderson Mine President Bill Rech, Henderson Financial Representative Scott Johnson, Henderson Mine Controller Kevin Knowles, Henderson Mine Tax Specialist Munir Malik, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Sheriff Don Krueger, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler. Ms. Settle made the following statements: < For the 1999 and 2000 abatements, she recommended denial. < There were several accepted methods to determine economic obsolescence.

117 < The appraisal provided by the mine was interesting but not necessarily convincing. There were a few leaps of faith. < An important element of their appraisal was to consider the multiplier effect of fixed costs versus variable costs and changes during crisis. < Ms. Settle had not done the income approach. The income was earned by the mine as a whole and could not be arbitrarily attributed to the buildings and personal property. Therefore the cost approach was the only feasible approach for the valuation of the property. < Ms. Settle had taken into account the calculation of leverage using the most recent years for comparison rather than long term average because of the recent large investments. She didn’t think that there should be an further adjustments. < The price of molybdenum was similar for the two most recent years so no price adjustment was needed. < Given the history of Henderson and the mining industry as a whole, it was a very cyclical business and she did not think the current downturn was permanent. < She determined the personal property to be worth $77,142,100.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler made the following comments: < The petitions for abatement addressed the mine by proceeds portion of the Henderson valuation. < The abatements requested refunds from 1999 and 2000 on the theory that the mathematics for calculating mine by proceeds historically didn’t match the statute for the mine by proceeds. < The method including the manner of calculation was first proposed by Henderson mine in the past. < After the mine by proceeds was proposed for 3 year averaging, the mine proposed a five year averaging in 1996. < In 2000, the mine proposed the same method but on a 10 year averaging. < Under the terms of the statute, a mine owner may request the Board of County Commissioners to agree on averaging. < When Henderson approached Clear Creek County, the Board of County Commissioners did not have to agree. < There were advantages to both parties ain averaging. < The methodology proposed by Henderson, included an error, and every year they reported the mine by proceeds value and methodology and it included this error. < This was why the mine had filed the abatement petition. < The mine was claiming this was a clerical error in representing their agreement with the County. < The valuations were the product of discussion with the Board of County Commissioners and the County Assessor at those times.

Mr. Rech made the following statements: < He felt that the mine had been consistent in their meetings and they had come forward with the clerical error as it was a sizable issue for them. < The mine’s understanding was that they had a right to go after a clerical error in mine by proceeds taxes. < To that end, the mine had reached a conclusion with Grand County and they had accepted the validity of the mine’s claim on clerical errors. < The mine’s intention with Clear Creek County was bring for the the various valuations. < The mine had an income approach expert research the mine and another valuation was performed. The mine felt that their value should be $50 million of real and personal property value. < The mine felt this was fair in lieu of them not pursuing the 1999 and 2000 mine by proceeds denial. < This was a sizable sum of money that the mine felt they had the right to pursue. < The mine’s position was to accept the denial and not protest but they would need the $50 million valuation. < Mr. Rech added that the mine had no room to negotiate. This was a deep analysis of the business and they were committed to their numbers.

118 County Attorney Bob Loeffler made the following additional comments: < Last December the County and Henderson Mine had resolved the 2001 abatement petition by an agreement that linked the 1999 and 2000 abatements to the discussion of a value for 2002. < The County was addressing abatement petitions for 1999 and 2000 which related to the clerical error claim in mine by proceeds calculations and not discussing the value. < By virtue of last December’s decision, an agreement on value would have an effect on how the mine proceeded from here.

Mr. Rech stated that the valuations were too far apart to reach an agreement. Therefore the mine would appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals for them to decide on the clerical error. Mr. Loeffler stated that the County did not have to bring forth the abatement for 2001 but they did anyway. Recognizing that this methodology didn’t conform to the statute on mine by proceeds, he felt the law allowed the County to reach an agreement with tax payers by valuation. This was done daily and upheld as not being a clerical error.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that County Assessor Diane Settle had been researching the valuation to arrive at the $77 million number and she was inclined to take the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to deny the abatements for the Henderson Mine for the years 1999 and 2000. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Mr. Johnson stated that the individuals involved prior to his involvement did the averaging with the clerical error. They did not understand that this method didn’t fulfill the State statute. It was the mine’s intent to follow State statute. The other intent of the mine was that they would provide the information and the County would follow this by following setting the valuation. Therefore, the mine felt that the clerical error was on both parties in not following the statute. Mr. Johnson had not found anyone in the company who stated that they didn’t follow statute. Commissioner Poirot replied that initially neither party had intentions of not following statute but the County had acted in good faith when they accepted the mine’s numbers. Mr. Johnson replied that he felt the mine acted in good faith as well. Mr. Rech stated that the mine had made a good faith effort to explain their valuation and had made no assumptions outside the hearing room of a value outside of the $50 million they were proposing. The vote was unanimous.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #02-71 and #02-72— Brendan Meehan/Taos Trust, #02-69—Tom Turner, #02-70—Ken Fredricks, Upper Fall River: County Assessor Diane Settle presented and Brendan Meehan attended the hearing. Mr. Meehan stated that he only owned a percentage of these mining claims but was taxed the same even though there were different percentage ownerships. Ms. Settle replied that the Assessor’s office changed the values as soon as they noticed this discrepancy. Ms. Settle stated that there would be refunds on both of these ownerships as Mr. Meehan owned a 1/12 interest as Meehan and a 1/6 interest as Taos Trust. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation on Abatements #02-71, #02-72, #02-69 for Tom Turner, and #02-70 for Ken Fredricks as these were all interests in the same parcels. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-49, Willis Bergan, Upper Brook Forest Estates: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Willis Bergan attended the hearing. Mr. Bergan made the following presentation: • He had purchased this land as a senior citizen in 1987. • The value of the real estate in this area was increasing. • The value on this parcel had increased 130%. • Mr. Bergan requested an early granting of the State Homestead Act that was to come into effect in the next year. • He requested the 50% reduction to seniors in the assessment of the property.

Ms. Settle stated that there were not many sales in this area in fair condition. An adjustment was made to Mr. Bergan’s land and it was now comparable to other sales. Mr. Bergan stated that he was only living on Social Security and had no interest bearing accounts. He could not afford an

119 increase in taxes such as this one. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s new adjustment based on the comparables. Commissioner Sorensen stated that she understood Mr. Bergan’s situation but the County must follow with State statute. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Later in the hearing, Commissioner Poirot requested to reconsider this case and possibly grant relief to Mr. Bergan. County Attorney Bob Loeffler emphasized that this could be precedent setting for other seniors which may protest their values before the following year. The Board agreed with the prior decision.

#02-76, Brett Flinchpaugh, Old Squaw Pass: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Brett Flinchpaugh attended the hearing. Ms. Settle made the following presentation: • Ms. Settle stated that the parcel was purchased in 1999 for $75,000 and was now valued at $174,000. • The comparables were from the neighborhood and did support the value.

Mr. Flinchpaugh made the following statements: • In two years the parcel had increased in value by 300%. • The house next door only sold for $99,000. • His parcel was only vacant land. • The adjacent property owners taxes were half of Mr. Flinchpaugh’s amount.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the Assessor could only consider a certain time period of sales for comparison. The sale next door was not in this time period. Mr. Flinchpaugh stated that five of his acres were for a road easement and power lines and the back of the parcel was a drop off. Commissioner Sorensen asked for an adjustment for the slope. Ms. Settle made an adjustment for slope that took the value to $138,300. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept this adjustment by the Assessor. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-68, Richard and Judith Caldwell, Silver Plume: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Caldwell party. Ms. Settle stated that this parcel was adjusted for condition of the home by 20%. The new value would be $132,860. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to accept the Assessor’s adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-73, Todd Golemgeske, Silver Plume: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Golemgeske party. Ms. Settle stated that this parcel used to be commercial and recommended an adjustment to take the property from commercial to a residential assessment. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to accept the Assessor’s adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-74, Dawn Denny, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Denny party. Ms. Settle stated that the personal property that was being abated was under the minimum of $2500 so this business would not be taxed and a refund of $284.34 would be granted. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s adjustment. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-75, Peter Wasner, Silver Plume: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Wasner party. Ms. Settle stated that this was a vacant lot in Silver Plume and she recommended a downward adjustment for slope to $28,390. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-77, Lisa Ann Greene-Culvert, Chicago Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Greene-Culvert party. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement came up during the discussions on the Idaho Springs Water Plant. This parcel was assessed at 2.2 acres when actually it only had .24 acres. Ms Settle recommended an adjustment to reflect the

120 correct acreage. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-78, Marvin Ornes, Do Little Ranch: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Ornes party. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was for the personal property at the Do Little Ranch. This abatement was generated by the Assessor’s department to correct the property for Clear Creek County only. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-79, John and Kathy Murphy, Barbour Heights: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Murphy party. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was to account for a Combination of Lots Agreement on this parcel and to refund $545.94. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice with regard to the Contract to Sell land to Terry Winters as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b) and to discuss negotiating strategies as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(e). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

DISCUSSION WITH CLEAR CREEK RADIO INC.: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel, Clear Creek Radio President Greg Markle and representative Mark Cucinella, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Planning Director Carol Wise, and Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel presented a site plan of the proposed area for the Clear Creek Radio antenna site. It was located on part of two parcels of which Clear Creek County owned. Mr. Markle added that the location was 4.1 miles up Saxon Mountain Road at the intersection of the Federal Mining Lode and the Anglo Saxon Lode. The site would include a small shed with an antenna behind trees so it would not be visible from the road. The Open Space Commission and the HDPLC had no issues with the site. Clear Creek Radio did have concerns with this location being on County lands that were formerly BLM and being within the RPP land scope. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the rules read that the County could do this and determine whether the use was RPP. The question lay with the BLM portion and not the RPP designation. Mr. Loeffler had requested a letter from BLM approving the location of this site in order to protect the decision.

Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that this would not interfere with commercial cell sites being located in the same area. Mr. Loeffler stated that this site would need a Special Use Permit as the land was not yet zoned. Mr. Loeffler added that the County had to determine if they wanted to complete a lease or a license with Clear Creek Radio on the site. A lease would be a real property interest and a license could be terminated at will by the grantor. Ms. Leben-Vogel suggested a lease with a three -year term as this land would be zoned in the next township zoning. Mr. Cucinella suggested a lease that ran with the license with the FCC. This way, if peopled complained, it would be directly to the FCC. The lease would include that if the radio left the site, they would have to remove their equipment.

Mr. Markle added that the Emergency Services groups were interested in sharing this site as a repeater site. They would come into the site later in the future. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that this land was owned by the County and managed by HDPLC. She suggested that this proposal be approved by the HDPLC also. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve an agreement/lease with the Clear Creek Radio Inc. which would be worked out between the County Attorney and Clear Creek Radio. and the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners would sign the final agreement. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PATENT NO. 05-2002-0005, WHICH REPLACES PATENT NO. 05-95-0016 FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

121 – BLM, TO CORRECT SOME MINOR ERRORS AND DELETE CERTAIN RESERVED MINERALS AND RIGHTS OF REVERSION OF TITLE: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel and Planner II Holland Smith presented. Ms. Leben stated that this was a new patent from the BLM offices to correct a former patent with minor errors. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this new patent removed reversionary interests and it added a plat of land that was forgotten. The first page of the patent noted the corrections. The last page of the patent noted that it superceded former patents and was effective the date of the original patent. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve and accept the Patent #05-2002-0005 to replace the former Patent # 05-95-0016. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice to discuss the purchase acquisition lease transfer of real property near the Blue Ridge area as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MASTER PLANNING CONTRACT WITH THK: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver and Gaming Impact Coordinator Cindy Condon presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver and Ms. Condon made the following presentation: He had only reviewed the scope of work with regard to the contract and did not get a copy of the remaining portions of the contract. Ms. Condon stated that the contract included 2 scopes of work, one for the Master Plan County- wide and one for the master plan for the Clear Creek/Gilpin subregion. The prices were listed for each scope. Mr. Weaver had concerns with the overlapping of the billing and the confusion it would create for accounting. Ms. Condon stated that the billing should be identified on the invoices as to which scope the bill was for. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the contract required the grantee to submit invoices for certain tasks under each grant. These invoices could then be reimbursed from Department of Local Affairs.

There was discussion regarding the wording in the contract. Commissioner Sorensen had concerns with the sections of the contract relating to the public survey, the replacement economy analysis, the lack of the information technology industry, the need for a housing plan, and with regard to the Clear Creek/Gilpin contract, the concerns were understanding the Gilpin County mission and the expansion of Central City, and the need for better language with the Gilpin County Intergovernmental Agreement. Chief Accountant Carl Small suggested that this contract needed to include language on out of pocket costs associated with the regional meetings proposed. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to May 28, 2002 at 3:30 p.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TOBACCO CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta and Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, and Clear Creek Metropolitan Recreation District Director Mark Cucinella attended the hearing. Ms. Barta made the following presentation: • This contract presented an increase in funding. • This contract would fund the Nursing Director, Case Manager, and 20 hours for the coordinator of the program. • This contract totaled $45,453 from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003. • This program was targeting every population group in the County from youth to anyone who wanted to quit smoking.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Tobacco Contract Renewal. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Mr. Cucinella requested that the Board of County Commissioners make the main entry of the courthouse non-smoking for out to 20 feet of

122 the entrance. Ms. Barta stated that the coalition could assist with a policy plan. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 22, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 22, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the Henderson Mine Abatement and the Queen Elizabeth Claim as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) and to discuss the transfer of real property as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6- 402(4)(a). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 28, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 28, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 2002 PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION POLLING PLACES: County Clerk and Recorder Pam Phipps presented. Ms. Phipps made the following presentation: There was only one change in the polling locations – the Empire School would be used instead of the church due to ADA accessibility. The polling locations were as follows: • Precinct #1: Clear Creek County Courthouse • Precinct #2: One Room Alternative High School, Empire Building • Precinct #3: Clear Creek County Shops, Dumont • Precinct #4: First Baptist Church, Idaho Springs • Precinct #5: Idaho Springs City Hall • Precinct #6: Heritage Museum & Visitor’s Center • Precinct #7: Grace Church of the Rockies, Evergreen • Precinct #8: King-Murphy Elementary School • Precinct #9: King-Murphy Elementary School

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the 2002 Primary and General Election Polling Places. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

123 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FINANCIAL AND OPERATING PLAN FOR COOPERATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THE FOREST SERVICE : Sheriff Don Krueger presented. Mr. Krueger stated that this was the same yearly contract with the Forest Service to have the Sheriff deputies patrol the Forest Service campgrounds. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the financial and operating plan for cooperative law enforcement agreement between the Clear Creek County Sheriff’s Department and the Forest Service. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR THE LOOMIS AND MOSCH PARTIES: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement’s for the Mosch party. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen asked if the County Attorney should be listed on the approval form in the review by the departments. County Attorney Bob Loeffler agreed. Planner I Holland Smith of County Lands agreed to add the County Attorney to the approval list. The vote was unanimous.

The Loomis Combination of Lots Agreement was delayed until a planner could present the application.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the Wagoner vs. Prisner as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-82, NAMING OF UNNAMED ROAD TO BEAR CLAW LANE, OFF SINTON ROAD IN TIMBER PLACE SUBDIVSION FOR FIVE POTENTIAL RESIDENCES: Mapping Director Matt Taylor presented. Mr. Taylor made the following statements: • This was an owner initiated road naming. • Three letters were submitted to the Mapping Department requesting the name of Bear Claw Lane. • This road was a branch off of Sinton Road. • There were 2 other lots on this road that could be developed. • Two other lots could be addressed off this road depending on the location of the driveway. • The Mapping Department researched the name and their were no problems with the name in Clear Creek County or Jefferson County.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-82, naming of unnamed road to Bear Claw Lane. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Human Services. Minutes for the Board of Human Services are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding a personnel matter as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

124 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-41, FOR ZONE PLAN CASE#01-ZP-2, FOR T4SR73W: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. In attendance were Open Space Commission members Hal Wahlborg and Frank Young, Planning Commission member Donna Moody and Mark Levin, Planners Sarah Kaminski, Holland Smith, and Fred Rollenhagen, EMERGE member Dick Woods, residents Alvin Mosch, Bruce Roberson and Jill Pettit, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, mining community members Ray Horton and Bill Kazel, Colorado School of Mines representative Erik Hunter, and Biff Roberson. Ms. Wise made the following statements: • Ms. Wise submitted an amended staff report with references to the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting. • Mr. Demers and Mr. Woods had researched the uranium issue. • Of the 14 mines listed as having uranium issues, four were zoned as M-1 and M-2, five were in adjacent townships, six were in this township, and three were not found in County records. These claims were scattered and there was no pattern to their location. • The ranges of uranium radioactivity in this report range from .001% to .038%. • Staff had met with Mr. Kazel and other mine owners and they were advised that all of Colorado had a high radon level. The only place that uranium was mined was at the Alps Mountain and only five pounds was removed. • Staff did not feel these were important to note in this area. • If there were any valid concern with regard to radioactivity, it would be addressed at the building permit stage.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that it was good to discuss the radon issue and this issue should be included in the County’s booklet “Right to be Rural”. She addressed the concerns expressed by the Open Space Commission on the preferred zoning of NR-PC instead of M-2 for the lands south of Hwy 103. The Planning Commission had recommended that these lands be zoned M-2 instead of NR-PC after Staff had recommended Sections 8 and 9 be zoned NR-PC. Ms. Wise added that the unpatented claims were identified in blue. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that there were unpatented claims on the County lands too. The unpatented claim holders were told that if they brought in these claims to the Board of County Commissioners in 1976, a zoning case would be held to zone these unpatented claims. Many of these claims were on Forest Service lands and some were dropped. She continued that the one parcel with an unpatented claim proposed as NR-PC on Diamond Mountain was filed late and the M-2 zoning could be considered.

Commissioner Poirot asked about the parcels related to Chip Bair. Ms. Leben-Vogel replied that Mr. Bair requested the M-2 zoning to match adjacent parcels. Commissioner Poirot agreed.

Mr. Levin made the following comments: • He was in favor of the M-2 zoning as opposed to what the Open Space Commission was requesting with the NR-PC zoning. • He stated that the M-2 zoning had as much protection against residential development as the NR-PC zoning but the M-2 preserved the possibility of mineral development. He continued that it was very important that all unwithdrawn federal lands remain as M-2. • With an M-2 zoning, mining could still be done. Most of the Forest Service lands were proposed to be changed to NR-PC. • Mr. Levin stated that the Open Space Commission requested that the County zone the County and Federal lands to NR-PC instead of M-2 to send a message, (“..give the Forest Service a clear indication of how the County would desire to see those lands managed”.) (Reference: Open Space Commission Review Agency Response Form, April 16, 2002) • He continued that mining in the United States was highly regulated to ensure that environmental and safety standards were met, and the work was performed at generous wages. Displacement of mining away from the United States caused metals to be produced in third world countries with significantly lower environmental and safety standards and wage rates. • Mr. Levin stated that the message sent by those not wanting an M-2 zoning was more of a “not in my back yard” philosophy and this was not the right message. • Mr. Levin stated that it would be difficult to change this zoning back to M-2 if needed as NR-PC created the perception of an ecological preserve, which would be very hard to undo if mineral resources were to be developed.

125 • Mr. Levin continued that the areas in controversy were defined by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) as having the highest mineral potential, or class “A” on the geological resource potential map. The County could change the location of houses, trails, etc., but minerals were where they were found. • In previous township rezonings and in other land use matters the County had given great deference to the CGS recommendations. Why was the County changing this now? At the very least, all areas with “A” or “B” potential should be zoned in a manner which would not preclude future mineral exploration and development. Minerals and other items were produced to the benefit of the entire nation and human civilization. • Mr. Levin felt that an M-2 zoning did not preclude any significant open space uses. He continued that nothing in the Clear Creek County zoning regulations would prohibit hiking trails or educational/interpretive facilities, and with a Special Use Permit, restroom facilities. Also, the Board of County Commissioners had the power to make necessary amendments to clarify if needed. Other than providing for possible future mineral use, an M-2 zoning was just as protective as NR-PC. • Mr. Levin stated that some residential landowners were objecting to the retention of potential mining uses near their homes. He had no sympathy for people who bought patented mining claims in a mining district, then want to object to potential mining activities. The Clear Creek County zoning regulations stated on Page 7-4: “Former mining lands may have physical hazards and environmental issues associated with past mineral exploration, production, and processing. Additionally, patented mining properties used for other purposes remain subject to the provisions of Colorado Mining Law relative to rights of way, drainage, extra-lateral rights, and other provisions regardless of zoning. Mineral exploration, development, or processing may occur on adjacent or nearby lands at any time.” • Mr. Levin felt that the County should amend the County regulations further to require a written acknowledgement of this to be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits on mining claims. • Mr. Levin stated that many felt the mining time was over. He explained that many of the narrow-vein hardrock mining districts, such as much of the portions of the Colorado Mineral Belt which cross Clear Creek County, were largely uneconomic at present because of the huge differences in wages and safety and environmental regulations between the United States and other producing nations. These regulatory and economic differences were expected to diminish over the next several generations, rendering more of Colorado’s resources once again economic. There were still tremendous known resources of gold, silver, lead, zinc, molybdenum, uranium, iron, and other mineralization in the County. • Mr. Levin closed stating that all unwithdrawn federal lands were already open to mineral location, so any other zoning was downzoning.

Mr. Young made the following statements: • Mr. Young was the Chairman of the Open Space Commission. • The Open Space Commission felt that the zoning of the Forest Service lands as NR-PC told the Forest Service that this area was recreational, a watershed, a wildlife habitat, and not a working forest. • The NR-PC was not a rezoning but a first zoning and it did not stop the Forest Service from keeping their mining claims. • Mr. Young stated that if someone did buy these claims and found minerals, they could rezone for mining later. • The Open Space Commission did not think the NR-PC zoning was a lock up of the Forest Service lands. It was a direction legally zoning and didn’t apply on Forest Service lands until they came under private ownership. This was just an advisory suggestion. • Mr. Young stated that historically, lands were zoned according to adjacent parcel zoning. The NR-PC zoning was a new zoning and nothing could have been zoned this in the past. This was the first time for the Board of County Commissioners to use this zoning in a township on a wider scale. • Mr. Young stated that the Open Space Commission was not anti-mining. Mr. Young had personally dealt with the mining resources of this County for 30 years and the NR-PC zoning was not intended to be used as an anti-mining tool.

126 Mr. Kazel asked how the County could zone Forest Service lands when it still belonged to the Federal Government. County Attorney Bob Loeffler replied that these lands could be zoned regardless of ownership but the zoning was not effective until it was sold into private ownership.

Mr. Horton made the following statements: • He had been working around uranium since 1953. • He and his brother had owned a claim in South Dakota and his brother had developed radiation poisoning. • Mr. Horton was a member of the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board and a senior Radiation Monitor at Rocky Flats. • He recommended more research into the possibility of the uranium findings in this township.

Mr. Hunter made the following statements: • He was a student at the Colorado School of Mines. • His specialty was the study of uranium. • Mr. Hunter prepared a map of the Alps Mountain area and the mines, which were known to contain uranium. • One study by the U.S. Geologic Survey and one study called the Radioactive Occurrences in Colorado showed the uranium areas. • He recommended that these mines remain zoned for mining and not residential as miners were regulated by the State and regulated to work in this area. Residential developers would not have the resources or expertise to handle this mineral. • Mr. Hunter found a sample in the Alps Mountain area that had some radioactive samples. Radioactive samples were also found in the Lamartine area and this too should be zoned for mining.

Mr. Mosch made the following statements: • He owned the Phoenix Gold Mine. • In the early 1950’s, his father and he were mining the New Era mine property situated in upper Trail Creek midway between the famous gold and silver producers, the Freeland and Freeland Extension mine, and the Lamartine and Oneida mine. During that period of time, the United States was seeking radioactive uranium minerals to make nuclear weapons for the ongoing cold war in the Soviet Union. It was on record that uranium existed in Clear Creek County and Gilpin County of Colorado; in fact Madam Curie obtained her first uranium ore from the Woods mine a short distance from the top of Virginia Canyon, and later from the Joe Reynolds mine situated in Silver Creek of Clear Creek County (near Lawson). From this she extracted radium for her radioactive experimentation in France. Later, Madam Curie died due to exposure to excessive radiation. • Further evidence of radioactivity in the form of radioactive hot mineral water springs helped the County in an earlier day to attract tourist in that the Soda Creek natural hot springs had a much higher radioactivity level than did waters from other area’s health spa natural mineral waters. In fact up until radioactivity was discovered to be very dangerous to human health, the Idaho Springs Health Spa was noted world wide as a resort with very high levels of (health enhancing) radioactive hot mineral water. Recent awareness of the danger inherent in human exposure to radioactive substance, unknown in those earlier times, prompted a name change to what is now Indian Hot Springs. • The Big Five Tunnel at the west end of Idaho Springs was driven northeasterly from the point under the Colorado School of Mines’, Edgar mine. This tunnel which extends nearly 9000 feet toward the boundary of Clear Creek and Gilpin County. The North American Uranium Mining Company was exploring the tunnel after World War II for possible uranium production. Intent was to possibly mine uranium from radioactive veins previously encountered but ignored by previous miners because of low gold value. • Mountain Sates Uranium Corporation in the early 1950’s, explored and developed the Martha E uranium mine, a location claim situated on BLM land a few miles up South Spring Gulch. The company opened up some very rich high-grade uranium. They were about to go into production when the manager, Harvey Zoock was mysteriously murdered a short distance down the canyon from the mine. Mr. Mosch did some contract mining for that company at that time period in Utah, and upon visiting the Martha E, he witnessed the

127 quality of the Martha E ore. It was far richer than what he had worked for them in Utah. The mine shut down when Harvey was murdered, and has never reopened since. • Within a mile or so downstream from the Zoock murder site, years ago Mr. Mosch located a gold vein in a tunnel extending into the mountain off the County road that measured so hot it pinned all scales on the Geiger-counter. This was still there. • About 1953, Montana Mining and Development Company employed Mr. Mosch as an operator of the Lamartine mine mill. That was when the United States Government encouraged prospecting for uranium with possible bonus incentives and subsidies for discovering what could become an operating producing uranium mine. Mr. Mosch felt he would be helping his country offset the Soviet threat if he looked for uranium. He did find some promising spots. One was midway between the Lamartine and the Lone tree vein. He dug a 18-foot deep prospect hole through top soil but not deep enough to strike the hard bedrock. The bottom of the hole was highly radioactive. He stopped digging due to lack of a proper mineral lease for the property. • Later, Mr. Mosch discovered a very radioactive vein near the top of what was now called Miner’s Candle Road. This was not too far northwesterly from the Turner Gold Mine. Recently Lora Gallegos constructed a home near that vein and had a water well drilled. This was the proximity of Mr. Mosch’s earlier discovery. The well encountered water at a depth of 1300 feet. Unfortunately she told Mr. Mosch she could not use the water, as it was radioactive. She was importing bottled water for her domestic use. The down dip distance of 1300 feet from the surface might, together with the surface exposure, suggest that she was in possession of another potentially rich uranium mine somewhat like the famous Schwartzwalder mine located near Golden Colorado. • Mike Duran, manager of Clear Creek County Transfer Station, informed Mr. Mosch a few weeks ago that an unknown person who claimed they had been excavated from a burial site up Trail Creek brought two or three scrap automobile bodies into the dump for disposal. This person claimed they were from the Phoenix Mine which Mr. Mosch owned and he this was not so. Mr. Duran, thinking Mr. Mosch was aware of this, brought this to his attention as the scrap automobiles he sent to Denver tested out as being contaminated with radioactive soil and had to be de-contaminated. Mr. Duran was acquiring a radiation tester and would examine all incoming scraps from this area. This could have been someone’s clean up efforts in Trail creek, but Mr. Mosch would think they had been unearthed from a site further up the canyon. Mr. Mosch did not know of any clean up efforts in his immediate vicinity of the Phoenix Mine. • In conclusion Mr. Mosch was trying to show that this was no place to build residential homes for unsuspecting families to raise their small children. As the people had learned over the years, constant exposure to such radiation was detrimental not only to the uranium miners, but now people knew of risks of radiation to the gene pool passed onto children and grandchildren. Mr. Mosch did not believe Clear Creek County would wish to be liable for the health of their citizens and generations to come from these families. • Mr. Mosch submitted a mapping of the “hot spots” put out by the U.S. Geologic Survey in 1952-1954.

Donna Moody, Vice President, Planning Commission Ms. Moody made the following comments: • The radiation material discussion was not presented at the Planning Commission hearing. • She was unsure if this issue should not be submitted back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. • She stated that anyone familiar with the County zoning regulations would know that a M-2 zoning would be potential for the Tranfer of Development Right process. It did leave the option open for building a home unlike the NR-PC zoning. This could result in scattered residences. • She wanted the zoning for these certain lands to be M-2 but not for residential potential.

Ms. Wise stated that most of the area which Mr. Mosch described was proposed as M-2 and NR- PC. The M-1 zonings were proposed for other lands adjacent to other existing residential parcels. Everything else in the area Mr. Mosch spoke of was not proposed for residential. Mr. Mosch stated that this was still a very mineralized area. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that these M-1 claims

128 were zoned this way to combine with already established residential sites and not create new building sites.

Mark Levin, Planning Commission Mr. Levin made the following statements: • He clarified that Ms. Moody was right in that an M-2 zoning did have the potential for the Transfer of Development Right process. Any zoning had the potential for a rezoning, and then the Transfer of Development Right process. However, for the Transfer of Development Right process to be implemented, it required approval from the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. • The intent of the Transfer of Development Right was to reduce the impact -- to move something from a bad place to a better place. He did not find the M-2 a threat.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that in reviewing the NR-PC category for zoning and mining was not included --- only the protection of wildlife and recreation. This zoning would make it more clear to property owners that it was not suitable for development.

Chip Bair, Property Owner Mr. Bair made the following comments: • He owned property that was directly affected by this township zoning. • He was one of the property owners requesting an M-1 zoning. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that these adjacent lands were proposed for M-2 for the Bair adjacent lands. Commissioner Watrous stated that the County preferred this zoning remain as M-2.

Bill Kazel, Property Owner Mr. Kazel made the following statement: • All of the mining for uranium in the 1950's produced no mineable uranium. Hot spots were found but nothing useful. Mr. Hunter stated that the danger was in the people who were moving these materials around. A mining company would be regulated to move the materials safely whereas a developer would not have the experience. Commissioner Poirot stated that this was only small portion of the township zoning and if it were zoned M-2 or NR-PC, it would be unlikely that the materials would be moved much. Commissioner Sorensen did not want to ignore the mineral potential here by zoning it NR-PC. Mr. Levin suggested reviewing some of these issues in building regulations with a radon mitigative design.

Commissioner Watrous suggested continuing the hearing to allow for more research to be done on the uranium issue. She agreed in trying to preserve the mineral heritage. She opposed the proposed NR-PC zoning of these certain parcels. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to June 18, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Poirot asked if reverting these lands to a proposed M-2 would deem the case to return to the Planning Commission. County Attorney Bob Loeffler replied that if the Board of County Commissioners found this a significant change, then they could return it to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Watrous made her motion to remand the case back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Poirot was unsure that the reversion was significant enough. Commissioner Watrous reversed her amended motion to the original motion of continuing the hearing. The vote was unanimous.

Ms. Wise asked for direction for the Planning Staff. Commissioner Poirot suggested separating out these controversial areas of the uranium discussion. Commissioner Sorensen suggested keeping these certain parcels as a proposed M-2 zoning instead of NR-PC. Commissioner Watrous stated that not all concerns were with regard to the uranium but more of keeping the mining heritage and the M-2 zonings.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-13, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-TSUP-01, FOR MAD CREEK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, TO SELL AND REMOVE 20,000-30,000 CUBIC YARDS OF LANDSCAPING ROCK AND CONSIDERATION OF WAIVER OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1041 PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 19 OF THE

129 ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO AREAS OF STATE INTEREST: Planning Director Carol Wise and Applicant Clay Hurst presented. In attendance were Adjacent Property Owners Sally Buckland, John Voorhees, Bruce Able, Francis and Jim Craft, John McPeak, S.W. Gooch, and Kathy Dudding, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Zoning Technician Tracy Bennetts, and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel. Ms. Wise made the following statements: • This hearing was continued from the May 7, 2002 hearing at the request of the applicants to allow them time to review the stipulations and the draft resolution. • As of this date, Ms. Wise had received no submittals from the applicant. • A new draft resolution was presented to the Board of County Commissioners with the modifications requested. • Stipulation #12 was added which read “If removal of the anticipated 20,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of surface landscaping rock is not completed by the expiration date of this permit, the applicant may apply for a new Special Use Permit to complete the project; and” • Forest Service representative, Deb Ryon, expressed concern with Stipulation #3 which read “Before commencing any operations on the subject properties pursuant to this permit, documentation of legal access from the Forest Service for this use shall be submitted to the County.” Ms. Ryon objected to this statement and wanted it reworded to say not legal access from the Forest Service but from adjacent property. Before an applicant could obtain Forest Service access, they had to prove that there was no access across other lands. At that point the Forest Service could still deny them a permit as there was already an existing Forest Service Special Use Permit to Mountain Meadows Campground to consider. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this application was assuming access on the Forest Service road. If the Forest Service denied the application, then they denied it. It left the Forest Service at liberty to do whatever they wanted to do. If they denied access then Mad Creek Development Corporation would not be able to satisfy the conditions in the resolution. If Mad Creek Development Corporation wanted to redesign the project for another access they would come back to the Board of County Commissioners and find out if another access was possible if the conditions were different. Stipulation #3 did not require the Forest Service to do anything. Ms. Wise stated that Mad Creek Development Corporation had shown on their site plan several access roads. Mr. Hurst added that Mad Creek Development Corporation had asserted that there were other accesses but did not want to use the other routes. The Forest Service access was the preferred access by Mad Creek Development Corporation. Mr. Hurst added that there were other accesses that were public roads and Mad Creek Development Corporation could prove this. Mr. Loeffler stated that the manner in which the application was proposed required Mad Creek Development Corporation to obtain a Forest Service access permit. If they did not get this access, they would be back to present another access option. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the stipulations in the present resolution were developed on issues of using the Forest Service road and not other possible routes. The Board of County Commissioners would have to review the impacts of other routes if they were proposed.

Mr. Hurst requested to review the stipulations. He made the following comments: • Mr. Hurst agreed that mechanical equipment would not be used to remove the rock. He suggested wording of “rock will be removed from surface of rockslide and carried by laborers to loading area for stacking on pallets.” Ms. Wise stated that this issue came up at the last hearing and Mr. Scott had stated that the rock would be carried down to a loading area and taken by mechanical equipment to another area. • Mr. Hurst stated that he had contacted some mining experts and geologists during the discussions and had found another way to remove the rock without a loader. This idea was a winch system with a row of tracks and this could eliminate the dust issue. Rather than cutting into the dirt, there would be two rows of pipe and a winch to raise and lower it. The winch would hold a pallet and then move the load down. This would eliminate tractor movement. Laborers would load the rock by hand onto the pallets and then have the winch system carry the pallets to the loading area. This was a new idea but an alterative that was not mechanical and it would eliminate the dust and reduce the amount of laborers. This would also eliminate the need for a loader to pick up pallets each day.

130 He proposed the stipulation to read “rock will not be removed using mechanical equipment but by hand to stack on pallets in loading area by small loader or cable winch system to load onto flatbed trucks.” • Mr. Hurst understood this system to be completely portable and they would place the machinery where the geologist found it to be safest. He understood this system to be safer and quieter. • County Attorney Bob Loeffler asked how the rocks would be moved to the loading area. Mr. Hurst replied that this area of the pallets would essentially become the loading area and then it would be winched to the bottom where a loader would put it on a flatbed. Mr. Hurst requested that Mr. Vogel review the system for approval. • Mr. Hurst added that miners used this winch system to lift items out of mining tunnels. Commissioner Sorensen requested that literature on this system and how it worked should be reviewed. Mr. Hurst replied that this system, with the Board of County Commissioners protections built in, would be a much better system. Commissioner Watrous had not heard of this system and stated that information about the system could be included in the resolution when more information was presented. Commissioner Sorensen stated that there would be safety issues involved if laborers were involved. Any costs associated with this system being reviewed by a mining engineer should be borne by the applicant. • Mr. Hurst continued with the stipulations. He stated that he had met with Mad Creek Development Corporation and they had concerns with only three other stipulations. • #1, regarding zoning, Mr. Hurst agreed that the applicant should be in compliance with the zoning regulations. Regarding the mobile home and the regulations on a parcel zoned for mining, mobile homes or storage units could be used subject to a Special Use Permit. For a caretaker, it had to be in relation to mining. In the Settlement Agreement, there were issues on access through the Arapaho Trailer Park. A trailer was brought in through the trailer park and then a fence was constructed so there was no way to get the trailer out unless the fence was removed. Mr. Hurst asked if the applicant could use the trailer as an office. Ms. Wise replied that this had to be a part of the original application and could not be entered now, since it was not included in the public notice. • Mr. Hurst added that the mobile home could not be removed any other way than the way it was brought in. He noted that a 1991 and 1971 Bicycling Map showed these roads were in existence. These same roads were also shown on a County road book which designated County roads. This book showed the Forest Service access as a non-County maintained road. Mr. Voorhees stated that this was a private driveway through the trailer court and not a public road. Commissioner Sorensen reviewed the bicycle map and stated that it showed the roads but not if they were public or not. Mr. Hurst replied that this road was on all the public maps. Mr. Vogel stated that this road was on Forest Service property. Mr. Hurst noted that this road was on the 1972 U.S. Geologic Survey map shown as not improved. Mr. Loeffler stated that this map still did not state whether the road was public or not. It was just noting that a road existed. • Mr. Hurst stated that according to the Settlement Agreement and the Colorado Revised Statutes, these roads were public as was the one through the trailer court. He added that these roads had been existence for so long that by virtue of existence that they were public and there would be no need for a permit from the Forest Service. Mr. Vogel replied that the only way a permit could be avoided with the Forest Service was if the road predated the Forest Service and this only applied for residential use, not commercial use. The Special Use Permit was different from the historical road process. • Mr. Hurst requested that since the mobile home was blocked in by the new fence, that Mad Creek Development Corporation be allowed to use this trailer as an office until the fence was removed. Mr. Hurst stated that he could show that this road had been in existence for a long period of time. Mr. Loeffler stated that the Settlement Agreement did discuss removal of the fence. If the fence was in violation of zoning regulations, the fence could be removed but the County could not find that the fence was in violation. Mr. Loeffler continued that he did invite Mr. Hurst to provide evidence that this was a public road. The Board of County Commissioners at this hearing could not decide the prescriptive easement of the Forest Service road. The road issue had to be set aside as the Special Use Permit was the question before the Board.

131 • Mr. Hurst stated that going through the historic road process would take time and he would like the Board of County Commissioners to consider the application to include the mobile home. Mr. Hurst continued that all the other junk on the property could be removed except for the trailer as it was blocked in. Ms. Wise suggested that Mad Creek Development Corporation negotiate with the property owners to remove the fence so the trailer could be removed and then replace the fence for the adjacent property owners. Mr. Hurst replied that the adjacent property owners would not agree to that. He continued that if the Board of County Commissioners’ resolution would open up the fence, Mad Creek Development Corporation could remove the trailer by the end of the first year of the permit. Ms. Wise stated that if the Special Use Permit application was changed, it would require additional public notice or the process would have to start over. Commissioner Sorensen suggested that if the applicants did not want to apply for another Special Use Permit for use of the mobile home, then the modification of the current permit application should be published to include that use. Follow up on the legality of the fence, could be done by Mad Creek Development Corporation on their own. • Mr. Hurst reviewed Stipulation #2, “Before commencing any operations on the subject properties pursuant to this permit, a Boundary Line Adjustment shall be obtained pursuant to the Clear Creek County Subdivision Regulations to correct the illegal subdivision of the Jim Blain and the Bimetallic Lodes, MS #15217;”. Mr. Hurst stated that since this process was conditional on the permit approval, that the fees for the exemption be waived. Commissioner Sorensen and Commissioner Watrous disagreed. Commissioner Watrous noted that if this exemption had been done at the time of sale, this would not now be a condition. Ms. Wise confirmed that the Boundary Line Exemption Cases usually took a couple of months to complete. Mr. Hurst requested that once the application was filed, that the County could complete it. Commissioner Watrous disagreed stating that the application would not be accepted unless it was completed in the process. • Regarding Stipulation #7, “Before commencing any operations on the subject properties pursuant to this permit, a performance guarantee to ensure reclamation and/or revegetation, if any, required by the BMP Permit, in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit on a local bank, approved by the County Attorney, shall be provided by the applicant.”, Mr. Hurst stated that he did not want this to be open ended. This would be subject to what the hired geologist and County Attorney found acceptable. Mr. Vogel replied that the letter of credit would be based on the geology report and where Mad Creek Development Corporation was proposing to remove rock. Knowing exactly where the rock was to be removed and what lay underneath this rock, would decide the letter of credit amount. Usually, bids were obtained. Mr. Hurst asked if the Letter of Credit was 1.5 times the amount of the estimated cost. Mr. Loeffler replied that sometimes it is more than 100% of the estimated amount. • Mr. Hurst stated that other than these stipulations mentioned, Mad Creek Development Corporation was in agreement with the resolution and stipulations subject to the wording changes.

Commissioner Poirot asked for confirmation on the fence issue. Mr. Loeffler replied that this did not involve the County doing anything. The way the resolution was written was acceptable. If the County wanted to amend the public notice to include the mobile home, this would continue the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen confirmed that the only other changes were in Stipulation #2 and #10, discussing the boundary line adjustment and the use of another method to transport the rock from the loading area to the trucks and that this would be reviewed by a mechanical engineer at the applicant’s expense. Mr. Hurst replied that this was if the applicant chose to use this method.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-13, Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit #02-TSUP-01, with Mad Creek Development Corporation subject to the changes and stipulations discussed. Mr. Loeffler confirmed that one change was the winch system that Mr. Vogel would have to approve. Commissioner Sorensen seconds. During discussion, Mr. Voorhees requested public comment.

Mr. Voorhees made the following statements:

132 • He owned the fence that had been constructed which was now blocking the Mad Creek Development Corporation trailer and he owned the adjacent trailer court. • He was required by the Planning Commission to put this fence in place. • Someone had been removing the fence and the Mad Creek Development Corporation trailer came across his land illegally. • There were numerous things there that were illegal and an eyesore. • This whole case had been based on an “if”. The access was the main issue and it would not be an easy one. • There was not a public road on his land, it was a driveway. Mad Creek Development Corporation had been trying to establish access across his land. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the County was not taking a position on whether Mad Creek Development Corporation had the right to cut across the trailer court land. The County was stating that the trailer had to be removed. Mad Creek Development Corporation would have to show a good faith effort in order to work to get access across the Voorhees land.

Mr. Loeffler stated that public comment was closed at the first two hearings. The vote was unanimous.

After the vote, the following comments were made: • Mr. Able stated that he could show the County where Mad Creek Development Corporation proposed a loading area to take place on his private property. • Ms. Dudding stated that the only way that the junk could be removed was to access through the Empire Townhomes property or through the Forest Service lands. Ms. Dudding stated that if the Forest Service did not give Mad Creek Development Corporation a permit, then he would not use their access. Ms. Dudding stated that if Mad Creek Development Corporation had no right of way, then they would try to use the townhome property. Ms. Dudding stated that Mad Creek Development Corporation was asking to use mining equipment without a mining permit. Ms. Dudding stated that there was no list of equipment to be used in this project. Ms. Dudding had a feeling that Mad Creek Development Corporation would do whatever they wanted regardless. It had been happening for months with the junk violations and still, none of the junk had been removed. How will the junk be removed? Mr. Loeffler replied that the County could not control how Mad Creek Development Corporation removed the junk. Mad Creek Development Corporation could try to obtain access. If Mad Creek Development Corporation could not gain access and clean up the land, then they could not do the proposed project. The area had to be cleaned before Mad Creek Development Corporation could commence quarry rock removal. Ms. Dudding asked what to do if Mad Creek Development Corporation snuck onto their lands? Mr. Loeffler replied that the residents would have to call the sheriff or get an attorney. The County could not do this for them. Ms. Dudding asked about the type of equipment to be used. Mr. Loeffler replied that, at present, Mad Creek Development Corporation was limited to laborers, a small loader, and a flatbed truck. If anything changed, it would have to be brought to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. • Mr. Able stated that a portion of this property was not Mad Creek Development Corporation land. Mr. Loeffler replied that the County was giving Mad Creek Development Corporation a permit to perform this work on their land and not on anyone else’s land. Mr. Loeffler confirmed that the County did not ask for a survey of the land but the permit was only for Mad Creek Development Corporation land. Mr. Vogel added that if Mad Creek Development Corporation was trespassing, it was a civil matter. • Mr. McPeak expressed concerns with his campground operation and the equipment traveling through his campgrounds. Commissioner Sorensen replied that the Forest Service would address that issue. Commissioner Watrous added that if Mad Creek Development Corporation did not have a Forest Service access permit, then they could not use this access.

Ms. Wise stated that the public had expressed many concerns regarding the junk issue and the Planning Department was concerned as well. It would require some cooperation from an Adjacent Property Owner to remove the junk from the Mad Creek Development Corporation lands. If everyone refused to assist, the junk would remain. Ms. Dudding replied that, as

133 property owners, they were afraid to allow access for Mad Creek Development Corporation as they thought Mad Creek Development Corporation would use it freely in the future. Mr. Loeffler added that Mad Creek Development Corporation had to have access before rock removal. Commissioner Watrous asked if legal access had to be obtained before removing junk. Mr. Hurst stated that Mad Creek Development Corporation had unpatented claims across the Forest Service road and until they had a permit, the road could be used for milling and mining. Mad Creek Development Corporation had done some milling. Ms. Dudding disagreed. Mr. Loeffler replied that the County understood the Forest Service regulates the road and the County did not regulate the Forest Service. The Forest Service would have to deal with Mad Creek Development Corporation on the use of this road.

The Board continued the hearing to consider the 1041 regulation waiver for Mad Creek Development Corporation. Commissioner Watrous stated that this considered geologic hazards and a financial guarantee. She asked if these items could be waived? Mr. Loeffler replied that in the course of the original hearing of this application, the Planning Department came to understand that this could be a geologic hazard. One of the conditions in the resolution required a geology report to find if this was a geologic hazard area that required a 1041 permit. The resolution just adopted was fashioned to address whether these issues were covered by the 1041 permit process in which Mad Creek Development Corporation would have to do mitigation. Both the geologic hazard and financial guarantee issues were addressed in the resolution. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to waive the 1041 permit requirements for Mad Creek Development Corporation for the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit Case #02-TSUP-01 as these conditions were covered in the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit resolution. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Etcheson made the following statements: • This was a renewal contract which was ongoing. • He recommended approval of this contract. • He had seen a slight decrease in this contract and the prior contract would end June 30, 2002. • The new contract had increased by $375. • Inspections were still on course and the department was meeting the requirements.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Environmental Health Department contract between Clear Creek County and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment . Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen stated that the contract noted that funding levels could change if the Governor so chose. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the contracts would remain in tact until the Long Bill was signed. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SALE OF POWER SCREEN FROM THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler and Planning Commission member Donna Moody attended. Mr. Allen made the following comments: • He was requesting permission to sell a Road and Bridge asset, a Power Screen, purchased in 1998. • The department did not use it and it was heavily regulated by MSHA. • The department wanted to get rid of this machine and the MSHA regulations. • This machine would screen out fill material and remove larger rocks. MSHA considered this a mining operation. • All staff had to be certified for MSHA in order to have this machinery on hand. This type of machine required heavy record keeping and the fines were hefty. • This machine was rarely used and too much work for the little use it had. • The County bought the machine for $40,000 and would try to sell it for $34,000.

134 Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the sale of the Power Screen from the Road and Bridge Department. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MASTER PLANNING CONTRACT WITH THK: Gaming Impact Coordinator Cindy Condon presented. Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Condon made the following statements: • Ms. Condon did request that a separate contract with THK be prepared for the gaming portion of the County Master Plan. • She requested that the County only sign the contract for the County portion at this time and the gaming portion would be brought back to the Board at a later date. • This was the finalized copy of the THK County Master Plan and it was approved by the County Attorney to reflect the desired changes. • Ms. Condon noted that with this contract, if there were cost overruns in one section, another section could be borrowed from as agreed with THK.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the County would have to designate a point person for this contract and act as a Project Manager. This person would not be able to alter the contract in any way. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the County Master Plan contract with THK and to have the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CORRECTION DEED FOR COUNTY LANDS: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler understood that the County had sold land in the past and the title company would not accept the deed as only one Commissioner had signed the deed. Mr. Loeffler stated that the title company was interpreting the Colorado Revised Statutes to mean that all three Board of County Commissioners had to sign these deeds but in actuality, the deed could be signed by any one of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Loeffler reviewed the minutes of the hearing when this land was sold and it was a unanimous decision of the Board of County Commissioners to sell. In the future, the Board of County Commissioners, in their motions, would agree to have the Chairman sign for all the members of the Board. A correction deed was prepared in this special case to satisfy the title company. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Correction Deed with all three signatures. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 4, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 4, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Human Services. Minutes for the Board of Human Services are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

135 EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice to discuss personnel matters not related to elected officials as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING CONTRACT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken attended. Ms. Barta made the following statements: < This was a continuation of the previous contract. < This contract required the Nursing Department to complete a community plan. < This contract would provide $15,999 in the coming fiscal year. < This contract required a community assessment every 5 years. < There could be a change letter for this contract in the coming year due to the Long Bill in the Legislature.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Public Health Nursing Contract. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CANCELLATION OF TAXES LEVIED ON CERTAIN ASSESSED PROPERTIES: County Treasurer Geri Thompson paresented. The Board of County Commissioners reviewed the list of write-offs. The list totaled $2000. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the cancellation of taxes levied on certain assessed properties. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

OPTIONAL TIME FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver and Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Director Peggy Stokstad presented. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: < He and Ms. Stokstad made the request that the County fund a feasibility study for the proposed reservoir at the Ball Placer in Empire. < WRC Engineering had put together a study displaying the engineering for the construction of the reservoir. < They wanted the study to be flexible to allow for the needs of Empire and the County. < This study did not include costs for legal time. < The Ball Placer site was the first choice in the reservoir sites. < Ms. Stokstad estimated that this reservoir site would hold 110 acre feet and could be used for water storage in the summer ice skating in the winter. < Mr. Weaver and Ms. Stokstad estimated it would cost $50,000 for the feasibility study. < Ms. Stokstad stated that the Silver Dollar Metropolitan District had not offered any assistance on the cost of this feasibility study. Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern that Clear Creek County taxpayers who have a priority list for the sales tax fund may not understand the County bearing the burden of this venture when Black Hawk played significant role. < Ms. Stokstad stated that the Mayor of Empire Lori Short, could not wait a long time for this project to happen. She suggested that the County approach Black Hawk during the construction phase for funding. Empire had already volunteered to find matching funding on this project. < Construction of the reservoir would include lining, a gate and inflow valves.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the $50,000 for a feasibility study and attorney costs to come from the infrastructure account. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH #02-80 APPOINTING A COUNTY HEALTH OFFICIAL AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #0281, IMPLEMENTING AN EMERGENCY MUTUAL AID AND ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT FOR LOCAL COLORADO PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCIES: Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler and County Engineer Ed Rapp

136 attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this resolution clarified the position of Environmental Health Director and the Medical Director positions. The second resolution clarified the County’s position on mutual aid assistance. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolutions #02-80, a resolution of the Board of Health appointing a County Health Officer and Resolution #02-81, implementing an emergency mutual aid and assistance agreement for local Colorado Public Health agencies. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

DISCUSSION WITH THE FOREST SERVICE TO CONSIDER A COOPERATIVE EFFORT TO MANAGE OFF-ROAD VEHICLES IN THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY/GILPIN COUNTY BOUNDARY AREA OF THE NATIONAL FOREST: Gilpin County Commissioner Craig Nicholson, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Clear Creek Ranger District Director Dan Lovato, Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel, District Ranger Jim Cuthbertson, and Sheriff Don Krueger attended the hearing. Mr. Lovato made the following statements: • This discussion came up at a previous meeting with the Clear Creek and Gilpin County Commissioners. • The public had been contacting the Forest Service with complaints of outdoor recreational vehicles (ORV’S) recklessly and trespassing on private property. • The Clear Creek Ranger District decided to meet with the Board of County Commissioners and discuss a way to jointly fund a position to patrol this area and others for misuse. • The Clear Creek Ranger District had since discovered that the State trails program has funding opportunities to support this type of position.

Mr. Cuthbertson made the following statements: • Mr. Cuthbertson stated that Grand County had implemented this process. • This money could be used for a few different purposes, i.e., signage, education, etc. • This grant would be for next year in 2003 as the grant deadline was November 1st. • Mr. Cuthbertson was attempting to find the funding and figure the costs. • The Clear Creek Ranger District was willing to put in some funding from travel management dollars. • This funding would require an application every year. • Another way to leverage this funding would be to match it with Forest Service foundation moneys. If the Forest Service managed this program, there would need to be a cooperative agreement. • This would be a program with many pieces that the three entities could pull together. This program would include signage, education, designation of trails, safety issues, etc. • Mr. Cuthbertson agreed to meet with the State on what they would need to fund a program.

Mr. Lovato stated that this situation had two parts involved; one was the problem up there and the second part was building a sustainable program up there with designated areas and signage.. Commissioner Poirot felt that this was only one of many areas where this problem existed. Mr. Lovato suggested that having a boundary-less program involving someone on an ATV to patrol both areas with a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties involved. He also recommended two people patrolling at a time for safety reasons. Mr. Lovato stated that their office had one ATV and they may have to purchase another one.

Mr. Cuthbertson suggested that this staff would be on duty six months a year with the staff they had. This would probably cost around $40,000 per year during snow-free months without the Forest Service overhead. To outfit an ATV with the proper equipment and to purchase the ATV would cost around $8000. Total cost for the program with staff and the ATV’s would run approximately $50,000.

Commissioner Poirot thought that the Open Space Commission could contribute some funding as they had some funds for maintenance. Additionally, he suggested that possibly the County Lands Department could assist with funding. Commissioner Poirot did not want to start a program that could not find funding in the future to sustain itself.

137 Gilpin County Commissioner asked about the level of employee that would manage this patrol. HE envisioned education, outreach, and enforcement. Mr. Cuthbertson agreed. Sheriff Krueger stated that this program agreement would need some work in that his deputies had no authority on federal lands. MR. Lovato agreed stating that the employee needed to be able to write the tickets on the spot. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that she would need to review the BLM Act with County Attorney Bob Loeffler to ensure that these funds could be used in this proposed program. Commissioner Sorensen stated that if the former BLM funding could be used, they needed to start the program soon as this BLM fund would not be around forever.

Mr. Lovato stated that this program did need to start soon as some residents were stringing barbed wire across their lands to keep the ORV’S riders out. This had become a safety issue. County Attorney Bob Loeffler asked if there were federal regulations to prohibit people from traveling on Forest Service lands. Mr. Cuthbertson replied that there were and all ORV’S’s had to be on designated trails or roads. However, there were no rules against these ORV’S users traveling on historical roads. The Forest Service was trying to incorporate this into their travel management plan. Wilderness Areas were closed by law to motorized traffic. Commissioner Nicholson suggested utilizing the Forest Service funding to provide for a Sheriff’s deputy from each County and an ATV for this enforcement with some contributions from each County. Mr. Lovato agreed that the Forest Service could give the authority needed to allow the deputies to write tickets on Forest Service lands. He added that if the problem became larger, the entities could separate. Presently, the program would be more successful with the three entities coordinating.

Mr. Lovato agreed to meet with his staff to discuss the costs for this year and next year for this proposed program. Mr. Loeffler and Mr. Krueger agreed to research the levels of power on federal lands by non-Forest Service employees. Commissioner Poirot agreed with Commissioner Nicholson that this program needed to be a centralized agency for the three entities to make it successful. Mr. Krueger agreed with this proposal and suggested an agreement with Denver Mountain Parks as well on their lands. Commissioner Nicholson was in favor of having a Forest Ranger in the patrolling as opposed to the deputies due to decentralization of the effort. Commissioner Poirot agreed stating that this would be a tough position for the deputies to fill during certain seasons of the year. Commissioner Nicholson expressed concern over how much area two employees could cover in the two counties.

The Clear Creek Ranger District would research other Forest Service locations for similar programs to this one. Mr. Krueger and Mr. Loeffler would research the law enforcement issues. Mr. Loeffler and Ms. Leben-Vogel would research the funding from County Lands Department and the Open Space Commission.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice to discuss the transfer or sale of real property as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GAMING MASTER PLAN CONTRACT WITH THK: Gaming Impact Coordinator Cindy Condon and Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: • This was the same agreement as the County-wide agreement but this was for the Clear Creek/Gilpin Subregion. • The grant was for $40,000 with $10,000 from each County as the match.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Gaming Master Plan Contract with THK. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR THE LOOMIS PARTY: Cartographer Technician Teresa Kaminski, Planning Director Carol Wise, and Planner II Ruth Kastens attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens stated that most people

138 applied for the Combination of Lots Agreement process as it saved money on taxes. Ms. Kaminski agreed stating that this was why this property owner was applying for this process. The Planning Department staff agreed to a new submittal for the Combination of Lots Agreement process explaining why the application was being submitted. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement agreement for the Loomis party. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the acquisition of real property as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a) and to receive legal advice with regard to zoning regulations regarding signs as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6- 402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 7, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 7, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #8, FOR REGULATION OF BANNING OF OPEN FIRES IN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY : Sheriff Don Krueger and Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler made the following statements: • This was the first reading of the proposed ordinance #8 for regulation of banning open fires in Clear Creek County. • This public hearing would set the final date for the second reading of the proposed ordinance. • This ordinance was written with input submitted from various involved agencies and the Board of County Commissioners wanted it implemented as soon as possible. • Mr. Loeffler suggested that the second hearing be held June 25, 2002 at 2:00 p.m.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to set the second reading of the ordinance for June 25, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen asked if this ordinance included the setting off of fireworks. Secondly, she asked, if during a fire ban, would the sheriff be the authority to issue burn permits. Lastly, Commissioner Sorensen asked if the Board of County Commissioners also had the authority to declare a fire ban, as did the Sheriff. County Attorney Bob Loeffler replied that the Board of County Commissioners or the Sheriff could declare a fire ban. This ordinance allowed for a faster action with fires. In emergency situations, the Sheriff would declare the ban. If there were not an emergency, then the Sheriff would consult the Board of County Commissioners.

A section was included in the ordinance with regard to irrigation ditches. County Attorney Bob Loeffler would amend the section on burn permits to only have the public obtain them from the Sheriff during fire bans. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

139 CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 18, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 18, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FOR IREA AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A POWER POLE AT THE AT THE BROOK FOREST ROAD AND BRIDGE BUILDING: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Land Use Service Unit Manager Deb Kirkham attended. Mr. Allen stated that the Road and Bridge Department had not yet submitted for building permits. This hearing was for 2 agreements: one for the IREA membership application and one for the construction agreement of the power pole. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Membership Application for IREA and the Construction Agreement for construction of a power pole at the Brook Forest Road and Bridge Building and for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign these agreements. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SILVER PLUME WATER LEASING AGREEMENT: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Silver Plume Town Clerk Janine Weeds, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: • Mr. Weaver provided the figures to the Board of County Commissioners. • The rates for Silver Plume were the same for the Town of Georgetown. • Silver Plume was requesting 1.95 acre feet (.39 acre feet per month for five months and had opted against leasing water for outside irrigation.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the water leasing contract with the Town of Silver Plume. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, the contract was amended to not include the month of October and for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the contract. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF OPEN SPACE COMMISSION FUND APPROPRIATIONS: Open Space Commission members Frank Young and Sue Howell presented. In attendance were Floyd Hill representative Harry Dale, Trust for Public Lands (TPL) representative Katy Paris, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler. Mr. Young made the following statements: The proposal was a project to purchase the Elmgreen Lands on both sides of I-70 as open space. TPL had an agreement with the Elmgreen family with a deadline that was coming up in the next week. The acquisition was set up so that TPL would purchase the lands from the Elmgreen’s as a bridge purchaser and then the Open Space Commissions in Clear Creek County and Jefferson County would purchase the lands from TPL. Jefferson County Open Space Commission was interested in the lands north of the highway in Jefferson County. A recent application for GOCO funding was denied. The Open Space Commission wanted to commit funding to the purchase of these lands so Ms. Paris could begin her negotiations with the Elmgreen family. The Open Space Commission was recommending $700,000 towards the purchase of the Elmgreen lands. This would be for the purchase of the meadow lands south of the highway. Ms. Paris clarified that this amount from the Clear Creek County Open Space Commission would be for the purchase of part of the southern meadow.

Commissioner Poirot expressed concern that Jefferson County may utilize their lands for commercial while Clear Creek County ended up with more open space. Commissioner Poirot did

140 not support this idea. Ms. Howell stated that, through hearsay, she had heard that Jefferson County was not, not interested in purchasing but rather they were not interested in managing 17 acres. Commissioner Sorensen stated that this hearing was nearing a discussion of negotiating strategies and she requested an Executive Session.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice to discuss the purchase of real property and discuss negotiating strategies as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a) and (e). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EDUCATION AGREEMENT FOR MATT TAYLOR OF THE MAPPING DEPARTMENT: Mapping Director Matt Taylor presented. Mr. Taylor clarified that this agreement was needed in order for him to attend a previously approved out of state conference. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Education Agreement for Matt Taylor and authorized the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the agreement. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PRI-T-1 LINE CONTRACT FOR COUNTY LINES: Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger presented. Ms. Krueger made the following statements: In order to upgrade the telephone system, a PR-1 contract was signed but the contract couldn’t be fulfilled and the company went out of business. Since this time, Qwest had upgraded the County switch in Evergreen. This new contract would save the County $150 per month. This upgrade would provide a Caller ID system to certain phones in the building. This upgrade would provide for the Reverse E911 capability with dispatch within the County building. This upgrade included a non-appropriations and a bulk rate which kept the billing cheaper.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler suggested that if the Board of County Commissioners were to approve this agreement, he asked that they sign the contract agreement and the addendum. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the PR-T-1 line agreement and the addendum. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Secondly, Ms. Krueger requested that the Board of County Commissioners approve a partnership agreement with InterTel with regard to the T-1 line. The Board signed the agreement.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QUIT CLAIM DEEDS FROM CLEAR CREEK COUNTY TO THE MOSCH, CROUSE, JR., AND HOCKMAN PARTIES IN THE TRAIL CREEK AREA: County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that these deeds were part of the overlap of County owned parcels in the Trail Creek area that needed to be resolved. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Quit Claim Deeds from Clear Creek County to the Mosch, Crouse Jr., and the Hockman parties. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-87, APPOINTMENT OF JIM SCHWAB TO THE CLEAR CREEK TOURISM BOARD: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the appointment of Jim Schwab to the Clear Creek Tourism Board with a term ending upon his resignation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-41, FOR ZONE PLAN CASE #01-ZP-2, FOR T34R73W: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. In attendance were Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel, Resident Bob Scott, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Residents William Lee, Jo Pettit, Wayne Shepherd, and Al Mosch, Colorado School of Mines representative Erik Hunter, Open Space Commission members Fran Enright, Sue Howell, Marilyn Hogan, Frank Young, and Hal Wahlborg, resident Harry Dale,

141 Planning Commission member Donna Moody, and Planners Ruth Kastens, Fred Rollenhagen, Tony Atencio, Sarah Kaminski, and Holland Smith.

Ms. Wise made the following presentation: ISSUES RAISED AT PREVIOUS HEARINGS: < URANIUM < In reviewing the material submitted at the last hearing by Mr. Mosch, it appears that all radioactive material identified in his reports was found either in existing mine dumps or existing mines. If the quantities are determined to be sufficient to create a risk to the health, safety and welfare of county residents, it seems to be an argument for not allowing further mining in the area. As is pointed out in the enclosed letter from Dick Woods, a nuclear physicist and Vice President of EMERGE, “the danger from uranium comes from the mining activity not from undisturbed ground.” This also is an argument against allowing construction of homes on property which was formerly disturbed by mining activities, but our present concern is unzoned land, not privately-owned M-1 claims. Potential dangers in home construction should be addressed at the building permit stage.

< PROTECTION OF VISUAL CORRIDORS AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES IN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY < From a land-use planning view, it is probably not appropriate to mix natural resource extraction uses with recreational uses. The issue of whether the M-2 zoning district would permit recreational uses is irrelevant. If the County, or the U.S. Forest Service, has identified lands that are most appropriate for recreational activities, they should be zoned NR-PC or Buffer to protect them from possible future mineral extraction uses. < Highway 103 is a state-designated Scenic Byway and critical viewshed which attracts many visitors to our county. The vistas from the portion of this highway in the Mountain Evans Wilderness area were undoubtedly a key factor in achieving this designation. Introducing a potential for mining into this area, encompassing at least the southern half of the township, could seriously impact this valuable scenic attraction. < A letter is attached from Dr. Robert B. Scott, a geologist with USGS and member of EMERGE, pointing out the risk of water quality degradation from mining activities. He suggests that in this century tourism is a more desirable financial base to the county than mining, and that decisions on any future interest in potential mining be left to future boards.

< PROTECTION OF MINERAL RESOURCES IN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY < During the last public hearing for this zone plan on May 28th, the Board of County Commissioners requested that staff provide a copy of the Township 1961 map showing as M-2 all areas identified by the Colorado Geological Survey as “A” or “B”. Matching these areas exactly would require substantial re-working of data by the GIS Department to redo the maps, so staff has prepared colored overlays for the large map which has been previously presented, to assist the BOCC in its review at the hearing on June 18. Attached to this staff report, for your information, is a map of the whole County, showing the over-all areas of patented mining claims extending from the Virginia Canyon area diagonally to the southwest. Most of the patented claims in this township lie to the north and west of Chicago Creek. < Please refer to the enclosed CGS map and letter from James Cappa of the Colorado Geological Survey. Note that the areas marked “A” indicate good potential for base and precious metal mineralization, and those marked “B” indicate moderate to weak potential. Mr. Cappa further stated in his letter that the “B” area contains only sparse and poor mineralization. Some of this “B” zone is within the northern portions of the Township that have a relatively heavy presence of existing patented mining claims, but zone “B” also stretches south down to CO 103 as it runs by the Squaw Pass Ski Area, and even farther south into portions of the Mt. Evans Wilderness Area. There was also a statement made in the May 28 public hearing that the CGS had indicated the mineral potential for “C” areas on the map they

142 prepared is “unknown.” Mr. Cappa actually stated that the area has “no or limited potential for base and precious mineralization.” < Staff encourages the BOCC to leave the proposed M-2 zoning designations as shown on Sections 1-12 as proposed by the Planning Commission. However, Staff does not recommend that the County zone as M-2 what has been proposed as NR- PC and Buffer in the southern two-thirds of the Township (Sections 13 through 36) whether these areas are located in Zone “B” or not. Not only are these sections located in areas described as “moderate to weak potential for base and precious metal mineralization” by the Colorado Geological Survey (Zone “B”), but there are also no patented mining claims established in this area. Further, mining zoning districts essentially have no road or driveway standards. Allowing mining in areas with few or no existing roads could create a substantial environmental impact in the building of access to new claims. Staff strongly opposes zoning any lands in Sections 13 through 36 as M-2. We agree with Dan Lavato of the U.S. Forest Service that the designated use of this area should be open space/recreational. The Forest Service can of course allow future mining development on their lands, regardless of the County zoning designation. If the Forest Service transfers lands into private ownership, the new owner has the right to apply for a rezoning for their property, and at that time address specific impacts such as access and traffic. < Previous township zone plans indicate that the BOCC has approved M-2 zoning designations in areas that have a clear presence of historical mining activity as identified by existing patented mining claims, and that have a “high” or “good” potential for mineral deposits. In addition, previous township zoning efforts have included a specific recommendation by the CGS as to what should be zoned M-2 for mineral resource protection. In this township, the CGS did not provide a recommendation. To zone all of area “B”, as identified by the CGS, to M-2 would not be consistent with previous zone plans, nor would it be consistent with the current and historical recreational use of these lands. Maps of previously zoned townships will be available at the hearing, to identify how public lands have been zoned in those areas. < Staff agrees that Clear Creek County should protect its mineral resources for possible future exploration and/or extraction, and understands that the extraction of mineral resources can provide an excellent economic base. However, staff does not believe it is appropriate for the County to optimize the protection of mineral resources over every other potential use of land in all areas, particularly outside the “Mineral Belt.” The 20th and 21st centuries have proven that tourist and recreation based economies can be valuable to this county’s tax base, and therefore should also be taken into consideration. < Finally, Staff would point out that most of the public who commented by phone, letters and at the Planning Commission, agreed with the original proposal which was presented to the Planning Commission. Most did not support the zoning of any additional lands to mining. If they requested changes in the proposal, it was to request more NR-PC and less M-2. If substantial changes are now to be made to the proposal which was originally presented to the public, such as zoning everything in the CGS “A” and “B” zones to M-2, staff believes the public should be advised of this prior to a final decision.

Ms. Leben-Vogel made the following presentation: < Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that she had comments on the proposed M-2 zoning designation for County owned lands within Sections 4, 5, & 6. < Ms. Leben-Vogel clarified a statement made at a previous hearing, that this would be the first NR-PC zoning designation within the mineral belt. To the north in Township 3 South, Range 73 West, t he quarter section northeast of Idaho Springs which was proposed to go to Idaho Springs, was zoned NR-PC. Also, a large area of land proposed to be leased to the Division of Wildlife encompassing approximately 350 acres on the west side of Fall River Road was also zoned NR-PC in a previous township zone plan. < Secondly, Ms. Leben-Vogel pointed out that the Public Lands Transfer Act of 1993 requirement that if the County retained former BLM lands, including the mineral estate in said lands, they shall be held under the same terms and conditions as if transferred under

143 the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Mining would not be considered a valid activity under the R&PP Act, therefore, if these lands were zoned M-2, the County would have to sell this property, and not be able to retain it for management by the Open Space Commission.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler noted that if the Board of County Commissioners wanted to preserve the resources here, the County could transfer the land to another agent at fair market value until mineral extraction was viable.

The Board of County Commissioners opened the hearing for public comment.

Bob Scott, EMERGE Mr. Scott made the following statements: < He had been a resident of Clear Creek County for 21 years. < He had 37 years of geological experience. < He was attending the hearing as a member of EMERGE and not as a member of the U.S. Geologic Survey. < He requested that these lands in Sections 4, 5, and 6 either be left unzoned or zoned as NR-PC. < He stated that the mines north of Chicago Creek would release minerals that would damage the water. < The lesser mineralized veins had exactly the same potential to pollute the surface water if they were mined. < He recommended that this Board of County Commissioners allow future Board of County Commissioners to better evaluate their circumstances as opposed to what was speculated now. < The Board of County Commissioners needed to watch out for the hidden possibilities of TDR potential in this area. < There was recognition that tourism and recreation were more stable and profitable.

Al Mosch, Resident of Trail Creek Area Mr. Mosch made the following statements: < Mr. Mosch disagreed with Mr. Scott < The mining community was limited by regulations implemented by the Mined Land Reclamation Board where the miners could mine or touch anything without a sufficient bond amount. < Mr. Mosch submitted the following letter and read it into the record: < “I would like to summarize the information I have compiled and submitted to the meetings over the last couple of months. In references to the zoning of the parcel of land situated in the valley below Diamond Mountain, on the northeast slope surrounded by famous gold mines, namely the Crazy Girl, Bill Creole, Freeland Extension, and Freeland Mines. Further southwest, the Lamartine Mine, Lone Tree, and New Era Mine, the mining community is of the opinion these once great mines have tremendous potential for further significant production when economic conditions again become favorable. None of these mines were ever worked out. The question has surfaced many times, ‘why aren’t these mines continuing to operate?’ Some history might clarify the answer to this question. < There were several hundred mineral mines operating in Clear Creek County prior to WWII. In 1942-43, President Roosevelt ordered the closure of all mines not producing minerals essential to the war. The Gold and Silver mines of Clear Creek County for the most part were closed because of this government order L208. Many of the miners were called off to war. After WWII, the government rewarded these miners who had become soldiers, with the ‘G.I. Bill’. This allowed them the opportunity for higher education and increased income. < Prior to 1972, the price of gold was fixed at $35 per ounce by the U.S. Government, not the free market. These policies contributed to the low gold prices and lessened the desire to resume mining for minerals in this area. After the free market was in control of gold and silver prices and the price shot up to reasonable figures, most of the processing facilities had been dismantled. This left fewer options for the small miner to sell the ore. This in turn, discouraged investment capital from reactivating the previously worked

144 mines or exploring for more mineral potential still existing in Clear Creek County. Previous County Commissioners such as Ed Rice, who was a world renowned mining engineer, as well as Mr. Guanella and Mr. Nelson, did their very best to protect the Freeland Mineral district from competing interests. These competing interests, including residential developments, would not be as valuable to the County in the long run as these large mineral deposits still in the ground. In addition to the value to the County tax base, Clear Creek gold and silver that can be exported overseas creates ‘real’ wealth that can help ease the national trade deficit. < The presence of large mineral deposits in the Freeland District was reinforced recently by a prominent mining engineer, Clellan Conwell, 1937 graduate of the University of Colorado, Boulder. Mr. Conwell worked under the direct supervision of Mr. Underhill, the benefactor responsible for the donation of the Underhill Mining Museum in Idaho Springs. Mr. Underhill gave a highly productive mine, the New Era, to Conwell as a gift. Conwell did a very detailed study of the Freeland District. He communicated to me on approximately June 11, 2002, that there are approximately two million ounces of gold in the upper Freeland area remaining to be mined. This would amount to a value of $640,000,000 in gold alone which could be produced from this area.” < Mr. Mosch closed stating that many present day miners were restricted by heavy regulations. < Mr. Mosch had previously bought mining claims to help out the wildlife.

Frank Young, Open Space Commission Mr. Young made the following statements: < The Open Space Commission program existed because the citizens voted for it. < Prior to the Open Space Commission, a study showed that 89% of the people preferred preservation and open space. < One of the goals of the Open Space Commission was to review the former BLM lands and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. < One parcel that the Open Space Commission reviewed was the Alps Mountain area parcels. < The Open Space Commission wanted to preserve this ridge line along the Trail Creek/Spring Gulch area. One key parcel was the parcel which held the Boy Scout cabin. Mr. Young submitted photos of the area. < Mr. Young stated that whatever happened on these ridge lines would be visible from Hwy 103. This was why the Open Space Commission wanted these lands zoned NR-PC. The proposed M-2 zoning would not preserve the open space values. The TDR process would threaten the M-2 parcels and development could occur. Secondly, if the County retained these lands, they would be subject to the R&PP act.

Mr. Shepherd noted to the Board of County Commissioners that he was working on purchasing some Forest Service small tracts and he desired to have these parcels zoned M-1 to match his property’s zoning.

Sara Donahue, Open Space Commission Ms. Donahue made the following statements: < Ms. Donahue was speaking as an Open Space Commission member and as a private citizen. < Ms. Donahue stated that the reason the Open Space Commission wanted to manage these lands as NR-PC instead of as M-2 was that with the NR-PC zoning, there was more protection. < The Open Space Commission highly appreciated the Alps Mountain area and wanted it for Open Space Commission management. < The Open Space Commission was interested in the lands zoned NR-PC in Sections 4, 5, & 6 as a possible place for a hiking trail. This could be the largest parcel obtained by the Open Space Commission. If these parcels were zoned as M-2 and the Open Space Commission tried to implement a hiking trail, signage would have to be used in case of future open mines. The Open Space Commission didn’t find this as an appropriate use if the lands were zoned M-2.

145 County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that by picking the zoning, the Board of County Commissioners was picking the vision for these lands. The Open Space Commission and County Lands Department were presently asking the Board of County Commissioners to decide whether mining or open space would occur on these lands. This would guide each group on managing these lands. Ms. Donahue closed stating that the Open Space Commission would like to see these lands as NR-PC.

Marilyn Hogan, Open Space Commission Ms. Hogan made the following statements: < Ms. Hogan stated that she would be speaking as an individual of the County and as a member of the Open Space Commission. < She reminded the Board of County Commissioners that these were presently public lands. < She had heard much testimony on takings and drilling in national monuments. < As stated before, the citizens voted for the Open Space Commission and agreed to tax themselves for this program.. The study from Metro State College reaffirmed this by showing that people preferred open space to any other use and development. < There was an overwhelming public sentiment for the zoning of these lands as NR-PC for the Alps Mountain area and its open space values. The Planning Staff recommended this zoning as well. < The BLM did not take into account mining and recommended recreational values as stated in their R&PP act. < The Forest Service plan was aimed towards recreational values on their land. < There were testimonials on the disputing of the mineral values. The County had maps that showed no veins. < Dick Woods, an expert, testified to this and so had area miners. < The future of the County as seen by most people was being tourism and recreation, and other clean uses. < Everyone was concerned over economic development, but Ms. Hogan didn’t feel the people saw it in mining. < Other counties were good examples of what could happen by capitalizing on tourism and recreation. < Ms. Hogan stated that it was hypocritical for the Board of County Commissioners to succumb to pressure from a special interest group and ignore the Staff, the Planning Commission , and the citizens preference for open space. < If the Board of County Commissioners zoned these lands as M-2, they were ignoring the open space values.

Jill Pettit, Writer Ms. Pettit made the following statements: < Ms. Pettit wrote historical trails books for families. < A person had to travel through many mining areas to get to trails. < She did not wanted to see $300,000 homes on top of old mines. < Miners were held to strict EPA standards. < In traveling in historical mining areas, people had to be careful of open mine holes. All families had to be careful in Forest Service areas and the mining areas were the same. < Colorado should be allowed to have many uses and not just for the wealthy that can afford $300,000 homes.

The Board of County Commissioners closed public comment.

Commissioner Poirot asked for a clarification in the difference between the zoning map proposals. Ms. Kastens stated that the original proposal had all of Hwy 103 as NR-PC. There were some smaller parcels surrounded by private lands that would be combined with adjacent parcels. There was one R-2 parcel that would be sold off by the Forest Service and the Transfer Station parcel was zoned as Industrial. The Forest Service had agreed with this first recommendation.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed concerns with the mineral belt in these sections of the township and motioned to approve these lands as M-2 zones as well as the rest of the proposed zonings for the township as presented. She stated that these lands had mineral potential and she

146 did not want to ignore that significance. Commissioner Sorensen appreciated hearing the testimony on the open space values but had strong considerations for what the mineral potential meant to the State and the County economies. Commissioner Sorensen questioned where the resources would come from to allow the lifestyle that the residents appreciated. Hikers could still use the land when it was not being mined. Commissioner Sorensen was in favor of holding these lands as M-2 zones with an agency until such time as with the economy of future generations needed these minerals. Commissioner Sorensen questioned turning to a new economy of tourism versus preserving an economy for the future.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler clarified that this proposal was different from the Planning Commission approval in that the area around Alps Mountain was zoned M-2 instead of NR-PC. Mr. Rollenhagen noted another difference as the portions in Sections 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 12 were zoned as NR-PC in the larger areas and M-2 in the smaller areas. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed with Commissioners Sorensen and Poirot in favor and Commissioner Watrous abstained. The final resolution and final map of the township zonings would be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners at a later date for final approval.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REFUND OF VARIANCE PENALTY FEE FOR TOM QUIRK, BEAVER BROOK CANYON: Zoning Specialist Staci Writer presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, Planner II Ruth Kastens, Planning Director Carol Wise, and Applicant Tom Quirk attended the hearing. Mr. Quirk made the following statements: < He had made an addition to his residence without knowing of the requirements. < The addition was built to accommodate a sanitation treatment system and a greywater system. < The improvement totaled 98 square feet. < Mr. Quirk was unsure how this issue escalated so much. < Mr. Quirk stated that he was trying to sell the property and the purchaser wanted to build an addition. Mr. Quirk went to the Board of Adjustment for a variance and was denied. He would be appealing this denial in the Board of Adjustment July meeting.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler made the following statements: < Mr. Quirk began the addition in 1998 and received a Stop Work Order in 1998. < Mr. Quirk had continued working and received a second Stop Work Order. Ms. Writer added that no one could occupy this home until it was legalized with a building permit.

Ms. Writer stated that the purpose of this hearing was to consider an appeal of a variance penalty fee. The variance was applied for in order to legalize an addition and to add another addition. All of it was denied as Mr. Quirk did not attend the Board of Adjustment hearing and the Board of Adjustment needed more information. A penalty fee was added to this case totaling $960 and this was what Mr. Quirk was appealing.

Mr. Quirk stated that he had significantly improved the property. He claimed to have cleared obstructions in the stream, built a new bridge, cleaned up a fallen chimney, and fixed up the house on the property. Mr. Quirk stated that he never received the first Stop Work Order as he did not live on the property. Mr. Quirk reiterated that he had greatly improved the property as it was in a dangerous condition. Commissioner Watrous reminded Mr. Quirk that this still required building permits.

Ms. Writer stated that the basis for the Board of Adjustment denial was that Mr. Quirk did not present a reason of why the penalty should be waived. Mr. Quirk stated that he knew there were permits for sanitation and he had obtained those but he did not know of the other permits. Mr. Quirk stated that the Board of Adjustment made a judgement on presumption and he felt it was unjustified.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to deny the appeal of Board of Adjustment variance penalty fee for Tom Quirk as building permits were a requirement. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

147 ______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 25, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Robert Poirot was attending a FHWA site visit.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CHANGE LETTER FOR THE SILVER HERITAGE AREA PLAN GRANT: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: • The amendment to the grant was to extend the contract for 90 days. • The final reports had been received and the presentation of the plan was to be presented this evening.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Contract Change Letter for the Silver Heritage Area Plan Grant extending the deadline for the project until September 30, 2002. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EXEMPLA CONTRACT AS THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROVIDER FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY EMPLOYEES: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Mr. Small stated that this was an employer agreement for an extension of the Exempla contract and the updating of the Exempla records. There would still be a choice of providers for minor injuries for employees. Human Resources Specialist Gail Buckley had reviewed and approved this contract. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Exempla Contract as the worker’s compensation provider for Clear Creek County employees. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH THE COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ON THE ARRASTRA SITE AT MILL CREEK AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TO PERFORM THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARRASTRA SITE AT MILL CREEK: Open Space Commission member Fran Enright presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel, Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler, and Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young attended the hearing. Ms. Enright made the following statements: • The grant from the Colorado Historical Society totaled $8528 and would be used to assess the Mill Creek Arrastra Site. • This grant would be awarded after July 16, 2002 when the new fiscal year began. • The contract with SWCA was to perform the archaeological assessment at the Mill Creek Arrastra Site.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the contracts were acceptable for approval. All costs were included in the SWCA contract as a fixed contract. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the contract with the Colorado Historical Society and the contract with SWCA for the archaeological assessment. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-85, SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-SUP-08, FOR TOM BRIDDLE FOR LONG TERM SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL FLY FISHING USE, ALVARADO ROAD: Planning Director Carol Wise

148 presented. Applicant Tom Briddle and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following statements: • Ms. Wise stated that the request was to allow a limited seasonal use of the property by commercial fly-fishing company. • The location of the property was 1990 Alvarado Road. • The applicants were Joan and Tom Briddle. • Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant June 5, 2002. No comments have been received as a result of this notice. • Adjacent property owners and various referral agencies were notified by mail. < Upper Clear Creek Watershed Assoc. – R. L. Jones requested further information in order to review any wetlands issues. < Town of Empire -- Lori Short, Mayor, responded that Empire has no conflicts with the proposal. (This parcel was within Empire’s three-mile planning area.) < Site Development Department – Tim Vogel responded that he has no concerns with the proposal. < Open Space Commission – Frank Young responded that the Open Space Commission has no conflicts with the proposal. < CDOT – Chuck Binford, Access Manager, responded by phone, and Nick Dickens, Asst. Access Manager, wrote a letter. CDOT has no concerns provided there was no activity on or access from CDOT right-of-way. < Steve Barry, owner of property to the south along Alvarado Road, called me and sent a faxed letter objecting to the idea of allowing a Special Use Permit for this use instead of requiring a rezoning. He believes this to be inconsistent with the County’s previous direction that a rezoning would be necessary to accommodate the former use of his property for commercial fishing and commercial keeping of cattle. < This proposal was for approval of long-term seasonal use of this property by a fly-fishing group. Members of the Rocky Mountain Anglers Club are currently able (under 01-ASUP- 6) to fish on the property by reservation only. The current permit allows a maximum of six people fishing at a time, and there was no proposal to increase this number. Off-road parking was provided south of Alvarado Road at the Briddles’ residence. < In June of 2001, an Administrative Temporary Special Use Permit was issued to the Briddles at their request, to allow them time to determine if limited commercial fishing on their property was feasible. At the time it was contemplated that a request for rezoning to C-TR would be the next step. However, since applicants acknowledge that they have no desire to implement any of the other uses allowed in a C-TR zoning district, it was determined that the proposed use was appropriate for a long-term Special Use Permit . < Subject Property was Lot 3, Briddle Division of Land, and the Jennie Millsite, MS #5499B, totaling 37 acres in size. Lot 3 was zoned Mountain Residential - Single Family Units (MR-1), and the Jennie Millsite was zoned Mining One (M-1). The historic use of the property has been agricultural. < This was a rural area, with mostly MR-1 zoning. One property has been recently rezoned to AG, and another to C-TR. Most of the MR-1 properties have a single-family home, and some owners have horses. The owners of the AG property board horses, and the C-TR property was used for special events such as banquets and weddings. That owner was recently granted a liquor license for the special events held on his property. < Sanitation was provided by guests’ use of a bathroom in the residence. < The property was accessed by one driveway and sufficient parking was available next to the Briddle’s residence, as per the County’s off-street parking requirements. < The Jenny Millsite totaled 4 acres and the meadow totaled approximately 13.5 acres. < The Special Use Permit was for the Jenny Millsite only. < The Planning Commission recommended approval of this Special Use Permit in public hearing on June 19, 2002. A copy of their resolution is enclosed. < Staff recommends approval of the application with the stipulations and conditions outlined in draft R-02-85.

Mr. Briddle made the following statements: < Mr. Briddle had realized over the past few years that he did not want to be in the commercial or commercial animal business. < There were thermal springs on this land and he shared water rights with Golden.

149 < He was attempting to keep the land pristine and not abused. < The alluvial plain which ran under the Jenny was 80 feet deep. < There were mineral resources under the Jenny Millsite. < This was a natural piece of land for a conservation easement. < The fly-fishing proposal was a low impact idea with high profile clients. < The parking at the residence helped with the high profile clients.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Special Use Permit #02-SUP-08 for the Briddles. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen addressed Mr. Berry’s comment. She stated that the County was not treating people differently. Under this process, Mr. Berry needed a rezoning and Mr. Briddle did not. Ms Wise added that in Mr. Berry’s case, many people were fishing on his land and he had no permits or a rezoning. He was charging these fishing groups a fee. Mr. Berry had also been operating a RV park simultaneously. Later, Mr. Berry began selling landscaping rock which was determined to be mining by the Mined Land Reclamation Board. Ms. Wise stated that she had discussed with Mr. Berry his options for making his operations legal and Mr. Berry had hired planning consultants at one time. Eventually, Mr. Berry had sold his land to CDOT and the Babeon’s. The vote was unanimous.

DISCUSSION WITH JOHN ZABAWA OF THE SENIOR’S RESOURCE CENTER REGARDING MEDICAID TRANSPORTATION: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken and John Zabawa presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler and Operations Manager Hank Broxman attended. Ms. Dicken made the following statements: < A proposal was submitted to the Board of County Commissioners. < This proposal was to consider bringing in transportation for Medicaid/Medicare and low income clients. < Currently there were six families that the County was reimbursing for private Medicaid transportation. < Clients could be Jefferson Center for Mental Health clients traveling to Denver for appointments and using this service if provided in Clear Creek County. < Ms. Dicken envisioned the use of this service to be more than just mental health clients.

Mr. Zabawa made the following statements: < Mr. Zabawa asked the Board of County Commissioners to consider this transportation in broader terms. < His organization had a Call and Ride service in Evergreen. < His company had provided transportation services for over 25 years. < As required by their funding sources, they had to provide transportation in rural communities. < He has served many older adults and disabled people under the age of 60. < Mr. Zabawa’s organization was a broker of transportation. < Adams County, at one time, had lost their transportation provider, so Mr. Zabawa’s group came in to take over. < This transportation proposed would be not only for the disabled but also to those people over the age of 60. < The changes related to reimbursement providers will take place on July 1, 2002. < The Senior’s Resource Center was the broker for transportation for Jefferson County. < A proposal was submitted to Denver County to provide transportation. Adams and Arapaho County were interested in participating. < Denver had opened a process to other counties to participate in this program.

Ms. Dicken had informed Denver County that Clear Creek County was interested in participating in this program. Mr. Zabawa added that his company had made a substantial investment in a software for his company that coordinated dispatch and tracked annual maintenance. Mr. Zabawa’s company provided 17,000 rides annually for Medicaid clients and 185,000 rides, total, per year.

For client riders, Mr. Broxman stated that operations would set up the service, schedule the ride, fulfil the ride, handle quality assurance, perform client evaluations, safety issues, and seating. The

150 State had imposed a 5% decrease to providers so it would be difficult to attract a provider in the metro area. The mileage reimbursement had also been decreased.

Mr. Zabawa stated that if his service became involved with Clear Creek County, they would also be involved in recruiting volunteers in Clear Creek County. Ms. Dicken stated that her department would assist with providing information to the Medicaid and elderly clients on this service. The Board suggested that Mr. Zabawa coordinate with the local Volunteers of America group.

Commissioner Watrous suggested continuing the hearing to a later day when the decision making was finalized in Denver. Ms. Dicken stated that Clear Creek County needed to do what was best for its County and work with the metro area to develop a system . Working the Senior Resource Center may be better as they were already located in this area. The Board agreed to meet with Ms. Dicken to discuss the issue and meet again with Mr. Zabawa at a later date.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #8, FOR REGULATION OF BANNING OPEN FIRES: County Attorney Bob Loeffler presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler made the following statements: < Mr. Loeffler stated that this was the second reading of the ordinance. < Sheriff Krueger had approved this final draft. < This model gave the power to declare a fire ban to the Board of County Commissioners and the Sheriff. This model allowed a disagreement but it was more efficient and gave more enforcement. < The decision of whether this ban could be imposed on federal lands was not asserted. The Sheriff was prepared to enforce on federal lands and address the situation later if an emergency arose.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Ordinance #8 with the proposed revisions. Commissioner Watrous seconded. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this was the second and final reading of the ordinance and also the adoption of the ordinance. This made the ordinance effective upon adoption. The vote was unanimous.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion that the fire ban was put into force by the Sheriff and would be a fire ban under Ordinance #8. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF USE OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER VACANT LAND FOR A GARAGE SALE FOR THE MASONIC LODGE ON JULY 21ST AND 22ND: There was no representation from the Masonic Lodge. The Board of County Commissioners had concerns regarding the use of this land. These issues were as follows: < The Community Service Center (CSC) was the holder of the lease on this land and not the County. < The CSC Board was concerned with liability insurance. < The CSC Board had concerns with regard to potential damage to the lawn. < Some of this vacant land was not the property of the CSC Board. It was still owned by the First State Bank. < Would the Masonic Lodge consider a donation to the CSC?

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the lease with the First State Bank stated that the land could not be used for anything other than parking prior to written consent from the bank. He requested a letter in writing from the Bank in approval before granting approval on use of the vacant land for this sale. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing in order to answer some of these questions to July 2, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

DISCUSSION WITH THE TOWN OF EMPIRE REGARDING BLM LAND: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel, Planner II Holland Smith, Empire Mayor Lori Short, Empire resident Jim Pals, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck attended the hearing. Ms. Short made the following statements:

151 < She requested an extension to let the County know the Town of Empire’s plans for this County land parcel. < Empire was aware that a developer was considering the purchase of this land. < This parcel had always been referred to as the fire house property. < The Empire Board of Trustees had new members and they needed time to review this property and potential uses. < The access issue needed to be addressed CDOT too. < The town had mixed feelings on the property. < Half of the new Board of Trustees wanted commercial uses and half wanted public uses. < If this became the new site for the fire house, it would require a flashing light. < She requested a new deadline of September to make a decision.

Ms. Leben-Vogel made the following statements: < Her department was waiting for a response from Alan Miller of CDOT regarding the excess right of way. < This decision required the input of the CDOT traffic engineer. < Mr. Miller had all the information needed from the County Lands department.

Mr. Weaver stated that Alan Miller had agreed to give that land to the County and not sell it at fair market value. CDOT would need to know the exact quantities of traffic movements to determine the interchange.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern with regard to the land being transferred to the town under general R&PP purposes. Ms. Short stated that commercial property on the highway frontage was a premium piece of land. Ms. Short clarified for Mr. Pals that either the east or west end of town could be a good location for a new fire house but this particular parcel needed clarification sooner.

Regarding the four vacant adjacent lots, Mr. Pals had spoken with the owner of these lots about achieving access across these lands. This would keep from having to add acceleration and deceleration lanes. Mayor Short stated that this would require negotiations with that particular landowner and these options would be considered.

Mr. Weaver supported the idea of a mixed use project for this parcel. He suggested a commercial concept with parking underneath. Mayor Short agreed stating that there was not much commercial property left in Empire.

Ms. Leben-Vogel asked if Mayor Short could obtain a traffic study in 60 days. Mayor Short replied that this was a cost issue that her board had not addressed yet and they would prefer that the Clear Creek Fire Authority share in the cost of this study. Commissioner Sorensen suggested that the County Lands Department assist financially with the study as well. Ms. Leben-Vogel agreed as this study would assist her department too. She would submit a progress report at the end of August.

Mr. Pals asked how long it would be before the Empire board knew which end of town would hold the fire house. Mayor Short replied that this former BLM parcel required a decision very soon and the west end of Empire had more involved issues that would take longer to solve, i.e., water and wastewater. Mayor Short continued that it would be up to the Clear Creek Fire Authority how quickly a station would be built.

Mr. Pals stated that he had submitted an expression of interest because he needed an access to cross the river.

The group agreed to reconvene in late August.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM CLEAR CREEK COUNTY TO JOHN AND PAULA WOODSIDE, SECTIONS 21 & 22, T3SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following presentation: < This had been a year long project.

152 < John and Paula Woodside were requesting access and utility easement across County lands parcel #1835-21-1-00-964A and #1835-21-1-00-954B. < The purpose of the easement was for access and utility to the Vesper Extension Lode adjacent to County lands. < County Lands Department had approved the easement during a site visit conducted on May 3, 2002. < Parcels 964A and B were to be conveyed and combined with the Sphynx Lode, subject to the easement. < This easement would cross one parcel of Forest Service lands and the Woodside’s were aware that they had to work with the Forest Service on this.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Grant of Access and Utility Easement for John and Paula Woodside. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION REPORT: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Mr. Small made the following comments: < Mr. Small stated that this was a simplified plan that Colorado Counties Inc. had developed some years ago. < This was used to apply to the State for some of the funding of the County’s expenses associated with Human Services activities. < The County supported Human Services by providing services from Human Resources, Treasurer, etc. < This method allowed the County to apply indirect costs to providing services to Human Services. < All costs included in this proposal to establish billing were allowable by federal awards to which they applied. < This report was prepared in accordance to the requirements. < The total cost of these services provided to Human Services were $309,000. This amount was divided by the total salaries of the County to derive a 5.61% of salaries for Human Services. This would be percentage rate applied towards the Human Services department.

< $485,346 was the claim of wages and salaries in Human Services. < The State only reimbursed at 35% of the indirect cost amount of $27,000. Mr. Small estimated that the County would be reimbursed $11,000 to $12,000. < Mr. Small clarified that most administrative costs were reimbursed at a 80% level and the County was required a 20% match. Some expenses were limited by caps.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Cost Allocation Report and to allow the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the report. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR THE BOONENBERG PARTY ON CASCADE CREEK AND FOR THE BORGESON PARTY IN BROOK FOREST ESTATES: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement for the Boonenburg party in the Cascade Creek area. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement for the Borgeson party in Brook Forest Estates. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING CONTRACT RENEWAL LETTER: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented for Nursing Director Jean Barta. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Ms. Dicken stated that this was a decrease in the contract but the Nursing Department would still be covered. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the Public Health Nursing Contract Renewal Letter. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, the group discussed the new contract amount and with current savings, the budget would not be impacted. The vote was unanimous.

153 Ms. Dicken then made a request to allow the Assistant Nurse Sharon Donnelly to assume another four hours per week in work time. This would not impact the Nursing budget. This would be covered under the increase in bioterrorism funding. The Board approved the increase in work hours for Sharon Donnelly.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 26, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 26, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice to discuss: • the Mad Creek Development Corporation claims and land use applications as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • to discuss the Fox Gulch zoning issues as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6- 402(4)(b); • to discuss zoning enforcement as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b); • to discuss the transfer of real property as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6- 402(4)(a). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 2, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 2, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Human Services. Minutes for the Board of Human Services are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF KGOAT LEASE WITH COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. KGOAT representative Mark Cucinella and Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that the lease could be modified in the future to include a change of location or to meet with the Sheriff’s and Ambulance Department’s uses. Mr. Cucinella stated that the Ambulance would like to locate a repeater at this site but they had to apply for a license. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to July 9, 2002 at 9:30 a.m. to

154 allow for time to modify the lease location and language. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EASEMENT FROM COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES ON BLUE RIDGE ROAD: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that this easement was from the Colorado School of Mines for the Blue Ridge Road and was signed by the President of the University. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the easement and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign on behalf of the County. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EPSDT RENEWAL LETTER FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta could not attend the hearing but had submitted a memo with her comments. This letter represented a decrease in funding. Commissioner Poirot noted that the larger counties received no increases. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the 2002/2003 EPSDT Contract Renewal Letter with Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-101, APPOINTMENT OF GAIL GILSZMER FROM ALTERNATE TO FULL MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-102, APPOINTMENT OF LARRY KNAFF FROM ALTERNATE TO FULL MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-101, appointment of Gail Gilszmer from Alternate to Full Member of the Planning Commission with a term ending on December 31, 2002. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-102, appointment of Larry Kanff from Alternate to Full Member of the Board of Adjustment with a term ending on December 31, 2002. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-103, RECOGNITION OF GEORGE DOWNING, CONCERNING MELODRAMA AND MAYHEM IN SILVER PLUME, CAUSE AND CREATION: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-103, concerning melodrama and mayhem in Silver Plume, cause and creation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF VACATING UNAUTHORIZED REZONING OF MINING CLAIMS IN SECTIONS 19 AND 30 IN T3SR74W FOR MAD CREEK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: This hearing was not held as Mad Creek Development Corporation did not appear.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONTRACT RENEWAL LETTER: Environmental Health Technician Tracy Bennetts presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Bennetts stated that this was a decrease in funding but the department could still meet its State obligations. The department had completed its contract for the year at a 91% level. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Environmental Health Contract Renewal Letter. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF USE OF COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER VACANT LAND FOR A GARAGE SALE FOR THE MASONIC LODGE ON JULY 20TH AND JULY 21ST: Masons Rick Garnett and Darryl Chauncey presented. Mr. Chauncey made the request to use this vacant land for the Mason’s annual garage sale weekend. Advertisements had been run in Denver newspapers. County Attorney Bob Loeffler reminded the group that the County needed a letter in writing from the First State Bank approving the use of their portion of the vacant land and that the County could grant permission as well. The Community Service Center lease with First State Bank stated that this vacant land

155 could only be used for parking. Regarding the liability insurance, Mr. Chauncey stated that they could add a rider onto their policy to either the City or to the Community Service Center. County Attorney Bob Loeffler would research the County’s CAPP policy on insurance riders.

Regarding potential damage to the lawn, Mr. Chauncey agreed to take before and after photos of the lawn to show that it was in the same condition. Mr. Chauncey did not think the garage sale would damage the lawn. Regarding donations to the Community Service Center, Mr. Garnett agreed to a donation if the Mason’s showed a profit from their event. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the use of the Community Service Center’s vacant land by the Masonic Lodge for their annual garage sale contingent on the approval of the bank, provision of liability coverage, and the Masonic Lodge assuming responsibility for the lot during their event. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF DEED RESTRICTIONS REGARDING TDR CASE #02-TDR-01, FOR JAMES AND TINA CARINO, UTE CREEK ROAD: Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that deed restrictions were prepared limiting the rights for the sending and receiving sites and were signed by Tina Carino. These restrictions had to be accepted by the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the deed restrictions as accepted on the TDR Case #02-TDR-01. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 9, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 9, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF KGOAT LEASE WITH THE COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT: KGOAT representatives Greg Markle and Mark Cucinella presented. Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the facility location was moved and the facility status was changed since the original draft of the lease. This new location was more secure and had better reception. Mr. Markle noted that there would not be a building but a large box attached to a pole. The utility box would be 2' X 2' for the transmitter. The Sheriff and the Ambulance Departments were now included in the lease. County Attorney Bob Loeffler proposed that the Board of County Commissioners approve this lease. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the KGOAT lease with the County Lands Department and to have the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners sign the lease. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

AMBULANCE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE AUTHORITY DISCUSSION: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson and Fire Chief Kelly Babeon presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Einar Jensen, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Mark Cucinella attended the hearing. Mr. Abrahamson made the following statements: • The Ambulance call volume was doing well and revenues were strong. • The rate increase had been in effect for approximately one year. • Labor expenses were lower than predicted. • Mr. Abrahamson was anticipating an increase in the collections with the new Medicare fee schedule. • The percentage that the former collectors, MediBanc, would have collected in fees was much larger than paying in house employees to do collections and billing.

156 • The Ambulance’s direct expenses for the Fountain Gulch fire were very low and at approximately $3000 for staffing. Mr. Small asked that these expenses be submitted in a separate report for the fire expenses.

Mr. Babeon made the following statements: • The Clear Creek Fire Authority was still working on the expense totals from the North Spring Gulch Fire. • The Clear Creek Fire Authority was also working on the expense totals from the Fountain Gulch Fire. • The records from this recent fire were very detailed. • The Fountain Gulch Fire was totaling approximately $650,000. • Mr. Babeon confirmed that the Incident Management Team from the Fountain Gulch Fire had agreed to offer training to the local fire volunteers. • Mr. Abrahamson and Mr. Babeon thanked the Board of County Commissioners for their quick response to these fires.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF NEW AMBULANCE FOR THE AMBULANCE DEPARTMENT: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Mr. Abrahamson made the following statements: • The documents for the purchase and the warranty had been forwarded to the County Attorney. • The seller, EDM Corporation, of the ambulance would provide new vehicle warranty guarantees. • The chassis and the paint would also be warrantied. • Due to the breakdown of an old ambulance and the timing of the gaming grant process, the Ambulance Department would purchase this new ambulance outright and use any awarded gaming funds for a new ambulance in 2003. This would take the replacement schedule to an 18-month period. • If the Ambulance Department did not receive full funding in the gaming grant process, they would purchase the second ambulance outright as well. • With the fee schedule changes, Mr. Abrahamson felt that his department would be able to afford the outright purchases. • The new ambulance cost totaled $106,360 with a $10,000 discount due to the vehicle having minimal mileage.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the invoice and the contract to purchase the new ambulance and to have the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners sign these documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-83, TDR CASE #02-TDR-02, FOR TIM WHEELER TO TRANSFER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF LOT 504, ST. MARY’S SUBDIVISION, TO A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 21, T3SR73W, ON FALL RIVER ROAD: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. Applicant Tim Wheeler, Planning Director Carol Wise, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Planners Anthony Atencio and Ruth Kastens. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: • Mr. Rollenhagen had received a second letter from Mr. Vogel stating that he had reviewed the site plan and letter of access description and had no further concerns. • Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the request was to transfer residential development rights of a Residential Two (R-2) subdivision lot to a M-2 parcel in order to use the M-2 parcels for residential purposes as permitted in the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations for residential zoning districts. • The R-2 parcel was the sending site and was located on the north side of Hilltop Road on the far west side of St. Mary’s Subdivision. • The M-2 parcel was the receiving site and was located on the east side of Fall River Road approximately 2 miles up from I-70. • An R-2 zoned site allowed for 2 single family dwelling units per lot. These were very small lots.

157 • The M-2 claim was not a mining claim but a part of an old County owned parcel on Fall River Road. It was adjacent to the Fall River Subdivision and other M-1 parcels. • The proposed zoning for the sending site was NR-PC and would not allow residential development. • The proposed zoning designation for the receiving site was MR-5 as it was 7 acres, and would not allow further subdivision. • Staff supported approval of this case as long as the conditions of approval were included. • Surrounding properties and uses: There was one residence located near the sending site on Hilltop Road. Hilltop Road was a platted right of way but was not maintained by the County or the St. Mary’s Metro District. Surrounding the receiving site were residential lots and former BLM lands. • The application must comply with the TDR criteria prior to considering it and staff had determined that both sites met the criteria. • The receiving site was 7 acres and the sending site was .38 acres. • Mr. Wheeler had purchased the receiving site and combined it with an out-lot B from the Fall River Subdivision. The out-lot B didn’t comply with minimum requirements but it had road frontage. • Referral Responses: The Jefferson Soil Conservation Service suggested a native mix of seed for revegetation for this area. • On June 11, 2002, the Site Development Department recommended that an engineer design plan, by a Colorado Licensed PE, be prepared that indicated that driveway design standards could be met and that any potential geologic hazards located on the Out-lot B be mitigated through retaining or slope stabilization if an easement cannot be granted for a driveway across the adjacent Whitehouse Lode Mining claim. • Two responses from the Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson were received regarding the preliminary investigation report provided by he applicant. Mr. Etcheson had no objections to this proposal at this time. • There were no comments from the Road and Bridge Department. • County Lands Department described certain characteristics of the property as to why it was sold at the price it was sold for. • There were no responses from the St. Mary’s Property Owners Association or the Fall River Homeowners Association. • Three comments from Adjacent Property Owners which had no conflict with the proposal.

• Review considerations for sending and receiving sites were included in the staff report. These were the determining factors of the case. • There had been discussion on mining suitability versus residential suitability for the receiving site. The receiving site was currently zoned M-2. It was zoned this designation during the township zoning on this township. According to the Colorado Geological Survey, this area was an area of moderate potential for mineral deposits of the Idaho Springs-Central City type. James Cappa, Chief of the Mineral and Mineral Fuels & Geological Mapping Section of the Colorado Geological Society, during the township zoning, suggested that the County zoned this particular region for the highest protection of mineral deposits (zoned it M-2). According to the County’s zoning maps, the area east of Fall River Road and north of I-70 was zoned M-2, whereas the property west of Fall River Road and north of I-70 was zoned either NR-PC, Buffer, or for residential development, regardless of mineral potential ( a copy of this Township zoning map was available in the Planning Department, and would be available for a review during the public hearing). It appeared that this property, along with other public lands east of Fall River Road, were zoned M-2 in order to preserve future mineral potential for the area. If the County approved this TDR case, this property would be the first property, initially zoned M-2 during the township zoning process, on the east side of Fall River Road, that would be rezoned for residential development. Mr. Wheeler stated that an environmental engineer did a report for this parcel and he did report that no mineral removal was done on this parcel. • The NR-PC zoned lands were proposed for the Division of Wildlife transfer. • Staff recommended that the building envelope be optional given the severe slopes on the property and the desire to minimize site disturbance. A building envelope drawing was to

158 be delivered during this hearing. Staff recommended that this building envelope be established. • Regarding suitability of the sending site, Mr. Rollenhagen stated that one criteria was that the receiving site must be more suitable for development than the sending site. Hilltop Road had been established and was a gravel road but it was not maintained. This road did require a four-wheel-drive vehicle for access. There was no water and sewer service to the subdivision and the St. Mary’s Water and Sanitation District did not plan to extend the services to this area soon. The new homeowners in this area would be responsible for paying to extend the water and sewer lines to this area. • Staff requested that the building envelope be designated prior to approval of the case. • Regarding site disturbance, the sending site was in an area of 30% slopes and site disturbance would be excessive. The receiving site was a south facing slope with less than 30% slopes. • The Planning Commission recommendation was denial based on the findings of fact. The Planning Commission felt that the receiving site was not more suitable than the sending site and not in the best interest of the County. • Two resolutions were presented to the Board of County Commissioners, one for denial and one for approval. • Staff recommended approval in that it complied with criteria and met stipulations except for the building envelope issue.

Mr. Wheeler made the following presentation: • Mr. Wheeler disagreed with the Planning Commission decision and had presented 12 points of why this case should be approved. • This case offered residential development and a benefit to the County. • Mr. Wheeler stated that his proposal met all the criteria required in the TDR process. • Mr. Wheeler objected to the way in which the Planning Commission had heard his case. The recording of his case had somehow been erased. Mr. Wheeler stated that Chairman Schultz of the Planning Commission had extreme influence over the Planning Commission and the commission only saw his side of the case. Several members of the Planning Commission had openly admitted in his hearing that they had not read the TDR Process Guide. Mr. Wheeler stated that all the Planning Commission members were voting under the influence of Chairman Schultz.

Ms. Moody made the following statements: • Ms. Moody did not have the perception that Chairman Schultz was doing anything inappropriate. • There was discussion at the Planning Commission that this case did not fit what the TDR process was intended for. • During this hearing, the Planning Commission was constantly berated by the applicant. • Ms. Moody hoped this would result in a modification of the TDR process that was easier to understand. • Ms. Moody did not think that Chairman Schultz had influenced anyone against their will. Mr. Wheeler asked Ms. Moody if she was one of the Planning Commission members that had not read the TDR process guide. County Attorney Bob Loeffler requested that Ms. Moody be allowed to finish her statements.

Ms. Moody continued with the following statements: • The Planning Commission was attempting to achieve the goals that the TDR process was intended for. • There were technical problems with the taping equipment that night and this could be why the tape did not have a recording. Ms. Wise agreed stating that the recording was never achieved. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the minutes from this hearing would be adopted at the next Planning Commission hearing to be reviewed.

Commissioner Poirot expressed concern with regard to the zoning of the out-lot B. Mr. Rollenhagen replied that there were three out-lots in the Fall River Subdivision as the developer never used them. The out-lot B was zoned MR-1 at the time of the subdivision development but

159 did not meet minimum lot size for a residence. Mr. Wheeler had combined this out-lot with his parcel and was proposing a rezoning to MR-5.

Mr. Wheeler made the following comments: • Mr. Wheeler stated that Ms. Moody was one of the seven commissioners that had admitted to not reviewing the TDR process guide. • Mr. Wheeler noted that there was nothing unsuitable about an M-2 being utilized for this process. He was unsure as to how the Planning Commission found this intent as incorrect.

• Mr. Wheeler stated that the Planning Commission decision was arbitrary. • Mr. Wheeler explained that Chairman Schultz stated that he did not need a reason to deny the case and Mr. Wheeler found this unfair. • Mr. Wheeler felt that the Planning Commission was ill informed on this whole process and before proceeding on other TDR cases, Mr. Wheeler felt the Planning Commission should be educated on this process.

Ms. Moody made the following statements: • Ms. Moody stated that in the Planning Commission hearing, there was constant reference to a TDR process guide. • Ms. Moody had read the TDR resolution but did not know of a TDR process guide. • The Planning Commission did not know of a TDR process guide. County Attorney Bob Loeffler replied that there was a guide and it was utilized by people interested in this process.

Commissioner Sorensen requested seeing the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing and the site plan with the building envelope. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to July 23, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. in order to complete this research. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-84, SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-SPECIAL USE PERMIT-07, KATHERINE FLEET TO OPERATE A B & B IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT HWY 103 AND WITTER GULCH ROAD: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. In attendance were residents Marshal Scherba, John Discuillo, George Koren, Randy Simpson, J.J. and Tyler Hanks, Joe and Carolyn Madigan, Steve Stuart, Jill Patterson, J. Scott Martin, Bruce Budy, Don and Paul St. Louis, Jim Pidcock, and Kathy Fleet. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: • He stated that more responses had been received since the staff report was submitted. • This case did go before the Planning Commission. • Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the request was to operate a B&B in a single family residence at 24800 CO Hwy 103. • The existing 1200 square foot house was built in 1982 and had always been used as a single family residence. There was a 371 square foot detached single car garage with space above. The subject property was accessed from CO Hwy 103. • The proposal was to remodel the lower level of the existing residence into two guest suites, each with their own bath, for use as a B&B with possible future additions of up to two more guest rooms. The space above the garage would be used as an office/check in. The on-site host would reside in the main level bedroom. One wood carved sign, not to exceed six square feet, was proposed to be erected at the driveway entrance. • The Golden Watershed property was located to the north and zoned Planned Development for residential uses. A 7.65 acre privately owned parcel to the west was zoned MR-1 with two structures currently not being lived in. A 40-acre Denver Mountain Parks parcel was to the east and zoned NR-PC. Evergreen West Filing One Subdivision was approximately 1/10 of a mile to the south on Witter gulch Road, all lots of which were zoned MR-1 with an average lot size of 3.13 acres. • The National Flood Insurance Program Rate Maps for Clear Creek County indicate the property was within Zone C – Areas of Minimal Flooding. • 90% of the parcel was identified on the maps to be in a severe wildfire hazard area. Defensible space was not a requirement of the residence as it was built in 1982 and was currently required only when an addition of 400 square feet or more was proposed on an

160 existing structure. Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel recommended that a Defensible Space Plan be implemented. • Regarding wildlife impact, the existing fence was in compliance with wildlife mitigation standards as outlined in Section 15.B.4 of the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations. • Regarding topography, the property was relatively flat from CO 103 to the house, then slopes down to the southeast and up to the northeast. Slope maps indicated the entire parcel ranges from 0-15%. • Regarding access, parking and traffic, current access was from Hwy 103 and the driveway was a 1-3% grade and was approved by Driveway Permit #5-82. Highway 103 was a paved Colorado State Highway maintained by CDOT. Parking regulations required 5 spaces for the proposed current use. The applicant had proposed seven spaces plus the garage space. With this proposal, there was ample space available for additional parking for future expansion of guest rooms. B&B’s were not listed as a land use category identified in the “Trip Generator” manual by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Staff estimated the vehicle trips per day to be similar to the numbers generated by the average single family residence. • Well Permit #124440 was issued by the Colorado Division of Water Resources in 1982 for household use only in a single family residence. Staff recommended the receipt of written documentation of a B&B being an allowed use of this well from the Division of Water Resources prior to any operation as such. • Septic Permit #16-82 was approved by the Environmental Health Department in 1982 for a two bedroom residence with a 107' distance between well and leachfield. Assessor’s information stated that this was a three bedroom residence and the floor plan of the existing house that the applicant submitted shows it as three bedrooms. Chris Etcheson had stated that the existing system needed to meet current code prior to any expansion of use. Since the applicant wished to remodel to accommodate the B&B, a new Septic Permit would be required prior to issuance of any Building Permit. The applicant has hired an engineer to design a new sewage disposal system to meet current regulations for a 5 or 6 bedroom residence. • Comment was received from Adjacent Property Owner Denver Mountain Parks and whereas they had no conflict, they did not want anyone rock climbing on their property. Adjacent Property Owner the City of Golden had no conflict with the proposal. • Regarding additional comments, a letter had been submitted from EMERGE in support of the proposal with conformation with the conditions. • Other comments were received from Adjacent Property Owners Marshal Scherba, Stan Deever, George Koren, residents of Witter Gulch, and John Disciullo. • The Planning Commission, during their regularly scheduled meeting on June 19, 2002, recommended approval of the Special Use Permit. • Staff recommended approval of this application with the stipulations and conditions presented.

Commissioner Sorensen asked for a definition of a B&B in the zoning regulations. Mr. Rollenhagen replied that a B&B could exist in a residential area with a caretaker on site and no more than five guestrooms. If more than 5 guestrooms, the property would have to be rezoned to commercial. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the site plan currently showed a remodel for two guestrooms upstairs. The applicants requested to be approved for four guestrooms so they could add on 2 more rooms in the future to the downstairs level.

Mr. Pidcock stated that the applicants would be obtaining a septic permit at the end of the week when the engineer was completed with the septic design. Ms. Patterson made the following statements: • The applicants had made no implications of utilizing the Beaver Brook Watershed for any activities and this would have to be approached with the Forest Service if they did. • This B&B proposal was mapped after the B&B in Witter Gulch and had advertised the same activities. • The applicants were capitalizing on the fact that Colorado was an active state. • Presently, the applicants were planning on expanding the ISDS but not the building itself until later.

161 The Board of County Commissioners opened the discussion for public comment.

Joe Madigan, Adjacent Property Owner Mr. Madigan made the following comments: • He lived two properties away from this proposal. • This property was not a part of the Evergreen West Subdivision but for 25 years, this property had enjoyed the benefits of being in this residential community even though not belonging to the Homeowners Association. • The Beaver Brook Watershed road bordered his land and was an attractive, dangerous nuisance. • Many teenagers used this area for drinking and partying. • He was very concerned for this area with regard to weather and fires. • He was concerned on more people being in this area. • There had been many abandoned vehicles and trash left in this area. • This proposed property did not have much room for recreation and he was concerned the guests would run over onto his land. • He was not anxious to have more people recreating in this area. • He was concerned with the zoning and the potential for more additions.

Randall Simpson, Adjacent Property Owner Mr. Simpson made the following comments: • The members of this community were very quiet people. • He was concerned with this commercial establishment. • This proposal could present undesirable results in this serenity. • His property bordered the Forest Service lands and trails and this proposal could increase the use. • He was concerned with the vehicular traffic and the four guestrooms. • He was concerned with the influx of possible motorcycles, ATV’s, snowmobiles, and large trucks. • He was concerned with the potential illegal use of Forest Service trails and illegal campfires. • He was concerned that this would lead to more commercial development in the area.. • He did not want the applicants to take these comments personally.

John Disciullo, Adjacent Property Owner Mr. Disciullo made the following statements: • He was the closest resident to this property. • He had concerns with regard to water and septic. • This area had a fragile ecosystem. • He had recently spent $13,000 to repair his septic. • He was concerned that with more commercial development, this could impact his well. • He asked if the County could make him any guarantees with regard to if his well was impacted or contaminated. • He was concerned with casual smokers being irresponsible and starting forest fires. • He would be watching this property to ensure compliance. • He had moved to this area to “get away” and he was concerned with commercial development right next to his property. • He was concerned that the applicants would have hidden agendas. • He was opposed to this proposal. • He was concerned that other neighbors would consider commercial uses too. • He stated that the Board of County Commissioners had the power to preserve this area and he wanted them to consider the feelings and emotions of the residents. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners refrain from commercialization.

George Koren, Adjacent Property Owner Mr. Koren made the following statements: • This was an emotional issue for the residents. • EMERGE had possibly reversed their opinion on this proposal.

162 • The neighborhood had signed a petition of 90% supporting only a 2 unit B&B to maintain the community environment. • This area was a community centered in a valley which had consistent problems with outsiders. • He requested that if the Board of County Commissioners approved this proposal, that it have legal restrictions to maintain the area. • The neighbors knew this proposal was a for profit. Let the applicants have a small business. • The B&B the applicants were comparing themselves to was a family owned operation and different. • He also requested that this use not be passed onto the next buyer should this applicant sell.

• He requested that the Board of County Commissioners not allow any type of ATV or recreational vehicles on the property. • The neighbors did not want any type of blacktop parking lot. • The neighbors did not want the B&B used as a meeting or party hall. There was too much traffic already and the dust was unreal. • Mr. Koren requested that the restrictions he suggested be included in the application conditions. • These restrictions would have no effect on the B&B and they would still be profitable.

Commissioner Sorensen reminded the audience that the County was not rezoning anything but discussing a permitted use in a residential zoning. She asked what the permitted uses of a B&B were in this zoning. County Attorney Bob Loeffler replied that the B&B could have no more than 5 rooms, off-street parking must be provided, the host must reside on the premises, signage was limited to 6 feet, no meals other than for guests, cannot be used for a meeting area, and the length of stay was one month. Ms. Patterson reconfirmed that they would not be providing a guide service. They would be subcontracting out to local guide outfitters in the community for outdoor activities. They also did not plan on bringing in horseback riding, bicycles, ATV’s, etc. Mr. Loeffler added that the permit would be attached to the land and not the owner. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that in the Stipulations and Conditions, future owners and successors would be notified of stipulations of this use upon the deed or instrument of conveyance. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Forest Service had recently informed the County that their land within the Beaver Brook Watershed was not yet open to the public and the B&B owners should inform their guests of this information. Ms. Patterson agreed.

Mr. Koren and Mr. Scherpa requested restrictions on the B&B use. They stated that 90% of the residents on Witter Gulch and signed a petition in opposition to this proposal. Commissioner Poirot motioned for the facility to have two bedrooms, the addition of the expanded septic system, and a restriction in the future that if they did add two more rooms, a second hearing would be required. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Ms. Fleet stated that if she was expanding the septic system at present and since the present septic was built for 3 bedrooms, why was it now reduced to two bedrooms? She added that most of the homes in this area were the same size as this proposed home and she did not feel she should be limited to two bedrooms. Commissioner Sorensen replied that the only plans presented were for a two bedroom B&B. No other site plans were presented for more bedrooms. Commissioner Sorensen thought it reasonable to start with the two guestrooms and expand later. Ms. Fleet disagreed. Commissioner Poirot suggested returning to the Board of County Commissioners in a couple of years and with a good progress report, the future Board may approve the additional two rooms. The vote was unanimous.

Following the hearing, Ms. Patterson stated that she sympathized with the neighbor concerns. She would be living and working in the area and she wanted the relations harmonious. She and her partners were sensitive to the adjacent forest lands and they, too, wanted a low impact use.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS:

#02-96, Lawrence Stuart, Chicago Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. The son of Lawrence Stuart attended the hearing. He made the following statements:

163 • His father was on a fixed income and had little use of the land. • The roads to this parcel were in bad condition and there was no more public access. • This parcel was in the area of the Idaho Springs Reservoir. • This land had been in the family for a long time and they wanted to retain ownership.

Ms. Settle stated that she had met Mr. Stuart at the cabin on the parcel and had recommended a value of $45,270. There was no water and no sewer as it was too close to the lake. The snowpack on the road restricted access to this parcel. Ms. Settle requested continuing this hearing to allow more research and comparisons. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue this abatement hearing for Lawrence Stuart to August 20, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-94, Ralph St. Louis, Ohio Gulch mining claims: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Ralph St. Louis and his brother attended the hearing. Mr. St. Louis stated that these lands had been owned by his family for over 50 years. For some reason, three of the mining claims were show at a higher value and there was no difference between them and the other mining claims. All the claims were inaccessible in the winter and the road was barely passable with a 4-wheel- drive vehicle. Their father had died on these lands and the family kept the lands for sentimental reasons.

Ms. Settle submitted a sheet with her recommendations. The location should have been rated as poor for 1999 and 2000 and it was not. Each of the mining claims was adjusted to bring them closer in value to the other claims and the location rate was adjusted. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-95, Curtis Lukow, Virginia Canyon: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Curtis Lukow attended the hearing. Mr. Lukow stated that he was abating three claims that had increased drastically from 2000 to 2001. He did not understand how the claims had increased this much. There had been no improvements and one claim had no access. Ms. Settle replied that the Bell Tunnel and Casino had been adjusted due to the very steep topography and these would be valued at $200 per acre. For the Squaw mining claim, this parcel did have access. Ms. Settle recommended the partial approval for the Bell Tunnel and Casino and denial for the Squaw. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-97, Pamela Davis-Zalesky & John Zalesky, Bendemeer Tract 1: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Ms. Davis-Zalesky and Mr. Zalesky attended the hearing. Ms. Davis-Zalesky stated that the cabin was only 415 square feet, one room, and in bad shape. There was no running water and the outhouse had been condemned. Her family was planning on tearing down the cabin. All the homes surrounding this parcel were $200,000+ homes but their lot was only .18 of an acre. Ms. Davis-Zalesky added that the there were no interior walls and the porch was caving in. The insurance company would not insure a roof so the Zalesky’s had rolled a roof on top of the cabin. Ms. Davis-Zalesky stated that they would like to remove this cabin, combine it with adjacent lands and build a home in the future. Commissioner Watrous suggested making the condition as poor instead of fair. Ms. Settle agreed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation with the adjustment to the condition. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-98, Bruce Waddle, Virginia Canyon: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Waddle party. Ms. Settle stated that this mining claim was located in Virginia Canyon and had no access. She recommended a downward adjustment in value to $930. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-99, William McKeown c/o Jacqueline Stopani, Wild Wagoner: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the McKeown/Stopani party. Ms. Settle stated that this parcel was easily found and comparable sales supported the value. She recommended denial of this protest. The road to this parcel did exist as Ms. Settle drove the

164 access directly to the claim. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 16, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 16, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF ROAD EASEMENT ON BLUE RIDGE ROAD: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Einar Jensen attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that the easement was received from Al and Pat Mosch and from the Von Mosch Mining Company. Parcels had been traded to obtain the easement. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the easements from Al and Pat Mosch and the Von Mosch Mining Company for Blue Ridge Road. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPRAISAL CONTRACT FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON BLUE RIDGE ROAD AND WILD WAGONER ROAD: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Einar Jensen attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that this contract was for the appraisal of ten residential lots on Blue Ridge Road and three lots on Wild Wagoner Road. These appraisals were to be received by August 12, 2002 from Nash Johnson. County Attorney Bob Loeffler added that Nash Johnson could complete the work quicker than the other bidders for the appraisal work. These lands needed to be on the market quickly. If Nash Johnson did not meet the deadline, then he did not get paid. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that Nash Johnson had already begun collecting data. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Nash Johnson contract for appraisal of Blue Ridge and Wild Wagoner Road lots. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM ORION SHOCKLEY FOR LAND IN GEORGETOWN FOR OPEN SPACE: Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young and Open Space Commission member Hal Wahlborg attended. Mr. Young stated that he had met with Mr. Shockley who had wanted to dedicate this land to open space. Mr. Shockley either did not want to donate the land to the town of Georgetown or Georgetown did not want it. He recommended that the County confirm with the Treasurer that the deed was cleared. County Attorney Bob Loeffler agreed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the deed from Orion Shockley contingent that there were negative aspects or liens on the property. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. Mr. Young recommended that in the future a resolution be completed to assign management of the land to the Open Space Commission. The Board agreed. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-41, ADOPTION OF ZONE PLAN AND MAP TO CASE #01-ZP-02, T34R73W: Planning Director Carol Wise and Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Einar Jensen, Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young, EMERGE member Dick Woods, resident Harry Dale, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, and Open Space Commission member Hal Wahlborg attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following statements: • Ms. Wise presented a map of the approved zonings as voted by the Board of County Commissioners showing the M-2 and NR-PC zonings.

165 • A supplemental letter from Mr. Young had been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners regarding this zoning. • This map showed the lands which were formerly proposed to be zoned as NR-PC and the former BLM lands.

Commissioner Sorensen made the following statements: • The Open Space Commission was requesting a continuation of this hearing until the Board of County Commissioners considered a special overlay or modification of the zoning. • There was also a request that the Board of County Commissioners review information from the U.S. Geologic Survey that was not present at the prior hearings. • She recommended continuing this hearing until the County Planning Staff had time to review this information and the requests from the Open Space Commission.

Commissioner Poirot added that he did not have a problem with the continuation but he stated that with more experts, more opinions would be gathered. He was unsure of whether they would obtain the true expert point. County Attorney Bob Loeffler suggested that Board ask the Open Space Commission the reason for the delay and the purpose for the proposed zoning. The zoning would not reflect the use that the land would come to. If the Board of County Commissioners was still considering zoning the land for recreational or open space purposes, this could still be done. He stated that the zoning designation and the use to which the land was designated did not have to be compatible. He did not agree that a zoning overlay would be helpful.

Mr. Young made the following statements: • He understood that if the lands were retained by the County and should the time frame run out, the land would have to be managed under the regulations of the R&PP Act. • He understood the extreme interest in preserving the availability of the lost resources in the County. • The Open Space Commission was recommending combining these two ideas. • He suggested getting an opinion from the BLM representative that in the future, for mineral resources that he County owns under these lands prove to be worth exploring, this would be allowed if there were no surface disturbance on the surface resources. This could be a new concept to present to BLM. This idea could meet both objectives for the County citizens.

Commissioner Poirot stated that if this idea was utilized, then the parcels could never be put into private ownership. Mr. Young agreed that this would happen with some parcels. Commissioner Poirot stated that if the Open Space Commission had not identified these lands ones they wanted in management, then they needed to be in private ownership and on the tax rolls. Mr. Young agreed and stated that a majority of these lands in question would be handled that way. Mr. Young asked for the continuance of the hearing to also identify these lands for the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Young stated that most of the lands were on the ridge top. He added that most of these lands could be mined without surface disturbance. All of the surface value could still be used with the underground mining.

Mr. Woods made the following statements: • He agreed with Mr. Young that it was logical to separate the surface and subsurface rights. • The Open Space Commission would manage the surface and the County could maintain the subsurface rights. • He agreed on this concept for the open space areas and not the parcels for public sale. • He suggested that the BLM lands could be zoned with different zoning to promote a higher use. • Mr. Woods had concern for taking this area and making it all M-2 and not considering what had been developed in the past like mining veins. The U.S. Geologic Survey showed what had been successful.

Commissioner Poirot stated that historically the County had tried to unite the subsurface and surface rights of the former BLM lands. Mr. Young suggested that with these lands, the County could do a subsurface lease deal but not legally separate the parcel into surface and subsurface.

166 This had been done in the Geneva Basin area. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that this was discussed with Andy Senti at BLM and he suggested a long range management plan with the Open Space Commission to identify surface and subsurface rights.

Commissioner Sorensen suggested that given the information presented that the Planning Department has not reviewed and the proposal from the Open Space Commission, that the hearing be continued to a date beyond when the BLM extension act were to have passed. Commissioner Poirot suggested excluding this area and approving the remaining zonings for the township. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that her department was waiting to proceed on the sale of some parcels due to zoning. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this would require the starting over of the process. Mr. Loeffler suggested continuing the case for three weeks and he recommended that the Open Space Commission identify their lands during this time. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the hearing to September 10, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH ST. PAUL’S PARISH FOR USE OF THE BUILDING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH REGIS UNIVERSITY FOR STUDENT SUPPORT: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. Ms. Dicken stated that this contract with the St. Paul’s Parish was to allow the Nursing Department and other Tobacco Coalition meetings to meet in this hall. County Attorney Bob Loeffler noted that the contract requested that the County list St. Paul’s Parish as an additionally insured and this would require confirmation with the County’s insurance program, CAPP. This had never been requested from the St. Paul’s Parish in the past. Mr. Loeffler requested additional time to confirm with CAPP. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to August 13, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Dicken presented the agreement with Regis University. She stated that this agreement provided nursing students to perform student internships with the Nursing Department. Nursing Director Jean Barta had no problems with the agreement. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the agreement with Regis University for student support. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 23, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 23, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR BLUE RIDGE ROAD FOR COUNTY LANDS AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT WITH ESTHER AND LAFAYETTE BLAIR: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Zoning Specialist Staci Writer, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Einar Jensen attended the hearing. Mr. Smith made the following statements: • This contract was with the Blair’s for an easement on Blue Ridge Road. • The conditions of the contract were that the Blair’s had to complete a Combination of Lots Agreement with the contiguous lands leaving one parcel with a split zoning.

167 • A last minute notice was submitted to the Board of County Commissioners that Mr. Blair had zoning violations on his lands on Wild Wagoner Road. He had consistently missed deadlines given by Zoning Enforcement. • There were other lands in the Blue Ridge area that Mr. Blair was interested in acquiring.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler suggested that the Board of County Commissioners temporarily overlook the zoning violations at this time in order to obtain this grant of easement. Ms. Writer informed the Board of County Commissioners that Mr. Blair had an old army truck and metal storage shed that had been there for six years. County Attorney Bob Loeffler recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve this easement and follow up with the zoning violation after the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the grant of easement and the acceptance of contract with Lafayette and Esther Blair and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign these documents. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR DAVID HILL: Clear Creek Courant reporter Einar Jensen attended the hearing. After reviewing the cover page, Commissioner Watrous stated that there were no objections to the Combination of Lots Agreement and that St. Mary’s Water and Sanitation District and Xcel Energy had agreed to vacate their utility easements. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement for David Hill. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

OPENING OF SEALED BIDS FOR COUNTY LANDS: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Einar Jensen attended the hearing. One bid was received for parcel #1835-29-4-00-962. The bid was from David Dyce for 1.85 acres of former BLM land zoned M- 2, and accepting existing easements and rights of way. A Combination of Lots Agreement was required in order to obtain the land. The minimum value was $2200. Mr. Dyce’s bid was for $4500 and 10% of this amount had to be submitted. Commissioner Watrous confirmed that Mr. Dyce had submitted the 10% required. Ms. Kaminski stated that Mr. Dyce had 30 days to close on the property. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the bid from Mr. Dyce for parcel #1835-29-4-00-962. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Parcel #1835-33-4-00-994 had received no sealed bids. Ms. Kaminski stated that this parcel would be retained and put out for bid again in the future. This parcel had been in the bid process before but the bidders did not complete the purchase.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-93, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-TSUP-9, FOR DAVID DODGE FOR A SOLAR SHED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENCE: Planner I Tony Atencio presented. Applicant David Dodge and Clear Creek Courant reporter Einar Jensen attended the hearing. Mr. Atencio made the following statements: • The request was to allow the use of a 10' X 12' foot storage shed without an existing dwelling unit. The shed will house solar panels needed to supply power for the construction of a residence and store building implements. • The requested term was for three years if in full compliance with stipulations and conditions of the Special Use Permit. • The proposed shed would be less than 120 square feet. This size did not require a building permit. • A permit was pulled also to put in a culvert. Road and Bridge Supervisor Tim Allen had inspected this construction and was pleased with what had happened so far. • The shed proposed would be a solar shed and the panels would be located on the roof in order to provide power. • The cost to convert from solar power to electricity system would be approximately $45,000. • The solar equipment would cost $10,000. • This system could be enlarged if the home was expanded. • The house would be 100% solar powered.

168 • This size system proposed would power 10 panes or 1600 watts. A normal home was 2200 watts. • Most people in York Gulch had their solar power in a shed away from the primary home. • This shed would be 15-feet tall but the outside would be less than 120-square feet. • Mr. Atencio stated that Mr. Dodge also submitted a construction schedule for the primary residence. • This property totaled 20 acres and was accessed off of Warren Gulch.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit for David Dodge in Warren Gulch and Resolution #02-93. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Mr. Dodge confirmed that construction materials could be brought up this road. This road was the same road as discussed with Curtis Lukow. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JAIBG GRANT FOR THE RIGHT TRACK PROGRAM: Trailhead Wilderness School representative Mary Anne Gold presented. Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken attended. Ms. Gold made the following statements: • This grant was to fund the Right Track Program organized by the Clear Creek Youth Services and Trailhead Wilderness School. • The referrals of students to the program had increased over the past year. • Twenty students were needed for each year. • The program was for youth that were not on probation but had minor incidences. • This program required youth to perform 30-40 hours of community service and complete YEP trips. • The program attempted to build relationships with the youth and to have them feel less threatened by working with adults. • The youth were referred to the program through Probation, Diversion, and Law Enforcement. • If the students did not pass the Right Track Program, they had to go to court. • Certain community service performed included working that Clear Creek Metropolitan Recreation District, painting fences, volunteering at the Slacker Half Marathon, and picking up trash at Georgetown Lake. • The Right Track Program also included a leadership program.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the JAIBG contract for the Right Track Program. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. Ms. Dicken stated her approval of this contract and program. The vote was unanimous.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-83, TDR CASE #02-TDR-02, FOR TIM WHEELER TO TRANSFER THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF LOT 504, ST. MARY’S SUBDIVISION, TO A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 21, T3SR73W, ON FALL RIVER ROAD: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. Planning Director Carol Wise, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Planner I Tony Atencio, Planner II Ruth Kastens, resident Harry Dale, and applicant Tim Wheeler attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen presented the following information: • Supplemental documents were submitted regarding the case. • A site plan that included the location of the proposed building envelope, and location of the proposed driveway had been submitted. • A response from Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel stated that the Clear Mountain Surveying information addressed all road design standards. Dimensions and square footage of the disturbance area were included in this memo. • Mr. Wheeler had submitted a note that described review considerations regarding this case. • Minutes from the Planning Commission hearing of this case were submitted and draft resolutions for denial and approval.

169 Commissioner Sorensen asked for clarification that the sending parcel was a subdivided lot in a subdivision which was a special district that Homeowners Association water and sewer services and road maintenance operation. Mr. Rollenhagen confirmed that this was correct. It was located in the St. Mary’s subdivision with water and sewer access however, anyone wanting to develop there, would have to pay to have the water and sewer extended. The lot was accessed by a plotted right of way however it was not maintained. If this area was developed, then the district would begin providing maintenance. Commissioner Sorensen had completed a site visit to the area and believed that this area could be a possible sending site area due to the difficulty of development. However, presently, the lots were part of a subdivision with water and sewer. These were very small lots surrounded by many other small lots. Mr. Rollenhagen agreed stating that the zoning did not meet the minimum requirement for two residences but it did for one residence. Commissioner Sorensen stated that in reviewing this case, they were attempting to moving a building right from a small parcel without solving the building problem in that area. She did not think that one small parcel being changed to NR-PC zoning would accomplish much in eliminating building sites. Commissioner Sorensen stated that this was not a more suitable situation. The County would be losing one small piece of land that had the right to water and sewer.

Commissioner Poirot asked when the applicant had purchased the parcels. Mr. Rollenhagen replied that the receiving site was purchased in 2000 and the sending site had a contract on it contingent on approval of this process. Mr. Wheeler noted that if the Board of County Commissioners did not like the sending site, he could purchase another one.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed the following concerns: • She had concern with regard to turning a mineral-zoned land into residential when the land was purposely zoned in this way. This land had been zoned in this manner during the township zoning due to input from the Colorado Geologic Society. Mr. Wheeler replied that his environmental engineer concluded that there were no mineral resources on this land. Mr. Wheeler asked what if the landowner didn’t want the land for mineral extraction? • Commissioner Sorensen stated that in this County, mining zoning was for a tax advantage or it was for mineral extraction. When this area was zoned, experts informed the County to preserve the land for mining in the future. This land was for a tax advantage zoning but for mineral issues.

Ms. Moody stated the following comment: • Planning Commission Chairman Steve Schultz had asked her to convey the message that in all discussions on the TDR process, there was a good deal of concern pointed at the fact that people own M-1 claims that were zoned this way and not suitable for building. This was to provide an opportunity to people that couldn’t build on their residential lands to build on a better lot. This case did not fit that description. This applicant didn’t already own the land that had residential rights. Mr. Wheeler disagreed stating that it was in the TDR process guide that a receiving site could be zoned M-2.

Commissioner Sorensen reemphasized that this land was zoned M-2 not because it was a historical mining site but because there was a perceived value by the Colorado Geologic Society. Ms. Moody agreed stating that on this township zoning for this area, the Planning Commission had reviewed this area parcel by parcel. Mr. Wheeler replied that there were mining claims in this area that were residential and he did not want to mine this land but to live there. He thought that the neighbors would probably object to someone mining on this parcel. Commissioner Sorensen stated that landowners who buy mining claims should know that there was a possibility that someone could mine on adjacent mining parcels. Mr. Wheeler disagreed stating that most of this area was residential and by leaving this site as M-2 it was “bucking the trend of the community plus the favored usage by the community.”

Commissioner Poirot stated that this was something that was not the intention of the TDR process. He would rather turn down the application based on the sending site as opposed to what the receiving site was zoned. The intention of the TDR process was to transfer to M-2 claims but not if the sending site was an acceptable building site. This sending site already had

170 infrastructure. Mr. Wheeler asked if the Board would approve this application if there was another more appropriate sending site. Commissioner Poirot replied that he would not deny the case due to the receiving site being an M-2. County Attorney Bob Loeffler added that if a new sending site was proposed, it would have to be considered at that time and the Board of County Commissioners could not make a commitment in advance.

Mr. Rollenhagen reviewed the conditions for the approval of TDR, i.e., the receiving site was more suitable than the sending site, the transfer was in the best interest of the County, and that the receiving site was available to be considered for the transfer, etc. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that even if the application met the criteria, this did not ensure an approval of the application. Mr. Wheeler asked how the sending site was not acceptable and what constituted a suitable sending site – he only had what was written. Mr. Rollenhagen replied that there were four criteria and a list of issues that had to be considered by the Planning Commission. There was no guarantee of transferability. Provisions of the regulations were no guarantee. County Attorney Bob Loeffler added that the ultimate criteria was in Section J in that the receiving site had to be found more suitable than the sending site and it had to be in the best interest of the County. The transfer had to be within the purpose of Section 1 of the TDR process guide. Mr. Wheeler did feel that he had met the criteria. He requested in writing the reasons why he did not meet the criteria and that the correct criteria be provided.

Ms. Moody stated that making one small parcel NR-PC in a subdivision became spot zoning and not part of what a sending site was intended for. This would be a part of the section on the “County’s best interest.” Mr. Rollenhagen encouraged the Board of County Commissioners to state the reasons of denial in the Findings of Fact.

Mr. Wheeler made the following comments:

• Mr. Wheeler wanted to supply an alternative sending site but he needed the criteria so it would be accepted. • Mr. Wheeler did mention in a letter that he was willing to forgo the TDR process and apply for a straight rezoning – either straight residential or mixed use. He was open to this alternative so that there could be a solution. • He did not want a long drawn out battle. • Mr. Wheeler thought there had to be reasonable causes for the rejection of the proposal. • He had abided by the rules that had been set. • He would maintain his position on this case as he felt he had just purpose. • If he was turned down without just cause or a reason, he would feel the need to fight it. • He had to know what the sending sites constituted and this was a fair request. • He did not think the government should be in the hands of the private landowners in how they used their lands especially when the residential use was prevailing and the sending site was at over 12,000 feet. • Mr. Wheeler wanted a reasonable solution and would meet the rules of the County. • Mr. Wheeler requested the rules and the definitions of the sending site. • He thought that he and the County could work this out with a straight rezoning or the TDR process.

Commissioner Watrous closed public comment.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that she was not convinced that the receiving site was a better site than the sending site for residential development. The process that had arrived at the M-2 zoning for the receiving site was legitimate. Commissioner Sorensen preferred that the entire area be sending sites rather than just one parcel. Commissioner Poirot agreed stating that he did not see this case as improving the County purpose here. Commissioner Watrous agreed. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-83, denial of the TDR application for Tim Wheeler, and would review the Findings of Fact to ensure accuracy. Commissioner Poirot seconded. The Board reviewed the Findings individually. Mr. Wheeler noted that he did not want to bring lawyers into this case. Commissioner Watrous reminded Mr. Wheeler that public comment was closed.

171 Mr. Rollenhagen stated that during the TDR hearings to create the process, sending and receiving sites were not designated as they wanted these cases considered on a case by case basis. Commissioner Poirot agreed and added that it was also because the M-2 and M-1 claims were dispersed throughout the County. Ms. Kastens stated that when developing this process, there were some lots in the upper Winterland Subdivision where the roads would never be developed and there were some areas that the water and sanitation districts did not think they would reach. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the TDR process should be revisited for refinement and to also attempt to designate sending and receiving sites. This would be a public hearing process with input from the adjacent Homeowners Associations. Mr. Loeffler noted that this would first be held before the Planning Commission. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-100, BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE #02-AX-6, FOR MCBRIDE AND MORRIS-FRANCIS, UTE CREEK ROAD: Planner I Tony Atencio presented. Planner II Ruth Kastens, Planner II Fred Rollenhagen, Planning Director Carol Wise, Applicants Gregory Francis, Della Morris-Francis, Jade and Deann McBride, Adjacent Property Owners Tom and Barbara Myers, and Tim and Debra Alexander attended the hearing. Mr. Atencio made the following comments: • The request was to reconfigure the boundary lines of four existing parcels to create four new parcels. • The location was approximately one mile from Hwy 103 on Ute Creek Road. • The applicants were Della Morris-Francis and Jade and Deann McBride. • The subject properties were the Big Flat, the Black Lion, the Ingo B, the Rainbow Lode,a dn that portion of land formally belonging to the Forest Service. • Mrs. Morris-Francis had a residence on the combined Rainbow, a portion of the Ingo B, and the former Forest Service tract of land. This property was zoned MR-1 and was approximately 6.21 acres. The McBride’s owned the Big Flat, the Black Lion, and the remaining portion of the Ingo B. These three parcels were currently vacant, zoned M-1, and totaled 12 acres. • The majority of the surrounding privately owned properties were zoned M-1 with some M- 2 claims to the west. Five houses currently exist in the immediate vicinity. The Forest Service lands in the area were proposed for M-2 in the current Township Zone Plan. • Adjacent Property Owners and Road and Bridge were notified by mail on May 17, 2002. Public Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on May 22, 2002 and the property was also posted on this date. Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen stated that his department had no conflict with this proposal. Staff had received four letters and one verbal objection. The main points of objection were concerns with traffic, road maintenance, access, belief that this case was subdividing land and professional development versus private development. Throughout this application process, Staff had repeatedly attempted to explain “use by right” and the Boundary Line Adjustment Exemption process. The sudden influx of dissenting written responses prompted the Planning Director to forego granting of the conditional approval or vesting of the property rights and to place this case before the Board of County Commissioners for review. Mrs. Morris-Francis rescinded her letter of appeal, which was received July 1, 2002. Staff believed the co-applicants in this case had lacked fundamental communication among themselves since the start of this case. • The applicants had met the criteria and the Planning Department was in approval however, the Adjacent Property Owners had some issues. The Planning Department had explained the ability to do Boundary Line Adjustments by Statute but the Adjacent Property Owners were not happy with this explanation. • At first, the co-applicants did agree on the boundary line adjustment as they had applied together. Thereafter, one of the applicants, Della Morris-Francis, appealed her own application. She did not want to kill the deal but she wanted to swap the land. She was not opposed to the other parts of the adjustment. The Planning Department contacted this applicant and told her that she could not appeal her own case so she had rescinded her letter. Mrs. Morris-Francis was very concerned with traffic, and the McBride’s building and selling a home and leaving the area.

The McBride’s made no comment.

172 Mrs. Morris-Francis made the following comments: • When she was approached by the McBride’s, they had wanted to combine the boundary line adjustment with a land swap. • Mrs. Morris-Francis did not agree with the boundary line adjustment on the Black Lion. She wanted the McBrides to combine the Black Lion with the adjacent parcel to make one parcel. • Ms. Morris-Francis stated that the McBrides would be building in a flood plain. • She asked what would happen to mineral rights when a parcel was cut in half. • Mrs. Morris-Francis had questions about what happened to the remaining portions of the parcels and concerns with the traffic impacts. • She had concerns that the McBrides would be building their home in the middle of a historical road.

Ms. Kastens stated that a larger portion of the Ingo B and the Forest Service lands would go to Morris-Francis and a smaller portion of the Ingo B would go to the McBrides. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that in order to complete this application, Mrs. Morris-Francis needed to participate in the boundary line adjustment in order to swap the land, however, she was unhappy with the boundary line adjustment. Mrs. Morris-Francis stated that the Black Lion and the Big Flat should be one application and the Ingo B and the Forest Service lands should be another application. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that these were two different applications and the objection to one application was that Mrs. Morris-Francis didn’t own part of that application. Therefore, the Board of County Commissioners could approve part but not all of these cases. In the section that Mrs. Morris-Francis did not own, Mr. Atencio stated that the McBride’s wanted this adjustment made in the boundaries so they could better place the building envelope.

Mr. Atencio stated that a car count was performed on this road by the Road and Bridge Department. In one week, 266 cars were counted on Ute Creek Road. Mr. Allen, Road and Bridge Supervisor, did not see a problem with this traffic load on this road.

Regarding drainage, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel stated that there could be some problems which could be solved with berms. Mr. Atencio stated that the boundary line adjustment would eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Loeffler stated that if the boundary line adjustments were approved, it would result in four building sites – one existing and three possible.

Mr. Atencio stated that staff recommended approval of Case #02-AX-6 pursuant to the attached draft resolution.

Mr. McBride made the following statements: • This boundary line adjustment was proposed because if they had built at the bottom of the property, there would be drainage problems. • This proposed building envelope would be much lower on the hill for building and more usable.

Ms. Alexander made the following statements: • She was an Adjacent Property Owner. • She asked about the mineral survey numbers and if they were noted in this case. Ms. Kastens stated that during the reconfiguring of the lots, the mineral rights would remain as they were with the surface rights. • Ms. Alexander stated that when she had bought her claims in 1998, she was required to combine them in order to purchase them. Commissioner Poirot, recalling the case, replied that this had been required by the previous owners. The previous owners, in order to save on taxes, had combined those lots and the McBrides were volunteering to do a boundary line adjustment. Ms. Alexander’s land was bound by the previous Combination of Lots Agreement. • Ms. Alexander asked what a boundary line adjustment would do to the legal descriptions. County Attorney Bob Loeffler replied that the legal descriptions would be amended and the title companies would complete the paperwork.

173 Mr. Myers asked if future owners could modify this claim. Ms. Kastens replied that they could apply to modify it. Commissioner Watrous noted that this application was not increasing building sites and was creating less disturbance. Commissioner Watrous closed public comment.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Boundary Line Adjustment Exemption Case #02-AX-6. Commissioner Watrous seconded. During discussion, Ms. Kastens confirmed that the County was not creating a parcel without access by approving this. Commissioner Sorensen asked about a particular road and whether it was public. Ms. Kastens replied that it was public. Mr. Atencio added that there was concern that this access would be cut off so the McBride’s agreed to give easements. The McBride’s had agreed to put it on the plat. Commissioner Sorensen wanted to ensure that the access to the Black Lion would not be denied. Mr. Loeffler stated that the plat would have to show access for the new parcel. Mr. Loeffler stated that this identification of this road would prevent future owners from blocking access. The audience agreed. Mr. Loeffler stated that if this newly created parcel was residential, that the road wasn’t cutting off that parcel and making it unbuildable. Commissioner Sorensen agreed asking about the minimum lot size requirement. Commissioner Poirot stated that the road easement should be prescriptive and not expand thereby reducing the size of the parcel. Mr. Myers asked what would happen if the driveway was widened. Mr. Loeffler stated that this road could be grand fathered. Mr. Loeffler suggested continuance in order to allow time to resolve the road issue. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to August 6, 2002 at 2:30 p.m. and to rescind the first motion. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen stated that research will be done on the road and what this road meant to the property owners beyond it. Mrs. Morris-Francis presented another plat of the area. The Board and Planning Department would review this new plat. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 24, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 24, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the Open Records Act and the City of Idaho Springs Water Treatment Plant, pest control, and the new school sanitation issue, as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 30, 2002

174 The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 30, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FOR SURVEYS FOR FIRE FIGHTING WATER TANKS IN SADDLEBACK: Fire Chief Kelly Babeon presented. Mr. Babeon stated that this request was not for funding but to request that Clear Creek Surveying expedite the County’s request in order to place the fire fighting water tanks in Saddleback sooner. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to submit a letter to Clear Creek Surveying to request being moved up on the priority list. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Human Services. Minutes for the Board of Human Services are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR BRUCE ROBERSON, TRAIL CREEK: Commissioner Watrous stated that this Combination of Lots Agreement was to combine the Kansas and Missouri mining claims in the Trail Creek area. There were no objections to this combination. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement for Bruce Roberson in Trail Creek. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JAIL NURSING CONTRACT: Sheriff Don Krueger presented. County Attorney Bob Loeffler had written the contract. Mr. Krueger confirmed that the position was advertised and Alma Sue Petriello did have experience which agreed with the job description. Mr. Krueger stated that the wages for this position were higher than that of Public Health due to the clientele. The nurse would work 4-10 hour shifts. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the jail nursing contract with Ms. Petriello. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REPLACEMENT OF SHERIFF’S VEHICLE: Sheriff Don Krueger presented. Mr. Krueger stated that this was a vehicle that had been totaled and was needing to be replaced. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the replacement of the Sheriff’s vehicle. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH AUSTIN AND KRISTIN ERICKSON AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-86, REZONING CASE #271, SECTION 3, T3SR73W, FROM M-1 TO M-2 FOR COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Planner I Sarah Kaminski attended the hearing. Mr. Smith made the following statements: • The Board directed County Lands Department to explore the possibility of accessing utilities to residential lots F, G, and S, owned by the County, across the Paragon Lode. Discussions with the Erikssons’s, owners of the Paragon Lode, resulted in negotiations that were brought before the Board on April 16, 2002. At that time, the Commissioners approved the exchange of easements and property as stated in this contract submitted for the Boards approval. • Approval of the Contract will provide utility easement to County Residential Lots F, S, and G, which were accessed by Wild Wagoner Road and County Road 10-WW-5. The Erikssons also agreed to provide a sixty foot road and utility easement that portion of County road 10-WW-5 that crosses the east end of the Paragon Lode. • The expenses involved would include $2000 for the easement for the County road and $1000 for the exchange of land.

175 Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the contract between Clear Creek County and Austin and Kristin Eriksson. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Kaminski presented the rezoning case. Planner II Fred Rollenhagen attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements:

• A rezoning of a portion of this parcel to M-2 was necessary to be consistent with the proposed M-2 zoning designation for the balance of this parcel of land. The balance of this parcel was currently unzoned, however, pursuant to proposed Zone Plan #01-ZP-02, the balance of the parcel will be zoned M-2. Therefore, by rezoning the M-1 District portion, a split-zoning would not occur on the parcel as a whole. • The majority of this 8.9 acre parcel was currently unzoned. However, a portion of this parcel had an existing zoning of M-1, due to the 1976 M-1 zoning of unpatented claims. The Louise V. #12 and Louise V. #15 unpatented claims were located within this parcel of land. Although these unpatented mining claims were abandoned and void, the M-1 zoning designation was still in place on this parcel of land. Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-03 created this parcel on April 30, 2002. • This parcel would be conveyed to Terry Winters and combined with the Bullion Queen #2. • Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the Planning Department Staff was in favor of this rezoning.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Rezoning Case #271, Resolution #02-86, from M-1 to M-2 for the County Lands Department. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-88, REZONING CASE #272, SECTION 19, T3SR73W, FROM MR-LT TO M-1 FOR COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Planner II Fred Rollenhagen attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: • This was Rezoning Case #272 requesting to rezone from MR-LT to M-1 for County lands located northeast of Dumont via Wild Wagoner Road. • A rezoning of this parcel to M-1 was proposed to prevent a split-zoning of MR-LT/M-1 when this parcel was combined. The parcel would be conveyed to the owner of the Paragon Lode and combined with said lode. • The .97 acre vacant parcel had a zoning of MR-LT. The parcel was zoned pursuant to Zone Plan #95-ZP-01 for Section 19, T3SR73W. This parcel was in conflict with the Paragon Lode and had precedence. Since the parcel was unpatented and then abandoned, the parcel was created when it reverted back to BLM ownership. During the Township Zoning process, this parcel was originally considered to be a part of Government Survey Lot #21, located in Section 19, T3SR73W, which was zoned as MR-LT. However, County Lands staff researched this parcel and found that it was a separate parcel from Government Survey Lot #21 and therefore, did not transfer the parcel into private ownership with Government Survey Lot #21. • Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the Planning Department Staff was in favor of this rezoning.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Rezoning Case #272, Resolution #02-88, from MR-LT to M-1 for County Lands Department. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-89, REZONING CASE #273, SECTION 20, T3SR73W, FROM MR-5 TO M-1 FOR COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Planner II Fred Rollenhagen attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: • This was Rezoning Case #273 to request a rezoning from MR-5 to M-1 northeast of Dumont via an unnamed County road designated as 10-WW-5 off of Wild Wagoner Road.

• A rezoning of this parcel to M-1 was proposed to prevent a split-zoning of MR-5/M-1 when this parcel was combined with an existing M-1 zoned mining claim. The parcel would be conveyed to the owner of the Paragon Lode and would be combined with said

176 lode. The parcel would be used to construct a driveway for the owner of the Paragon Lode that would meet County standards. • This .09 acre vacant parcel currently had a zoning of MR-5. This parcel was part of a larger parcel which was rezoned on April 30, 2002 in Case #270 from Buffer to MR-5. An Exemption by Resolution would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. • Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the Planning Department Staff was in favor of this rezoning.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Rezoning Case #273, Resolution #02-89, from MR-5 to MR-1. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-90, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #02-EX-05, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LANDS IN SECTION 20, T3SR73W: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-91, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #02-EX-06, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LANDS IN SECTION 31, T3SR73W: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-92, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #02-EX-07, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LANDS IN SECTION 25, T3SR74W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following statements: • Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-05 in Section 20 would, if approved, divide County Land #1835-20-2-00-903, a 19.66 acre tract of land into a 18.67 acre parcel and a .99 acre parcel. • This exemption, if approved, would fulfill a portion of a contractual obligation to Austin and Kristin Eriksson regarding the exchange of easements and property with them and Clear Creek County. • The .99 acre parcel would be conveyed to Austin and Kristin Eriksson and would be combined with the Paragon Lode through a Combination of Lots Agreement. Prior to conveyance, the parcel would be zoned M-1. The 18.67 acre parcel would remain in County possession to be sold as a residential lot. No additional building lots would be created. • Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-06 in Section 31 would if approved, divide County Land Parcel #1835-31-1-00-957, a 6.99 acre tract of County land into a 5.03 acre parcel and a 1.96 acre parcel. • The parcels would be conveyed to contiguous property owners and would be combined with their existing holdings through a Combination of Lots Agreement. No additional building lots would be created. • Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-07 in Section 25 & 36 would, if approved, divide Government Survey Lot #3, Section 36, a 36.78 acre tract of County land into a 2.26 acre parcel, a 6.09 acre parcel and a 28.43 acre parcel. It would also divide Government Survey Lot #46, Section 25, a 8.28 acre parcel into a 6.46 acre parcel and a 1.82 acre parcel. • This exemption, if approved, would fulfill an agreement with the County and Alvin and Patricia Mosch of the sale of land, at a set price, in exchange for a road and utility easement across the Blue ridge Lode and Capital Lode. The easement was for purposes of accessing the County’s Blue Ridge Subdivision Lots and has been executed and recorded. • The 2.26, 6.09, and 6.46 acre parcels would be conveyed to the Moschs and would be combined with the Senator Lode through a Combination of Lots Agreement. The 28.43 and 1.82 acre parcels will remain in County possession until such time as disposition of the parcels was determined by the County. • The exemption with Al Mosch would create a vested property right.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-90, Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-05. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-91, Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-06. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-92, Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-07. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

177 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT AND DEED SIGNING WITH AL MOSCH: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. Ms. Leben-Vogel made the following statements: • This request was for the approval of a Special Warranty Deed with the Von Mosch Mining Company in the amount of $3919.95; one Special Warranty Deed with Alvin and Patricia Mosch in the amount of $2402.55; and one Combination of Lots Agreement to Von Mosch Mining Company and Alvin and Patricia Mosch for five parcels of land located in Sections 25 & 36, T3SR74W. • The Board of County Commissioners had approved the sale of these five tracts of land to the Moschs, at a specified price of $250 per acre, in exchange for a grant of utility and access easement from the Moschs for Blue Ridge Road across the Blue Ridge and Capital Lodes. • As a condition of sale, the five tracts would be combined with the Senator Lode. As a result of undivided interests in the Senator Lode, two Special Warranty Deeds were needed to complete the transaction.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreements and the Special Warranty Deeds and authorized the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign these documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 6, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 6, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding litigation with the Sams Case in the York Gulch area as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-104, AMENDING COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING FEES: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. Clear Creek Courant reporters Einar Jensen and Shelley Lane, and Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Barta made the following presentation: • The Flu vaccine would increase in price by $2. • The TB and Tetanus vaccines would increase by $5. • The Hepatitis A and B vaccines would increase by $10. • The children vaccines would be left at the $10 price and no child would be denied vaccinations based on ability to pay. • All vaccines were in supply at this time. • These increases were needed in order to balance the cost and administration of the vaccines.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to adopt Resolution #02-104, amending Nursing fees. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

178 UNSCHEDULED APPEARANCES: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE COUNTY TO SUPPORT THE NOMINATION OF THE MILL CITY HOUSE AS AN ENDANGERED HISTORICAL PLACE IN COLORADO: Planner II Ruth Kastens and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Joan Drury made the following presented. Clear Creek Courant reporters Einar Jensen and Shelley Lane, and Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens and Ms. Drury made the following statements: • They wanted to nominate the Mill City House in Dumont as one of the most endangered historical places in Colorado. • This property had been donated to the Mill Creek Historical Society. • In order to register this building with the State Historical Society, the Mill Creek group had to show more use of the structure. • It was presently used for storage. • The foundation would have to be replaced on this building. • The Mill City Historical Society had some funding for a matching grant. • This building could possibly be moved after renovation to the Dumont School site to create a pioneer village.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to endorse the nomination of the Mill City House to the Colorado Most Endangered Historical Places list. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-64, FOR BRENDA & MITCHELL ERWIN, FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER, SILVER LAKES: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. There was no representation from the Erwin party. Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken and Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following statements: • This hearing had been continued from a first May hearing. • The applicant had recently informed the Planning Department that they wished to cancel this hearing and would notify the Planning Department of a date in the future to meet. • As of present, the applicants had informed Ms. Wise that they would not sign the resolution agreement. • Ms. Wise stated that the Board of County Commissioners could deny or continue or approve the case. • The applicants had not yet contacted the Building Department regarding their second story without a building permit and the low roof height. • Ms. Erwin was wanting to use this second level of the home for the child care facility and at present it did not meet building code. • In the previous hearings, the Adjacent Property Owners had concerns with regard to traffic and the bridge stability. Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen had responded that the road and the bridge were fine and this impact would not be a negative use. • Ms. Wise stated that if Ms. Erwin chose not to use the second level of the home for the child care facility, she could have been approved.

Commissioner Poirot did not want to approve the case but to either continue or deny it. Commissioner Sorensen stated that if the issues could be resolved, another day care unit in the County would be a good addition. She added that Ms. Erwin should work with Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken and her department. Commissioner Sorensen was willing to keep the case open for an additional 90 days. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to November 5, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen asked for a copy of the State license application which Ms. Erwin filled out. Ms. Wise added that she also had the State regulations for day care facilities. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WALSTRUM AGGREGATE QUARRY: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following statements:

179 • Mr. Rollenhagen stated that some revisions had been made to highlight property lines and the Official Development Plan boundary. • Some of the quarry owned lands were still zoned MR-1. The quarry had requested that they remain with this zoning. • The second page of the Official Development Plan included the conditions and stipulations for the case. • The third page of the Official Development Plan was the mining plan. • Mr. Rollenhagen was requesting some other changes to the Official Development Plan which were to include a legend for the plan and to correct the parcel numbers. The legend needed to differentiate between parcel boundaries and the Official Development Plan boundaries. • Mr. Rollenhagen stated that this Official Development Plan could be approved contingent on changes or it could be continued.

Commissioner Sorensen asked about the drainage plan and if it was to be completed before expansion. Mr. Rollenhagen replied that this plan was to be completed before the expansion was allowed however, the Official Development Plan could be signed before the plan was submitted. Knight & Piesold would be reviewing the submitted drainage plan. The Board of County Commissioners based on comments from Knight and Piesold would either approve or deny this plan. County Attorney Bob Loeffler suggested making this condition clearer to explain that the drainage plan was due before expansion however the Official Development Plan could be approved before the drainage plan was submitted.

Commissioner Sorensen commented on the sweeping plan to be submitted by the quarry. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that he had received this plan and had submitted it to CDOT for review. CDOT had submitted their comments and these were forwarded to the quarry. This plan also had to be completed before expansion could begin. This plan did not have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Sorensen thought this plan should be attached to the Official Development Plan for people to review. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that it was appropriate to have this plan as a part of the Planning Department file. Commissioner Sorensen stated that these two plans were concerns by the residents in the public hearings and they should be readily available to the public.

Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the approval of the Official Development Plan did not mean that expansion could begin at the quarry. All conditions and stipulations of the Official Development Plan had to be fulfilled in order to proceed on expansion. If the Official Development Plan was approved, Mr. Rollenhagen would send a letter to the quarry stating that it was approved and that all conditions and stipulations must be met before expansion. Commissioner Sorensen emphasized that both of these plans should be on file at all times. County Attorney Bob Loeffler suggested a continuation to allow time for language changes in the stipulations and conditions, and the map changes to be made. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the hearing to September 10, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID CONTRACT FOR FOOTERS AND FOUNDATION WALLS AT THE BROOK FOREST ROAD AND BRIDGE BUILDING: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Planning Director Carol Wise and Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following statements: • Mr. Allen stated that he had received two bids. • One bid was from one company for the foundation walls and the footers. • The second bid was from two companies, one performing the footers and one completing the foundation walls. This bid totaled approximately $22,000. • This was within the budgeted amount.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the bid from Bolas Enterprises and High Country Finishing to complete the footers and foundation walls for the Brook Forest Road and Bridge building. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

180 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PARTIAL RELEASE OF LETTER OF CREDIT FOR PHASE 1-A, SADDLEBACK: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, and Saddleback representatives Rich Cassens and Charles Choi attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following statements: • The Subdivision Improvements Agreement for Saddleback Mountain Subdivision divided the activities into four phases, requiring that a Letter of Credit from an accredited financial institution be posted in an amount always at least equivalent to the phase in progress, and at least 1.635 times the amount set out in Exhibit A of that Agreement. • An Irrevocable Letter of Credit drawn on the State Bank of Wiley was filed with the County on April 17, 2002, covering 1.635 times the cost figures of Phase One of Exhibit A. Those amounts were divided into four sub-phases, the first of which was 1A, involving completion of Saddleback Drive from Santa Fe Mountain Road to Saddle Ridge Road. • Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen had verified that work on this road has been completed in accordance with the required specifications, with the exception of Part 1A(C), Erosion Control and Revegetation. Mr. Vogel had verified completion of the wildfire protection elements of this phase, and had recommended that the revegetation activity not be done until autumn. However, he had directed the developers to repair and maintain the silt fence which was installed for new road construction of Saddleback Drive.

• The applicant had subtracted the revegetation cost amount of $15,192.83 from the total of $286,876.04 held for Phase 1A, and was requesting release of $271,683.21. • A recent letter had been received from Mr. Vogel stating that the silt fence had been repaired. • Staff recommended approval of this partial release of collateral.

Commissioner Poirot stated that he preferred the revegetation times to be more flexible rather than have poor results. Mr. Choi agreed to work with the landscaping company to revegetate at the ideal time to be successful. Staff agreed to leave this requirement more flexible. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the partial release of Letter of Credit for Subphase 1A for Saddleback Mountain Development Corporation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Ms. Wise confirmed that Saddleback Mountain Development had met all terms within the release and final inspections had been completed by Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel. The vote was unanimous.

CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-100, BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE #02-AX-6, FOR MCBRIDE AND MORRIS- FRANCIS, UTE CREEK ROAD: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to August 13, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. due to the applicants being out of town. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS TO LEASE WATER FOR MILL CREEK PARK AND WESTERN INN: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, County Engineer Ed Rapp, and Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: • Mr. Weaver presented short term agreements to lease water to Mill Creek Park and the Western Inn. • Mr. Weaver urged these lessees to be diligent in their pursuit of other possible water supplies as the County had a limited supply of water for economic diversification. • Mill Creek Park was requesting .15 acre feet per month from August 2002 to July 2003 totaling 1.8 acre feet. • Mr. Weaver suggested only obligating the lease for the County’s water year and leasing only 1.2 acre feet to the Mill Creek Park. • This water would be leased at $1000 per acre foot with in house use only. • Mr. Weaver stated that for the Western Inn, Mary Ann Dalpes had been pursuing water diligently and they had an immediate cease and desist order on their water usage.

181 • The City Council of Idaho Springs did approve water for the Western Inn but rescinded when they realized that they did not have direct flow in storage to lease out. • Water for the Western Inn was only needed in August of 2002 and February of 2003. • The Western Inn was requesting .16 acre feet per month for a total of .32 acre feet.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the water lease agreement with Mill Creek Park for 1.2 acre feet at $1200 for in house use only. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen asked if the water call would remain in effect through the winter. Mr. Weaver stated that the Water Commissioner had confirmed this to be expected. The vote was unanimous.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the water lease agreement with the Western Inn for .32 acre feet for August and February. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 8, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following issues: • To discuss the Pest Control Act and Colorado Revised Statues 35-9-120 and 35-9-610(6) as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b); • To discuss Division of Property Tax Manual 6.15 to consider confidentiality of taxpayer information and the valuation of producing mines as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b); • To discuss non-disclosure provisions, Part 2, Article 72, Part 24, as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(g);

Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 13, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

182 AMBULANCE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE AUTHORITY DISCUSSION: This hearing was changed to a working session.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ANNUAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FUNDING REQUEST WITH CLEAR CREEK RADIO: Clear Creek Radio representatives Greg Markle and Mark Cucinella presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane, and Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Markle and Mr. Cucinella made the following presentation: • The County had supported the radio station in th past two years. • The Intergovernmental Agreement was up for review each year as to whether the County wanted to continue support. • They were here to request the 2002 allotment. • The Intergovernmental Agreement allowed the radio station to move forward and broadcast to the entire community. • This radio station allowed for a political forum for candidates and elected officials to discuss important issues. • The radio station was also focusing on an emergency alert system which they were not required to have but wanted to help the community. It was a good way to reach people that were traveling on I-70 and in case of evacuations. • The $5000 annual request for 2002 would assist in offsetting costs with the transmitter and the site development for the new antenna. • The radio station was hoping to be on the air by the first of October.

Mr. Small stated that the $5000 for the radio station had been earmarked in the sales tax list for this annual request. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the annual funding request of $5000 for Clear Creek Radio according to the Intergovernmental Agreement which the Board of County Commissioners signed in 1999. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QUIT CLAIM DEED TO ANTHONY ALLEN AND LAURA GUNDERSON: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane attended the hearing. Mr. Smith stated that this deed was necessary in order to clear up an inaccurate legal description. The title company found this discrepancy when the Allen/Gunderson party bought the parcel. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the quit claim deed to Anthony Allen and Laura Gunderson and for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the deed. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH ST. PAUL’S PARISH FOR USE OF THE BUILDING: County Attorney Bob Loeffler presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler made the following statements: • As of the last hearing, the County was researching whether their insurance policy, CAPP, would additionally insure the parish. • Accounting Clerk Cate Camp was researching this with CAPP but was now out of town. • Mr. Loeffler noted that another paragraph in the agreement accomplished the same end as the insurance policy by agreeing to indemnify the parish. • Mr. Loeffler stated that the County could demonstrate that they had insurance but didn’t know if St. Paul’s could be added as an additionally insured. • Mr. Loeffler stated that the Board of County Commissioners could approve the agreement contingent on discussions with CAPP on including St. Paul’s or just agreeing to indemnify.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the agreement for use of the building with St. Paul’s Parish Hall and to allow the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the agreement. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen stated that the parish was showing good faith by not charging for use of the building. The vote was unanimous.

183 CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-100, BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE #02-AX-06, FOR MCBRIDE AND MORRIS- FRANCIS, UTE CREEK ROAD: Planner I Tony Atencio presented. In attendance were Planner II Ruth Kastens, Planning Director Carol Wise, Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane, Della Morris-Francis, Timothy Alexander, John Brennan, Thomas Scott, and Deann McBride. Mr. Atencio made the following statements: • After the last hearing, Mr. Atencio was tasked with researching the history of one of the roads in the area of these properties. A land survey plat had been brought forth by Ms. Morris-Francis showing a 50-foot easement down this particular road to Ute Creek Road. • From Mr. Atencio’s research, none of the plats, etc show that the easement had to be 50- feet wide. • Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen was surprised to learn that this easement was drawn as s 50-foot easement as the County normally utilized the existing footprint. • This could present a dilemma as one of the mining claims was only 150-feet wide and with this road easement and setbacks, there would not be much left to build on. • Letters were received from Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen and from the Forest Service. • The Forest Service had 2 portions along this road and they had claimed to never having given any permission or denied permission on this sections of this particular road. Historically, people had been using this road since 1905. Ms. Morris-Francis stated that this road truncated her land. From the aerial photos, it showed that the road continued on beyond the Francis property. Mr. Alexander claimed that the road ended at the Francis house. • The Road and Bridge Department and the Forest Service stated that this particular road had been used historically for mining and accessing private property. • Mr. Atencio stated that the 50-foot easement was too wide. • Mr. Atencio was also unsure if the public could use this particular road for access to Forest Service lands. • Mr. Atencio asked the surveyor, that completed the land survey plat for the Francis’, how he determined the 50-foot easement. The surveyor had replied that he had worked for Jefferson County for 30+ years and Jefferson County used the 50-foot standard so it was implemented on this plat. In the end, the surveyor stated that Ms. Morris-Francis had claimed a 50-foot easement as well. This large of an easement was acceptable but only on the Francis land. For the Ingo B claim and the Forest Service lands, the 50-foot easement could not be utilized. Commissioner Sorensen stated that an easement amount needed to be agreed upon and put on the plat for the McBrides. Mr. Atencio stated that the McBrides agreed to give an easement for the road and drainage. Commissioner Sorensen requested that the accesses and their widths needed to be clarified as new parcels were being created and whoever would own those new parcels would need to know their easements and setback requirements. She suggested measuring the prescriptive easement and putting it on the plat. • The Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen had stated that the width standard was 18-feet so that people could pass each other on the roadway. At present, this road was pretty wide. Mr. Alexander replied that the NFPA standards state that the road has to be 24-feet wide. Commissioner Poirot stated that if the road was 18-feet wide, he would accept that width. Mr. Atencio reminded the audience that the McBrides were willing to grant easement on this particular road and they did not have to do this. Commissioner Sorensen stated that she rejected the surveyor’s contention of a 50-ft easement on these lands and on Ute Creek Road. She asked the County Attorney if this surveyor’s document had to be accepted as a document of record for the Board of County Commissioners decision making. County Attorney Bob Loeffler replied that anything could be recorded but it did not make it a legal effect. From the comments, Mr. Loeffler stated that it was fair to say that the plat did not have meaning on this application. This plat could be ignored for road widths. Mr. Loeffler understood from Mr. Atencio that the status of the road was unknown. It could be prescriptive. The County was also unsure as to whether the road was RS 2477 or whether there was a status with the Forest Service. The Board of County Commissioners may just want to recognize that there was a road.

184 • Mr. Atencio stated that he had found two other documents regarding this particular road. One docuement was from Mr. Brennan showing that he did use the Black Lion and this road as access to his property. The McBride’s had agreed to an easement for the road through the Black Lion mining claim. The driveway standard was 12-feet and a driveway could service up to three homes. Mr. Alexander disagreed stating that if the road was the only “one way in-one way out”, it had to be 24-feet wide for protection of life and property, against wildfire. Commissioner Poirot disagreed stating that there were many roads in the County that did not meet the 24-foot standard. He continued that this road had been in existence since 1905 but it was not an adopted County road. Mr. Alexander disagreed stating this road was a private road since it was used only by the Francis’, McBrides, and the Brennans. Commissioner Poirot disagreed stating that it was public if it had existed since 1905. Mr. Alexander stated that if the County was adopting this road, then it needed to meet the 24-foot standard and the switchbacks needed to be 100-feet. He added that none of Ute Creek Road met this standard and there were many dwellings on this road. • Mr. Atencio stated that only one residence was presently accessed off this particular road across the Black Lion mining claim. He added that the potential number of residences was at least seven as the Francis’ had five mining claims all zoned M-1 and this new boundary line exemption would create two new parcels. • Mr. Atencio stated that the road accessing the McBrides land (#10 on attached map) would meet driveway standards. The road accessing the Francis’ land would also meet driveway standards. Mr. Loeffler stated that this would be acceptable access. Commissioner Sorensen agreed stating that this 12-ft access would be sufficient. Ms. Kastens noted that there was a difference in standard between driveway and road standards. Mr. Alexander stated that he had to abide by these standards to build their home and now the County had to abide by them with the roads. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the County should not have to debate their standards in this hearing. The County could invite Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel to discuss the standard applicable to this case. At present, the Board of County Commissioners was just trying to ensure access to these newly created claims. The second issue was to access across the Forest Service lands. The lower claims had access from Ute Creek Road but the upper claims had to have access determined. This would assist someone buying these claims to know their limitations imposed by the existence of the roadway.

Mr. Loeffler continued that with this case, the County needed to know the minimum access they would require and to ensure this minimum. The County needed to be sure that these new lots had an access that met County standards. The Board could either continue this hearing and determine a definite size of the access or the Board could accept the access as it was now. Ms. Wise noted that for mining claims used residentially, they had to meet setbacks and the M-1 zoning requirements. If the property was used for mining, it did not have to meet driveway standards.

Regarding the RMCS survey of the Black Lion, the loop shown with #8 and #9 were the Brennan’s access to their property. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the roads to be recognized were #6, #8, #9, and #10. Mr. Atencio stated that both of these roads were consistent with Resolution #98-181, regarding historic roads. Commissioner Sorensen stated that they were not recognizing historic roads at this hearing but they were clarifying access. This access needed to be put in writing for future land owners. Mr. Loeffler stated that the County would recognize these newly created parcels and it would demonstrate on a plat where the access was and this access would be fixed so future developers would know their limitations.

Ms. Morris-Francis made the following statements: • Would the new lots be buildable? This new map did not show precedent numbers on the mining claims. Would there still be two acres of land with the prescriptive easement proposed? Mr. Atencio replied that there would be 2.49 acres without the road. Ms. Kastens added that with an easement, this was owned by the property owner and could be counted as acreage. If the County owned the easement, then it was excluded from the acreage. In this case, the McBrides owned the land and were allowing other uses, i.e., the easement.

185 • Ms. Morris-Francis asked how wide the road would be with the drainage? Mr. Atencio replied that the drainage ditch should only be 1-2 feet. Commissioner Sorensen stated that it was important to define the easement today. The Forest Service would define their own easements. The Black Lion mining claim would have to have the easements defined on a plat. Mr. Atencio stated that the McBrides would give an easement for the footprint in place at present.

Commissioner Sorensen suggested that the applicant dedicate the easement in a plat. Commissioner Poirot did not want to survey the roads. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that a centerline measurement would be preferable. He suggested asking the applicants to have the survey completed. The County needed an access that was suitable under the regulations. If the County had adopted these NFPA standards then they would be the County regulations too. It needed to be determined if the County had adopted the NFPA regulations in the past. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the hearing to August 27, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. She asked if the applicants were wiling to have a survey completed of the centerline easement on these two roads where the new parcels were created and the width of the easements to be determined by the County regulations. Mr. Atencio would discuss this with the applicants. Mr. Loeffler stated that if the applicants did not want to pay for the survey, the Board could approve the application with the footprint as an assisting road in the application. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT AND DEED SIGNING FOR THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES IN THE BLUE RIDGE AREA; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE BLUE RIDGE ROAD EXEMPTION AND LAND SURVEY PLAT; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES DEED SIGNING FOR THE EDGAR MINE PARCELS; CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF REPLACEMENT EASEMENT FOR BLUE RIDGE ROAD FROM ESTHER AND LAFAYETTE BLAIR: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel and Planner II Holland Smith presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel presented the land survey plat. She had obtained the last easement and now a 60-foot easement from Lot 1 to Lot 7 was complete dedicating a 60-ft easement on County lands. The plat included a closeup of the survey and legal descriptions of the lots and of the non-motorized trail. There was also a utility easement from the Colorado School of Mines for power for all seven lots. A replacement easement from the Blairs was included for the travel across Lots 2 and 3. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the final plat. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The Board also approved the replacement easement with the Blairs.

Mr. Smith presented the deed signing for the Edgar Mine parcels and the Combination of Lots Agreement with the Colorado School of Mines. The first document was a Combination of Lots Agreement for 12 parcels for the Colorado School of Mines and a Special Warranty Deed for these 12 parcels of County lands. This was part of the Blue Ridge plat and an agreement with the Colorado School of Mines to grant the County a portion of their lands. These agreements totaled $650 in Sections 25 & 26, T3SR74W. The County Assessor Diane Settle was comfortable with this value on the properties. The acreage totaled 3.84 acres. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the 8 Combination of Lots Agreements combining the 12 parcels and the Special Warranty Deeds and that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners sign the documents. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Smith presented the second deed to the Colorado School of Mines which had been agreed to be given to them under the R&PP Act for educational purposes as verified by Andy Senti of the BLM. This would be 35 parcels of land totaling 25.6 acres in T3SR73W for zero dollars. All of these lands were not being required a Combination of Lots Agreement but they were all contiguous to the Colorado School of Mines property or had been processed and unwanted by other contiguous owners. This land would be used by the Colorado School of Mines for surveying courses. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deed transferring these lands to the Colorado School of Mines totaling 35 parcels and 25.6 acres

186 in Sections 25, 26, and 35, and that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners could sign the documents. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PARTIAL RELEASE OF LETTER OF CREDIT FOR PHASE 1-B, SADDLEBACK: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane and Saddleback representative Rich Cassens attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following statements: • The applicants had met the requirements for this release. • There was an agreement with the applicants for written application of release of this phase with a stamped statement from a licensed engineer in accordance with approved design. • This statement had been received by the Planning Department and final inspections had been completed by Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel. • The applicants were requesting a partial release of credit totaling $164,698.46 representing the full amount of Phase 1-B.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the release of the partial letter of credit for phase 1-B for Saddleback Development Corporation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice to discuss the Henderson Mine appraisal as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 20, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Vice Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Chairman Fabyan Watrous was absent.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR ATKINS/MANGUS IN SECTION 34; TEMPLE IN SECTION 20; NIGG IN SECTION 23; SMITH IN SECTION 21; MCMAHON IN SECTION 29; ALL IN T3SR73W; AND SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FOR AUNE IN SECTION 20; AND FOR COX IN SECTION 31, BOTH IN T3SR73W: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski stated that five Combination of Lots Agreements and Special Warranty Deeds for Atkins/Mangus, Temple, Nigg, Smith and McMahon were presented and all parcels were zoned M-2. The Aune and Cox parties had only Special Warranty Deeds to be signed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deeds and Combination of Lots Agreements for the above parties and for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR THE ERIKSSON PARTY FOR TWO TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 19 & 20, T3SR73W; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF UTILITY EASEMENT FO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

187 LOCATED IN SECTION 20, T3SR73W; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT TO THE ERIKSSON PARTY LOCATED IN SECTION 20, T3SR7EW; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT FROM THE ERIKSSON PARTY TO THE COUNTY LOCATED IN SECTION 20, T3SR73W: Senior Planner Lisa Vogel and Planner II Holland Smith presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane attended the hearing. Mr. Smith presented the following: • The Erikssons were granting the county a 60-foot utility and road easement to County land lots F, S and G in the Wild Wagoner area across the east end of the Paragon Lode. • In exchange the County Lands department was selling the Erikssons two tracts of land for $999 to be combined with their parcel the Paragon Lode. • Mr. Smith presented the Special Warranty Deed and the Combination of Lots Agreements for this arrangement. • Secondly, the County Lands department was granting the Erikssons driveway access across a portion of Government Survey Lot 34 in the amount of $1. • Lastly, Mr. Smith noted that there would be a deed restriction for Lot S showing the driveway access. On the Eriksson driveway permit, they would be restricted to the driveway only and no other rights on the land. • With these agreements from the Erikssons, the three lots F, S, and G were ready to market.

• The County Lands department did take the opportunity to survey the road through this area.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deeds, Combination of Lots Agreements, the driveway easement, and the road and utility easement with the Eriksson party and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Smith presented the Public Service Company easement which would cross Lot S/Government Survey Lot 24 to accommodate Lots F, S, and G. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Public Service Company easement and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the document. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF HOTEL/RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR MARIETTA GRILLE INC. D.B.A. MARIETTA GRILLE; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF PREMISES FOR KERMITS LIQUOR LICENSE AND RENEWAL OF HOTEL/RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR KERMITS INC.: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane and Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler attended. Ms. Reimer presented the following information regarding the Marietta Grille: • All forms had been submitted and all fees were paid. • All departments were in approval of the renewal of this license for the Marietta Grille.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the hotel/restaurant liquor license for Marietta Grille Inc. d.b.a. Marietta Grille. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Reimer presented the following information regarding the renewal of license for Kermits: • This was the annual renewal of the Kermits liquor license. • All fees and forms had been submitted for the renewal. • All departments were in approval of the renewal. • Kermits was in compliance with no violations of County regulations.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the renewal of liquor license for Kermits. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Reimer presented the following information for the modification of premises for Kermits:

188 • This would be a temporary modification in accordance with a map submitted by Kermits to allow for additional seating and a food stand. • Kermits had paid the $150 fee to alter the premises and the $150 fee to put things back in original location. • Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson had approved this proposal. • The temporary expansion would be fenced off and the containment area had been reviewed with the owner.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that this expansion could not extend into the road or the old road behind Kermits. Commissioner Sorensen requested that clarification of the road behind Kermits be confirmed to assure that access would not be blocked for property owners behind the restaurant during this temporary expansion. Planner II Fred Rollenhagen clarified that this road was not the access discussed at the Frei Quarry hearing and this road was also not the road utilized for cell site access. With this clarification, Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the temporary modification of premises for Kermits on Labor Day Weekend. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN TRAILHEAD WILDERNESS SCHOOL AND CLEAR CREEK YOUTH SERVICES: County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that the Youth Services program received grant funding for the Right Track program which Trailhead Wilderness School administers. This contract for services stated that Trailhead Wilderness School would perform what the grant required. Two amendments were made to the contract regarding language. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Contract for Services between Clear Creek County Youth Services and Trailhead Wilderness School. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS:

#02-111, Phil Fisher, Rental Cabins in Empire: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Phil Fisher attended the hearing. After discussions with the Assessor’s department, Ms. Settle recommended a downward adjustment from $540,220 to $466,790 based on condition. Mr. Fisher agreed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-109, Betsy Berarducci, Fall River Road: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Betsy Berarducci attended. Ms. Berarducci stated that this was a vacant mining claim with no access and was on the side of a steep bank. This land was bought so no one would build on it. Ms. Settle recommended that there be a downward adjustment due to no access and a refund in taxes of $83.33. Ms. Berarducci agreed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-110, Lela Sponsel, Silver Plume: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. and Ms. Sponsel attended the hearing. Mr. Sponsel stated that they had purchased the lot adjacent to their parcel. This lot was vacant. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was filed for the years 200 and 2001. The Notice of Determination was filed for 2002. The Assessor’s office had already adjusted this land as a residential use. The abatement was recommended as denial for 2000 since the Sponsels did not own it at this time and an adjustment for 2001 to residential. The refund would total $555.80. The Sponsels agreed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-96, Lawrence Stuart, Chicago Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Lawrence Stuart attended the hearing. Ms. Settle stated that this case had been continued so that the Board of County Commissioners would examine the comparables in this case. This land was next to the Idaho Springs Reservoir. Ms. Settle recommended a downward adjustment from $55,890 to $42,810 due to limited access, no water, no sewer, and the greywater had to be carried out. Mr.

189 Stuart stated that he wanted to keep this land for his grandkids but the taxes kept increasing. There would be no homes in the area due to the Mount Evans Wilderness Area and a septic system was not allowed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-107, Laurie Crow, Hyland Hills: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Ms. Crow did not attend the hearing. Ms. Settle stated that her recommendation on value was to adjust it from $30,190 to $23,470. This would reduce taxes by $156. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-108, C.J. Galbraith, Winterland Subdivision: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. This hearing was continued as the notice of hearing was not received by Ms. Galbraith.

#02-112, The Estate of Steven J. Peters, York Gulch: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Peters group. Ms. Settle stated that Mr. Peters claimed no access. After completing a site visit, Ms. Settle was positive that a road crossed this property and it was historic mining access. Ms. Settle recommended denial of this abatement as the comparables supported the value. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-113, Steve Anderson, Berthoud Falls: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Anderson group. Ms. Settle stated that this was a cabin in Berthoud Falls that was valued at $46,990 and the Assessor’s records showed that this cabin had a bathroom which it did not. Therefore, Ms. Settle recommended an adjustment to $28,890. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-114, Mario and Danielle Florek, Empire: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Florek group. Ms. Settle stated that this parcel was valued at $36,380. The Floreks complaint was that the value had tripled. Ms. Settle stated that this cabin was undervalued before. This was a Forest Service cabin and Ms. Settle recommended denial. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-115, Frank Silva and Carol Klassens, Homestead Hideaway: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Silva/Klassens party. Ms. Settle stated that this parcel was vacant land and was valued at $5440 with comparables supporting the value. Ms. Settle recommended denial of this abatement. Commissioner Sorensen noted that if the taxpayer wanted to lower their taxes, they could combine their lots. Commissioner Poirot motioned to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-116, Claude and Eileen Stanton, Virginia Canyon: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Stanton group. Ms. Settle stated that the Stanton’s owned four mining claims that were very steep. Ms. Settle recommended a downward adjustment to $200 per acre due to topography. The parcels were zoned M-1. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-117, Thomas Gillen, Brook Forest Estates: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Gillen group. Ms. Settle stated that Mr. Gillen actually had two abatements. For #02-117A, Ms. Settle stated that this property was adjusted from $16,640 to $15,240. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation on #02-117Aof the downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

190 For #02-117B, Mr. Gillen had written that this land was very sloping and had no view. Mr. Gillen requested that the taxes be the same as #02-117A. Ms. Settle recommended denial of this abatement due to the comparable sales supporting the value and that Mr. Gillen had purchased the land for $34,000. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation on #02-117B of denial. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF STATE OF COLORADO WIC CONTRACT WITH CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane and Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Barta made the following statements: • This contract was the same as the contract from the prior year. • The WIC program continued to increase in the numbers served • The WIC staff did not expect any decreases in the numbers. • Ms. Barta agreed to research the new HIPPA legislation which was tied to this contract. • Ms. Barta would work with Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault on the HIPPA issue.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the WIC Contract between the State of Colorado and Clear Creek County and the Nursing Department. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and noted that the contract was not to exceed $19,784. The motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF OFFER ON COUNTY LANDS PARCEL #1837- 24-1-00-951 FROM LAURA AND SHANE ROBERTSON; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT WITH DENISE WHALEY AND ACCEPTANCE OF ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT FOR BLUE RIDGE ROAD; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF 20-FT TRAIL EASEMENT FROM QUINN FAMILY TRUST AND LOUISE THOMPSON, ACROSS CAPITAL LODE AND SILVER ROCK LODE, BLUE RIDGE: Senior Planner Lisa Vogel presented. County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that the first item would be moved to an Executive Session hearing since it was negotiations regarding a parcel of land.

Regarding the contract with Denise Whaley who owned 1/3 interest in the American Eagle Lode, this was the last group to obtain an easement from on Blue Ridge Road. A road and utility easement for Blue Ridge Road was provided by Ms. Whaley. A deed would be following.. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract and the road/utility easement with Denise Whaley and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the 20-foot trail easement across two lots in Blue Ridge Estates for non-motorized use, Ms. Vogel presented the easements from the Quinn Family Trust and Louise Thompson. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the easements and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DATA SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN UPPER CLEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION AND THE CLEAR CREEK MAPPING DEPARTMENT: Mapping Director Matt Taylor presented. Mr. Taylor made the following presentation: • Mr. Taylor stated that he had been approached by R. L. Jones of the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association requesting a large amount of data. • It was the Mapping Department’s policy to share data and to have an agreement. • Mr. Taylor had provided a list of the types of data that the Mapping Department possessed and asked Mr. Jones which data he wanted. • Mr. Taylor was unsure of how the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association would use the data.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern on the membership of Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association and their rights to request this data. A recipient had the right to give or sell the data if

191 requested under public records laws. County Attorney Robert Loeffler added that the recipient would have to acknowledge that the County owned this information and that the County did not attest to its accuracy. Mr. Loeffler added that he was unsure if Mr. Jones had the authority of the watershed to enter into a contract with the County. Mr. Loeffler requested that the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association as an entity should approve and sign the data sharing agreement. Commissioner Poirot made the motion not to take action on this data sharing agreement with the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association unless a formal request from the watershed group was received. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Taylor stated that he had also been approached by Administrative Intern Tim Mauck that THK, Master Plan Consultants, were requesting information from CDOT through Clear Creek County. Mr. Taylor had spoken with CDOT’s GIS coordinator and they were accepting to a data sharing agreement. County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that the County needed an agreement to protect the County. The agreement basically stated that the County’s data could be wrong and it assisted in limiting liability. Mr. Loeffler stated that anything shared with CDOT should be a hard copy stamped with the County stating that it cannot assure the accuracy of the maps. Mr. Taylor replied that he could seal the CD-Rom of the data and when the seal was broken CDOT was officially accepting the terms that the County data may not be accurate. The Board approved the data sharing agreement with CDOT.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 27, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO MILL CREEK PARK WATER LEASE CONTRACT: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. In attendance were Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Mill Creek Park representatives Tom Bath and James Nussbaum, and Chief Accountant Carl Small. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: • The County had reached an agreement with the Mill Creek Park Water and Improvement Association. • With regard to the .15 acre feet that the County was leasing to Mill Creek Park Water and Improvement Association beginning in August and ending March of 2003, the County had released the water last Thursday. Payment was needed from Mill Creek Park Water and Improvement Association and that they continue seeking other sources of water. • Mill Creek Park Water and Improvement Association was requesting another year lease after this one to catch up in Water Court. They were unsure of how long the Water Court process would take. • All small users would have to complete this process in order for the County to release water to them. With the help of the Water Commissioner, the County was able to assist the Mill Creek Park Water and Improvement Association. Mr. Bath agreed stating that his group was trying not to complete Water Court as it would cost more for the attorney than the water itself.

Commissioner Poirot asked why this area did not opt for individual wells as most of these lots had building sites. Mr. Bath had discussed this with Water Commissioner Samenfink and due to the mineralized area, these homes would want surface treated water not well water. Mr. Weaver agreed stating that with the approval of the Water Association Filing at the State, this area could

192 have abandoned individual rights. Mr. Nussbaum stated that this was a consideration for their association.

Mr. Weaver stated that this agreement was to correct some flaws in the former agreement for the same time period. The second request was to renew the Mill Creek Park Water and Improvement Association lease for next year. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that since the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation was currently working on a water leasing policy for the County, that the renewal should wait until the policy was complete. Mr. Bath stated that if they went to Water Court in 2003, they would need an agreement in hand from the County to get through that process. Commissioner Poirot suggested that the County sign the agreement for the present time period and then allow Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation three months to complete the water leasing policy for the County. This would allow for time before the Mill Creek Park Water and Improvement Association had to appear before the Water Court. Mr. Weaver added that the association should assemble a request for 2003 for him to include in his water budget for 2003. Mr. Bath replied that it would be difficult to determine what would be needed. Mr. Loeffler stated that it was better to have a definite demand instead of an option. The County could not sell water to others, they would end up holding the water. Mr. Weaver recommended that the association plan ahead and request for water. Commissioner Sorensen stated that a large concern in this issue was the County’s ability to purchase water. People were coming forward to lease water after the County had already purchased for the anticipated need. The County did not know that other people would be coming forward to request water. The County had limited money in which to buy water too. If the County did not know who was coming forward in the budget, then they would have to prioritize. Mr. Bath replied that his association wanted equal treatment for equal needs. He added that they would sign the present agreement and make the future request contingent on future information and the County’s future policy on water leasing. Commissioner Sorensen recommended that the Mill Creek Park Water and Improvement Association attend the hearings when the policy was adopted. Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Bath agreed stating that they were in favor of the process moving forward. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the water lease agreement with Mill Creek Park Water and Improvement Association for water release from August 2002 to March of 2003 at a price of $1200. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen stated that the County was considering a taxing entity to become a Water Authority which would deal with water problems in unincorporated Clear Creek County. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QWEST AGREEMENT WITH INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Information Services Director Mary Johnson presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane, and Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young attended. Ms. Johnson made the following statements: • Ms. Johnson presented a group of agreements for the upgrading of the frame relay line coming into the building and separating the County internet from the network lines for better security. • This was planned in the Information Services budget and they were also planning to upgrade the internet speed for faster research. • The agreements were for a difference in the contract of $4.90.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve all of the agreements with Qwest and Information Services related to the frame relay service agreement. Commissioner Sorensen seconds. During discussion, County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that if the order form did not change the terms of the agreement, Ms. Johnson could sign for this. The Board agreed and the motion was amended to allow Ms. Johnson to sign the work orders under the these conditions. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-106, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-TSUP-10, FOR SUE ORWIG TO BUILD A GARAGE PRIOR TO RESIDENCES, SOUTH SPRING GULCH, BOUILLON KING I: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. In attendance were applicant Sue Orwig and Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane. Ms. Kastens made the following statements: • The Bullion King No. 1, M.S. #14705 was located on the road going to the Ida cell site, approximately 1.8 miles from the intersection with Highway 103.

193 • The request was to construct a 900 sq. ft. garage for storage prior to building a primary residence. If approved the permit would expire December 31, 2004 or at the time of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the single family residence, whichever occurs first. • The well has been drilled, driveway and defensible space permits have been issued and the applicant was currently working with an engineer on the septic system design. • Adjacent property owners and review agencies were notified by mail on August 1, 2002. • Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on August 7 and the property was posted August 2. • Charles & Lue Howard, adjacent property owners, responded they had reviewed the proposal and had no conflicts. • County Lands and Site Development Departments both responded they had reviewed the proposal and had no conflicts. • Chris Etcheson, Environmental Health Specialist, responded that several pieces of information concerning the proposed ISDS system for this development have been received, however, this information has not been adequate for a complete review. • The applicant submitted an engineered septic design after your packets went out last Thursday, however, after Chris Etcheson reviewed the submittal he responded that soil testing information was not included and therefore still recommends that Stipulation #6 in the draft Resolution be required. • Staff believes the application meets the criteria for approval as stated in the staff report and recommends approval subject to the stipulations and conditions as stated in the attached draft Resolution 02-106. • Ms. Orwig had agreed to obtain an ISDS permit before the garage was constructed. • On the construction schedule, the Orwigs had only six months once the permit was issued but they actually had one year. • This parcel was almost five acres in size.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit for the Orwigs and Resolution #02-106 with the conditions stated. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Ms. Orwig asked if the financial guarantee could be waived. Mr. Loeffler replied that this guarantee was for the removal of the structure if the final construction was not completed. If the primary home was not built, then the temporary structure would be illegal. The Board did not waive the financial guarantee. The vote was unanimous.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice with regard to a personnel issue as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR KEN SIVITS, TRAIL CREEK ROAD: Zoning Specialist Staci Writer presented. Building Permit Coordinator Lynette Kelsey and Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this was one of the properties on Trail Creek Road which had conflicts with the Mountsfield Claim that the County owned. Normally, the County would deed over the portion of the Mountsfield that was in conflict. However, Mr. Sivits had zoning violations with the County Planning Department and he had not complied with County regulations. He recommended that the County not assist Mr. Sivits until the zoning violations were resolved. The Board agreed and denied the Quit Claim Deed for Mr. Sivits. Mr. Loeffler would contact Mr. Sivits and inform him of the situation.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-119, APPOINTMENT OF TOM CANDLIN AND CRAIG ABRAHAMSON TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF FRETAC: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson and Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the Board of County Commissioners needed to appoint three County representatives to the FRETAC however, the County only had two representatives at this time and would seek another. County Attorney Bob Loeffler requested that appointments such as these be made by resolution. Commissioner Poirot

194 made the motion to approve Resolution #02-119, to appoint Tom Candlin and Craig Abrahamson to the Board of Directors of FRETAC. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION FOR COUNTY RESIDENTS: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. In attendance were Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken, Project Support Director Rose True, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Senior’s Resource Center representatives’ Director of the Yellow House Jane Weinberger, Director of Transportation Services Jane Yeager, Transportation Coordinator Debbie Corthell, and John Zabawa. Mr. Abrahamson made the following statements: • He wanted to discuss a generalized topic of non-emergency transportation for County residents. • Through the neighborhood paramedic program, the County Ambulance Department had been visiting mobility impaired patients. • The Ambulance Department had trying to organize specialty services like transporting chemotherapy patients to their appointments in the County. • These patients had requested a program to provide these types of transportation services. • These types of services existed throughout the County and through friends and neighbors but they were not completely consistent to make the service hassle free. These types of patients did not need an added burden of finding transportation. • One chemotherapy patient in the County had needed five weeks of chemotherapy treatment 5 days a week and had organized 17 people to get her to the hospital for these appointments. • The Ambulance Department and the County had organized this hearing to attempt to find a solution for this transportation problem.

Mr. Zabawa made the following comments: • Due to the close proximity of the Yellow House to Clear Creek County, the transportation services could be based from the Yellow House. • Mr. Zabawa had met with the Board of County Commissioners last month to discuss the medicaid transportation issue with regard to the new State regulations being implemented on October 1, 2002. This legislation would put the responsibility onto the counties to organize this type of transportation. • Mr. Zabawa was interested in working with Clear Creek County and they needed to identify the providers and bring the resources together. • Mr. Zabawa’s company had their own fleet of vehicles and they also served as a broker for finding transportation through other providers.

Ms. Yeager made the following comments: • There was a solution for Clear Creek County out here but it would take many different meetings with people to find it. • There were many low medicaid providers in Denver but the rural areas could be costly with transportation systems. • A volunteer base was a good start for Clear Creek County. • There were also funding sources out there that Clear Creek County could pursue to assist their program i.e., Title 3 Federal Dollars, Older American dollars, CDOT Section 53.11 funds, and dollars for capital purchases for vehicles. There would also be medicaid dollars to assist a program. • Throughout the nation, rural transportation was a big issue. Rural areas needed to build in transportation not only for medicaid needs.

Ms. Corthell made the following statements: • Ms. Corthell had been able to address the more difficult requests for transportation. • Ms. Corthell had transported people early in the morning for surgery and had tried to make use of time while waiting for the clients in surgery. • Her clientele consisted of many chemotherapy and dialysis patients. • Ms. Corthell services also understood the importance of volunteers.

195 • Early morning and late night transportation could be cost prohibitive, so they tried to use volunteers.

Mr. Zabawa made the following statements: • His company estimated the cost of transportation at $22 for one way. • With the new reimbursement rates instituted by the State, it would be difficult for drivers in rural areas driving a long way. Most costs probably would not be covered. • The State had set a ceiling on what they would reimburse on transportation providers and what they would reimburse on a per mile basis. • For clients in a mobility van, it would cost $12 for the first 12 miles. It would cost $1.33 per mile after that. The medicaid reimbursement rate was set by the State. • If residents were not medicaid eligible, some sources like the Title 3 funds were a good idea.

Ms. True made the following statements: • She was the program supervisor for the Volunteers of America. • Her program did receive Title 3 dollars and their transportation costs were spread over three programs: meals on wheels, congregate nutrition, and senior day trips. • The drivers were paid from three funds which kept the costs low. • Her program experienced many of the same problems as the Seniors Resource Center. They had early morning personalized trips to Denver. They tried to use volunteers and Mt. Evans Homecare. • Ms. True stated that her program could not afford to provide the weekly dialysis trips as the would require another full time driver. • She encouraged Clear Creek County to utilize the broker trips. • Her program provided trips to Denver, shopping trips for clients to purchase groceries, special shopping trips which included Wal-Mart, and recreational outings. • Her program did not charge the seniors but they did ask for donations on the recreational trips. • The transportation piece to her program totaled $30,000 per year for Clear Creek County residents that were over 60 years of age.

Mr. Zabawa made the following statements: • His organization did have a federal grant that Clear Creek County was included in the service area, i.e., the Title 5 Senior Employment Program. They had one senior aid slot for Clear Creek County. • Clear Creek County and Park County had supported a grant to expand the Yellow House day care center for seniors. • This day program for seniors included Clear Creek County seniors. If the Clear Creek County seniors needed transportation, the Yellow House could provide it.

Ms. Weinberger made the following statements: • The Seniors Resource Center had diversified transportation services. • They also had a volunteer program. • The Seniors Resource Center did have a grant to pay mileage to volunteers and then applied for a grant to reimburse volunteers for more mileage. • They had a Mountain Wheels program to Denver and Evergreen for shopping and medical needs. In March, they received a contract with RTD for a Call and Ride program. This entialed two green buses in Evergreen, Monday through Saturday. This program provided curb service with a one hour call in advance. • Seniors, Middle School youth, and employees utilized this program with RTD. • RTD had pre-chosen a route that buses could travel safely. • This service from RTD was provided from 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and shorter hours on Saturday. • This program was highly subsidized by RTD. • The co-pay was 55 cents for seniors and $1 for other riders. • RTD had other funding sources and they were covering the expenses.

196 • The Seniors Resource Center had contracted with the local Montessori School to take the children to and from school to three different destinations. They had also contracted this service with the Life Care Nursing Home and the Bear Creek Nursing Home. • The CDOT and Older Americans dollars had limits on who could be served with this funding. • The Seniors Resource Center also had two other mini-buses and two other regular sized vans with which to provide transportation and all were wheelchair accessible. • Sometimes trips worked out where two to three clients could be taken at once. When they could coordinate, they did.

Mr. Zabawa made the following statements: • He would like to research the possible funding sources for Clear Creek County and the potential of volunteers in the area. • Recruiting volunteers was difficult but the Seniors Resource Center provided liability coverage on volunteers and performed background checks on potential employees.

Mr. Abrahamson expressed concern for clients that were not seniors and did not qualify for assistance from any program. How did these people obtain affordable transportation for medical needs? Secondly, Ms. True and Ms. Dicken each had their own respective issues and clients that also needed transportation and the County needed one system to serve all of these groups. Mr. Zabawa replied that by blending these separate needs, the County could obtain federal dollars. This program would incorporate emergency and non-emergency trips. For the Evergreen area, they had a fee schedule for people that would not be full price. They would combine this with a diversification of funding in order to provide this service.

Mr. Abrahamson stated that incorporating the Idaho Springs area in with the Evergreen group would be relatively easy however, the further west one traveled the more challenging the program becomes. This would dilute the number of riders. Ms. Weinberger stated that the Seniors Resource Center partnered with Bailey and Pine to accommodate these rural areas and still make the program work. Ms. Weinberger suggested compiling a list of the volunteers along with the Volunteers of America group to see what resources were in the area. Medicaid patients did have a limited reimbursement. Ms. True stated that if Medicaid reimbursed, providers could accept donations from the family. Ms. Weinberger stated that her program had a process for medicaid patients and a process for non-medicaid patients. These programs ran parallel with their resources. Ms. Corthell stated that the Seniors Resource Center had a newsletter of services and many people found out about the available resources through this and through the Evergreen Chamber.

Mr. Zabawa stated that with their process, the client calls them directly and informs them if they are medicaid eligible. The Seniors Resource Center then tries to find a provider that accepts medicaid clients. Commissioner Sorensen stated that Clear Creek County had not designated the Seniors Resource Center as their medicaid broker. Ms. Yeager stated that one goal was to match medicaid people with a car and then the Seniors Resource Center would reimburse for fuel. In rural areas, it was a good idea to develop a driver pool. If a system was started in Idaho Springs, boundaries should be set to show how far the program would reach.

Commissioner Sorensen asked how the Seniors Resource Center and Project Support could work together. Ms. Corthell suggested Project Support providing local trips and the Seniors Resource Center providing the trips to Denver, etc. This also prevented the duplication of services. Ms. True stated that this would be a difficult shift for people in that they enjoyed utilizing their cars. She had been working to assemble the Mayor of Idaho Springs and RTD with the Evergreen area. Others in the community were working to provide transportation for the disabled community in the County. Commissioner Poirot stated that in his discussions with RTD, RTD was interested in working with Project Support and their transportation services. Mr. Zabawa stated that RTD provided a match for the federal dollars of 53.11 for the Seniors Resource Center.

Ms. Weinberger stated that the Seniors Resource Center partnered with the Volunteers of America and the Meals on Wheels program to deliver 20-30 meals per day.

197 Mr. Zabawa stated that the one component missing in Clear Creek County was the broker for the transportation services. This person would know what he available resources were in the County. They would also know what limitations providers had. Mr. Abrahamson stated that he did not want to duplicate services in Clear Creek County but to enhance what was already in existence. Ms. Dicken stated that when HIPPA reassigned this transportation issue back to the counties, Mr. Zabawa came to Clear Creek County to offer his services as a transportation broker. Mr. Zabawa’s company would do all the billing to medicaid and the bookkeeping. Clients would call him directly and tell him their destination. Ms. Dicken informed Mr. Zabawa that there could potentially be a higher need to service medicaid clients than the Human Services department was aware of at this time. For the non-emergency transportation, it was not only dialysis or chemotherapy patients but also mental health needs. Another piece to this service that has no program were the uninsured men, women and children in the County that came into the Community Service Center. Ms. True suggested that Columbine could apply for funding for a van as they were a rural health center. Ms. Dicken had also heard of other agencies in the County that may be willing to provide transportation as well.

Ms. True stated that she would discuss with the Volunteers of America if they wanted to expand services in Clear Creek County. Clear Creek County may not be a Title 3 community for funding. Certain funding would be limited to seniors only and once the service was provided, there could be many other people with different needs desiring this service too. Ms. Corthell stated that a broker would help in this situation and some dialysis centers would work with transportation agencies too. They would coordinate appointments to bring in 2 or more clients at once. Mr. Zabawa suggested a task force in Clear Creek County to bring the resources to the table to begin to build. Ms. True added that additional players in transportation could be Easter Seals, Volunteers of America, the Cornerstone Initiative, Jefferson Center for Mental Health, etc. She added that a bus that traveled from Georgetown, to Empire, to Idaho Springs would help immensely.

Commissioner Poirot stated that RTD was bringing a proposal to Clear Creek County. RTD would contract with Clear Creek County on a subsidized deal and they would prefer that the County have additional vehicles. Mr. Zabawa stated that by assembling the needs and building the passenger group, funds could be attracted. Mr. Abrahamson agreed to assemble the players for a working session and they would come back later to present to the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAID TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT: The Board of County Commissioners continued this hearing to September 3, 2002 at 9:30 a.m. during the Board of Social Services hearing.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-100, BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE #02-AX-6, FOR MCBRIDE AND MORRIS- FRANCIS, UTE CREEK ROAD: Planner I Tony Atencio and Planning Director Carol Wise presented. In attendance were applicants Jade McBride, Gregory Francis and Della Morris- Francis, Planner II Ruth Kastens, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane, and Forest Service representative Deb Ryon. Mr. Atencio made the following statements: • At the end of the last hearing, the Board of County Commissioners had requested that the Staff determine the road standard for this case. • A site visit was performed by Mr. Atencio, Ms. Wise, and Mr. Vogel. • A letter was received from Fire Chief Kelly Babeon. • A discussion was held with Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen who stated that the road design standards for the County were a work in progress and they should be completed by the end of the year. Mr. Allen also suggested granting what physically existed in the size of the road. Mr. Vogel stated that the road design standards would be the same as the County road design standards. The County currently had a driveway design standard. Mr. Vogel continued that Ute Creek Road would not meet current standards and this particular road would not either. Mr. Allen informed Mr. Vogel that the County would never take on maintenance of this particular road off of Ute Creek Road.

198 Regarding the NFPA standards mentioned at the prior hearing, the County adopted those regulations as a recommendation but did not adopt them as a requirement.

Ms. Ryon made the following comments: • She had received information on this case and needed to know where improvements had currently been made. Mr. Vogel replied that there had been new road construction in this area but the County did not know who was doing it. • The Forest Service had received no applications for road construction. • The Forest Service received an application last week from the McBrides for an easement for legal access to their property. • Depending on the issues, the Forest Service had a broad range of road widths. • Unless the County was requiring a wider road, the Forest Service normally did not allow construction on width. • This case was only for two homes so 10-feet from the centerline should be adequate. • Typically the Forest Service recommends the prescriptive easement.

Commissioner Sorensen asked about the comments from Chief Babeon requesting that the recent road improvements be permitted. Mr. Vogel replied that Chief Babeon was referring to improvements to grades on the turning radii. The turning radius was difficult to complete with the current County regulations.

Mr. Atencio stated that the Staff recommendation was to approve the application with the roads as they existed now. From the data collected from Chief Babeon, Mr. Vogel, and Mr. Allen, this roadway was sufficient at its present size. Mr. McBride agreed with what the Staff had recommended and to the existing width. Mr. Atencio confirmed that the new road cuts that had been made by an unknown party were not related to this case. The roads in this case were not new. These roads were on the 1905 map of the area. The newly constructed roads were done in the 1970's. Ms. Wise added that more new construction had been completed on the 1970's roads. Ms. Ryon noted that this was the road that cross the Forest Service land. Ms. Ryon added that the Forest Service law enforcement group would pursue the people that made these new road improvements and have a damage assessment completed by biologists and archeologists.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that if the Board of County Commissioners approved this case they would be approving the boundary line adjustment with the condition that the owner dedicate public easement as described at 20-feet solely on private property. One of these roads crossed Forest Service land before it reached the Morris-Francis property. The issue the County was dealing with assured that there was access to the property owners that were beyond this case’s property and it was up to them to work with the Forest Service for access. There was a second road that intersected with Ute Creek Road at a sharp angle. McBride owned the land at this junction and the County could try to obtain an easement to widen this angle for emergency services access. Mr. Atencio replied that this could be a condition of approval that when the McBride’s reach that point in their improvements, the intersection would be widened for emergency services. Mr. Loeffler agreed but stated that the easement would have to be granted now. There was a possibility that the McBrides would not own the land when construction began. Mr. McBride asked who would pay for the improvements to this corner. Mr. Loeffler replied that this decision was up to the Board of County Commissioners as two new lots would be serviced by this sharp corner. Mr. Loeffler suggested that a building permit above this access include a requirement that this improvement be completed at the intersection. Mr. McBride asked why would he grant easement if he was paying for it himself. Mr. Loeffler replied that the easement was to assure that access was now continuous to the two new parcels and that the access would accommodate emergency services. Mr. McBride agreed stating that he did not want to be in the position of having to pay for this improvement if he was not living up above this sharp corner. Commissioner Sorensen stated that these parcels were mining claims and the roads were historically mining roads. Now that the area was residential, the roads required improvement. Ms. Morris-Francis asked why this access had to be public. The road that she lived on became a dead end at her property. Mr. Vogel replied that there were Forest Service lands beyond this road that needed access too. Ms. Morris-Francis replied that she was in the process of applying for these Forest Service lands and if approved, the public access would not be needed. Mr. Loeffler noted that if the Francis group did not have an easement from the McBrides, they also needed to

199 obtain this. Commissioner Poirot stated that unless an agreement was made with the Forest Service, the public could use this road. Ms. Ryon added that if there was more than one party living on this road, then the group needed to apply as a road association and not as private individuals. If the lots were sold for development, these people had access as part of the road association and did not have to be on a waiting list with the Forest Service. If landowners did not reciprocate with providing access, the Forest Service would provide Special Use Permit for people without access.

Mr. McBride agreed to providing access through the Black Lion mining claim and the sharp corner at the Viking mining claim. Mr. Vogel replied that a larger easement would be needed where this particular road intersected with Ute Creek Road. Mr. Vogel suggested that the construction be done first and and then the easement be written and it may not be appropriate to blanket easement the area. Mr. Atencio suggested that the easement for the road be a different document from the easement at the intersection. Mr. Loeffler suggested that in the absence of engineering at the intersection, the McBrides should grant easement on the Viking for the intersection of this road with Ute Creek Road and with standards of a 30-foot inside radius. Mr. Vogel stated that the best way to do the intersection would be to make it as perpendicular as possible with the easiest grade. He suggested a permit and survey after construction with all drainage and fill within the easement.

Ms. Wise stated that this portion of the case was only half of the issue as access had to be insured to the other two lots created. Commissioner Sorensen stated that Roads with the numbers #5, #10, #7, and #8 on the attached map all had to be recognized in this case to ensure access to all newly created parcels. Mr. Loeffler stated that the McBrides had agreed to these roads and a definition of metes and bounds easement would be needed for the intersection as it was unknown at this time how large it would be. The County road size and standard would have to be approved by Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to require dedication of the prescriptive easement up to 20-feet and to require that an easement on the Viking mining claim be dedicated which would be the design determined at the time of the building permit at the approval of the Clear Creek Fire Authority, the Ambulance Department, the Site Development Department, and the Road and Bridge Department. The easement of 20-feet for the affected roads was depicted on the attached map as roads #7, #5, #10, and #8. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH QUINN FAMILY TRUST AND LOUISE THOMPSON: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. Boyd Quinn attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel presented the following information: • This contract was for the transaction of two easements. • The property was owned as 2/3 and 1/3 undivided interests between the Quinn Family Trust and Louise Thompson, respectively.

• The first exhibit was a grant of easement for the non-motorized trail which the Quinn’s/Thompson had signed and the Board of County Commissioners had accepted. • The second item in the transaction was the property located in Section 25, T3SR74W. This portion of the land that the Quinn’s had physical improvements on would be sold to them by the County. • The County Lands Department had, in the transaction, taken the price of the non- motorized trail easement from the price of the land. • Exhibit E was the sale of the property and would require a Combination of Lots Agreement with the Silver Bolt Lode subject to the approval of the exemption to divide the parcel.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that County Lands Department was requesting that the Board of County Commissioners approve the contract, authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the contract when it was received from the Quinn/Thompson group at the closing, and complete an exemption process to complete the rest of the contract. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract with the Quinn’s/Thompson group, to approve the

200 Combination of Lots Agreement and deeds, and the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners would be authorized to sign these documents at the closing. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board then signed a Correction Deed for the Von Mosch Mining Company.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-121, TO FILE WATER STORAGE APPLICATION ON UPPER JOHNSON GULCH: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver presented the following information: • This was a request to file a water storage application in the upper Johnson Gulch area. • A water storage application had been filed on the lower Johnson Gulch as Clear Creek Reservoir #2 on the south side of U.S. Hwy 6. • This request was delayed in order to work with the opponents of the other water storage filings. • A settlement agreement was being negotiated with the City of Arvada for Clear Creek County to have absolute storage rights on lower Johnson Gulch. • Mr. Weaver preferred to keep both the upper and lower Johnson Gulch sites active as the Bureau of Reclamation had been in contact with him and the County had the possibility of hydroelectric. • This area for the site could be on CDOT right of way and CDOT may file a statement of opposition for this reason. • Mr. Weaver stated that there was much planning occurring in this area with the Black Hawk Tunnel proposal, CDOT expanding their right of way, etc. The Silver Dollar Metropolitan District was interested in assisting Clear Creek County with achieving their water objectives.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-121, to file for water storage rights on Clear Creek and its tributaries in the upper Johnson Gulch area. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 3, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 3, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Human Services. Minutes for the Board of Human Services are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEDICAID TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. Ms. Dicken made the following statements: • Ms. Dicken was waiting on a Intergovernmental Agreement from the Seniors Resource Center and had not yet received this document. • The County wanted this document in place by October 1, 2002. • John Zabawa of the Seniors Resource Center would meet with representatives of Clear Creek County to discuss providing services as a broker for Clear Creek County.

201 • The County would no longer have bills signed for payment through Medicaid. Clients would contact the Senior Resource Center directly for transportation services. • Ms. Dicken would continue to obtain an agreement from the Seniors Resource Center and bring it back to the Board of County Commissioners.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the sale or lease of personal property as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CORRECTION DEED FOR THE VON MOSCH MINING COMPANY: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane and Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that this was a correction deed as the prior deed was made out to a corporation and Von Mosch was not a corporation but Al Mosch d.b.a. Von Mosch Mining Company. This deed would correct the title of the grantee. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the correction deed for the Von Mosch Mining Company and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GOCO GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE ELMGREEN PROPERTY PURCHASE: Administrative Intern Tim Mauck presented. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler and Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane attended the hearing. Mr. Mauck made the following statements: • He presented a draft of the grant application for GOCO funding for the Elmgreen Homestead northwest of I-70. • The grant was for $78,750 and the Open Space Commission would be matching this amount by 50%. • The grant was due the coming Friday and needed approval by the Board of County Commissioners. • Mr. Mauck had been working with the Trust for Public Lands on this grant and purchase. • MALT, EMERGE, and other organizations were offering their support of the grant. • The Jefferson County Open Space Commission was purchasing their portion of the land without a grant. • Mr. Mauck requested that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the grant application once completed.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners signing the grant application once it was completed. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Mr. Mauck confirmed that the grant would cover the purchase of the land and some administrative fees. There were no Trust for Public Lands fees. Commissioner Sorensen appreciated the long term stewardship endowment contributed by the Elmgreen family. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CENTRAL CLEAR CREEK SANITATION DISTRICT PROJECT REGARDING POTENTIAL EXPANSION ALONG ALVARADO ROAD: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel and Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane, Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Director Peggy Stokstad, and Triple AAA owner Jack Barker attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel made the following comments: • Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that on March 21, 2002, the County Lands Department and the Board of County Commissioners went to the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District to ask for a study of potential expansion along Alvarado Road. • The County Lands Department hired Diamondback Engineering to perform an evaluation of the existing plant facilities and potential construction costs. • In cooperation with Staff, Diamondback Engineering and Triple AAA Operations, an analysis of the existing district, i.e., identifying the number and zoning of the vacant lots remaining within the district. The build out analysis had identified that the district would

202 be able to accommodate anticipated growth (based on existing zoning and number of vacant lots) with their existing rating of 100,000 gallons per day (GPD). • Diamondback Engineering had found that the district had done a good job fiscally managing the district plant and planning for its needs. It appeared that the existing district could supply the boundaries of the sanitation district without expansion. • A study from Diamondback Engineering revealed that the plant had been constructed to accommodate much higher flows, up to 175, 000 GPD, and an amendment to the districts plan may be possible through Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. • After calling Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, it was determined that in order to expand the district’s utility plan, both DRCOG and Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association would have to first approve the expansion and the cost of the application would be $3000 to change the permit. • The Central Clear Creek Sanitation District did have a utility plan. Mr. Barker had written the plan for this facility. • On August 23, 2002, Diamondback Engineering sent a letter to the County estimating the constructions costs for the sewer line and lift stations along Alvarado Road to the Rocky Mountain Village. • Clear Creek County owned 200+ acres along this area and knew that the Easter Seals camp wanted to expand as well. • County Lands would meet with the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association next week to obtain their opinion. Mr. Jones of the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association stated that no ISDS impact would be favorable. • County Lands and Diamondback Engineering planned on meeting with the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District to present this study. • Ms. Leben-Vogel presented a letter to the Board of County Commissioners for the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District supporting an amendment to the districts utility plan for a possible expansion. She requested that the Board sign the letter. • Mr. Barker thought the expansion would entail a one page amendment to the utility plan. • Ms. Leben-Vogel stated that the best scenario would be for the County or district to apply for grants to contribute to the expansion costs and infrastructure development. • Ms. Leben-Vogel had invited the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation to discuss the grant writing potential for this expansion. Ms. Stokstad agreed stating that this proposal made a lot of sense for this area.

Mr. Barker made the following statements: • The Central Clear Creek Sanitation District board wanted to examine where the capacity of the facility was presently before considering an expansion. • Mr. Enochs and Diamondback Engineering had worked often with the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District and the Board members were agreeable to working with them. • Mr. Barker confirmed the EQR stood for equivalent residential unit. One EQR was equal to the flows of one single family dwelling. Most of the residential houses in the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District were one EQR. • Mr. Barker stated that the aeration basin was full but the detention time was only 24 hours. The facility could handle the flow of 175,000 gallons per day at this detention rate. • If the capacity were increased and the detention time decreased, the plant would still work but it worked better at a detention level of 24 hours. This time produced a better effluent quality. The current infrastructure could not handle a quicker detention time without upgrade. • A parallel influent flow meter would mean an additional input to the pond. This would entail a manhole that entered the pond through three inch channel. • The total modifications to the plant would cost $100,000 and the State could require some extras like chlorination. • The tap fees were determined by the Board of Central Clear Creek Sanitation District and usually the developer would pay for expansion of the plant and extension of the lines. • The Central Clear Creek Sanitation District had experienced 8% increases over the last several years and did not see dramatic increases in cost.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District Board had a philosophy of who they served and why. The Board of County Commissioners knew why the

203 County supported the expansion. The Central Clear Creek Sanitation District Board would have to consider who else needed to be served and the potential of intensifying development in the district. Commissioner Sorensen encouraged Ms. Leben-Vogel to present the study information to the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District and the Board of County Commissioners would attend. The Board agreed. Ms. Leben-Vogel reported that there were 104 vacant lots in the district at present. Of these lots 69 were zoned MR-1, 24 were M-1, 1 was R-1, 4 were M-2, 4 were Buffer, 1 was NR-PC, and one was C-1. Of these 104 lots, 96 were estimated to have taps. The Board of County Commissioners agreed to attend the next Central Clear Creek Sanitation District meeting with Ms. Leben-Vogel.

DISCUSSION WITH SUSAN EVANS REGARDING COUNTY OWNED LAND (NOT FORMERLY BLM) KNOWN AS THE BOREALIS CLAIM, HUKILL GULCH: Susan Evans attended by speaker phone. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler and Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane attended the hearing. Ms. Evans made the following statements: • She had applied to purchase the Borealis mining claim which was founded by her great grandfather during the gold rush days. • Ms. Evans had come out to visit relatives in Colorado and researched to find her great grandfathers claims. • Ms. Evans found the Borealis claim and Administrative Assistant to the Board of County Commissioners Beth Luther had begun the process to determine if the claim could be purchased. • Josephy Hiatt was Ms. Evans’ great grandfather. • Mr. Hiatt had owned numerous properties in Idaho Springs and Clear Creek County. • Ms. Evans stated that she did not want to live on this parcel and was willing to give up the residential rights. She just wanted the claim back in the family.

Commissioner Watrous stated that the downzone of the parcel to remove the residential rights would be a deed restriction in selling the land to Ms. Evans. Ms. Evans agreed. The Board of County Commissioners stated that Ms. Evans family could still hike to the mining claim but the road had been closed to motorized travel. Commissioner Watrous agreed to confirm the acreage on the parcel and submit an offer to Ms. Evans with the adjusted price. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the County Lands Department had an adjacent .3 acre parcel that they wanted to combine with the Borealis Claim. The Board agreed to combine the County land parcel with the Borealis and sell to Ms. Evans at the low end. The Board agreed to downzone the Borealis mining claim to M-2.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 10, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

DISCUSSION WITH AMBULANCE DIRECTOR AND FIRE CHIEF: This hearing was changed to a working session.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE JAIBG GRANT FOR YOUTH SERVICES: Administrative Assistant Beth Luther presented. Clear Creek Courant

204 Editor Einar Jensen and Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Luther stated that this was a grant which funded the Youth Services Right Track program which was administered by Trailhead Wilderness School. A contract for services between Clear Creek County and Trailhead Wilderness School had been completed a month prior. The grant totaled $7694.00. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this was a standard State grant and was acceptable for approval. Commissioner Sorensen motioned to approve the JAIBG grant for Youth Services. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EASEMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ACROSS THE AMERICAN EAGLE LODE #2310 AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DEED TO DENISE WHALEY, 1/6 UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE AMERICAN EAGLE LODE AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DEED TO C.F. EGGARS FOR 1/6 UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE AMERICAN EAGLE LODE: Senior Planner Lisa Leben-Vogel presented. Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen and Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Ms. Leben-Vogel made the following presentation: • The County had acquired a 1/3 interest in the American Eagle Lode through a Treasurer’s Deed. • The County decided to split the 1/3 interest between the remaining interests in the American Eagle Lode so Whaley and Eggars would each receive 1/6 undivided interest. • The Public Service Co. easement was to allow for power up to the lots in the Blue Ridge area.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the 1/6 undivided interest deeds to Eggars and Whaley. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Public Service Co. easement for power to the Blue Ridge lots. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Leben-Vogel presented a correction easement for Al Mosch, d.b.a. as Von Mosch Mining Company. Commissioner Sorensen motioned to approve the correction easement. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LEGAL SERVICES BY CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, and Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler made the following statements: • If the Board of County Commissioners were to approve this agreement, they would need to approve it as the Board of County Commissioners and as the Board of Social Services. • This was a contract by which the County Attorney’s office provided services to the Human Services Department and was the foundation for recovering the State’s portion of those services. • These contracts have been done in the past and costs were calculated in the contract. • Mr. Loeffler and Ms. Dicken had agreed to the terms of this contract.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Contract for Legal Services by the County Attorney to the Human Services Department. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen asked if other departments had contracts like this. Mr. Loeffler replied that these costs were recoverable through the State which was why they had a contract. The vote was unanimous.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Human Services. Minutes for the Board of Human Services are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

205 Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the contract for legal services between the County Attorney’s office and Human Services. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MES CONTRACT FOR WORK ON SANTA FE MOUNTAIN ROAD: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Building Permit Coordinator Lynette Kelsey, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, and Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following statements: • The Road and Bridge Department wanted to widen a portion of Santa Fe Mountain Road at the Johnson Gulch where there was a rock outcropping. • Work had been done in this area previously, but it was not to the point beyond the Road and Bridge ability. • MES was familiar with the area and were asked to submit a letter that they would perform the work in lieu of paying traffic impact fees at the Pink Millsite at Empire Junction. • MES had also submitted a bid proposal for the work. • Mr. Allen stated that Mr. Weaver had submitted a draft resolution for this proposal. • The resolution in place at present for traffic impact fees stated that the Board of County Commissioners had to approve the performance of the work in lieu of traffic impact fees. • In the old resolution, it stated a person could obtain a credit against all or a portion of traffic impact fees by offering to construct an improvement project on a County maintained road and must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. • The construction must meet County road standards and be approved by the Road and Bridge Supervisor. • The Board could provide the applicant with a letter stating the amount for the credit. • The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy agreeing to the terms of the letter from the Board. • The credit could be provided prior to completion if there was say financial guarantee in an amount acceptable to the County Attorney. Any claim to the credit must be made prior to the building permit. • The MES building permit for the Pink Millsite was applied for a year ago. • Mr. Weaver stated that his draft resolution requested the Board of County Commissioners to approve the MES request. However, the request was signed by the excavating manager of MES and the building permit was in the name of Mark Levin. Mr. Levin’s signature may be required on the bid request. • Mr. Allen confirmed that MES was capable of doing this type of work and they did have the equipment. They had done work for the County on Virginia Canyon Road.

Commissioner Poirot asked if research had shown that the County could use the traffic impact fees anywhere in the County or only on the roads affected by the corresponding development. Commissioner Poirot was hopeful that work could be completed County wide. Mr. Weaver replied that there was new legislation but he had not studied the bill in detail. Mr. Loeffler stated that these fees and the resolution should be revisited to bring them up to date. Mr. Weaver stated that there was now $400,000 in the traffic impact fee fund and he and Mr. Allen had been discussing projects to allocate this funding toward. Mr. Allen stated that a working session had been scheduled with the Board of County Commissioners and the County Attorney to discuss the traffic impact fees and their uses for next week. The traffic impact fees had to be used for capital improvement projects only. Mr. Allen stated that this work had to be soon so he preferred no delay in the signing of this contract with MES. Commissioner Poirot asked if the County could pass it contingent on the use being within County guidelines. Commissioner Sorensen suggested accepting the bid for services and tell them the County was researching the legality of offsetting the impact fees at the Pink Millsite. Mr. Allen replied that if it could not be done in lieu of traffic impact fees, his department did not have the funding to pay for the proposal. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to September 17, 2002 at 3:15 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

206 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT’S FOR COORDINATED ELECTIONS FOR SILVER PLUME, EVERGREEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, AND THE CITY OF IDAHO SPRINGS: Clear Creek Courant reporter Shelley Lane and Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler attended the hearing. Commissioner Watrous stated that these agreements were for coordinated elections in Evergreen Fire Protection District, the City of Idaho Springs and the Town of Silver Plume. These agreements needed to be approved so elections could be held. Mr. Loeffler agreed stating that these were standard Intergovernmental Agreement’s used in the past. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement’s for coordinated elections in Silver Plume, Evergreen Fire Protection District, and the City of Idaho Springs and that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners be authorized to sign. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION #02-41, ADOPTION OF ZONE PLAN AND MAP TO CASE #01-ZP-02, T34R73W: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. In attendance were Planning Commission member Donna Moody, property owner Brian Wilson, EMERGE representative Dick Woods, Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young, property owners Al Mosch and Robert Durcholz, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Planners Sarah Kaminski, Fred Rollenhagen, Holland Smith, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, property owner Pete Wasilawski, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Open Space Commission representative Hal Wahlborg, and property owner Joe Eaton. Ms. Wise made the following statements: T Ms. Wise stated that this hearing was continued from a previous hearing on July 16, 2002.

T The hearing was continued to allow time for Staff to review the U.S. Geologic Survey maps and maps from EMERGE related to the area. T Two sections of the township zoning were being considered today, Sections 5 and 6. T Notice of this hearing was published in the Clear Creek Courant on September 4, 2002. Owners of the private lands in Sections 5 & 6 were notified of this hearing by letter from the County Lands Department. T Responses from the public was received regarding this case. T Dick Woods of EMERGE submitted a detailed U.S. Geologic Survey mineralization map with a letter pointing to the differences between his maps and the common U.S. Geologic Survey quad map used by the Colorado Geologic Society (CGS). Mr. Woods demonstrated that the CGS map was clearly drawn from information on their Geologic Map of the Idaho Springs Quadrangle and based solely on geological information, rather than actual mining activity in the area. T Mr. Peter Furstenburg of the Stanley Mining Company called to say he preferred M-2 zoning for the whole area. However, his main concern was with why some of his claims were shown on the map as missing portions within them. The County Lands staff researched this and met with Mr. Furstenburg on August 29 to review the BLM maps which indicated earlier claims which had been abandoned after his claims were filed. County Lands recommended that these conflict areas be rezoned to M-2 and combined with the patented claims to restore the severed portions. T Mr. Dan Dalpes responded with charges that Clear Creek County was anti-growth because of its zoning for other than whatever he regarded as the highest and best use of the land. He did not offer specific zoning suggestions for any area, other than to generally state that “Almost all of the good building sites are gone or very expensive — just the way the planners want it.” T Mr. Jerome Martinets, Jr. of Electrum, owner of Blackwood Lode, had concerns with mapping errors relating to his claim on the quad map sent out, but did not offer zoning suggestions or comments. T Virginia and Peter Wasilawski responded that they agree with the proposed NR-PC zoning in Sections 5 & 6. T A number of other phone calls were received from staff from people again concerned that we might be trying to rezone their private property. T Ms. Wise stated that on July 16, the Board of County Commissioners held a hearing to adopt a zoning map for Township 1961 (T34R73W) which was primarily based on the CGS indications for areas regarded as having good, moderate, and low potential for base

207 and precious metal mineralization. At that hearing, Frank Young, Open Space Commission Chairman, presented further testimony and exhibits in support of adopting the NR-PC zoning recommended by the Planning Commission for certain areas generally in the southern parts of Sections 5 and 6 encompassing Alps Mountain, rather than including those areas in the M-2 zoning adopted for the rest of the public lands in these areas. The Open Space Commission was desirous of adding these particular lands to their management inventory, and believes the NR-PC zoning would be the only appropriate zoning for lands held by a County agency for Recreation/Public Purpose (R&PP). T Ms. Wise stated that in comparing the maps, the State had broad brushed the area showing a mineral belt. The EMERGE U.S. Geologic Survey maps showed actual mineral activity with veins and faults. The EMERGE U.S. Geologic Survey maps showed little mining activity in the Alps Mountain area and more in Georgetown and Silver Plume. T Ms. Wise stated that the Open Space Commission and EMERGE had discussed options of overlay zones or amending the NR-PC zoning history to allow Special Use Permit for mining. In that event, if the County determined there was mining potential, then the County could have it evaluated by experts and lease it to miners. Commissioner Poirot suggested leaving the land zoned as M-2, agree not to sell it until the 13 years run out, then allow experts to determine if it should be NR-PC or M-2. Ms. Wise replied that this was an option and if it was zoned M-2, the next Board of County Commissioners could still sell the land. The Planning Department had experienced many applicants coming to them with M-2 claims and applying for the TDR process. The public was now considering these as homesites. Mr. Smith added that BLM was not really concerned with the zoning of R&PP lands but more the use.

Mr. Young explained that the history of the BLM issuing R&PP lands and dealing with mineral rights was that the mineral uses would not interfere with the surface recreational use. Much of this came from the gas and oil drilling companies. Mr. Smith stated that the County Lands Department felt that if the land was zoned NR-PC and the mineral rights were severed, Adjacent Property Owners could follow their veins onto the R&PP lands and the County could collect royalties. Mr. Smith would be researching other counties which had done this. Native American communities had successfully done this. This was one option to keeping the surface as NR-PC. Mr. Young continued that the BLM would not care too much how the land was zoned as long as it was not for residential. Ms. Wise agreed stating that this point was made last time with the Open Space Commission in that recreational opportunities were just as important to economy as the mining interests. If this area did not have mining aspects, then why leave it as a mining zoning?

Commissioner Poirot expressed concern on the accuracy of the EMERGE U.S. Geologic Survey maps being better than the State maps. Ms. Wise replied that the State maps were geology only and the EMERGE maps showed the veins discovered and the mine shafts. She added that the EMERGE maps were U.S. Geologic Survey maps and the numbers on the maps showed specific locations of the mines. Ms. Wise could not testify to the accuracy of the maps. Commissioner Sorensen stated that by identifying the lands with the NR-PC and reserving the mineral rights for subsurface would show future interests what the Board of County Commissioners recognized today in these lands. This would let future decision makers know why this Board did what they did.

The hearing was opened for public comment.

Dick Woods, Vice President of EMERGE Mr. Woods made the following comments: T Mr. Woods submitted a letter stating the EMERGE position on these particular parcels in Sections 5 & 6. T EMERGE stated that the CGS maps delineate geology and mineral potential for the area but not where mining actually occurred in the last 150 years. T The County should base their decision on where the miners had their activity and not where there was “potential”.

208 T There were several U.S. Geologic Survey professional papers which dealt extensively with mining activity in this area which contained detailed maps of the location of known veins in the area. These were the maps that should be used to determine the M-2 zoned areas. T These same maps showed very few veins in the Alps Mountain area which was why this area should be zoned NR-PC. T EMERGE proposed two NR-PC zoning categories to allow a Special Use Permit for mining. T This would allow the future Board of County Commissioners to make a final decision based on the situation at that time. T He understood Commissioner Poirot’s concern on the validity of the maps. The positive issue with these maps were that they did show what was discovered after 130 years of exploration. T EMERGE supported the Planning Department’s recommendation with respect to these two sections. T EMERGE was in favor of the NR-PC zoning with the retaining of the subsurface rights.

Frank Young, Open Space Commission Chairman Mr. Young made the following statements: T Mr. Young displayed a map of the two sections to be considered. T The Open Space Commission supported the recommendations of the Planning Department to zone NR-PC and retain the subsurface rights. T The Open Space Commission supported this recommendation due to the ridge top area and utilizing it as a good buffer between Trail Creek, Cascade Creek, etc. T Secondly, some of the parcels had historic cabins that had been managed by the BLM as emergency cabins for 20+ years. T Since the last meeting the Open Space Commission had removed the smaller sliver parcels to be combined with the Adjacent Property Owners and the Open Space Commission could maintain more logical boundaries. T Along the ridge top in Section 4, the Open Space Commission proposed M-2 since there were homes and private lands nearby. This would prevent orphan open space claims in this area. T Each one of the three larger section of parcels would have road access and nothing would be isolated. T Another point from the last meeting was the proposal of overlay zoning. An overlay would allow the NR-PC zoning and allow development of mineral resources at a future date. T The Open Space Commission supported the NR-PC with either the overlay that stated development of mineral resources at a later ate with no disturbance of the surface OR; it would support another version of the NR-PC zoning stipulating that the lands were retained by the County and they would be managed by the Open Space Commission but mineral resources could be developed at a later date by the County with no significant disturbance to the surface. T Regarding Mr. Smith’s comments on veins traveling under the NR-PC lands, Mr. Young stated that current mining law, extra lateral rights, were protected in saying that this could occur. If this happened, the County would be saying that Adjacent Property Owners could follow their veins as long as no disturbance to the surface.

Mr. Mosch disagreed stating that veins were followed, some direct drilling from the surface would have to occur for mining and ventilation as with MSHA. This needed to be addressed when considering this zoning. Secondly, Mr. Mosch stated that the zoning in this manner would limit the ability for people to spend money on mining.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that under federal mining law, there was some degree to how the miners could follow the vein off the claim boundaries. With respect to severance of the surface to mineral, when a person severed those rights, the mineral rights owner has the right to use a certain amount of the surface because otherwise they cannot get to the mineral. There is a right to use surface without destroying the surface. The subsurface owner had rights to use the surface to get at the mineral and extract it. He was unsure if was allowed to develop mining and

209 simultaneously allow a surface use. Mr. Loeffler stated that the whole law could assume a compatibility.

Commissioner Poirot stated that with the oil and gas industry, the surface could be disturbed but they had to pay damages. He added that when the County first obtained the BLM lands, they had agreed verbally not to sever the mineral from the surface rights. This could be a consideration.

Mr. Mosch stated that with extra lateral rights, if the vein descended at an angle, the owner could pursue the vein to the depth. However, if the vein was horizontal, the owner was limited to the boundaries. Mr. Young added that extra lateral rights were all located within a body of law and these rights would not be changed the County’s zoning. These were preexisting rights. In severing the mineral from the surface rights, the Open Space Commission was not considering this. The County owned both parts of the land and they had a body of law to refer to in regards to the issue.

Donna Moody, Vice President of the Planning Commission Ms. Moody made the following statements: T Ms. Moody stated that the Planning Commission did not have access to the U.S. Geologic Survey maps during their hearings. T The Planning Commission only had the State maps and they did not appear accurate. T Ms. Moody had called the U.S. Geologic Survey and they had informed her that they had hand sketched the lines without following contours, etc. T Ms. Moody had lost confidence in the State maps and didn’t want them used as a current source.

Pete Wasilawski, Property Owner Mr. Wasilawski made the following statements: T He had a continued interest in purchasing adjacent County lands to his parcel the Reindeer Lode. T He was informed to appear at the hearing and express this interest and this land, if obtained, would be used as buffer and no development.

Brian Wilson, Property Owner Mr. Wilson made the following statements: T Mr. Wilson stated that the County emphasized the mining interest more than the open space interests. T In his area, 200+ cars would access the public lands in this area. These people coming into the County were spending money here. T Mining and its viability were not going to happen. T Mr. Wilson thought the County should retain these mineral and surface rights and deal with it if the economy did rise for minerals.

Commissioner Sorensen suggested that the County explore the possibility of looking at NR-PC with mineral potential being recognized as opposed to going with a blanket M-2 zoning as she believed before. The County had experienced people that had bought land zoned M-2 and then asked for the TDR process and this was difficult to deal with when discussing a mineralized zone. All testimony had found that residential use in these two sections was not appropriate and the roads were difficult. There had been a turnaround in this case. Commissioner Sorensen was inclined to consider the NR-PC zoning with the mineral potential. She requested time to research and consider the changing of language in the zoning regulations. Ms. Wise replied that the County Lands Department needed to resolve this hearing so they could distribute their lands in this area. She suggested incorporating new language into the present NR-PC regulations. Commissioner Poirot suggested setting these two sections in the township aside and approving the rest. Mr. Loeffler agreed that this could get the County Lands Department started. Commissioner Poirot asked if there were any active miners in the area. Mr. Mosch replied that Pete Boldern was doing activity in the area. Mr. Smith added that Mr. Boldern also owned an active unpatented claim on the Alps Mountain parcel.

210 Commissioner Poirot suggested approving the township with the exceptions of Sections 5 and 6 and have Ms. Wise and her department work on amending the NR-PC regulations. Mr. Loeffler stated that the Planning Department would have to rewrite the legal in the resolution to exclude these sections and the small slivers would remain as M-2 zones. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-41, Adoption of Zone Plan and MPA to Case #01-ZP-02, T34R73W, with the exception of sections 5 & 6 dark green sections as defined by the Open Space Commission which would be unzoned until development of the language could be coordinated with the NR-PC zoning and mineral potential. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the Planning Department would move forward with the regulations change and consider regulations that would allow the appropriate NR-PC to have mining development within it. Certain surface disturbances would have to be allowed.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE TDR REGULATIONS: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. In attendance were property owner Tim Wheeler, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Planners Sarah Kaminski and Holland Smith, and Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, and EMERGE member Dick Woods. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: T Thus far, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners have heard two TDR cases. In light of the outcome and circumstances surrounding both cases, the Planning Commission has acknowledged that the process was imperfect (as all land-use regulations are) and that there were, at least for now, some minor changes that could be made to help clarify the process not only for potential applicants, but also for County Staff and for the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. T Additionally, more comprehensive changes were desired by some or all of the Planning Commission members, however, Staff and the Commission understand that it really was most appropriate to hold off on making significant changes until such a time that the ongoing Master Planning effort has produced an adequate product. It was Staff’s presumption that the future Master Plan would indicate where residential/commercial development should be encouraged and where development should be discouraged by identifying general site characteristics, accessibility, available infrastructure, existing subdivisions, etc. Even if these aspects were not indicated, the Master Plan will allow the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners to refer to an adopted document, to base any major changes to the TDR process. From a legal, and planning prospective, it was more desirable and more appropriate to propose major changes this way. T As per the Planning Commission’s request, Staff prepared some language changes for them that refer to the intent of this process, and that clarifies the position that the County wants to be in while considering a TDR case. The TDR process has a certain intent as presumed by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. If that intent was not being met, the County did not want to feel obligated to approve a specific application just because it meets a majority of the review considerations and/or criteria for approval. Most of this was already addressed in the TDR Regulations, however, Staff had reviewed the language and had proposed some additions that will hopefully make the intent, as presumed by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners easier to understand by everyone. T Staff and the Planning Commission have proposed that the following sections of the Regulations be revised: A. Purpose J. Criteria for Approval K. No Guarantee of Transferability T For Section A, the following language was proposed: PURPOSE: A Transfer of Development Rights involve the shifting of permissible development densities for single-family dwelling units from less suitable development areas to more appropriate sites. Its purpose is to conserve and protect from further degradation the remote areas of the County and minimize potential risk and

211 threat of danger to life and property. Part of the purpose of this process is to ensure that the following will be provided by each application: 1) It must be clearly in the public interest, 2) It must provide a noticeable lessening of impacts on county services and/or the environment. These things are identified in more detail in the Review Considerations. T Under Section J, the following language was proposed: CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL: Approval of a Development Right transfer is subject to Findings of Fact established by the Board that: T (1) the Receiving Site is more suitable for development than the Sending Site(s); T (2) that the transfer is in the best interest of the county; and T (3) that the transfer is consistent with the “Purpose” Subsection outlined in Section 1 of the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations. T If an applicant surmises that their proposal meets all the criteria (as outlined above) but not necessarily a majority of the considerations (as outlined above), or vice/versa, more than one (1) Sending Site may be proposed or may be necessary in order to gain one receiving site. Additionally, if the County believes that the number of Sending Sites proposed is not appropriate to satisfy the Criteria for Approval, the application may not be approved. T For Section K, the following language was proposed: NO GUARANTEE OF TRANSFERABILITY: Each application will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The provisions of these Regulations shall not be interpreted as guarantees of achievable transferability and are not meant to be an entitlement for the applicant regardless of how well it meets the Review Considerations. Each case will be reviewed based on how well it satisfies the Criteria for Approval. Review considerations are used to review an application in order to determine how well the case satisfies the Criteria for Approval. However, the County is not obligated to approve a case regardless of how many review considerations are met. Applications proposing a Transfer of Development Rights shall be subject to all other applicable zoning, building, fire, and health codes, rules and regulations. These other rules and regulations or site-specific conditions may prevent a Transfer of Development Rights case from being approved due to the character of the land or surrounding uses. T Mr. Rollenhagen noted that all the Planning Department did was to clarify what was already stated in the process. The Planning Commission was concerned that they did not want to feel obligated to approve a case just because it met certain review considerations. T In addition to the modifications proposed above, Staff proposed the following modifications to the Planning Commission after going through two TDR cases because of legal issues regarding the preparation of Deed Restrictions as discussed with the County Attorney. A. RESTRICTION ON SENDING SITES: An approved Transfer of Development Rights case shall require that the owner of the Sending Site record a deed restriction, accepted by the County, notifying the public that the parcel has limited Development Rights, and restricting the owner or a future buyer from developing the portions of the land from which the rights were sold for residential uses for a period of no less than fifty (50) years and shall expire at that time, unless

212 extended, at the sole option of the Board of County Commissioners, for an additional period after public hearing and comment on the proposed extension has been made. Additionally, other deed restrictions may be required by the Board of County Commissioners if necessary to satisfy the Criteria for Approval. B. RESTRICTION ON RECEIVING SITES: The owner of the Receiving Site shall record a deed restriction notifying the public that the parcel has limited Development Rights, limited to one single family dwelling unit and accessory uses, and, if the approved Transfer of Development Rights case is based on the location of a building envelope, redirecting the owner or a future buyer from building a residential dwelling and associated structure(s) outside of the designated building envelope. Other deed restrictions may be required by the Board of County Commissioners if necessary to satisfy the Criteria for Approval. T During the Planning Commission’s public hearing, the Planning Commission advised Staff to further delve into these proposed language changes with the County Attorney before it went to the Board of County Commissioners. Whereas Staff was recommending the above changes, the Planning Commission has indicated that they are “leaning” towards making the Deed Restriction for the Sending Site perpetual rather than establishing a time limit. In addition, the Planning Commission had also asked why the Deed Restriction language for the Receiving Site was not the same as that for the Sending Site, and that if there was not a legal problem, that the language be consistent for both in that both either contain a time limit or that both not contain a time limit. T After talking with the County Attorney, Staff does not believe it is necessary for the language to be consistent because of the fact that the Deed Restriction for the Sending Site was restricting all residential development whereas the Deed Restriction on the Receiving Site, if implemented, restricts the location and type of residential development on the property. Given this distinction, it just doesn’t seem necessary to Staff to require similar language on the Receiving Site Deed Restriction because we were not prohibiting residential development on the Receiving Site as we were on the Sending Site. T Mr. Rollenhagen stated that other counties were researched and some had a 50 year limit and some were perpetual. Staff was not in agreement with the perpetual designation as conditions on the lands could change and so could the uses. Ms. Wise added that property owners could always apply for a rezoning. T Staff proposed modifications to the process to make it simpler and they are as follows: T The following are modifications proposed by Staff that we believe will make the process easier, and more simple at this time when the County has not yet adopted a Master Plan. After considerable discussion, Staff came to a consensus that considering any residential site as a potential Sending Site ultimately made the TDR process more confusing, not only to the applicant but also to Staff and the Planning Commission as to what constitutes a “suitable” Sending Site. Especially when the proposed Sending Site was located, for example, in a platted subdivision with the capability of providing water and sewer infrastructure, even though water and sewer were not currently being offered. T After processing the previous two TDR cases, Staff has found that there really does not appear to be a solid consensus over whether subdivision lots should be considered as potential Sending Sites. However, before we consider other TDR applications that may propose a subdivision lot for a Sending Site, Staff feels that it is most appropriate, at this time, to not permit any residentially zoned subdivision lots as Sending Sites until after a consensus is formed. Ideally, the Master Plan, once adopted, should help guide the County as to which areas are more suitable for residential development and which areas should be discouraged from residential development. T Staff understands that one of the purposes of permitting any residentially zoned sites to be considered as a potential Sending Site is because there were several platted subdivision lots that were really not suitable for residential development.

213 T Staff believed it just wasn’t appropriate to consider whether or not certain subdivision lots should lose their development right through a TDR process until we achieve a better consensus of where the County wants growth to occur and where it shouldn’t occur. One of the more critical locations where this discussion will be most influential was for the existing subdivisions at St. Mary’s Glacier. T During the Planning Commission’s public hearing, considerable discussion occurred, and even though there was dissension among the Planning Commission members about whether this language should be changed, they ultimately voted to keep it in. T The following definitions were modified: B. DEFINITIONS: 2. Transfer of Development Right: the ability to request to move a building or development right from a less suitable residentially Mining One (M-1) zoned parcel to a more suitable Mining One (M-1) zoned parcel. C. APPLICABILITY: Development Rights may be transferred from currently Mining One (M-1) zoned residential parcels (Sending Site) to Mining Two (M- 2) zoned parcels (Receiving Site) only. D. CRITERIA FOR SENDING SITES (less suitable residentially zoned parcels): An application for a Transfer of Development Rights must meet all of the following criteria for the Sending Site. 1. The parcel is a legally constituted lot patented mining claim and was not illegally subdivided. 2. The parcel must meet the minimum lot size requirement for that zoning district of one acre. 3. The parcel is currently zoned for residential use as a “Permitted Principal Use” (e.g., M-1, MR-1, MR-5, MR-LT, R-1, R-2, R-3) Mining One (M-1). 4. The parcel currently or can comply with it’s M-1 zoning designation for, all applicable zoning, building, fire, and health codes, rules and regulations if the application for dual rezoning is approved. 5. The parcel shall demonstrate proof of legal access as determined by the County’s Site Development Department’s standards and regulations. If the above criteria are met, only one single-family dwelling Development Right is permitted to be transferred per parcel, regardless of its zoning classification. G. SUBMITTAL PROCESS FOR TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: This is a process to transfer Development Rights from less suitable residentially Mining One (M-1) zoned parcels to more suitable Mining Two (M-2) zoned parcels. Such process would constitute a simultaneous rezoning of all involved parcels. I. ZONING OF RECEIVING AND SENDING SITES: As part of the submittal requirements, a narrative describing what zoning classification is requested for the Receiving and Sending Sites must be provided. The zoning request for the Sending Site should be one which does not permit residential development Mining Two (M-2) since the Development Right will be transferred to a Receiving Site, while the zoning request for the Receiving Site should permit residential development and meet the minimum area requirement for that specific zoning district. Future Mineral extraction potential on the Receiving Site should also be considered when determining the residential zoning designation.

214 T The importance of these sections was that when considering an application, the County would consider the future mineral extraction potential that could occur.

Commissioner Poirot requested comments on the 50 year versus perpetuity deed restriction. Ms. Moody responded with the following comments: T Ms. Moody did some research on this issue and felt that this came up due to to many M-1 claims being in unsuitable building areas. T The Planning Commission wanted to correct this so the building rights could be used somewhere else. T Ms. Moody stated that in other counties, this process was done with sending and receiving districts, not sites. T The County would have to determine the districts. T With the sending and receiving districts, once the building right was sent from the sending site, the sending site became a conservation easement and this was well recognized in land use. T Having deed restrictions on all lands could result in problems as people try to handle the lands in the future. T The TDR process worked better in urban sites rather than rural sites. T The people in rural areas didn’t want development so it was hard to find receiving sites for applicants of the TDR process.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the deed restriction of a conservation easement would have the same effect as the present M-2. However, a conservation easement was designed for tax benefits and therefore perpetual. Commissioner Sorensen stated that recently, the Governor had implemented conservation easements with a 20 year term. Commissioner Poirot stated that the M-2 zoned parcel and the conservation easement parcel would have the same tax benefit. Commissioner Watrous stated that next year when the Master Plan was completed, the County could identify sending and receiving areas. Commissioner Poirot agreed stating it would make sense to do this when considering where to develop infrastructure. Mr. Rollenhagen added that even if the master plan did not identify districts, it would show which areas in the County would have services and be considered urban.

Mr. Rollenhagen reviewed the resolution with the Board. The changes in the review considerations were reflected in the resolution. Regarding access, there was discussion on which receiving sites could be accepted in the TDR process. Commissioner Sorensen did not want access as a criteria for approval but as a consideration. She stated that access could be obtained from Adjacent Property Owners. Mr. Loeffler stated that this could lead property owners to condemn access. They could condemn private land if they were land locked. Mr. Wheeler agreed.

Additional changes were that an applicant could propose two sending sites instead of one to better rid the County of two unsuitable sites zoned as residential. Regarding the perpetuity versus the 50 year limit on the sending sites, the Board of County Commissioners preferred the language using perpetuity. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-128 with the following modifications: corrections substituting M-1 for M-2 and residential in various sections; Section L would utilize the Planning Commission language proposed; Section M would substitute the Planning Commission language and modify this language to say that the use being transferred to any use allowed in the M-1 zoning and making the access issue a review consideration only and not criteria. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WALSTRUM AGGREGATE QUARRY: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. In attendance were Clear Creek Courant owner Craig McMullin, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, and Planning Commission member Donna Moody. Mr. Rollenhagen presented the following information: T Mr. Rollenhagen presented the amended mylar maps of the Walstrum Quarry Official Development Plan. T The new mylars showed the Official Development Plan boundaries, the property lines, parcel lines and a legend.

215 T The second page of mylars displayed the language corrections. T The owners of the quarry had signed and approved the new mylars and the mylars now needed to be signed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Official Development Plan and the mylar corrections for the Walstrum Quarry and that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners sign the mylars. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR WIC FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this contract was amendment #4 providing an additional $3991 to the County Nursing WIC program. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the money was allocated to certain needs of the program. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve and for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 11, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-127, RECOGNITION OF PATRIOT DAY: Commissioner Watrous did not attend this hearing. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-127, recognition of Patriot Day. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the transfer of real property as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a) and regarding legal questions as allowed by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

PRIORITIZATION OF ENERGY AND MINERAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE GRANTS FROM CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Commissioner Watrous stated that the County had received two grant applications for the August 2002 cycle. One application was from the Clear Creek School District for renovations to the Middle School and one application was from the City of Idaho Springs/City of Morrison for a Circuit Rider Administrator. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to prioritize the grants as follows: 1. Clear Creek School District Middle School Renovations 2. City of Idaho Springs/City of Morrison Circuit Rider Administrator

Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

216 ______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 17, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 17, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the Henderson Mine appraisal as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH AMBULANCE DIRECTOR CRAIG ABRAHAMSON: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen attended the hearing. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the employment contract with Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. Mr. Abrahamson agreed with the contract terms. The motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-122, AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSFER STATION FEES: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen and Transfer Station Manager Mike Duran presented. Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen attended the hearing. Mr. Allen and Mr. Duran made the following statements: ‘ During the past year it had become evident that the Solid Waste Department was in need of another full time employee. ‘ The Facility Manager’s time was being used by having to perform day to day operational tasks within the facility. ‘ These tasks were specific to the job descriptions for Solid Waste Laborer and Solid Waste Equipment Operator. ‘ To enable this Service Unit to correct this situation and perform with increased efficiency, additional revenue was needed to help fund a full time employee for the Solid Waste Department. ‘ The Transfer Station fees were last revised in 1998. ‘ Since that time operations costs for the department had increased. ‘ During the last few years the department had also suffered projected revenue shortfalls which had nearly depleted its reserve fund balance. ‘ These revenue shortfalls had averaged about $28,000 per year and were directly related to the Transfer Station fees. ‘ The operations of the Solid Waste Department required a minimum of three people. ‘ One employee was required to meet incoming traffic and operate the cash register. ‘ A second person was required to operate the Recycling Center and a third person was needed for wood chipping, bin replacements, and shipping. ‘ Because of this demand, the manager had no time for administrative duties and managing the department. ‘ In order to continue providing this service and recover a reasonable amount of the operating cost, it was necessary to increase fees.

217 ‘ A moderate fee revision such as this one proposed should not have a negative impact on illegal dumping and yet allow for the needed revenue for an additional employee. ‘ The recommended course of action was to increase the fees beginning in January of 2003 and allow for the additional full time employee. ‘ Fees that increased were for appliances, tires, and 55-gallon drum, etc. ‘ The fees at other facilities had also increased over the past couple of years making Clear Creek County one of the cheaper places to unload appliances, tires, etc. ‘ This fee increase was an increase to Clear Creek County but still cheaper than other facilities. ‘ This year, the Transfer Station experienced a 600% increase in tree and branch and this caused an increase in maintenance costs to the chipper machinery.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-122 to amend the Transfer Station fees. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MES CONTRACT FOR WORK ON SANTA FE MOUNTAIN ROAD: East End Foreman of Road and Bridge Darryl Funk and Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Building Permit Coordinator Lynette Kelsey attended the hearing. Mr. Funk and Mr. Weaver made the following statements: ‘ The proposed resolution stated that the County was issuing a credit in impact fees to this person. ‘ The resolution and contract for services would have to be amended to read as Mark Levin receiving the credit. ‘ It had been determined that there was a direct relationship between the credit and the permit fee. ‘ It had been determined that the value of the work was in excess of the fee to be charged. ‘ The two actions by the Board would be to find Santa Fe Mountain Road as eligible to be considered with impact fees and that Mr. Levin would receive this credit. ‘ Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen had performed an evaluation on this road. ‘ Mr. Small encouraged to have an agreement upon completion, a certificate of insurance for Mr. Levin’s company, and that Road and Bridge would be the final approval on the work completed. Signs would also be needed along the construction area. ‘ This work on Santa Fe Mountain Road had been identified by Road and Bridge as needed due to growth in this area and the narrow condition of the road.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler agreed to write the contract between MES/Mark Levin and Clear Creek County for the services to be done to the road. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to authorize Mr. Weaver to amend the resolution, bring it back to the Board of County Commissioners for signing, and award Mr. Levin the credit to the impact fees for the Pink Millsite proposal subject to the completion of the contract with MES. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMPLOYEE CONTRACT WITH BERT WEAVER: Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, and Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver was in agreement with the contract terms. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the employee contract with Bert Weaver. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH TRI COUNTY WORKFORCE AGREEMENT: Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Commissioner Elect Harry Dale, and Senior Planner Lisa Vogel attended the hearing. County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented stating that Ms. Dicken of Human Services could not attend the hearing. Ms. Dicken was in approval of the contract. Mr. Loeffler stated that this second amendment was to eliminate

218 the first amendment to the original contract. This removed the administration portion from the contract as this now was handled by Jefferson County. The County’s maximum obligation would be no more than $5000. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the second amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Tri County Workforce Agreement and to allow the Chairman to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice to discuss the sale of real property as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 24, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the sale of real property as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding personnel issues not related to elected officials or County Commissioners as allowed by CRS 24- 6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-120, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION, #02-EX-08, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LANDS IN SECTION 24, T3SR74W; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FOR QUINN FAMILY TRUST AND LOUISE THOMPSON FOR ONE TRACT OF COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 25, T3SR74W; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR QUINN FAMILY TRUST AND LOUISE THOMPSON IN SECTION 25, T3SR74W; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH THE QUINN FAMILY TRUST AND LOUISE THOMPSON GROUP: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler and Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen attended the hearing. Mr. Holland presented the exemption first as all other items on the agenda had been previously approved in another hearing with the authorization for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign. Mr. Smith stated that this exemption, if approved, would divide Government Survey Lot #10, Section 25, T3SR74W, a 7.82 acre tract of County land into a .79 acre parcel and a 7.03 acre parcel. This exemption would fulfill an agreement between Clear Creek County and the Quinn Family Trust/ Louise Thompson of the sale of the .79 acre parcel, at a set price, in exchange for a trail easement across the Silver rock Lode and Capital Millsite. Additionally, the smaller parcel contained the tunnel portal for the East Murray Lode which was owned by the Quinn/Thompson. The larger portion of the parcel would remain in the County inventory. The Open Space Commission had expressed interest in

219 this larger parcel. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-120, Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-08 to divide County land in Section 25. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners signed the remaining documents previously approved.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CANCELLATION NOTICE AND REPLACEMENT BOND FROM ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE TO SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON BELLEVUE MOUNTAIN FOR AT&T WIRELESS: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that this had been completed before for other telecommunication companies. AT&T was changing their performance bond from one company to another and needed the permission of Clear Creek County to complete it. Additionally, there was a cancellation notice for the prior insurance company. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the cancellation notice and replacement bond from St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance to SAFECO Insurance Company of America for telecommunications facility on Bellevue Mountain for AT&T Wireless. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS:

#02-108, C.J. Galbraith, Winterland Subdivsion: This hearing was continued to the next round of abatement hearings.

#02-137, JBC Land Company LLC, Upper Bear Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Jack Pottle of the JBC Land Company, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Settle made the following statements: • She stated that the comparables supported the value for this area. • This property had a 5-acre building site and the remaining acreage was a conservation easement and considered as agricultural. • Market sales of similar properties supported the Assessor’s value of $161,560.

Mr. Pottle made the following statements: • He had called the Assessor’s office to discuss this property. • Based on his conversations with the Assessor’s office, he thought the topography was classified as sloping. • With the steep classification of topography, the value should be $130,000. • The building site sloped from the west to the east portion of the lot by 25%. • Secondly, the percentage increase in the value was approximately 269%. • Mr. Pottle frustration was with the difference in discussions from when he called in and what was said at the hearing.

Ms. Settle replied that following a site visit the Assessor’s office had adjusted the value for the topography but not as much as Mr. Pottle desired. The Assessor’s office found the parcel as sloping and not steep topography. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment in value. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-135, Arlene Hovland, Saddleback Ridge Estates: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Arlene Hovland, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Settle stated that she and Ms. Hovland had recently met and discussed this value. The original recommendation was denial but Ms. Settle now recommended a downward adjustment for condition. Ms. Hovland agreed stating that no improvements had been made to the home and the appliances and interior were very old. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s

220 recommendation of the downward adjustment for condition. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-133, Roger and Kathleen Bauman, Old Squaw Pass: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Roger Bauman, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Bauman stated that last July he had protested the 2002 value and now this abatement was for the 2000 and 2001 year values. Mr. Bauman stated that he had bought the parcel as 40 acres and then subdivided. Essentially, Mr. Bauman claimed that three other residents had done the same thing and were still assessed residentially – Chisolms, Occhioneros, and Islands. Mr. Bauman, too, wanted to be assessed residentially even though he had subdivided. Ms. Settle replied that the Islands had purchased their property already subdivided, the Chisolms had built on one property and utilized the rest as residential, and the County had lost at the Board of Assessment Appeals with the Occhioneros. Mr. Bauman stated that he, too, utilized his land as residential. His family used the adjoining parcels for picnicking, ATV riding, hiking, etc. His family was not actively marketing the land. County Attorney Robert Loeffler asked if the land was fenced or had access. Mr. Bauman replied that the land was not fenced but all lots had access to the road. Commissioner Sorensen noted that there were building sites identified on each parcel. Ms. Settle stated that he was denied at the Board of Equalization in July of 2002 and she recommended denying the appeal for 2000 and 2001. Mr. Bauman replied that had he known there was an easier process than subdividing the parcels in 1999, he would have done it. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-131, Louis Brigham, Mill Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Louis Brigham, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Settle stated that these were three lots on Mill Creek in the Happy Thought Subdivision. The Assessor’s office recommended denial and to correct the way the land was valued from residential to vacant land with a minor structure. Mr. Brigham replied that there was no sewer and he had an old mobile home camper with a septic tank. They rarely used this septic tank as their daughter lived next door. A common driveway accessed the three parcels but when the sewer line went in, it ran through the middle of some of the lots and now he was unable to use 300-feet of the property due to this line. In 2001, he had protested his taxes due to this line and they were decreased. Now the taxes had increased to $416 and he was protesting again. The improvements showed an increase in value to $1620 and there had been no improvements made on the mobile home camper. Mr. Brigham lent this land out to youth camp outs, camping, and fishing. Commissioner Sorensen requested that the Assessor research the size of the sewer easement and what it did to this property. Ms. Settle agreed to meet with Central Clear Creek Sanitation District and return with a new recommendation. The Board agreed.

#02-129, William Miller, Jr., Bard Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Miller group. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Settel stated that Mr. Miller bought the land for $10,000 per mining claim and the Assessor’s office had them valued at $12,580 per similar sales that supported the value. These parcels were accessed by Bard Creek Road. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-130, William Miller, Jr., Bard Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Miller group. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Settel stated that Mr. Miller bought the land for $10,000 per mining claim and the Assessor’s office had them valued at $12,580 per similar sales that supported the value. These parcels were accessed by Bard Creek Road. Commissioner Sorensen asked if there were other claims in Bard Creek to compare this land to besides the Lamartine area. Ms. Settle replied that there were not. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

221 #02-132, Margaret Hayden, Upper Bear Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Hayden group. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Settle stated that this property was part of the estate where the land was agricultural and only the building site was being appealed. The Hayden group had submitted an appraisal but the Assessor’s office had found it inferior in that it did not make dollar adjustments in the comparisons. The Assessor’s office utilized the same comparables as the Hayden appraiser to justify their value. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-134, James and Terri Rosevear, South Spring Gulch: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Rosevear group. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Settle stated that the Assessor’s department recommended a downward adjustment due to location. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-136, Jim and Stephanie Vogt, York Gulch: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Vogt group. Ms. Settle stated that this parcel was partially in Clear Creek County and partially in Gilpin County. The Assessor’s office recommended a downward adjustment to value the parcel as residential since the house was in Gilpin and the rest of the parcel extended into Clear Creek County. Mr. Vogt was happy with the recommendation. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment to residential classification. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION HEARINGS FOR THE SENIOR PROPERTY TAX HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION:

#02-10, Tom Briddle, Alvarado Road: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. Briddle, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Briddle stated that he met the requirements for this exemption. He admitted that his application for the exemption was late but he felt that Ms. Settle’s statement of denial was late as well. Mr. Briddle wanted the Board of Equalization to overlook the late factor since both parties were late and approve his appeal for the exemption. Ms. Settle confirmed that the notices of the exemption process were sent in February but her notice of denial was late as she was out of town when she had received the appeal from Mr. Briddle. The Board decided to grant leniency and approve the exemption since it was the first year of the process and there were only two late appeals. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the exemption. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-08, Paul Munchiando, Idaho Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Paul and Dolores Munchiando, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Munchiando stated that her appeal, too, was late however, she did not know why the mail took so long. Ms. Settle stated that the Munchiando appeal was postmarked on July 23, 2002. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the exemption for the same reasons as the Briddle case. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-07, Mary Virginia Otto, Circle K Ranch: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Otto group. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Settle stated that Ms. Otto was age eligible only and did not meet the remaining criteria. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to accept the recommendation of denial for the Otto appeal. Commissioner Poirot seconded. Commissioner Sorensen asked if there were

222 amendments to this statute on the Senior Exemptions. County Attorney Robert Loeffler replied that there were amendments but the requirements remained the same. The vote was unanimous.

#02-09, Merrillyn Goldstine, French Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Goldstine group. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Settle stated that she and Ms. Goldstine had discussed the appeal and that Ms. Goldstine did not qualify for the age requirement until the following year. According to protocol, since the appeal had been filed, Ms. Settle recommended denial. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-123, NAMING OF UNNAMED ROAD TWO MILES UP HWY 103 TO BLACK EAGLE ROAD: Mapping Director Matt Taylor and Land Use Assistant Cyndie Ruschmyer presented. Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, resident Doctor Hickam, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Taylor stated that, according to policy, when a fourth residence was built, a road had to be named. The Mapping department suggested the name of Black Eagle Road to the property owners. Of the 26 property owners, four were in favor of Black Eagle Road and one was in favor of Doug Watrous Road. Commissioner Watrous stated that she was in favor of Black Eagle Road. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-123 naming of unnamed road two miles up Hwy 103 to Black Eagle Road. Doctor Hickam had written a song named after the Black Eagle Road and sang it into the record. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-140, AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ROAD MAP: Mapping Director Matt Taylor and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel presented. Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, Clear Creek Nettle reporter Genevieve Chandler, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that this resolution no longer needed to be considered. The Dumont/Alice Wagon Road was partially in Township T3SR73W for which a County road map and system was already designated. However, the portion of the road in question was in another township which had not had County roads and maps designated. Therefore, a resolution was not yet needed. The County had produced the research to prove that this portion of the road on the Fall River side was a public road and built by the County. In the future, when the Board of County Commissioners adopted a County road map for this township, this road would be included. County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that he would write to the landowner and have them remove the illegal gate blocking this public road. The Board agreed.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 25, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Jo Ann Sorensen, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Robert Poirot was at another meeting.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR COLORADO STATE FOREST SERVICE GRANT FOR THE SITE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel Land Use Service Unit Manager Deb Kirkham presented. Mr. Vogel made the following statements:

223 • Mr. Vogel presented a memo to the Board of County Commissioners on what could be captured with this grant and what it would be used for. • Mr. Vogel had been working with Brian Kurtz of the Colorado State Forest Service regarding fire mitigation grants and funding. • This grant was intended to be used for educational programs for Homeowners Associations, residents, the purchase of two wood chippers, and defensible space work. • This grant would assist in educating the public to decrease the threat of wildfire through newspaper inserts and site visits. • A second portion of the grant would be for a slash disposal program. This grant would assist in reducing the fees for disposal of slash while simultaneously increasing the amount of slash brought in to the Transfer Station. • Mr. Vogel had been working with Mike Duran, Manager of the Transfer Station. • The grant would also fund an additional position to assist with the slash disposal program. • The last section of the grant would allow Mr. Vogel to meet with homeowners, mark their property for defensible space, and if the mitigation was completed on their property, the property owner would receive a 50% reimbursement of their costs. Commissioner Sorensen suggested that the homeowners apply for this reimbursement individually with the State Forest Service. • Mr. Vogel stated that last year $21 million was available for fire mitigation programs in Colorado and he expected more this year due to the wild fires that had occurred. He added that this could result in more competition for grant funding also.

Commissioner Sorensen suggested mentioning in the grant application, the number of visitors that Clear Creek County experiences each year in that Clear Creek County was protecting many citizens and visitors alike. Ms. Kirkham agreed to include this in the grant narrative. Commissioner Sorensen also suggested that with this grant, Clear Creek County would be aiding residents in participating in other Colorado State Forest Service programs.

Mr. Vogel stated that he had been discussing the grant with Fire Chief Kelly Babeon and Emergency Manager Laura Nay and both were supportive of the application. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Board of County Commissioners would also submit a letter of support. Mr. Vogel agreed to work with firefighter volunteers on the educational programs. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the grant application for the Site Development Department to the Colorado State Forest Service. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Human Services. Minutes for the Board of Human Services are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners. The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 1, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 1, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES: The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Human Services. Minutes for the Board of Human Services are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

224 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEDICAID TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT: This hearing was continued until the final agreement was received by the County.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-124, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE #02-TSUP-12, FOR WILLIAM LEE TO EXTEND PREVIOUS TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO KEEP TRAVEL TRAILER AND PORTABLE SHED ON PROPERTY DURING CONSTRUCTION PROCESS ON M-1 ZONED PROPERTY, SOUTH SPRING GULCH:

Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Applicant William Lee did not attend. Resident Sam Morreale, Road and Bridge East End Foreman Patrick Buckley, and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following statements: T The applicant was William Lee. T The property consisted of portions of the Myra and Ella lodes M.S. #17030, Black Copper and the Nina M.S. #15581 and G.S. Lots 106 & 145 located in Section 3, Township 4 South, Range 73 West, conditionally approved as Parcel B of the JGE Division of Land (Case #02-AX-9) also known as 850 South Spring Gulch Rd. T The request was to allow construction of a 20' x 40' barn; placement of a 12' x 12' pre-built shed on a permanent foundation; use of an 8' x 10' portable grain shed, a 6' x 16' portable tack shed and a 6' x 16' loafing shed; and occupancy of an 18' travel trailer; all prior to construction of a residence. T These uses were previously approved by Temporary Special Use Permit #00-TSUP-4, which expired September 26, 2002. T Due to cost overruns and complications with the well drilling and other work completed, the construction schedule associated with that approval had not been met. T Currently the travel trailer and all the sheds are on the property, but portable. T The barn that was approved had not been constructed. T The requested term for this permit is 2 years or until such time as a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the single family residence, whichever occurred first. T Adjacent property owners and review agencies were notified by mail on September 9, 2002. Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on September 11. T Two adjacent property owners, Joan Emeson and Christoph Manke, responded they had reviewed the proposal and had no conflicts. T Chris Etcheson, Environmental Health Specialist, and Lisa Leben-Vogel, County Lands Director, both responded they had reviewed the proposal and had no conflicts. T While the applicant had been unable to meet the previously approved construction schedule, he has gotten the well installed and currently had active ISDS, Driveway and Defensible Space permits. T He planned on having the excavation and foundation for the house completed by next Spring, and a Certificate of Occupancy by May 31 of 2004. T The barn, loafing shed, grain shed and tack shed were all allowed permitted principal uses in residentially zoned parcels as non-commercial equestrian structures, therefore, Staff feels a Performance Guarantee should be required only for the removal of the 12' x 12' storage shed and the travel trailer. The applicant was expected to submit bids at this hearing for removal of the structures. T Staff feels the application meets the Criteria for Approval as outlined in your packets and recommends approval subject to the sipulations and conditions as stated in draft Resolution 02-124. T The applicant was also in a boundary line adjustment process but this did not hinder the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit process. T If this permit extension were not approved, all permanent structures would be left on the Myra.

Since the applicant did not attend the hearing, Commissioner Sorensen suggested that the hearing be continued to allow time to receive the bids. Commissioner Watrous stated that she had performed a site visit and the site appeared to be covered with junk. She requested that Ms. Kastens complete another site visit to check on the appearance of the property. Ms. Kastens

225 agreed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to October 15, 2002 at 10:30 a.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH CINDY DICKEN: County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented. Mr. Loeffler stated that Ms. Dicken had accepted and signed the contract. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the employment contract with Cindy Dicken. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 8, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-138, TO ASSIGN MANAGEMENT OF FORMER SHOCKLEY PARCEL TO THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION: Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen attended the hearing. County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that this land was conveyed from Mr. Shockley to the County for the Open Space Commission. The Town of Georgetown did not want the parcel so Mr. Shockley had conveyed it to the County. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-138, to assign management of former Shockley parcel to the Open Space Commission. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

DISCUSSION WITH THE FIRE CHIEF AND AMBULANCE DIRECTOR: This hearing was changed to a work session.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEDICAID TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen attended the hearing. Ms. Dicken made the following statements: • This agreement was between Clear Creek County and the Seniors Resource Center for the Center to provide Medicaid Transportation to Clear Creek County residents. • The Human Services department was funded some extra money in administration to cover costs outlined in this agreement with the Seniors Resource Center. • Ms. Dicken was still working with Mr. Zabawa of the Center to handle foster care youth on Medicaid meet their appointments. However, this would not hold up this agreement. • Ms. Dicken stated that her department would act as the Medicaid Fiscal Agent for the agreement and staff would handle all payments.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Medicaid Transportation Agreement between Clear Creek County and the Seniors Resource Center. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LIFTING OF THE FIRE BAN FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Undersheriff Stu Nay presented. Clear Creek Ranger District Director Dan Lovato, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Senior Planner Lisa Vogel, and Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen attended the hearing. Mr. Nay stated that the Sheriff’s department was in favor of lifting the fire ban for Clear Creek County to be timely with the Forest Service lifting of

226 the ban. County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that since the fire ban was implemented by the Sheriff for an unspecified duration of time, the ban had to be lifted with consultation of the Board of County Commissioners. If the fire ban was implemented with a pre-specified date for lifting, the Sheriff could remove the ban. The lifting of the ban was an important act because it made lawful to do certain things again that were illegal under the ban. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-143, lifting of the Clear Creek County fire ban. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF OPTIONAL PREMISES LIQUOR LICENSE FOR CLEAR CREEK SKIING CORP. D.B.A. LOVELAND SKI AREA AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE FOR SHADOWS RANCH, ALVARADO ROAD: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Applicant Joe Sysel attended the hearing. Ms. Reimer made the following statements regarding the renewal of tavern license for Shadows Ranch: • Shadows Ranch did have a tavern license and was requesting a renewal. • All forms had been submitted and all fees had been paid. • All departments had recommended the renewal.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the renewal of tavern license for Shadows Ranch. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Mr. Sysel stated that his operation had brought forth over $1.2 million to the County, his clients booked over 5000 hotel rooms in Clear Creek County, rode the railroad, and did much shopping. Mr. Sysel felt that his operation had created a destination tourism place in the County. The vote was unanimous.

Ms. Reimer presented the following information regarding the Loveland Ski Area renewal of optional premises liquor license permit: • All forms had been submitted and all fees had been paid. • This was an optional premises license allowing Loveland Ski Area to serve alcohol at different locations on the property. • The Sheriff did review all licenses for any violations.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the renewal of optional premises liquor license for Clear Creek Skiing Corp. d.b.a. Loveland Ski Area. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-141, ADOPTING CCOERA’S DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN EGTRRA MODIFICATION: Human Resources Specialist Gail Buckley presented. Ms. Buckley made the following statements about the modification: • The County currently offered a deferred compensation plan to its employees through CCOERA. • This modifications were the changes in the agreement with CCOERA so the County could continue to offer deferred compensation and be in compliance with the IRS. • Many County employees utilized this plan. • This plan did not impact the County budget and was a voluntary plan. • The maximum amount allowed to defer was $11,500 per year. • Most employees could not afford to defer this amount of compensation and still pay bills. • Most employees had the ability to manage their own moneys with CCOERA. There were options that ranged from risky to conservative. • The employees could choose from six different model portfolios in which to invest their deferred compensation.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-141, to adopt CCOERA’s deferred compensation plan EGTRRA modification. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

227 ______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 9, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the Henderson Mine, the Slavens road issue, and the Lake Edith road as allowed by CRS 24-6- 402(4)(b). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 15, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Jo Ann Sorensen was out of town.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CANCELLATION NOTICE AND REPLACEMENT BOND FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON SAXON MOUNTAIN FOR AT&T: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel attended. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that this was the same agreement performed by the County a week ago for the Bellevue Mountain site for AT&T. This would change AT&T’s replacement bond from St. Paul to SAFECO of America. These were the only two sites that AT&T was changing in Clear Creek County. County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that these agreements were acceptable to sign. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the cancellation notice and approve the replacement bond for the AT&T site on Saxon Mountain and to allow the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-127, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE #02-TSUP-14, FOR JACQUELINE GILBERE, BARBOUR FORKS, TO USE A RV AND SHED DURING PRIMARY STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Senior Planner Lisa Vogel, Planner II Holland Smith, and South Spring Gulch resident Jeff Ricklefs attended the hearing. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to continue the hearing to November 12, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. since the applicant could not attend the hearing. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-124, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE #02-TSUP-12, FOR WILLIAM LEE TO EXTEND PREVIOUS TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO KEEP TRAVEL TRAILER AND PORTABLE SHED ON PROPERTY

228 DURING CONSTRUCTION PROCESS ON M-1 ZONED PROPERTY, SOUTH SPRING GULCH: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Applicant William Lee and Planner I Sarah Kaminski attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following statements: • Mr. Lee had submitted two bid proposals for removal of the structures on the property should his development plan fall through. • One bid was for $125 and the other bid was to have the remover accept the structures for his own in exchange. There was no monetary involvement in the latter bid. • Mr. Lee explained that his construction schedule was moving more quickly now. • The well installation had taken longer than expected and one investor had rescinded on the project. • The boundary line adjustment process had also set Mr. Lee back with construction. • As of today, the septic tank had been set and the leach field should be completed by the end of the month. • Defensible space was completed on the property. • The plans for the home had been paid for and were almost completed. • He was also have plans drawn for the barn. • Ms. Kastens stated that this was a newly submitted construction schedule with more leeway built in by the Planning Department.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-124, Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit Case #02-TSUP-12, for William Lee to extend previous Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit to keep travel trailer and portable shed on property during construction process on M-1 zoned property. Commissioner Watrous seconded. During discussion, Mr. Loeffler stated that the financial guarantee needed to cover the costs of the County removing the structures and not a deal that Mr. Lee had with neighbors. Mr. Loeffler did not think that $125 would cover the costs to the County of removing the structures. Mr. Loeffler suggested the Board of County Commissioners approve the case contingent on a satisfactory bid of removal of the structures. Commissioner Poirot amended his motion to include the receiving of a more realistic amount from Mr. Lee by Ms. Kastens that would cover the costs of the removal of the structures without the salvage value of the building. If there was any question in the amount of the bid, the proposal would return to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. Commissioner Watrous amended her second of the motion. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR MANGUS–SECTION 35, T3SR73W, WINTERS–SECTION 3–T4SR73W, COX–SECTION 31–T3SR73W, GULBRANSON–SECTION 23, T3SR74W, FERGUSON–SECTION 30–T3SR72W, AND A CORRECTION DEED AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR STEGMAIER/SHAW–SECTION 22–T3SR73W; AND OPENING OF SEALED BIDS FOR TWO COUNTY LAND PARCELS IN SECTION 3, T4SR73W; AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DEED RESTRICTION ON COUNTY RESIDENTIAL LOT S FOR COUNTY LANDS: Planner I Sarah Kaminski and Planner II Holland Smith presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski presented the sealed bids and Commissioner Watrous opened them. The results were as follows: • For parcel #1961-03-1-00-969, the minimum bid amount was $252. • The first bid was from the Bjorkland group for $301. • The second bid was from William Lee for $282. • Ms. Kaminski explained that this land was not zoned at the time of the bidding because the County Lands Department had assumed the township zoning would be completed by this time. • The township zoning resolution would be on the agenda at the Board of County Commissioners hearing the following week.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the bid from the Bjorkland group for $301 for parcel #1961-03-1-00-969. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

229 Ms. Kaminski presented the second parcel for bid: • This parcel was #1961-03-1-00-963 and the minimum bid was $600. • This parcel was proposed to be zoned M-1 and only one bid was received. • The one bid was from the Bjorkland group for $651.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the bid from Bjorkland on parcel #1961-03-1-00- 963 contingent on the zoning being completed for the parcel. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Smith presented the deed restriction on County Lot S: • This deed restriction would fulfill contracts with the owners of the Paragon Lode. • This restriction would allow no building on a certain portion of the property. • This restriction would transfer to any future owners. • There would be no structures or other building west of the County road other than fences, gates, and utility lines. • This restriction had been accepted by the Eriksson group, owners of the Paragon.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the deed restriction and that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners sign the documents. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Kaminski presented the Correction Deed and Combination of Lots Agreement for Stegmaier/Shaw. The first deed and Combination of Lots Agreements was part of a Correction Deed for the Stegmaier/Shaw party to correct the legal description. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Correction deed and Combination of Lots Agreement for the Stegmaier/Shaw group and to have the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners sign the documents. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Kaminski presented the Special Warranty Deed and Combination of Lots Agreement for the Winters group. The Winters parcel was within the unzoned region as well and needed to be approved contingent on completion of zoning. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deed and Combination of Lots Agreement for the Winters group contingent on the completion of the zoning process and to allow the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Kaminski presented the remaining Special Warranty Deeds and Combination of Lots Agreements for the Mangus, Cox, Gulbranson, and Ferguson parties. All these parcels were zoned M-2 except for the Ferguson parcel which was zoned NR-PC and would be combined with contiguous properties. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deeds and Combination of Lots Agreements for the Mangus, Cox, Gulbranson, and Ferguson parties and that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners could sign the documents. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COLLATERAL AGREEMENT WITH QWEST AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented. Commissioner- Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler stated that Qwest was performing work in the County roadway and under County regulations, Qwest would have to provide a security agreement that the road would be repaired. Normally, a Letter of Credit was required but Qwest was requesting to put up cash which required this security agreement. The Board of County Commissioners could approve the acceptance of cash and the security agreement now and change to a Letter of Credit in the future. This security was for repairing the road if needed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Collateral Agreement with Qwest and Clear Creek County. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______

230 Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 22, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BIKE TRAIL CONTRACT FROM HWY 40 AT EMPIRE TO STANLEY ROAD: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following comments: • Mr. Weaver stated that he had hiked this potential trail the prior day with residents of Empire, and Hugh Osborne of the National Forest Service. • Mr. Weaver was proposing some language changes in the contract as it read presently. County Attorney Robert Loeffler suggested having this language approved by Jim Bemelen of CDOT before signing the contract. • Mr. Weaver agreed stating that the Board of County Commissioners could possibly approve the contract contingent on the language being acceptable to Mr. Bemelen and that the Chairman could sign the contract at that time. • The proposed language requested that the funding be open to any part of the Berthoud Pass Research Corridor. The engineering could be done over the winter and the construction could begin by May 31, 2002. • Mr. Weaver noted that obtaining easements from certain property owners on the portion of the trail from Empire to Stanley Road had proven difficult as some property owners did not want to provide easement. • Mr. Weaver suggested that for east of Empire, he wanted non-exclusive, unimproved pedestrian bicycle easements. • Basically, the language change would include any possible bike trail areas along the Hwy 40 corridor. • This trail could also connect with the Hoop Creek Bridge near Berthoud Falls and the old wagon trail over Berthoud Pass. • The Forest Service was in support of this project and hiked the trail in the past. • Mr. Weaver thought it would be possible to obtain CDOT’s approval of the language change as they had also signed the Berthoud Pass Research Corridor Memorandum of Understanding. • Mr. Weaver noted that this funding could not be transferred to other projects in Clear Creek County. If the funding was not used by May 30, 2003, then it would be lost.

Chief Accountant Carl Small stated that this funding was $450,000 of reimbursable funding where the State would reimburse the County based on invoices. The County had some cash to be used until reimbursed but the project could require some transfers of funding until full reimbursement. Agreements would have to be made with contractors that the County would have to pay when reimbursed by the State.

Commissioner Sorensen asked about DBE’s (Disadvantaged Business Enterprise). County Attorney Robert Loeffler replied that the County did not have this program but if they did they would have to comply with requirements for DBE’s. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the contract and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign contingent on approval of the language change by CDOT. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF VOICEMAIL CONTRACT WITH WTSI FOR COUNTY OFFICES: Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger presented. Chief Accountant

231 Carl Small, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, HGI President Ron Neely, and Gaming Impact Coordinator Cindy Condon attended the hearing. Ms. Krueger made the following comments: • Ms. Krueger stated that the voicemail system for the County offices had completely failed due to old age. • The County needed to obtain a new system and at present the front receptionist was handling all calls. • The County had ordered a new system through WTSI and the new system was manufactured by Mitel. • The purchase price included, power package, ethernet card, enhanced messaging, announcement capabilities, programming, labor, training, installation, one year parts manufacturer’s warranty, and one year labor warranty. • The total price for the system was $15,231.31. • The Sheriff was willing to pay for half of the bill as it was mandatory that the Sheriff have voicemail.

Mr. Small stated that he was proposing that this fee be paid out of the Sales Tax Fund for half of the bill and the Sheriff Prisoner Board Fund would pay for the other half of the bill. Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern over the fee for the shipping and that this fee was too high. Ms. Krueger replied that she would research this with the company. Ms. Krueger added that the County had obtained this system at government pricing which saved a few thousand dollars. Ms. Krueger trusted WTSI and their knowledge and recommendation with this system. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract with WTSI for the new voicemail system. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GAMING CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR GAMING STAFF SUPPORT: Gaming Impact Coordinator Cindy Condon presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and HGI President Ron Neely attended the hearing. Ms. Condon made the following comments: • Ms. Condon stated that this contract amendment proposed to extend the gaming staff support for another six months to June 30, 2003. • Instead of doing a contract change letter as in the past, the Department of Local Affairs was now having gaming grant recipients sign another amended contract.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the gaming contract amendment for gaming staff support and to have the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign this document. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DEED SIGNING FOR LOTS F & S, WILD WAGONER ROAD, FOR THE COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT: Senior Planner Lisa Vogel presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Ms. Vogel made the following comments: • Ms. Vogel stated that she had received a contract on these lands on September 25, 2002. • The closing was scheduled and the paperwork was in order. • Both of these parcels were in Section 20, T3SR73W. • Ms. Vogel presented two different deeds and there were deed restrictions on the parcels. • Lot S and F had deed restrictions for outdoor lighting, visual impacts, and an easement of 60-ft for road and utility purposes.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign all documents with the close of the sale and the deeds for Lots F and S for County Lands Department. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CLEAR CREEK FIRE AUTHORITY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT: Commissioner Sorensen presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen made the following comments:

232 • This agreement was the same agreement as the Clear Creek Fire Authority was formed under in 1988. • There were a couple of updates to the agreement dealing with pension, how each jurisdiction was represented, an d no limits on number of years for each representative. • Commissioner Sorensen stated that this agreement was still missing Exhibit A which was the inventory list of the Clear Creek Fire Authority. • The Fire Chief Kelly Babeon assured the CCFA that this list was being compiled.

Commissioner Poirot asked about the pension program. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the parties contributions to the authority were proportionately the same as they were in 1988 based on their respective budgets. The CCFA now made pension fund contributions and not the individual entities. The Idaho Springs Fire Department had contributed extra to the pension due to its additional funding received from the antenna site next to the firehouse. Commissioner Sorensen stated that there was a standard with the pension fund at the State that the authority had to participate in 36 hours of training and show verification. Additionally, Chief Babeon was currently updating old personnel records with the authority to ensure proper pension terms.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the agreement and for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents contingent on receiving Exhibit A. County Attorney Robert Loeffler noted that the Board needed to approve this agreement as the Emergency Services District Board. Commissioner Watrous confirmed that the Board of County Commissioners was meeting in the capacity as the Emergency Services District Board. Commissioner Poirot amended his motion to approve the agreement as the Emergency Services District Board and that the Chairman of this Board could sign the documents contingent on receiving Exhibit A and being satisfied with it. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Emergency Services District Board reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-41 AND ZONE MAP FOR T4SR73W WITH THE EXCLUSION OF THE ALPS MOUNTAIN AREA: Senior Planner Lisa Vogel presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, and Planner II Fred Rollenhagen attended the hearing. Ms. Vogel made the following comments: • The Board of County Commissioners had held several public hearings on this township zoning over the past five months. • On September 9, 2002, a decision was made by the Board of County Commissioners to zone all lands except those portions in the Alps Mountain area that were colored white. • This resolution was amended to reflect this exclusion. • Ms. Vogel presented the new resolution and zone map. • The legal descriptions were changed to exclude the Alps Mountain areas as well.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-41 and the zone plan map for T4SR73W with the exclusion of the Alps Mountain areas. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAD CONTRACT WITH COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC., FOR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Undersheriff Stu Nay and Emergency Manager Laura Nay presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Nay made the following comments: • This was a project that began a year ago with the Public Safety Committee to obtain computerated dispatch for the Communications Department. • There were four proposals presented and this proposal was the one chosen and was the lowest in price. • The Town of Georgetown had committed to providing funding towards this program over the next five years. • This proposal would entail two terminals in dispatch and one in the Idaho Springs Police Department.

233 • Having the additional terminal in Idaho Springs would allow the Sheriff’s to assist Idaho Springs and vice versa in certain emergencies. • This system could also be used for data collection which would assist various departments in writing gaming and other grant applications. • This system would aid in the reduction of administrative time for officers and assist with searching for house warrants, etc. • Computer Information Systems Inc., did offer a three year no interest financing. • The Public Safety Committee for Clear Creek County was in approval of this proposal. • The total price of this system was $69,600 and it would be financed through the E911 surcharge fund. • All municipalities would be served by this system but only one additional terminal would be used in Idaho Springs. Additionally, Idaho Springs would have to pay for and maintain their own line for this system. • Ms. Nay noted that the Clear Creek Fire Authority and the Ambulance Department had contributed $3000-$4000 each to this program. • Mr. Nay stated that towns could receive reports on their activity if needed. • This system had the potential to be connected directly to CBI in order to run clearances. This would be an additional package to purchase.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler expressed concern with the language of the contract stating that the renewal funds for the maintenance agreement were due in January of 2003 and the system had not yet been installed. He requested that Mr. Nay confirm with Computer Information Systems Inc., that this payment of the maintenance fee be paid at the one year anniversary after installation. Mr. and Ms. Nay agreed. Chief Accountant Carl Small stated that the contract appeared to read a prorated agreement for the first year of maintenance.

Mr. Nay noted that a time consuming part of this process would be the uploading of all codes for each call whether police, fire, or ambulance. Once the codes were loaded, training would occur in Chicago for select employees who would then return to train other staff.

Ms. Nay stated that there were enough funds in the E911 surcharge fund to pay this first portion of the contract this year. The Public Safety Committee had supported this use of the E911 funds this year. County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that the Board could approve this contract contingent on the resolution of the anniversary maintenance fee being paid one year after installation. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract contingent on the clarification of when the maintenance fee would be due and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and asked if this $10,000 was required every year. Mr. Nay replied that it was only required for the first 3 years for support and renewal. Mr. Small agreed and added that it was subject to a 10% increase. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PARTIAL RELEASE OF LETTER OF CREDIT FOR SADDLEBACK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PHASE 1-C: Planner II Fred Rollenhagen presented. Saddleback Development Corporation representative Rich Cassens, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Clear Creek Courant Editor Einar Jensen, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel attended the hearing. County Attorney Robert Loeffler made the following statements: • The phase 1 of the Saddleback subdivision work was secured by a Letter of Credit and Saddleback Development Corporation (SDC) was now requesting a partial release of this Letter of Credit due to the work that had been completed. • This was the third partial release requested by the SDC. • Under the terms of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement which reflects the original concept, there was a street named Steel Dust Lane. This street was proposed by the developer and would have been better done as a private access road which received less ride than a County road standard. • The installation of a standard County road would require more work and would interfere with certain lots. • This road actually only served two lots and provided access to two other lots’ leach fields.

234 • The provided resolution excepted this road out of the County road standards and made it more of a private road. • This partial release totaled $199,288.47. • If the Board of County Commissioners approved this resolution, they would be approving the partial release of credit as well as the change in the road. There was no formal action to change the road to a private driveway because the road was being left as a right of way dedicated to the Metropolitan District for utilities, etc. Mr. Vogel agreed stating that this road as a private drive exceeded the driveway standards at present. Mr. Cassens added that in August of 2000, the resolution required that in 30 days a portion of this road had to be applied to be vacated. That application had been submitted and the resolution was signed by the Board of County Commissioners. This road no longer connected to Saddleback Drive. • Mr. Rollenhagen submitted a memo stating that the Planning Staff did support this change in the road, Steel Dust Lane. • Mr. Rollenhagen continued that if the road were made a County road it would require 35- ft retaining walls. • Steel Dust Lane as it was now, conformed to Clear Creek County private right of way standards for access to Lots 1 and 2. • The way this road was constructed now, it would not be able to serve additional parcels. Physically, there were no other properties to service.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-105, for partial release of Letter of Credit for Saddleback Development Corporation, Phase 1-C, which also approved the change in the road. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the Henderson appraisal and matters protected from disclosure by the mandatory nondisclosure provisions of the Open Records Act as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(g). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 23, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 23, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Jo Ann Sorensen, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Robert Poirot was attending other meetings.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the Berber/Patino litigation, the Open Space Commission, and road design standards, as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

235 CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 29, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 29, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF HEGMANN CONTRACT FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler made the following statements: • This was a contract for body removal in conjunction with the duties of the County Coroner. • The Coroner had initiated this agreement with Hegmann Funeral Services. • This agreement provided that Hegmann would provide body removal services when a family had not made previous arrangements. • Hegmann would also provide a morgue for the Coroner’s use. • Hegmann would provide a letter to families informing them that he was doing services on behalf of the Coroner and the families would have no obligation to use this funeral home. • This agreement was set up as effective at the beginning of the year. • This was an expense that the Coroner had always had and an ongoing expense.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Hegmann Contract with Clear Creek County and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-148, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-TSUP-15, LOCATED ON THE INGO B, UTE CREEK, TO ALLOW A 22-FT TRAVEL TRAILER AND A 16' x 20' STORAGE SHED WHILE BUILDING PRIMARY RESIDENCE: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to November 5, 2002 at 11:15 a.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT: DYCE, SECTION 29, T3SR73W; DREHER TRUST, SECTION 4, T4SR73W; LOEFFLER, SECTION 31, T3SR73W; DALPES TRUST/DALPES REVOCABLE TRUST, SECTION 26, T3SR74W; (4) MOSCH, D.B.A., VON MOSCH MINING CO., SECTION 33, T3SR73W; SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS ONLY FOR: (3) JGE MINING CO., SECTION 3; T4SR73W; AND A CORRECTION COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT AND SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FOR DYCE, SECTION 29 & 32, TESR73W: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski presented the Combination of Lots Agreements and Special Warranty Deeds first with the following statements: All eight of these agreements/deeds would be combined with contiguous properties. These agreements were as follows: Alvin Mosch, d.b.a. Von Mosch Mining Co., (4) deeds and Combination of Lots Agreements, all in Section 33, T3SR73W and parcel numbers: #1835-33-2- 00-968; #1835-33-3-00-974; #1835-33-2-00-969; #1835-33-2-00-962. The next agreements were for David Dyce for two parcels in Section 29, T3SR73W and parcel numbers #1835-29-4-00-962A and B. The third set of agreements were for Marian Dreher for one parcel, Section 4, T4SR73W and parcel number #1961-04-1-00-955. The fourth set of agreements were for Kimie Loeffler for one parcel, Section 31, T3SR73W, and parcel number #1835-31-1-00-957B. The fifth set of agreements were for the Daniel Joseph Dalpes Trust/Mary Ann Dalpes Revocable Trust, for one parcel in Section 26, T3SR74W and parcel #1837-26-2-00-972.

236 Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the listed Special Warranty Deeds and Combination of Lots Agreements for the corresponding parties and the authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Kaminski presented the correction Combination of Lots Agreement and Special Warranty Deed to correct the legal descriptions on parcel #1835-32-1-00-970 for David Dyce in Sections 29 & 32, T3SR73W. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Combination of Lots Agreement and Special Warranty Deed for David Dyce and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Kaminski presented the Special Warranty Deeds for JGE Mining Co., with the following statements: • These were five parcels zoned M-1 in Section 3 T4SR73W. • Parcels #1961-03-1-00-958, #1961-03-1-00-950, #1961-03-1-00-977, #1961-03-1-00-978, and #1961-03-1-00-979. • These parcels were a part of a Boundary Line Adjustment Case. • The sale of these five parcels will be conditional upon approval by the Planning Department of this Boundary Line Adjustment Case. • These five parcels of County Lands were very small parcels. • There was no use to be made of these lands unless they were combined with these adjacent parcels as they were surrounded. • For the Boundary Line Adjustment Cases, all Adjacent Property Owners were notified within the area.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed concerns with regard to the Boundary Line Adjustment case and what would be involved with all parcels. Ms. Kaminski stated that Boundary Line Adjustment cases did not come to the Board of County Commissioners for approval unless they were controversial. The Board of County Commissioners requested to speak to the Planner handling the Boundary Line Adjustment case. Planner II Ruth Kastens attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens stated that the Planning Department wanted to do the Boundary Line Adjustment for these parcels as it would ease the legal descriptions. There were seven claims presently and seven building sites. The Boundary Line Adjustment case would maintain the same amount of building sites but create better building sites. These types of cases required a 21 working day notice in the newspaper and notification of all Adjacent Property Owners. All of this had been accomplished. There had been road issues but Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel was working on this with the applicant. Ms. Kastens added that this did not change the number of parcels or building sites. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deeds for JGE Mining Co., for the five County land parcels which would be completed contingent on approval of the Boundary Line Adjustment Case. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-125, SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE #02-sup-13, FOR AL CASSIDY AT ST. MARY’S, U6, L900, FOR GARAGE WITHOUT A RESIDENCE: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Property owner Al Cassidy and applicant David Hill attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following statements regarding the case: • The request was to allow a garage prior to a single family residence on Lot 900 of Unit 6 in St. Mary’s. • The property was zoned R-2 and is .43 acres in size. • Mr. Cassidy owns the adjacent lot with an existing single family residence without a garage, but did not wish to combine the lots. • If this action was approved, both lots would be required to remain in common ownership until such time as a Certificate of Occupancy was granted for a residence on Lot 900. • The lot was fairly flat and the proposed garage can meet all setbacks. • The owner had obtained a defensible space permit and a driveway and excavation permit. • These permits were current and active. • A building permit had not been obtained and no construction had begun.

237 • The property was within the St. Mary’s Water and Sanitation District, taps were available, however, Mr. Cassidy did not wish to hook up until such time as a residence was constructed or the garage had been converted to contain living space. • Notice of this hearing was published in the Clear Creek Courant on October 2nd. • The property had been posted and adjacent property owners and referral agencies were notified by mail September 24th. No objections have been received. • The Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 5 for and 1 against at their hearing on October 16th. • Staff believed the proposal met the criteria for approval as outlined in the staff report and recommended approval as per draft resolution 02-125. • Ms. Kastens stated that the negative vote from the Planning Commission was due to a Planning Commissioner requesting detailed construction drawings and these were not a requirement. • Ms. Kastens noted that if the project was not completed, the County could take the property owner to court. Commissioner Poirot asked if the County could require a fee for removal of the structure if the project was not completed. County Attorney Robert Loeffler replied that the property could enter into a situation where one parcel was sold without the other but in all likelihood, this situation would be caught by the title companies. The likelihood of the property owner selling one lot without the other was diminished since these lots were located in a subdivision. The covenants and zoning regulations would assist in the buyer beware process.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-125, Special Use Permit #02- SUP-13, for Al Cassidy at St. Mary’s, U6 L900, for a garage without a residence. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 5, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 5, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Human Services. Minutes for the Board of Human Services are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SIGNING OF DEED FOR LOT G FOR COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT: Senior Planner Lisa Vogel presented. Commissioner- Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Ms. Vogel presented the Special Warranty Deed for Lot G of County Lands to the Board of County Commissioners for approval and the future closing on this lot. Lot G was part of Government Survey Lots 25 and 53. This Lot G was subject to deed restrictions which include non-exclusive easement, lighting restriction, minimizing visual impacts, i.e., ridgeline development, and any valid easements or rights of way at the time of conveyance. The parcel had been on the market for $50,000 and was sold for this amount to Jeff and Debbie Kirkham. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deed for Lot G and authorized the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign this and all future closing documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

238 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF HOTEL/RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR SHIRLEY TERREL, D.B.A. SQUIRRELY SHIRLEY’S SALOON AND GRILL: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, and applicant Shirley Terrel attended the hearing. Ms. Reimer stated that all fees and forms had been submitted and all departments had approved this proposed license. This was a new license for this owner but the building had, in the past, other liquor license holders. A background check had been completed on the applicant and nothing should affect the Board of County Commissioners’s decision. With new licenses, a neighborhood had to be established, petitions gathered, and a permit approved. County Attorney Robert Loeffler added that this establishment could say that the entire County was their neighborhood. Ms. Reimer added that the restaurant would be relying heavily on the ski traffic that traveled in front of the establishment. Mr. Loeffler added that under the law, the applicant would have to establish the neighborhood and then determine if needs of the neighborhood would be support the establishment.

Ms. Terrel stated that she would be serving lunch and dinner only and was expecting to pick up the same clientele as the prior establishment as well as ski traffic. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the neighborhood would probably include the ski traffic on Hwy 40 plus the area between Idaho Springs and west of Berthoud Pass. Based on the history of this type of business being in this location. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to recognize this area as the neighborhood for Shirley Terrel d.b.a. Squirrely Shirleys. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Based on the petitions signed from residents across the County, Commissioner Poirot made the motion to recognize that the reasonable needs support a license for this establishment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Ms. Reimer noted that this license differed from the prior license only in that it had a different owner. The vote was unanimous.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that as a member of the Clear Creek Fire Authority, she had great concerns with establishments over serving customers and she recommended that Ms. Terrel’s employees undergo TIPS training to prevent this. Ms. Terrel agreed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the hotel/restaurant liquor license for Shirley Terrel, d.b.a. Squirrely Shirleys. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

BOARD OF HEALTH HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION #02-145, FOR ALLOWANCE OF ISDS SYSTEM ON A 48% SLOPE FOR MIKE LAMBERTI, FALL RIVER ROAD: The Board of County Commissioners convened as the Board of Health to consider the following hearing. Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, ISDS engineer of Barta and Associates, Ron Barta, and builder/property owner Mike Lamberti, Environmental Health Technician Tracy Bennetts, and Adjacent Property Owners Ron Hathaway and Karen Barowski attended the hearing. Mr. Etcheson made the following statements: ‘ This case was to consider the allowance of an ISDS system on a 48% slope parcel off Fall River Road. ‘ Mr. Etcheson submitted a timeline of the events which had occurred surrounding this case. ‘ On October 3, 2002, an application for ISDS permit was received. ‘ On October 11, 2002, a site visit was conducted by Environmental Health and the slope was measured at 48%. ‘ On October 11, 2002, the permit was denied by certified letter to Mr. Lamberti per the ISDS regulations. ‘ On October 14, 2002, Mr. Lamberti applied for a Board of Health hearing to consider an Exception request. ‘ On October 16, 2002, Adjacent Property Owners were sent notice of request for the Board of Health hearing. ‘ On October 31, 2002, the deadline for the Board of Health hearing packet mailing from staff included a memo from the Environmental Health Specialist and recommendations dated October 30, 2002.

239 ‘ On October 31, 2002, a letter was received from Adjacent Property Owner, Ron Hathaway. ‘ On October 31, 2002, discussions were held between the County Attorney and the Environmental Health Specialist and a draft resolution was finalized. ‘ On November 1, 2002, a draft resolution and letter from Ron Hathaway were faxed to the Board of Health members. ‘ On November 1, 2002, the Environmental Health Specialist consulted with the Summit County Environmental Health Director, Jim Rada. ‘ Mr. Hathaway’s concerns were the possibility of sewage surfacing downslope into his water supply, performing a bacterial count on his well water before this project commenced, other options for the proposed leach field, potential odors, and the recourse if a problem occurred due to this project on his property. ‘ The Environmental Health Department recommended consideration of approval of the requested variance with the following conditions: ‘ That no property owner had objected to the proposal. ‘ That a valid ISDS permit be obtained. ‘ That a surface water runoff berm was constructed immediately upslope from the drainfield location. ‘ That a 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on the downslope side to a depth of 8 feet below grade. ‘ That all disturbed areas shall be seeded after completion of the septic system installation. ‘ That blasting be conducted to create bedrock fractures to a depth of 14 feet below the grade of the drainfield open hole excavation’s elevation. ‘ A deeper test hold had been done at 10-ft and no bedrock was encountered. ‘ Due to Mr. Hathaway’s concerns, the #6 condition was added to the resolution which read: “In the event of any suspicion of ISDS failure, Clear Creek County will be authorized by the owner to investigate any source of contamination at the owner’s expense.”

Mr. Lamberti made the following comments: ‘ The proposed drainfield would be approximately 425 feet from Mr. Hathaway’s well. ‘ Additionally, the proposed drainfield was downhill from Mr. Hathaway’s well. ‘ This proposed property was surrounded on three sides by Forest Service lands. ‘ The drainfield was 210 feet from the edge of the field to the property line. ‘ The Gold King claim above the proposed property had no access and it was a very steep parcel with little to no potential for building. Access to this parcel would have to be gained from the Forest Service. ‘ Ms. Barowski’s well was over 600-ft from the drainfield. Ms. Barowski added that she had no concerns as her property was uphill from this proposal.

Commissioner Poirot asked if any geology research was completed on this parcel. Mr. Etcheson replied that they did not have that information. Mr. Barta replied with the following statements: ‘ The test pits performed on the parcel were very favorable. ‘ The soil conditions there consisted of a colluvial type material with a soil matrix. ‘ All leach fields designed in the past like this one had not failed. ‘ The test pits showed angular formation of rocks in the matrix which should make for an easy dig. ‘ Mr. Barta requested to rescind the requirement to blast unless bedrock was encountered to maintain the soil structure. The proper soil filtration may not be maintained if they blast. ‘ A 48% slope sounded like a lot but it was actually on 26 degrees. ‘ ISDS systems had been built on grades steeper than this and been successful. ‘ Proper seeding and berming would handle the erosion issues. ‘ Mr. Barta presented a cross section of the area showing all areas to be seeded. The soil would be sloped to allow for drainage. ‘ Due to the 26 degrees, Mr. Barta wanted to ensure that once the soil was dug, the effluent would have direct vertical displacement. This would allow for the creation of a bacterial mat underneath the gravel which in turn would make the system work.

240 ‘ A dosing siphon was proposed to enhance and assist the effluent entering the center of the field and increasing infiltration. This gives a 4-way splitting of the effluent once leaving the siphon. This would spread out under piping and increase the size of bacterial mat and increase infiltration. ‘ The dosing siphon would also ensure proper distribution. This siphon would operate at 130 gallons per dose and due to piping in this field, it would enable the field to be smaller. This was a more efficient system. ‘ Once the siphon was operational the chances of bleeding were nil. Additionally, there was a liner to prevent bleeding as well. ‘ There was an area in the slope were it fell off steeply and this would provide a buffer zone. However, if a driveway was put in this section, there would be problems, but this was not proposed. ‘ The location of the home was perfect for foundations as there was little soil and much rock. ‘ Distances to Adjacent Property Owners were not an issue as they were over 425 feet from Hathaway’s well. ‘ The old engineering for this site had the drain field at 150-feet from Hathaway’s and Mr. Barta felt this new proposal was better. ‘ Mr. Barta stated that they would be digging 8-feet on the low side and the test hole was going to be 10-feet. The 8-foot side would be lined to the bottom of the pit. ‘ Mr. Barta stated that if rock was not encountered then he would prefer to not blast as it could disturb the fracture system which currently existed. Mr. Etcheson replied that moving the soil around to excavate the test hole was just as impactful as blasting. Mr. Barta disagreed in that if done improperly, it could be damaged. They would be better off not blasting. Commissioner Sorensen asked for clarification on the blasting in that the draft resolution read “blasting to a depth of 14 feet below the grade of the drainfield open hole excavation.” What amount of footage did that mean? Mr. Etcheson replied that it meant 20-feet below the surface. Mr. Etcheson replied that they did not know what was 20 feet below the surface but they knew it was soil to 10-feet below the surface. Mr. Barta asked if the 14-foot depth was from the surface and Mr. Etcheson replied that it was 14-feet from the open hole excavation. He added that this was a standard that was approved the prior year in a similar resolution. Mr. Barta felt that this was overkill. Commissioner Sorensen asked what this was based on. Mr. Etcheson stated that this was approved at a prior case with a geologist present. Mr. Barta asked if this amount was now required for approval? Mr. Etcheson replied that if this resolution was approved this way, it would be required. It could also be a modified requirement. Mr. Etcheson agreed with Mr. Barta that if once in the open pit hole, there was no bedrock, then it would make no sense to blast.

Mr. Etcheson continued his presentation: ‘ Because there was information received after his recommendation, he had a revised recommendation. ‘ This recommendation revolved around two issues: was this the best site for the drainfield or was there a better site? Potentially, the location for the home could be chosen as a potential site for the drain field. When denying Lamberti on the permit, he stated that other potential drainfield locations may be evaluated. Mr. Lamberti chose not to look at other potential locations. Mr. Etcheson thought it would be a good idea to explore other locations that may meet the code. If there were other locations, it may not be appropriate to grant a variance. Under the ISDS code, it stated that the Board of Health could grant exceptions where necessary, however, this may not be necessary if another site could be found for the drainfield. ‘ Another suggestion came from the Environmental Health Director in Summit County. Mr. Rada’s comment was with ISDS placed on this type of slope, it would be prudent to require advanced treatment systems. So the wastewater would be cleaned up before it entered the drainfield. This would also protect Adjacent Property Owners. Mr. Etcheson requested that an alternate site should be explored for the drainfield or perhaps the applicant should be required to implement an advanced treatment system. No test holes had been dug at the homesite which was another possible location for the drainfield so he was unsure of what was there. There could be good soil here. If the homesite was chosen

241 as the location for the drainfield, the well would have to be moved closer to the road in order to meet the 200-ft of separation. This was one potential solution and may not require a variance. Another alternative was, if a variance, then it could be prudent to install the advanced treatment system to address concerns of neighbors. Commissioner Poirot stated that if the homesite and drainfield locations were swapped, didn’t this make the drainfield closer to the Adjacent Property Owners? Mr. Etcheson replied that it did make it closer but it still met code. Commissioner Poirot stated that this would defeat the purpose of moving it. Mr. Etcheson replied that it would be closer but it would take the drainfield off the steep slope. As the slope didn’t meet code and there were possible impacts on Adjacent Property Owners, the well separations did meet code. This hearing was brought about since the slope didn’t meet code. The well separations all applied. Commissioner Sorensen asked if the new swapping of the home and drainfield locations would necessitate a new roadcut? Mr. Barta replied that it would. Mr. Etcheson replied that the roadcut would cut on the way up but once at the summit, it would be on the top of the shelf, so there would be little cut. Mr. Etcheson added that this too, would have to be considered if another site was evaluated.

Commissioner Poirot asked how much advanced treatment systems cost? Mr. Barta replied that these systems cost between $6000-$9000. Mr. Lamberti recently paid $9000 for another home on Fall River Road.

Regarding the parcel, Commissioner Sorensen asked if the Wyomed was part of the Mars parcel. Mr. Barta replied that this parcel was mostly the Mars Lode. Mr. Lamberti replied that when he sold this parcel, he would sell the Mars, this portion of the Wyomed since it was not buildable and a portion of the Clipper mining claim. Commissioner Sorensen asked if these additional portions could be possible locations for the drainfield, house, etc. Mr. Lamberti replied that, no, these additional portions were very steep with no access. The total acreage was 14 acres.

Mr. Etcheson recommended to the Board of County Commissioners consideration of more evaluation of the lot for more alternative locations for the drainfield to possibly meet code or potentially, seeking advanced treatment. Commissioner Poirot asked if that there was an area that would not require a variance on the parcel. Mr. Etcheson replied that this research would require exploratory pits and evaluation work on site. Without this work completed, it is not for certain that the homesite location would meet all requirements. It appears that it could with the slope requirement. The soils would have to be dug to research. Mr. Etcheson did not measure the slope in this area but he was certain it was much less than the proposed drainfield location. Mr. Barta stated that if the homesite and proposed drainfield locations were swapped, they would not meet setback requirements for the roadcut. Mr. Barta added that the homesite was not an option for the drainfield. He presented photos of the homesite showing many boulders in the area. Mr. Barta did not find the homesite suitable for the drainfield. Mr. Etcheson stated that he could not make a decision on the homesite unless it was tested. Mr. Barta presented photos for the proposed drainfield locations which had 10-feet of soil. Additionally, he stated that the advanced treatment system would not solve anything because if the system was going to bleed, it would bleed with or without this system. Mr. Barta stated that they had enhanced the system with the dosing siphon which was mechanical and operated on perpetual motion.

Commissioner Poirot asked Mr. Hathaway what he thought on swapping the homesite and the proposed drainfield location. Mr. Hathaway did not want the drainfield closer to his home. His major concerns were contamination of his water supply. He added that it appeared that the builder was doing many extras to ensure the system. Mr. Barta replied that this was a standard design for ISDS systems. Mr. Hathaway stated that his well and drainfield were barely 100-ft apart. Mr. Barta added that his proposed drainfield was topographically below Mr. Hathaway’s well. Mr. Barta was more worried about his proposed well and Mr. Hathaway’s drainfield. However, they were over 200-feet apart.

Mr. Hathaway stated that there was a spring near his driveway and he was unsure if that drainage would mix with the water and the drainfield. Mr. Etcheson stated that there were many unknowns and since no other test holes were researched, Mr. Barta’s statements were merely guesses. Mr. Etcheson stated that Mr. Barta could not characterize the other potential locations

242 without testing them, especially with the unknowns associated with how water moved. Today’s hearing was held since the application didn’t meet requirements of County code and to consider concerns of the Adjacent Property Owners.

Mr. Lamberti stated that he had not dug a test pit at the homesite but a road was excavated up to this area. There were 20 large boulders in this area. Another issue was that there was a drainage entering this area and putting the drainfield in the homesite location would put the drainfield above Hathaway’s well and this was not common sense. There were three basic places for the drainfield: one was proposed area, second was the homesite and for the reasons mentioned this was not a good idea, and lastly was near the bottom of the road and this was only 150-feet to the Hathaway well. Therefore, based on common sense reasons, the proposed drainfield site was the only option. Its the furthest from the Adjacent Property Owners. Secondly, an excavator was paid to examine the soil at the proposed drainfield locatoin, and the soil was found to be great for a drainfield. The only things gained by swapping the sites were less slope but possibly worse material. Mr. Lamberti noted that it was his livelihood to put off another meeting to make a decision so he requested a decision be made. Basically, the proposed drainfield site was the best option. Mr. Lamberti did not want to get closer to Hathaway’s and any other site would make them closer. Also, he did not want his drainfield above his well.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if quarterly testing could be done on the Hathaway well before and after this project started. Mr. Barta agreed that this was a good idea. Mr. Etcheson agreed stating that it was wise for all well owners to test, however, quarterly could be excessive. He suggested annually in the spring time when water was moving. Commissioner Poirot stated that if bacteria showed up in Hathaway’s water, the origin of the bacteria would have to be determined. Mr. Hathaway stated that he had lived in this home for 15 years and had no problems. If new development occurred and bacteria appeared, its a good chance it is from the development. Mr. Etcheson stated that requirement #6 was added to the draft resolution to address any suspicion with any ISDS failure. This would allow the County to investigate this suspicion at the applicant’s expense.

Commissioner Watrous added that for requirement #5 and the issue of blasting, if bedrock was discovered within the area below the open hole excavation, then blasting was required. Mr. Barta agreed. Commissioner Poirot asked how effective the liners were in these systems. Mr. Barta replied that this liner was 20mm thick and was very safe. Mr. Etcheson added that these liners had to be overlapped due to width and he questioned the security of this. Mr. Barta stated that these liners were secure and had been used for over 25 years. Additionally, Mr. Barta stated that according to the regulations, he could use 6-ft liners but they were using 8-ft liners with a 12 inch overlap. The liner would not wick up and the drainfield would not be exposed at grade.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if Mr. Hathaway if he had tested his well water. Mr. Hathaway replied that he had not tested his well but he would be due to the development. He stated that Mr. Barta and Mr. Lamberti appeared confident in their work but this protection clause in the resolution to test the well if suspicion was a good idea. He appreciated this protection. Commissioner Sorensen discussed requirement #6 in the resolution with Mr. Hathaway.

Mr. Etcheson asked the Board of County Commissioners to consider the draft resolution with requirement #6, or consider the recommendation from Summit County, or consider another location for the drainfield. Mr. Etcheson preferred the idea of testing the Hathaway well now and after the project was completed.

Commissioner Poirot agreed with Mr. Lamberti on the elimination of the other potential two sites in order to protect the Adjacent Property Owners. Additionally, he agreed with Mr. Barta that the homesite location contained too much potential for rock due to the boulders on site. Commissioner Poirot motioned to approve Resolution #02-145, the proposed drainfield site, with a specified requirement #5 of the draft resolution “That blasting is conducted to create bedrock fractures to a depth of fourteen feet below the grade of the drainfield open hole excavation”, and with requirement #6 of the draft resolution “In the event of any suspicion of ISDS failure, Clear Creek County will be authorized by the owner to investigate any source of contamination at the owner’s expense.” Additionally, Commissioner Poirot requested that the testing of the Hathaway

243 well now to establish the baseline and to require the testing to be at the expense of this applicant for two years at two times per year from the time the system is completed. For clarification, Hathaway would be responsible for the baseline testing and the applicant would be responsible for the two years following at twice per year after completion of the drainfield. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Mr. Hathaway asked what the life expectance was for the PVC liner. Mr. Barta replied that it was very long lasting. Commissioner Watrous added that the EPA considered these liners to last forever. The vote was unanimous.

The Board of Health reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-148, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-TSUP-15, LOCATED ON THE INGO B LODE, UTE CREEK, TO ALLOW A 22-FT TRAVEL TRAILER AND A 16' X 20' STORAGE SHED WHILE BUILDING PRIMARY RESIDENCE: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. In attendance were applicant Jade McBride, Senior Planner Lisa Vogel, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, and Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver. Ms. Wise made the following statements regarding the case: ‘ This permit was to allow use of a 22-foot travel trailer and a 16' X 20' foot shed on the property, prior to construction of residence on an adjacent parcel. ‘ The requested term for this permit was three years or until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the single family residence, whichever occurred first. ‘ The Adjacent Property Owners and review agencies were notified by mail on October 8, 2002. Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on October 9, 2002. A telephone response was received from Tom Myers, expressing concerns about sanitation facilities, and the length of the permit in relation to the time necessary for construction of a modular home. ‘ Chris Etcheson, Environmental Health Specialist, was notified and responded that he had no concerns with the proposal. ‘ The water and sewage disposal would be in compliance with the State and County regulations. The McBrides plan to haul water to the trailer and have purchased a portable tank to carry out the wastewater to a legal dump station in Idaho Springs. ‘ A construction schedule would be provided by the applicant or prior to the public hearing. ‘ Ms. Wise stated that the McBrides were attempting to be legal in this process. Commissioner Watrous stated that she had received complaints that the McBrides were living on the parcel without the permit. Ms. Wise stated that she had received no complaints. ‘ Ms. Wise stated that the trailer and the shed would be located on the Ingo B mining claim and the home construction would be located on the Big Flat mining claim. ‘ At the conclusion of the home construction, the shed would be moved and the trailer would be used for personal trips only. ‘ This application appeared to meet the Criteria for Approval as set out in Section 12, Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations. ‘ The construction schedule requested less time than expected but would be dependent on the completion of the Boundary Line Adjustment case.

Commissioner Watrous stated that the requested term appeared to be too long. Mr. McBride replied that this amount was requested due to the time it would take to move the shed. He agreed to moving the shed within 30 days of receiving a Certificate of Occupancy but he had concerns on trying to move it in the winter months. Commissioner Poirot suggested that he be allowed until the following summer to move the shed. Ms. Wise suggested the date of September 1, 2004. Mr. McBride stated that the process would expedite more quickly as soon as the legal description was completed with the Boundary Line Adjustment Case. The bank would not lend the money for the modular home until the legal description was completed. Ms. Wise stated that the Boundary Line Adjustment case should be completed this winter. Commissioner Poirot noted that this would give them time to move the shed in the coming summer. Commissioner Sorensen asked if most people were unaware that they could not live in a camper without a permit. Mr. McBride admitted that he did not know he could not live in a camper without a permit. The Planning Department had informed the McBrides of this and they applied for the permit.

244 Ms. Wise requested an amount for the financial guarantee portion of the permit. She stated that recent guarantees had been set at $1250. The Board agreed on this amount and that it could be in the form of a Letter of Credit or cash. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-148, Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit #02-TSUP-15, located on the Ingo B Lode, Ute Creek, to allow a 22' travel trailer and a 16' X 20' storage shed while building primary residence. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-64, FOR BRENDA AND MITCHELL ERWIN FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER, SILVER LAKES: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following statements: ‘ Ms. Wise had written the applicant twice after the last hearing in August of 2002 to remind them of what needed to be submitted to be considered for approval. ‘ The previous day, Ms. Erwin had left Ms. Wise a phone message stating that she and her husband “totally decline” to continue with their request for a special use permit to operate a day care center for up to eight children. She further stated that they intend to follow the MR-1 regulations and limit their day care to no more than four children. ‘ Ms. Wise requested that Ms. Erwin confirm in writing today, and Ms. Erwin agreed to fax a letter. At the time of this hearing, nothing had been received by Ms. Wise. ‘ It appeared that these applicants had no desire or intention to pursue this application further. ‘ Staff requested that it either be acknowledged as having been withdrawn, rather than continued or denied.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler agreed with Ms. Wise’s request of withdrawal as did the Board of County Commissioners. The case was recognized as withdrawn.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 12, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 12, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-157, PARTIAL RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR SUBPHASE #1-D-1, SADDLEBACK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel and Saddleback Development Corporation representative Rich Cassens attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following statements: • The applicants had requested the release of additional funds for what was known as subphase #1-D-1. • The applicants had complied with what was necessary for this partial release. • Letter were submitted from outside engineers to confirm the constitution of the roads. • Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen had signed off in approval of the project. • Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel had some concerns as the revegetation could not be completed due to weather so the County had requested different details for the spring. Additionally the silt fencing was not complete nor were the straw bales installed. • Staff requested that the portion of the Letter of Credit related to the revegetation and the erosion be withheld. This amount would total $16,849.50. Therefore, staff recommended

245 the release of $409,820.55. Mr. Vogel agreed stating that he had requested a letter from the landscaping company regarding the revegetation.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that the Letter of Credit required a certain multiplier times the cost to be retained for items not completed. The multiplier was 1.635. The new result to be withheld for revegetation and erosion was $27,548.93. Therefore, the amount to be released was $399,121.12. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the release of $399,121.12 and retain the $27,548.93 for erosion and revegetation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GAMING CONTRACT AWARDS FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MOUNT EVANS HOSPICE, AND THE COLUMBINE FAMILY HEALTH CENTER; AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GAMING CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SUBREGIONAL PLAN: Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Krueger stated that these Gaming contracts had been faxed to the agencies and they were in approval. Mr. Small stated that the County would later submit a Contract for Services Agreement for these agencies to sign for the distribution of money from the County. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Gaming Contract awards for the District Attorney, the Mount Evans Hospice, and the Columbine Family Health Center. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the Subregional Plan, this would extend the expiration date of the plan to June 30, 2003. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract amendment for the Clear Creek County Subregional Plan. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-127, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-TSUP-14, FOR JACQUELINE GILBERE, BARBOUR FORKS, TO USE A RV AND SHED DURING PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Wise stated that the applicants had an out of state emergency and had also changed their building sites. The applicants had requested to postpone their hearing until the spring. Ms. Wise stated that the Planning Department could re-advertise the case at this time at the applicant’s expense. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to postpone the hearing to a maximum of six months and re-advertise it at the request of the applicants in the spring of 2003. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

DISCUSSION WITH THE FIRE CHIEF AND THE AMBULANCE DIRECTOR: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson was out of town. Fire Chief Kelly Babeon presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Babeon made the following statements: • Mr. Babeon stated that he was intending on presenting the inventory which accompanied the Emergency Services District Intergovernmental Agreement, however, due to computer problems, this would have to be submitted at a later date. • Regarding the energy conservation for buildings, Mr. Babeon had made contact with the State agency on this and they requested that he tie in other large buildings as they were geared for larger projects. Commissioner Sorensen explained that certain firehouse bills were very expensive due to style of construction. This State office would come in and do energy audits and make recommendations on how to reduce energy bills. • Mr. Babeon stated that this had always been a Georgetown Firehouse issue. The bay doors had been replaced but there was no insulation and the windows were very old. • Mr. Babeon added that they did not have a good enough history on the new building to see if they were saving money with the new construction. • Mr. Babeon added that the State agency did not have the funding to fix any construction but could perform the audit and make recommendations. The agency made an offer to the County to do a lease/purchase plan for new doors and windows.

246 • Mr. Babeon agreed to research tying in other County buildings for this audit. The Board agreed. • Regarding work with Evergreen Fire Protection District Chief Tom Hayden, Mr. Babeon stated that they had discussed wildfire mitigation issues. Mr. Hayden thought the Clear Creek Fire Authority could be successful in going to a Title 32 District and starting their own mill levy. • Mr. Babeon and Mr. Hayden had not yet discussed a joint use facility but they had discussed the building impacts due to the new growth. • The direction resulting from their discussion was to eliminate the fire pointing system which was based on access. • This would require any structure built to have a 2-hour fire flow of water ability and this would be tied in with sprinkler systems. • This type of requirement would impose more costs to do business for the Clear Creek Fire Authority in that plan reviews would have to be completed which would result in staff costs. • It would be a reduction in work for the Building Department but an increase for the Clear Creek Fire Authority. • Mr. Babeon had discussed impact fees to reduce the Clear Creek Fire Authority costs. • A meeting was scheduled with Land Use Service Unit Manager Deb Kirkham, Evergreen Fire Protection District Chief Tom Hayden, Mr. Babeon, and the Evergreen Fire Protection District Fire Marshal. • Presently, the Clear Creek Fire Authority had a fee schedule based on what the cost of the fire prevention system was for the structure. This was similar to the building codes. • Regarding carbon dioxide systems, Commissioner Poirot asked if these systems had been improved. Mr. Babeon replied that he had not researched them lately but they were still very pricey. He added that sprinkler systems were more common and more cost effective per square foot. • Regarding sprinkler systems, 85% of fires were put out with one sprinkler. If sprinklers were implemented, it could reduce the potential of a structure fire leading to a wildfire. • The cost for a sprinkler system was approximately $3.50 per square foot. Additionally, insurance companies would reduce the insurance amount over time. In some areas, it may allow some homeowners to obtain fire insurance. • Commissioner Sorensen asked if there was a way to house the outlying stations with responders for these outlying areas. Mr. Babeon replied that in the future, they could implement a residency program where room and board was offered. The biggest obstacle was access and the time it took to travel to certain places. Commissioner Sorensen asked if certain communities became a 24/7 community, could the firehouse be accommodated for volunteers overnight. Mr. Babeon replied that this was possible. The other problem with this issue was funding and who should be responsible for paying for these upgrades. Commissioner Poirot agreed that it should be the developer or homebuilder to pay for this impact. Mr. Babeon replied that these people were being asked to pay for impacts just for daily service. • Commissioner Poirot stated that he recently attended a meeting regarding fire insurance and it was determined that if residents or property owners were in a Federal Disaster Area, the insurance companies could not cancel them. They would have to be insured. However, this would not apply to the County’s smaller fires experienced earlier this year. Commissioner Sorensen stated that Clear Creek County was included in the area which the insurance companies would not accept applications from. Commissioner Poirot replied that the new legislation would prevent this. • Mr. Babeon stated that most of Clear Creek County contained a Level 10 ISO rating. In order for the County to improve the rates people pay on fire insurance, the service delivery would have to be improved. This would require significant funding to implement water delivery. Anything within a five mile radius of the fire station was an ISO rating of Level 9. If the residents had a water supply, i.e., cistern, fire hydrant, within 1000 feet of their structures, and were within five miles of a fire station, their ISO rating would reduce to a Level 5.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT FOR HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IDAHO SPRINGS ON NOVEMBER 23, 2002: Paralegal

247 Nanette Reimer presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Ms. Reimer made the following statements: • This was an annual event for the Historical Society of Idaho Springs and it would be held at the Rocky Mountain Village. • All departments had approved, however, there had been no response from the Fire Department. Ms. Reimer stated that if there was a problem, the Fire Department would have contacted her. • The Building Department had replied that they were in approval of the permit.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Events Permit for the Historical Society of Idaho Springs for their annual event. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CLEAR CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT LEASE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER OFFICES: County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler made the following statements: • This lease would allow the Community Service Center opportunity to move County offices into this leased school building to help alleviate the overcrowding at the current center. • This lease was presented to the Board of Education the week prior and was approved. • The School officials had signed the lease and would be sending the original documents over for the Board of County Commissioners to sign. • Mr. Loeffler recommended that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign when the documents arrive. • This was a one year lease which was not effective until a Conditional Use Permit was obtained from the City of Idaho Springs. The application for this permit was made the prior Wednesday.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the lease with the School District for space for the Community Service Center and authorized the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents when they arrive. Commissioner Sorensen seconded . During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen asked about lessor responsibilities. Mr. Loeffler replied that the lessor was the school and they would maintain snow removal for the parking lot and sidewalks, however, the County was responsible for their own walkways to their building. Chief Accountant Carl Small asked for clarification on which offices could lease space in this building. Mr. Loeffler replied that these offices were for strictly County offices only. The Community Service Center maintenance person could be used to maintain these offices but that was it. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GAMING CONTRACT AWARDS FOR THE VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA AND THE CLEAR CREEK ADVOCATES: Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Ms. Krueger stated that copies of these awards were submitted to the Volunteers of America and the Clear Creek Advocates and they were in approval. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Gaming Contract awards for the Volunteers of America and the Clear Creek Advocates. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THE 2003 PROPOSED CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BUDGET: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Small made the following statements: • The budget for 2003 was prepared and submitted to the Board of County Commissioners on October 8, 2002. • Statutory requirements for publication and availability were published in the Clear Creek Courant and the Canyon Courier newspapers on October 16, 2002.

248 • The budgets were presented based on what the departments prepared and proposed for next year. • Since that time, various departments had come in to re-discuss budgets with Mr. Small. • The Board of County Commissioners has had opportunity to discuss changes with certain departments regarding their budgets. • The County budget as presented did propose a mill levy, including the Open Space Commission, totaling 36.656 with a temporary credit reduction to comply with Tabor limits of 2.776. This entailed a temporary credit reduction of .078 to refund prior years’ over-collection of property taxes. • This would result in a net mill levy of 33.804 for a net mill levy collection of $5,928,283. • Additional changes had been requested of departments to reduce their budgets due to the assessed valuation decrease. • The adoption of the budget was scheduled for December 10, 2002 along with the mill levy certifications. • The Road and Bridge Department had a proposed mill levy of 3.1 mills for a total of $543,654 of property tax and a total budget of $2,905,976. As part of this budget, it was proposed to transfer sales tax funds for capital purchase of $150,000 for partial funding. • The Road and Bridge budget did show that certain requirements of the mill levy were shared through property tax with the municipalities based on the mill levy adopted. • Mr. Small requested that this hearing be continued to November 19, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the budget public hearing to November 19, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THE 2003 BUDGET FOR THE LIBRARY DISTRICT FUND: This hearing was changed to a working session with Chief Accountant Carl Small, Sue Lathrop, and Patricia Stelter present.

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATIVE 6 AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR GUANELLA PASS AND THE CONSIDERATION OF SIGNING THE STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE: In attendance was County Attorney Robert Loeffler, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Georgetown Promotions Commission Chairman Tom Wilson, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Georgetown resident Terry Lee, Fall River resident Clyde Anderson, Silverthorne resident Bob Berwyn, Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, EMERGE representative Dick Woods, Idaho Springs resident Steve Masoomian, Conifer residents Nina Parker, Karen Ashlock, Jeffrey Maselli, and John and Brenda Wishart, Sierra Club representative Todd Bacigalupi, Lakewood resident Hyla Strickland, Denver resident Phil Kummer, Evergreen resident Jean Tindall, Georgetown residents Brad and Joni Hargitt, Bill Pierson, Judy Anderson, Zac Alexander, Smoky Anderson, Cora Lou Anderson, Cindy Neely, Idaho Springs resident David Devitt, Georgetown residents Jeanne Waligorski, Lee Behrens, Katherine Flexing, Dumont resident Jocelyn Pyle, Silver Plume resident John Calhoun, Virginia Canyon resident Paul Savage, FHWA representatives Jennifer Corwin, Forest Service representatives Donna Mickley and Dan Lovato, Golden resident Vera Smith, Idaho Springs resident Sue Howell, Georgetown residents Jan Shirlaw, Shirley Shimon, Sally and Thomas Patterson, Denver resident Virginia Ellis, Georgetown property owners Julie Scott and Libbie Gottschalk, and Kim Wysocki. Mr. Weaver made the introduction with the following statements: • Mr. Weaver made an introduction to the hearing. • The FHWA had responded to many comments received during the EIS process and thus far with regard to Alternative 6. • The FHWA had identified this as their preferred alternative. • This alternative responded to the comments received during this EIS process in a number of ways stemming from reclassification from a rural collector road to a rural local road. • By reclassifying this road, the FHWA was able to lower the projects design standards in the roadways width, speed, sharpness of curves, and reduce impacts. • Alternative 6 consisted of 19% full reconstruction, 18% light reconstruction and 63% rehabilitation which was work within the existing footprint and the light reconstruction was within the existing roadway slopes.

249 • These limitations in the construction required the project alignment to follow the existing alignment. • All realignment alternatives in the EIS had been eliminated. • The design project speed for the project had been reduced and did not exceed 30 mph. The design speed at the switchbacks was 13 mph. This was all for the purpose of containing improvements within the existing footprint. • Alternative 6 designs for a particular future road use. The reclassification from rural collector road to rural local road implied and reinforced the concept that it was designed to provide access to Adjacent Property Owners and Forest Service lands rather than as a connector road from I-70 to Hwy 285. • Any improvements to the road would attract more visitors but the majority of the increased use would be caused by population growth along the Front Range. This growth would occur even if nothing was done on Guanella Pass Road. • With regards to the impact reduction or mitigation, and due to the reclassification of the road and smaller footprint, the amount of right of way was much less than what was needed for other build alternatives. Similarly, the impacts to other resources were also reduced, i.e., wetlands. • Parking had been addressed in Alternative 6 and it was more formalized along the road with designed parking areas. One example, for parking at the summit, it was recorded at up to 175 cars currently but with Alternative 6 it would be reduced to 110 cars. • Alternative 6 proposed to repair erosion problems and the hardening of the road would reduce the sedimentation. • The project would benefit water quality for downstream users and wildlife due to this reduced sedimentation. • Determining a recommended surface type was difficult. Conventional paving would have reduced the rustic character of the road. Therefore, several types of road surfaces other than asphalt were considered. They were put in test samples so the public could experience them. • These surface types included macadam, road oil, permazyme, recycled asphalt, gravel, etc. The existing road was already 48% paved and 52% gravel. • Alternative 6 called for the road to be 56% paved, 14% gravel, and 30% macadam. Macadam used asphalt to bind much coarser aggregate. It was a hardened surface that appeared more rustic than pavement and did not need to be striped. It provided a rougher ride. • This combination of surface types was a compromise between needs to reduce the maintenance, sediment, and still maintain the character. • Alternative 6 tried to address the impacts upon local communities with respect to construction. In coordination with local businesses and residents, the FHWA has agreed to other projects like a new bridge in Georgetown to accommodate hauling traffic. • Building material storage areas along the pass to prevent more trips up Guanella Pass were proposed. • FHWA agreed to coordinate hauling schedules with local businesses and restrict hauling to certain times of year. FHWA had also agreed to resurfacing Brownell and Argentine Streets after construction. • A vibration study was performed to see if hauling would affect historic structures in Georgetown and this study showed that hauling would not affect these structures. • More details on Alternative 6 could be found at the FHWA headquarters in Lakewood, the Clear Creek County Courthouse, the libraries, Park County Courthouse and libraries, the National Forest Service in Fort Collins and Idaho Springs, etc.

Commissioner Watrous opened the hearing for public comment.

Clyde Anderson, resident of Fall River Road Mr. Anderson made the following comments: • He was not convinced that the environmental problems were caused by the road. • There were some environmental issues caused by the road but not the bigger ones. • He stated that most of the environmental impact was the traffic. • He stated that this road was an asset to the County and to the environment and would prefer to leave it that way.

250 Todd Bacigalupi, Sierra Club Mr. Bacigalupi made the following statements: • He represented the Sierra Club Mount Evans group of 550 members in Clear Creek County, Park County and Jefferson County. • He thanked the Board of County Commissioners for holding this hearing. • He stated that macadam was another form of asphalt. It was a big deal because it essentially paved an additional 30% of the road so now the road was 85% paved so people would see the road as a connection to Hwy 285. This was an impact to the environment. • Macadam was the proposed solution for the sediment problem and it would provide for sediment reduction. • However, the FHWA was trying to solve two opposed issues with one solution.. The two problems were sedimentation and environmental consequences of the road. • With macadam, it solved sedimentation but increased other environmental issues like overuse of the area and the roads. • There were other solutions to sedimentation, i.e., other surface types which help with sedimentation and provide for a reduction in those that use the pass. • If the road were made more rough, less people would use it. • He requested that the Board of County Commissioners request no macadam as there were other usable alternatives. The FHWA should use other products. • He also suggested that the Board of County Commissioners have the worst sections of the pass completed first, i.e., below Cabin Creek. If these sections were not completed first, the money could disappear and then the County would receive nothing with the worst problems remaining.

Tom Wilson, Georgetown Promotions Commission & owner of the Georgetown Mountain Inn Mr. Wilson made the following comments: • The replacement economy for the Henderson Mine would be most difficult. • If the County allowed the deterioration of Guanella Pass then it could increase the problems the area was experiencing with their economy. • If nothing was done with Guanella Pass , then who would do it and when would it be done? • Doing nothing was supporting the sedimentation problem, the road condition as it existed, and the inability for the County to maintain the road. • Citizens of all ages have the right to visit this road and the mountains. Many visitors at his hotel had complained that the road was in such bad shape, it wore them out. These visitors love the pass but cannot use the road due to its condition. These visitors have the right to use this road. • Alternative 6 was put together with much public input and not as just another option. This alternative was recognized in a high degree. • If most people had a driveway that was as bad as Guanella Pass, they would fix it. The County was at a point to take care of this road without changing the nature of the road. • There were few attractions that existed in this area and we could not allow Guanella Pass to deteriorate. • The type of person that just wanted to drive and take a look supported the town of Georgetown and the County. These people would not be taking this look and supporting us if the road remained as it existed currently. • The Georgetown Promotions Commission voted unanimously for Alternative 6 and the “do nothing” option was not an option for their group. • At the end of the Georgetown meeting last week about Guanella Pass, it was asked how many in the room supported Alternative 6 and 2/3 of the room supported it. There were difficult sections but overall the group supported Alternative 6. • Regarding the trucks in town for construction, of the 1000 trucks, it would take 825 days to happen.

John Calhoun, resident of Silver Plume Mr. Calhoun made the following comments:

251 • Any time a significant improvement was made to a road like Guanella Pass, it was not just the growth in the Front Range that would bring people. It was the increase in development along the road that would bring people. • There were many private lands along this road to develop.

Joni Hargitt, resident of Georgetown Ms. Hargitt made the following comments: • From the research that she had completed on Guanella Pass, she could not help but think that this hearing was just for show. • She was convinced that the Board of County Commissioners had already made their decision. • She stated that she had collected over 3000 petitions for the Board of County Commissioners in opposition of the proposed construction on Guanella Pass. • She agreed that Guanella Pass needed repair but not as much as what was proposed. • She did not want centerline or guardrails but only natural rock. • She did not want any asphalt based surfacing. • The Board of County Commissioners was responsible for what the citizens wanted. • This was not a highway but a byway. • She realized that the Board of County Commissioners saw this as a financial issue but the County could make the FHWA agree with them. The County did not have to do this road the FHWA way. The FHWA worked for the citizens and they wanted their best interest. • Ms. Hargitt found it odd that this hearing was on the same night as the Town of Georgetown’s hearing and she thought the County would need the town’s input.

Phil Kummer, Colorado Mountain Club Mr. Kummer made the following comments: • Mr. Kummer participated on the Guanella Pass Corridor Management Committee. • Many people had stated that Alternative 6 had been a compromise with much input. • On the very first EIS, 90% of the people responding wanted minimal paving and not many improvements. • With the Alternative 6, 85% of the public comment stated that this was too much paving and people requested less construction. • The public had been speaking about Guanella Pass for the last 10 years. • Even though he did not live in Clear Creek County, he was a taxpayer and wanted his voice heard. • Over the past 10 years, the people that wanted limited construction have been ignored. • It appeared that the weight of the FHWA had played more of a role than the people paying for these improvements. • The Mountain Clubs had asked that the Board of County Commissioners moderate the improvements as much as possible by cutting back on hardened surfaces and making this road more of a reflection of what the people had asked for, for the past 10 years.

Hyla Strickland, resident of Lakewood Ms. Strickland made the following comments: • She was a member of the Citizens for Guanella Pass. • There was tremendous power with the Board of County Commissioners to change the future and affect the future of this road. • Many of the facts had been presented and she requested that the Board of County Commissioners utilize their power and consider the legacy into future generations. • Please leave this road as a wild place legacy.

Smoky Anderson, resident of Georgetown Mr. Anderson made the following comments: • He was a 4th generation resident of Georgetown. • He used Guanella Pass daily. • He was a member of the Naylor Lake Club. • Regarding the 18% reconstruction on the road above Cabin Creek and Naylor Lake, the FEIS stated that this was a fragile zone with much old growth. • This appeared contradictory with the proposed major reconstruction proposed here.

252 • Georgetown was one of the more steeper zones with a width of 28-ft and the FHWA had designed the road for 32-36-ft which was another contradiction. • In the EIS, it stated that the Mount Evans Wilderness was overused which was contradictory for improving this road. • This road was rural for its natural beauty. • The National Forest Service recommended that everything not be accessible for everyone and some of the lands should be preserved. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners consider this statement in their decision. • He asked that the Board of County Commissioners be responsible and just say “no.” • He asked that the Board leave the scenic byway on Loveland Pass and let Guanella Pass be like Waldorf.

Cindy Neely, resident of Georgetown Ms. Neely made the following comments: • She was speaking as a private individual and not for the Town of Georgetown. • She had spent much time on this subject and had some issues to point out. • She stated that the Board of County Commissioners was being asked to concur on Alternative 6. • She stated that there were conflicts with this proposal. • The FEIS stated that Guanella Pass was not meant to be a commercial route between I-70 and Hwy 285 but in the next paragraph, it stated that there was a reduction in travel time. It also stated that existing curves and grades would be more easily navigable. • With the population growth projections in Park County by 2020, this would increase the use. • On another page of the FEIS, it stated that Guanella Pass met the Clear Creek County desire for north/south linkages. • Was this a link and would it be a link? If not, then how would the County plan to assure that this doesn’t happen? That question was left begging. • In other portions of the FEIS, it stated that the environment should be maintained along the road from Geneva to the Guanella Pass Campgrounds as much as possible. Yet, three new parking lots were proposed and a new alignment above Naylor Lake was proposed with larger switchbacks. • Why was the County doing this? • Lastly, Ms. Neely expressed concerns regarding maintenance. “The FEIS projects the 20 year cost of road maintenance for Clear Creek County for Alternative 6 to be $4,256,800. That is $212,840 a year. Is that a realistic figure for Clear Creek County?”

Paul Savage, resident of Virginia Canyon Mr. Savage made the following comments: • There was no way to improve the Guanella Pass road. • He requested that it be left alone. • He lived on Virginia Canyon Road and the paved portions had increased the speeds of travelers. • Since Virginia Canyon Road was a connection to Central City, it had increased traffic and the environmental damage was greater than the no-action.

Shirley Shimon, resident of Georgetown Ms. Shimon made the following comments: • She had read the FEIS and discovered some disturbing items. • The FEIS led her to believe that this was not a definite design proposal. • The commentary portions in sections I, III, IV, and page 21, nothing appeared definite. • The diagrams of the road width and surfaces descriptions had asterisks next to them stating these items were subject to minor modification as the design was developed. Nothing stated, for sure, what would be happening. • She had questions as to whether the macadam had to be striped. • It appeared that other alternatives did not have to be striped and would be more in keeping with a more rustic road. • She did not trust the FHWA.

253 Commissioner Sorensen read a letter from Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Director Peggy Stokstad into the record. The letter read as follows: “After a decade of negotiations and mitigation, the FHWA has developed a sound compromise in Alternative #6. This alternative plans for the rehabilitation of the existing roadway and reduces the environmental impacts caused by erosion, sedimentation and dust.

Alternative #6 represents a positive economic opportunity for the Town and the County. If we turn our backs on these much needed improvements the deterioration will result in a Scenic Byway that will not be accessible to those visitors we are trying to attract, will continue to impact the environment and water of the area and will result int he County having to close the roadway altogether due to high maintenance costs in the very near future.

The Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation strongly urges the Commissioners to courageously vote in support of Alternative #6 for the good of the public. We thank you in advance to this difficult decision and know that you have taken many years of careful consideration in to account.”

Cora Lou Anderson, resident of Georgetown and Town Board of Selectmen member Ms. Anderson made the following comments: • She was a 4th generation resident of Georgetown. • She had been working on this project for 11 years. • She wanted the Board of County Commissioners to know that the signatures obtained in the past years, were comments that promoted arriving at Alternative 6. • Many people felt that Alternative 6 was overbuild so 2500 more signatures were obtained. • Many of these signatures were taken from businesses in town. • Many of these people wanted to bring Georgetown money too. • Some visitors stated that they would not return to visit if the road became overcrowded . • Ms. Anderson also found inconsistencies in the FEIS as did Ms. Neely. • In Section 1 of page 16, the budget restrictions prohibit maintenance and then another section mentioned that Clear Creek County and the Forest Service had set aside funding for maintenance. • It also stated that it was a lack of maintenance that put the town and County in this problem. • The FEIS stated that the maintenance was the responsibility of both Clear Creek County and Park County. • The maintenance totaled $212,000+ per year in order to maintain the standard recommended practices. • Ms. Anderson questioned whether the County had the money to maintain the portion of the road in Clear Creek County. She was concerned as they didn’t have the money to maintain it presently. • Ms. Anderson had found other inconsistencies in the FEIS regarding the environment portions and would submit these in writing.

Ms. Hargitt presented the new 3000 petitions.

Steve Masoomian, resident of Hwy 103 Mr. Masoomisan made the following comments: • He agreed with Mr. Anderson that this road was dangerous to pave. • When four-wheeling, the rougher roads provided control. • Once a road was paved, a person could not go into four-wheel-drive because the surface was dry and smooth and would cause one to slide. • Hwy 103 was paved and now everyone was sliding. • A driver would lose control on the road if it was paved. • Paving Guanella Pass would be a safety problem.

Commissioner Sorensen asked that a representative of the Forest Service or the FHWA discuss the Scenic Byway Management Process with regard to the issues raised. The first issue was that of improving the road would exacerbate the problem of overuse of the wilderness and roadless areas. Mr. Lovato made the following comments:

254 • The FEIS was not an easy process as nobody was getting what they wanted. • The counties, the Forest Service, the Sierra Club, the public all were compromising in some form.. • Regarding overuse of the Mount Evans Wilderness that was occurring, the additional numbers of people coming there whether Guanella Pass was improved or not would still be a problem. • The Forest Service thought that Alternative 6 was a chance to take care of mismanagement that was occurring on Guanella Pass. Guanella Pass was changing and it would degrate itself. The Forest Service saw the FEIS as a chance to help them and in the end, everyone had compromised something.. • The prior Forest Service administration had the summit parking lot at 170 cars. Mr. Lovato felt this was mismanagement in that the parking lot should be planned for what the land could handle. By making the parking lots smaller, it would limit the number of people in the area. The Forest Service was also considering a voluntary permit system for this area. This too would limit the amount of visitors and impact per day. • The Forest Service stated that Alternative 6 would limit the parking at the two lots at the summit. One lot was for the long term wilderness user with permits and the other was for the short term visitors, i.e., day hikers. • The Forest Service was part of the Guanella Pass Management Strategy to accomplish a solution. • The solution would not be arrived at overnight and there would be problems to deal with.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that another issue dealt with macadam and how it would change the character of the road and whether it would be striped. Mr. Weaver replied that the FHWA stated that macadam could be striped but did not have to be. Mr. Knowles replied that it was not confirmed as to what portions would be striped and which would not. The majority of the macadam would not be striped. One section that was confirmed was a portion in Park County. Some asphalt would be striped in Clear Creek County. The striping was primarily based on where the significant traffic flow occurred.

Commissioner Sorensen raised discussion on Guanella Pass being considered as a connector road with the following statements: • She understood the difficulty in this concern. • Some people attended public meetings on this topic and wanted more connections while, simultaneously, the Board heard comments of not wanting this road as a connector. • Commissioner Sorensen wanted to hear from staff, as being a commissioner, she would have an obligation of establishing a policy on how this road would be used. • The Board of County Commissioners had taken steps to downgrading the classification of the road so it would not appear as a connector. Another way to prevent it from being used that way was to enforce the speed limit. Additionally, there were suggestions of a winter closure to prevent it from being used this way. • Commissioner Sorensen asked for other recommendations.

Mr. Weaver replied that they had limited the vehicle size allowed to travel the road and this, too, could be enforced. Commissioner Sorensen agreed and stated that by working with other involved agencies, i.e., Forest Service, Park County, they could work on enforcement. Mr. Calhoun noted that any enforcement required money. Mr. Wilson stated that, with regard to the Forest Service study over the summer, the road was designed to limit speeds. He added that speed bumps could be implemented to aid in the slowing. Mr. Taylor stated that the surface texture of the road would be the key to limiting speeds. Another primary constraint was limiting the types of vehicles that utilized the road. Winter closures, permit systems, fee demos, would all have an effect on the amount of traffic.

Commissioner Poirot asked how many miles in Clear Creek County and Park County would have gravel surfacing. Mr. Knowles replied that there would be 3 kilometers at the summit and 2 kilometers in Park County with gravel near Tumbling River Ranch. Commissioner Poirot stated that the gravel would be another deterrent for connector type roads. Commissioner Sorensen stated that while traveling through Montana she had sought advice for routes of travel. The local people she obtained advice from played a major role in her routes of travel. Commissioner

255 Sorensen recommended this to the residents and business owners of Georgetown to help control the use of this road by giving advice.

Regarding enforcement issues, Commissioner Poirot stated that if the road was improved, it would reduce the maintenance costs and allow this saved money to go to enforcement. Commissioner Poirot suggested Georgetown do the same. It was the responsibility of the Town and the County to set the speed limits, restrictions, and enforce them.

Regarding the figure of $200,000+ in annual maintenance, Commissioner Poirot stated that this amount was based on optimum maintenance. Ten years ago, it was costing the County $300,000 to maintain the road. Currently, the road was costing $40,000 to maintain. This $200,000+ number was not binding. The County would maintain this road they way they saw fit. Commissioner Watrous added that this would also depend on the available funding. Mr. Allen added that the $212,000+ stated in the FEIS included snow removal. The FEIS also stated that if nothing was done to the road, the maintenance costs would be even greater than the $212,000+. The flipside was that it would cost a great deal of money to bring the road up to standards, get rid of potholes, and prevent erosion into the streams. This was probably a larger burden on the County’s budget than the estimated maintenance in Alternative 6.

Regarding the comment that improvements on Guanella Pass would encourage development, Commissioner Sorensen stated that she had been approached by the HDPLC indicating they were studying that issue and developing proposals to manage that issue. Commissioner Sorensen supported this process.

Regarding design decisions to be made in the coming months, Commissioner Sorensen stated that the partners would be participating in these meetings and design issues would be examined. Anything that could be done to maintain the rustic appearance should happen during these discussions. Commissioner Sorensen supported the Forest Service look at the options presented in the FEIS and their study of them for keeping the road rustic. Commissioner Sorensen stated that there were also issues to consider regarding retaining walls, guard rails, and parking lots.

Regarding maintenance, Commissioner Poirot stated that one issue not discussed was that future Board of County Commissioners could decide to close that road for winter maintenance and this would drive maintenance costs down considerably. The maintenance cost mentioned of $212,000+ could possibly be cut in half with winter closures.

Ms. Shimon asked if the Board of County Commissioners signed the concurrence agreement this evening, were winter closures included? Mr. Knowles replied that the designs were not confirmed. By law, designs could not be finalized without a Record of Decision. Therefore, the County and other partners would be involved in the design sessions. The County would also have to sign off on the final design. The project could not be started until the partners had signed off on the design package. The concurrence meant that a Record of Decision could be done but not final construction plans until final approval. Changes could be made up until 95% of the final drawings were completed. Presently, the FHWA was approximately 30-50% of the way through this process. The Guanella Pass project was in the FHWA program for 2003 and they preferred to be at 95% by August of 2003. Ms. Neely asked who signed off on final design? The County the Forest Service or both? Mr. Knowles replied that both groups would sign the final design, if approved, for their own portions of the proposal.

Mr. Calhoun asked if the proposed use of macadam was confirmed or was it subject to change? Mr. Knowles replied that, yes, in order to get an agreement with the FEIS , the hard decisions on surface types had to be decided. Mr. Calhoun asked what the results of the questionnaire resulted in on surface types. Mr. Knowles replied that most responders requested chip/seal as opposed to macadam.

Mr. Wilson asked Ms. Anderson how the Town had voted on this proposal. Ms. Anderson replied that Georgetown did approve it for their portion of the road only. She thanked Cindy Neely for creating the Georgetown portion of the road as completely different from the rest of

256 road in that it was narrower than the County portion of the road. Ms. Anderson suggested that the County employ Ms. Neely for their portion of the road.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to sign the statement of concurrence accepting Alternative 6 as the County’s preferred alternative for Guanella Pass Road. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen wanted to continue working with the Forest Service, FHWA, the Town of Georgetown, and the County staff to determine what design issues they could modify to keep the road more rustic. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 13, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding personnel matters but not regarding commissioners or elected officials or discussions of personnel policies in general as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f) and regarding the Personnel Review Board, the School District Intergovernmental Agreement, and the 2003 Clear Creek County Budget as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 19, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 19, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation project as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-168, APPROVING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE FUND CONTRACT #L-10-03: Undersheriff Stu Nay presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Nay stated that this was an annually applied for grant to assist with DUI enforcement. The Sheriff’s department had applied for this

257 grant for three years and would have to not apply next year. Chief Accountant Carl Small had no issues with the grant application. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-168, approving the Law Enforcement Assistance Fund Contract. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-149, AMENDING SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO ADD ARTICLE 10 FOR MULTI-UNIT SMALL SUBDIVISIONS AND APPLICABLE CHANGES THEREOF: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Planning Director Carol Wise, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following statements: • Notice of this hearing was published in the Clear Creek Courant on October 22, 2002. • Staff had proposed this amendment to provide for a less time consuming process for smaller multi-unit developments with less requirements. • The Planning Commission did recommend approval as per their draft resolution. • Three changes were made the draft Board of County Commissioners resolution in sections D.1001, 1005.01, 1005.04, and 1004.11. • Staff recommended approval with these changes.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that these amendments to the resolution were not significant enough to send the case back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Kastens agreed stating that she had reviewed these changes with Planning Commission Vice Chairman Donna Moody. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-146, amending subdivision regulations to add Article 10 for multi-unit small subdivisions and applicable changes thereof with the changes mentioned. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding litigation concerning Chavez-Fierro as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-147, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #02-TSUP-17, FOR BRUCE ROBERSON, MINER’S CANDLE, USE OF A 8' X 20' STORAGE CONTAINER WHILE BUILDING A RESIDENCE: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. Applicant Bruce Roberson, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, and Adjacent Property Owner Robert Rich attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following statements regarding the case: • This permit request was to allow use of an 8' X 20' storage container unit on site during construction of residence. • The requested term was three years, if in full compliance with stipulations and conditions of the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit. • This container would be located on the combined Kansas and Missouri Lodes on Sunny Skies Trail, in the Miner’s Candle area. • Legal notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on October 30, 2002. Adjacent Property Owners were notified on November 1, 2002. No objections to the request had been received by staff. • Mr. Roberson was granted an administrative permit, #02-ASUP-02, to allow use of the 8' X 20' metal storage container during construction of a driveway, after which it was to be removed. He now has decided he would like to continue this use during construction of his residence, and then leave it permanently on the property as a shed. It met all setback requirements. • The proposed construction schedule would show the residence to be completed in November of 2005. • Ms. Wise had not included an amount for the financial guarantee and was leaving this to the discretion of the Board. Mr. Roberson thought it would cost $1000-$1500 to remove the container.

258 • Ms. Wise explained that the County had not yet taken a position as to whether such containers qualified as structures or not. However, it did qualify as an accessory use, and as such, required a special user permit until there was a residence on the property. It would be used for storage only, and there were no apparent negative impacts on the environment, nor did it appear to detract from the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the permit. • If the Board determined that the container may remain on the property permanently as an accessory structure to the future residence, it may not be necessary to require a performance guarantee, unless one was deemed to be needed until the house was well under way.

Mr. Roberson stated that he would like the container to remain on the property after construction of residence. He would construct a pitched roof and siding onto the container to make it appear more conventional. This was an all metal shipping container and when the residence was completed, the container would be put on a concrete pad. Ms. Wise added that these containers were becoming more popular for storage. There were others in the County on administrative permit.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that one option was for the Board of County Commissioners to grant the application as written and would require a financial guarantee while Mr. Roberson was requesting that the container be a permanent installation. Mr. Loeffler noted that once the residence was complete, the container would be a legal structure. Mr. Roberson stated that the container could be removed with a bulldozer or a backhoe if needed. This equipment could also place the container on the concrete pad.

Mr. Rich made the following comments: • He was representing his children who owned the property adjacent to Mr. Roberson. • He did not want a shipping container on the property adjacent to them. • He had bought this land to eventually build a nice mountain home and didn’t want a construction trailer this close to their land. • He children owned the Bald Eagle Claim. • At present, they did not have a home on this claim. Mr. Loeffler stated that according to the drawings, the container would be located in the middle of Mr. Roberson’s property. Mr. Roberson stated that the container was not visible from the road. Commissioner Poirot noted that this container was 600-700 ft from Mr. Rich’s land. Mr. Loeffler asked if they could make it a requirement to ensure that the improvements were made to the container so it didn’t remain in its current state? Mr. Loeffler replied that the question was not of improving the container but of the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit. In the meantime, the County could develop a regulatory view of these containers.

Commissioner Poirot asked if these containers were a permanent structure? Mr. Roberson replied that they could be made permanent by building the foundation and having it independent from the residence.

Mr. Rich stated that these metal containers were very dangerous and children could become trapped inside them. Mr. Roberson replied that the industry used them because they were difficult to get into. Mr. Roberson assured the Board of County Commissioners that he would keep the container padlocked. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02- 1149, Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit for Bruce Roberson, Miner’s Candle, to allow a 8' X 20' metal storage container during residence construction, with the approved construction schedule and a financial guarantee of $1500 for removal if residence construction was not completed. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen stated that if this container remained as permanent, the safety and appearance could be addressed after residence construction. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR THE COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT: BROWN (1)–SECTION 31, T3SR73W; CRANE (2)–SECTION 25 & 26, T3SR73W; BLAIR(5)–SECTION 25 & 26, T3SR74W; JGE MINING CO (3)–SECTION 3,

259 T4SR73W; TOULON/SMITH (1)–SECTION 4, T4SR73W; KAZEL MTN MINES CORP. (2)–SECTION 3, T4SR73W; HEITHOFF (1)–SECTION 3, T4SR73W; RICKLEFS/SPLETZER (1)–SECTION 5, T4SR73W; BREAKER INVESTMENTS (1) – SECTION 6, T4SR73W; KRUGER (2)–SECTION 6, T4SR73W; SHEPPARD (1)–SECTION 6, T4SR73W AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR TRANSFER OF LAND FROM DURCHOLZ TO HOWELL: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Senior Planner Lisa Vogel and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Smith made the following comments: • The County Lands department was requesting the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute 13 Special Warranty Deeds and 16 Combination of Lots Agreements for 19 County lands parcels. • Each parcel was required to be combined with contiguous property. • No additional buildable lots would be created as a result of this action. • All divisions of land were agreed upon by Adjacent Property Owners.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the 13 Special Warranty Deeds and the 16 Combination of Lots Agreements for the following people: • Brown #1835-31-1-00-957 • Crane #1835-26-1-00-950 & #1835-25-2-00-954 • Blair #1837-26-4-00-999 & #1837-25-3-00-962 & #1837-25-4-00-955 and portion of G.S. Lot No.30 and portion of Extension Live Yankee Lode • JGE Mining Co: #1961-03-1-00-955 & #1961-03-1-00-976 • Toulon/Smith #1961-04-3-00-962 • Kazel Mtn Mines Corp #1961-03-2-00-955 & 1961-03-1-00-951 • Heithoff #1961-03-1-00-975 • Ricklefs/Spletzer #1961-05-1-00-960 • Breaker Investments #1961-06-1-00-953 • Kruger #1961-06-2-00-973 & 1961-06-2-00-974 • Sheppard #1961-06-2-00-971

Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Smith presented the third deed for the JGE Mining Co. for one parcel of land in Section 3. Mr. Smith requested that this deed be executed subject to the recordation and administrative approval of the Final Plat of Boundary Line Adjustment case #02-AX-9. On signature, the deed would not be recorded and would be held by Ruth Kastens of the Planning Department. On approval and recordation of the Plat, Ruth would record this Special Warranty Deed. This parcel would be incorporated into the new lot created. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve and authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the Special Warranty Deed for JGE Mining Co. subject to administrative approval of the Final Plat. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Smith presented the contract for transfer of land between the Durcholz and Howell parties. Mr. Smith asked that the Board of County Commissioners accept and execute by signature of the Chairman, a contract regarding the sale of real property by sellers Robert and Sandra Durcholz to buyers Jan and Susan Howell. The County’s responsibilities, as specified, in the contract, were to administer the sale/purchase agreement, as stated in the body of the contract, and to undertake a division of land on behalf of the sellers. As a provision of the contract, County Lands also request the Board to accept and execute, by signature of the Chairman, a Deed Restriction on the property to be sold to, and that property currently owned by , Howells. The deed restriction stated that if the Howells sold their land, this parcel would have to be sold with it. The land would remain two parcels but this new parcel would not be buildable. The funds had been received by the Howells and the formal division of land was scheduled. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contact for the transfer of lands between the Durcholz party and the Howells. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

260 Ms. Vogel presented the proposed policies and procedures for the County Lands Department. These procedures dealt with the transfer process for “stand-alone” parcels and parcels that were to be combined. These policies included giving notice to Adjacent Property Owners, Expressions of Interest, realtors, etc, with no priority. Ms. Vogel stated that the County Lands Department had complied much historical data of people who had expressed interest in parcels and they ere reasonably sure that they had all expressions. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Policies and Procedures for the County Lands Department transfer process for stand-alone parcels and parcels to be combined with the wording changes discussed. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THE 2003 CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BUDGET: Commissioner Sorensen was absent from this hearing. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented. Mr. Loeffler stated that the 2003 Clear Creek County budget was submitted and was available for the public review. If any questions regarding the budget arose, it was recommended that people contact Chief Accountant Carl Small. Mr. Dale stated that he had been attending the budget hearings and the process thus far had been a good one. Commissioner Poirot stated that Mr. Small was attempting to offer the County a balanced budget with the interest of all taxpayers and County staff. Comments on the budget could be made by constituents until the budget adoption date of December 10, 2002. The Board closed the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 26, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION WITH THE EPA FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: County Engineer Ed Rapp presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, and East End Road and Bridge Foreman Darryl Funk attended the hearing. Mr. Rapp made the following statements: • This EPA grant was an administrative grant for the County and its agents for the costs in support of the EPA superfund remediation of orphan mine sites. • These were the costs associated with the 1041 permitting process and execution of it. • The focus of this grant was on the 2000 orphan mine sites in the County and their clean up. • Mr. Rapp confirmed that this was a grant applied for by the County but technically supported by the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation (Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation). The County took on the administrative portion by doing the accounting but the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation would handle the services. Mr. Small confirmed that there would have to be a subcontract for the services by Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation. • Mr. Rapp confirmed that the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation would seek out plume clean ups and then proceed to clean up in the most economical way possible. • Mr. Rapp explained that the reason for this grant was that the EPA had been wanting to finish its work in Clear Creek County but they were running low on funding. The EPA realized also that there were still 2000 orphan mine sites remaining in Clear Creek County. This would have left 2000 property owners trying to afford clean up permits with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Most residents would not go through this process and would turn over their land to the County. If this happened, the

261 County would be threatened by downstream user lawsuits. This would put the tax base at risk and this was not a solution. • The strategy would be to get the counties involved as a cooperator, fix a time line of 10 years, sort through all of the 2000 mine sites in the most cost effective way reducing the amount of permitting and investigations that had to be done. • However, the counties had no authority to do this in a public process without 1041 regulations established. • The EPA could only afford $40,000 for two counties for the administrative costs. • This grant would fund a study of the 2000 mines sites and the work to clean up the ones chosen. • The individual property owners would have to approve the incoming of the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation and the County to do this work and study on their lands. • Mr. Rapp was prepared to start this project in January of 2003. • After the 10 year period was complete and the EPA was convinced that the County had done all they could on the select mine sites, then the Board of County Commissioners or property owners could use the land as they saw fit. These lands would then be under the umbrella of the Clean Water Act. • At present, the EPA was writing an action memo to give the County a license within parameters to enter the properties and repair/clean up. • Mr. Rapp stated that if they tried to clean a property and could not improve it then it was no loss. This only proved that a collective effort of the County, citizens, the State and the Federal agencies could not improve it and therefore, the downstream users could not threaten them with lawsuits. • Mr. Small suggested some additions to the grant application. Mr. Rapp agreed and asked that the Board of County Commissioners approve this application contingent on these changes. Mr. Rapp would call the EPA and fill in the correct information. • Mr. Rapp stated that there was not a due date for the grant but the sooner submitted the better.

Commissioner Watrous stated that she understood the importance of this grant and what it meant to property owners that could not afford to do the clean up on their own. This could be a very time consuming and expensive process. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve the application contingent on the missing information being filled in on the application and with Carl Small being listed as the contact person. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Mr. Rapp stated that he could be listed as contact person to alleviate this burden from Mr. Small. Mr. Small would be listed as the authorized fiscal agent for the County. Commissioner Sorensen requested that a concise statement of what was expected of the County should be included with this grant application. County Attorney Robert Loeffler agreed. Commissioner Watrous amended her motion to provide for the inclusion of the statement of responsibility of the County. Commissioner Poirot amended and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FOR COUNTY LANDS FOR SHARON ROBERTS, SECTION 3, T4SR73W, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF RECORDATION OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE #02-AX-02: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended. Mr. Smith made the following statements: • County Lands was requesting the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute a Special Warranty Deed to Sharon Roberts subject to administrative approval of the Final Plat of Boundary Line Adjustment Case #02-AX-02. • On signature, the deed would not be recorded and would be held by Ruth Kastens of the Planning Department. • On administrative approval and recordation of the Plat, Ruth would record the deed. • In lieu of using a Combination of Lots Agreement, the parcel to be conveyed would be combined with the owners “adjusted as platted” contiguous property. • The County Lands parcel would be incorporated into “Parcel 1-A”. • This was a very small parcel about 1/100th of an acre and was recently found on a new 1997 BLM map.

262 Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deed for Sharon Roberts in Section 3. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS:

#02-166, John and Pearl Whalen, Georgetown Meadows: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. Whalen attended by speakerphone. Mr. Whalen made the following statements: • Mr. Whalen stated that his taxes had doubled in one year. • He had this lot for sale for two years and had not received a call on it. • One builder had suggested he would buy it for $15,000 but Mr. Whalen refused. • The location of the parcel was at the top of a steep hill and required four-wheel-drive in the winter. • There was only 19-feet of frontage for this parcel.

Ms. Settle stated that the comparables supported the value with recent sales in the area. She added that vacant land was valued at a higher rate. Ms. Settle stated that the Assessor’s office was required to use the sales of similar properties to determine value. She had three sales ranging from $26,500 to $32,500. Ms. Settle added that in year 2000, when Whalen was valued at $16,150, the other comparable sales ranged from $19,000 to $21,500. Commissioner Sorensen asked if the Assessor could adjust the value based on the shape of the land due to small frontage. Ms. Settle agreed. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the adjustment made by the Assessor based on the shape of the lot. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-131, Louis Brigham, Mill Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. Brigham attended the hearing. Ms. Settle stated that this case was heard at the last Abatement hearings regarding problems with the building site. The Assessor’s office was looking at this parcel as three lots all as one. The Assessor’s office stated that Mr. Brigham could probably build one home on all three sites rather than three different sites. The new issue had become assessing the land as residential when it was vacant. Even lowering the value would increase the taxes if the property were assessed as vacant. Ms. Settle suggested denying this abatement this year and then next year assess it as vacant land. Ms. Settle added that there was a structure on the parcel but questioned if it was livable.

Mr. Brigham made the following statements: • He stated that he had purchased this land with his uncle. • Mr. Brigham owned Lots 7, 8, and 9. • A pond consumed most of lot 10 but the driveway for 10 was on lot 9. • Lot 10 now had a home on it and Brigham’s mobile home was on lot 9. • This lot had never been considered vacant in the past as it was used by his family on weekends at the mobile home. • The building site on lot 9 got taken out when the sewer line was put in and they took a 61- ft easement. Lot 7 had also lost its building site for the same reason. • Mr. Brigham stated that his land was adjusted from vacant land to residential in 2001. • Mr. Brigham asked why the value of his mobile home increased. Ms. Settle replied that mobile homes were affordable housing and had increased in value. • Mr. Brigham stated that his property had no sewer but had water. He presently had a septic tank and leach field.

The Board agreed to continue this hearing to allow more time for County Assessor Diane Settle to research the history on this property to consider an adjustment. This abatement would be brought back to the Board at the next abatement hearings.

#02-163, Walter Weiss and John Gould, Chicago Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Walter Weiss attended the hearing. Mr. Weiss made the following statements: • This property was located on a steep hillside. • The abatement was filed as the taxes had increased by 3.5 times in 2001. • The old city water line ran across this land so there was no access.

263 • The water line also cut across part of the land so no access from the top of the parcel either. • The top of the parcel was also cut off by another higher precedence mining claim. • The old water line was disconnected at present.

Ms. Settle replied that her office was adjusting this claim for topography from $4340 to $1730. Mr. Weiss agreed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-167, Estate of Ronald Cochran, Lawson: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. The brother-in-law of Ronald Cochran attended the hearing. He made the following statements: • Ronald Cochran had passed away in January of this year. • The last assessment showed the home as completed but it was never completed. • The family had tried to fence off the property until it was completed but the home had suffered much vandalism. • The home was basically just a shell at this time.

Ms. Settle replied that her office was adjusting this valuation to no bedrooms or bathrooms the condition to poor and location as fair. She was adjusting the value from $81,790 to $31,490. The family representative presented an appraisal showing the home worth $30,000. Ms. Settle agreed to this value for 2000 and 2001. The family representative agreed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to the $30,000. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-108, C.J. Galbraith, Winterland Subdivision: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Galbraith party. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was for two lots in Winterland and she recommended an adjustment on one lot from $5800 to $4900 based on comparables. The second lot would be adjusted from $7650 to $6750. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-158, Robert Port, Red Elephant: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Port group. Ms. Settle stated that these were mining claims off of Red Elephant. One was only 50-ft wide and should be valued asa mining value. The other two claims were very small and the acreage needed to be corrected. The recommended the following values: the Decatur claim at $1670, the Carbon claim at $620, and the Czar claim at $740. All three claims were adjusted for 2001 and 2002. Two of the claims were buildable and the third was not. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-159, #02-160, #02-161, Ralph and Gail Van Otterloo, Donald and Mary Pierce, and Paul Dean Van Otterloo: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Van Otterloo or Pierce groups. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was generated by the Assessor’s office to correct the interest percentages on the claim. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to correct this claim. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-162, Amelia Munchiando, Idaho Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Munchiando group. Ms. Settle stated that her office had incorrect square footage and needed to make an adjustment due to location next to the highway. She recommended a new valuation of $117,610. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-164, Gregory LeRoy, Virginia Canyon: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the LeRoy party. Ms. Settle stated that Mr. LeRoy had five mining claims in the Virginia Canyon area. The recommendation was to take the claims to $200 per acre for the 2001 protest and deny the 2000 protest. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept

264 the Assessor’s recommendation for the mining claims. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#02-165, Cecil Livingston, Brook Forest Estates: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Livingston party. Ms. Settle stated that this was a cabin in Brook Forest Estates and the owners wanted it assessed as vacant land. Ms. Settle explained that if the property was valued at this classification it would be more expensive. She recommended denial of this change of classification for 2001 and for 2000. Ms. Settle would contact the property owners and explain to them the difference in classification. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GAMING CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AMBULANCE: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Abrahamson stated that the Ambulance Department had allotted $69,000 for a new ambulance and written this grant for the remaining $41,000. The grant award was what the Ambulance Department had requested. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Gaming Contract Award for the Ambulance Department. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION #02-170 FOR DON ALLAN, PARAMEDIC: Administrative Assistant Beth Luther presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. This was a resolution of appreciation for Paramedic Don Allan for over 20 years of service to Clear Creek County. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-170, in appreciation for Don Allan. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-153, AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following statements: • Over the past year and half, Staff had become aware of some inequities in the existing schedule, which was adopted in 2000. • Staff had researched fees charged by seven other counties, and found that there was a broad range of fees, generally with little consistency among them. • Staff had also reviewed time spent by themselves on specific cases in a number of their categories that seemed to not be in line with reality on the existing fee schedule. • While recognizing that much of the planning time had historically been subsidized by other County revenues, this revised fee schedule was now attempting to increase the revenue in the planning department to better cover staff time that was actually spend on land use cases, and to set fees where there were none now. • Staff anticipated that six months from now they would have a better record of actual time spend on each specific case, and would be able to more fully-re-evaluate the fee schedule in each category at that time. • One amendment was the special district service plan. This fee was limited by statute to $500 so this had to be changed in the fee schedule. • The Planned Development fee was changed to $1730. • Rezoning in conjunction with a Design Review was changed to $1580. • The TDR fee was raised to $1730 as it was similar to two rezonings. • Boundary Line Adjustment cases were raised to $700. • The Multi Unit Subdivision of $1330 was approved the prior week by resolution. A multi unit subdivision done in conjunction with Design Review would be $1580 and with Development Review would be $1730. • Exemption by Resolution cases would cost $915. • The Planning Department had found that many of the new properties being developed had many issues and were difficult lots to work with. Therefore, most cases were taking more time.

265 • A figure for Minor Plat Amendments was suggested of $630 until this process was completed. • A fee for Corrections to Plat Amendments was suggested at $395. • Wording changes were added to the Variances and the Special Exceptions sections and the fee was set at $350. • The penalty for encroachment into setback was left at $960. • The setback request for unoccupied structure under 120 square feet was set at $100. • The Site Characteristics Analysis fee was added of $50 and this would be applied toward the application fee if the case was formally submitted. • For the Building Site Plan Review, the residential was left at $35 but the commercial was doubled at $70. • A provision for “Hiring an Outside Consultant” was added to show that the applicant would be billed for this as applicable. • The Planning Department left out a fee for the reviewing “possible development” plans as they wanted to encourage applicants to come in and apply for permits properly. • Staff suggested these new fees become effective on January 1, 2003.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-149, amendment of the Planning Department fee schedule with the modifications mentioned. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 27, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 27, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE FROM UPHILL LIMITED LIABILITY FOR WATER STORAGE: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. County Attorney Robert Loeffler made the following statements: • The Clear Creek School District presently had a lease with Uphill Limited Liability for water storage of 8 acre feet at the Lookout Mountain Water District facility. • The School District was not going to utilize this lease and proposed to assign it to the County. • This lease would give the County the assignment to store 8 acre feet in place of the School. • The County would be responsible for paying the lease payment under this lease which totaled $800 per acre feet adjusted for CPI. • The rate of the lease for this year would be $6645.12. • This lease would be in place until the City of Golden opened their reservoir above Empire. At this time when the Golden reservoir was functioning, the Uphill Limited Liability lease would disappear from the Lookout Mountain Water District facility and transfer to the Golden reservoir. • This lease for the County would be in place until Uphill Limited Liability moved their storage to the Golden reservoir in Empire. • The School presently had the 8 acre foot lease with Uphill Limited and a separate lease with Lookout Mountain Water District. The latter lease would go into effect when Uphill Limited moved to the Golden reservoir.

266 • The $6645.12 leased only one year of storage commencing on December 7, 2002. This would be a year by year lease commencing on December 7th of each year. • The lease rights could be terminated by not paying the annual payment. • The School District was going to terminate the 8 acre foot lease by not paying but instead proposed to assign it to the County. • Since this discussion had begun, the School District realized that they needed one acre foot per year so this lease included a one acre foot sublease back to the school.

Mr. Weaver agreed with this presentation and recommended that the County not lose this option. Presently the County stored water with Idaho Springs, but Idaho Springs wanted to renegotiate as they had an opportunity to store water for the City of Golden. Mr. Weaver confirmed that Idaho Springs could store the County’s needed 37 acre feet. Between now and February, Mr. Weaver would try to explore the market for water buyers. He recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a water policy for leasing water to potential users. He suggested a short term policy of only 1-2 years. This would be a temporary supply plan unless in-County commercial users needed water and they would be considered first priority. Commissioner Sorensen stated that she had read that the State Engineer did not approve of temporary supply plans. Mr. Weaver replied that this was correct unless applicants had applied for a permanent water supply. Mr. Weaver requested that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign this lease and sublease upon the County Attorney and Chairman approval of the final draft of these documents. He also requested that the Board of County Commissioners authorize a payment of $6645.12 for the first year of the lease and a $10 payment to the School District. Mr. Weaver noted that even though permission was not required from Lookout Mountain Water District, the County did forward copies of the lease agreement to them. Commissioner Watrous asked if it was economically better to store water here than in Idaho Springs. County Attorney Robert Loeffler replied that under the current County water rates, anything outside of sales to the government was a better deal. However, with sales to municipalities, Idaho Spring was a better deal. He added that one question to be answered was if the County could legally move water to be stored in the Lookout Mountain Water District. Mr. Loeffler agreed to consult with the County’s Water Attorney Paul Zilis on this.

Chief Accountant Carl Small stated that this payment of $6645.12 would come out of the water revenue fund which had a present balance of approximately $25,000. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the lease and sublease and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents contingent on clearance from Mr. Zilis and approved all payments to be made to Uphill Limited Liability and the School District. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following: • a Boundary Line Adjustment case for Edna Krueger as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • a discussion on employee personnel matters not related to Elected Officials or the Board of County Commissioners as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f); • a discussion on utility locates as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • a discussion on the Slacker Half Marathon/5K Races as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 2002

267 The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on December 10, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ROOF REPAIR PROPOSAL FOR IDAHO SPRINGS LIBRARY: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Small made the following statements: • Two bids were submitted for the roof repair work at the Idaho Springs Library. One bid was from M.C. Roofing and the other was from Shawn Plett Company. • M.C. Roofing’s bid was $2500 and Shawn Plett Company bid was $1575. • M.C. Roofing’s bid included a second proposal if the decking in the roof had deteriorated and needed to be repaired. M.C. Roofing also wanted to have the Building Inspector check the roof decking for safety. • With either bid, there could be additional costs with any additional problems. • Mr. Small stated that this repair was not in the library budget and could be taken out of the sales tax fund.

Commissioner Sorensen was in favor of the M.C. Roofing bid due to the detail and inspection of the decking under the roof. Commissioner Poirot asked if the funding for this repair could come from the building contingency plan. Mr. small replied that it could but it would essentially be from the same fund as sales tax. Mr. Small stated that if the M.C. Roofing bid was chosen, the Board should only sign page 1 of 2 as page 2 was a second proposal. He added that the Board should limit the acceptance to $4000. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve page 1 of 2 of the M.C. Roofing bid with a limit of $4000 and authorized the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. . Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CORRECTED COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR BILL KAZEL: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens stated that this corrected Combination of Lots Agreement was combining County land parcels with the Skyrocket Lode. This Combination of Lots Agreement needed to be finished in order to complete this pending Planning case. This would allow the newly formed parcel to have one legal description. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the corrected Combination of Lots Agreement for Bill Kazel. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of the Emergency Services District. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING: Fire Chief Kelly Babeon presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Babeon made the following statements regarding the Clear Creek Fire Authority’s recent projects: Mr. Babeon submitted a letter from the Clear Creek Fire Authority to recover their temporary mill levy reduction. The Clear Creek Fire Authority wanted to reclaim all temporary mill levy reductions. However, the limitation for tax revenue for the district was around $332,000. The mill levy for the district without reductions was 4.569 mills. The reclamation would recover all but .1 mills and stay within the revenue limitation for Tabor. Mr. Small confirmed that this was in the budget. Mr. Babeon had been working on the Clear Creek Fire Authority inventory list for all stations. Inventory data from the Idaho Springs and Dumont facility were not complete. Mr. Small noted the County’s limit on inventory was $5000. Commissioner Sorensen stated that in order to maintain good relations with all signers on the Intergovernmental Agreement, this inventory was done until the Clear Creek Fire Authority became a Title 32.

268 County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that this agreement would have to be signed by the end of the year. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue this discussion to December 17, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. to allow more time to clarify the Idaho Springs and Dumont facility inventories. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of the Emergency Services District then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GEORGETOWN-CLEAR CREEK COUNTY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING GUANELLA PASS ROAD AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT REGARDING SEARCH AND RESCUE AND DEPLOYMENT WITH FLIGHT FOR LIFE: Sheriff Don Krueger attended. County Attorney Robert Loeffler made the following statements regarding the Intergovernmental Agreement on Guanella Pass Road: • Mr. Loeffler had not spoken with the Town of Georgetown as their attorney had not yet been authorized to work on this agreement. • The revision presented reflected discussion with John Knowles of FHWA. • These discussion included the $75,000 cap on acquisition of right of way with the assumption of $27,000 of acquisition activities apart from out of pocket costs. • Mr. Knowles proposed that the County do all the acquisition activities apart from the out of pocket activities. The Town and County would then have 5 years to pay off the remaining $48,000. This assumed that Georgetown would pay $25,000 of this amount and the County $23,000. • Mr. Knowles asked the County to expect some condemnation on some parcels. • One section of the Intergovernmental Agreement appointed the County as the Town agent to negotiate the acquisition and prosecute condemnation on the part of the Town. This was still a section to be negotiated as Mr. Loeffler had not heard from the Town. • The acquisition work and the $23,000 from the County would begin in 2004. The Board discussed signing this agreement to avoid a delay by the Town and the Record of Decision. Commissioner Sorensen stated that Georgetown would have to be motivated to work with the County on a cost share basis. • Mr. Loeffler hoped that the FHWA would see outside experts as a out of pocket cost and fund these if needed. • Mr. Loeffler included a Waiver of Conflict into this agreement as his services could not be used in this process as in kind. • Commissioner Poirot stated that work on condemnation would be difficult and cost sharing should be included with Georgetown. • The Board agreed to submit the draft to Georgetown without the dollars included and obtain feedback.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented the Flight for Life Agreement with the following statements: • This agreement was a Memorandum of Understanding between Clear Creek County and Flight for Life for search, rescue and avalanche deployment . • Assuming no patient contact, if the County called for a helicopter or dog to go into an area, the rate was $500 per hour and if used to shuttle a rescue team the cost was $1000 per hour, no matter the number of trips. • If patient contact occurred, the patient was billed. • The only two people authorized from the County to call for a helicopter were Sheriff Don Krueger and Undersheriff Stu Nay. • Reimbursement was required withing 45 days of invoice.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Memorandum of Understanding between Clear Creek County and Flight for Life. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL REQUEST FOR THE MAPPING DEPARTMENT: Mapping Director Matt Taylor presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Archivist Christine

269 Bradley, County Clerk and Recorder Pam Phipps, County Assessor Diane Settle , and Information Services Director Mary Johnson attended the hearing. Mr. Taylor made the following statements: • Mr. Taylor stated that the question for the hearing was should the County upgrade the existing large-format color plotter and black/white blue line Xerox copier. • The current County large-format plotter was over six years old and was considered a “mature product” by Hewlett Packard. • This product was no longer in production; therefore, parts and sub-assemblies may no longer be available. • Hewlett Packard no longer offered contractual support for the plotter, thus any problems with it would incur a labor fee upwards of $180/hour in addition to a travel rate of $240 for a single visit. • If the machine broke and parts were not available the County would have to replace it. • Compatible machines were currently running $9000 and up. The Mapping Department had not budgeted for a replacement in 2003. • The County’s blue line machine was nearly five years old, it had an annual maintenance agreement of $398 in addition to a meter rate of $.75/Linear Foot. • In recent years the total cost had been upwards of $900, not including toner and paper. • As part of the County’s maintenance agreement, they were required to purchase all paper products for this machine from United Reprographic Supply Inc. (URSI), thereby restricting the County from shopping around for the cheapest product. • URSI had informed the County that they would continue to provide an annual maintenance agreement so long as Xerox continued to produce the parts. • The blue line machine was used to make copies of large documents and only made black and white copies. • One option would be to purchase the Hewlett Packard DesignJet large format color plotter/scanner/copier combo. This product would effectively replace the two aforementioned machines reducing maintenance costs of two machines to one. Other benefits of this machine would include saving approximately $720-$1250/year, which the County spends outsourcing all of their larger recorded documents such as plats. Additionally, the County could save on employee time and fuel that was used to deliver and pick up the large documents to the scanning vendor. This machine would also allow us to record color documents, which would save the Mapping Department time converting color documents to black and white. The Land Use Group support would no longer need to spend time searching for plats to copy because these documents could be printed from any employee’s desktops. This option would also allow faster printing of documents and a savings with regard to maintenance. • The quote from United Reprographic’s was for $17,595. Other systems ranged from $18,000 to $21,000. • A second option would be to continue with the current equipment and if the current equipment needed to be replaced, this could range between $9000 and $20,000. The Mapping Department had not budgeted for a new plotter in 2003. • Replacing the two machines individually could cost $12,000 for the plotter and $20,020 for the scanning capability. • Mr. Taylor recommended option #1 as it combined two pieces of equipment, decreased possible maintenance fees, saved the staff time, assisted multiple departments, and reduced eventual replacement of either machine. • The proposed source of funding for the option #1 would be sales tax for capital funds. • The following departments supported option #1: Information Services, Archives, Clerk and Recorder, County Lands, Assessor, and Service Unit Manager of Land Use.

Mr. Small stated that this would be better funded out of sales tax as the individual department budgets were already figured for the year and anything not used would be part of the carry forward. This was a legitimate purchase from sales tax and would leave the balance of the General Fund in tact. Mr. Small concurred that this was a fairly break even analysis with the risk associated with the current equipment breaking down and not being serviceable.

Ms. Bradley stated that this would assist the Archives Department in that they could upload many surveyed maps in house that the County paid for in outside services. Ms. Johnson stated that this

270 would allow the County to print items larger than 11”X17”. It was prohibitive to purchase oversize printers otherwise. Ms. Settle and Ms. Phipps stated that this new plotter/scanner/copier would allow her department to upload their changes to parcels sooner.

Given the support of multiple departments and the justification of option #1, Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the capital request of the new plotter/scanner/copier for the Mapping Department from the sales tax fund. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Watrous asked about the warranty. Mr. Taylor replied that they would utilize the warranty from Hewlett Packard as it was a five-year extension for $2160. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF HDPLC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE LOWER SILVERDALE NON-MOTORIZED RECREATION AREA: HDPLC members Frank Young, Matthew Skeen, and Lee Behrens presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, Planning Director Carol Wise, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck attended the hearing. The HDPLC members made the following presentation: • The HDPLC group presented a map of the Silverdale area. • This map showed a 20-car parking lot, a kiosk, and footbridge to access the area. • The FHWA proposed, in their work on Guanella Pass, create a formal parking lot with two entrances. • The parking lot kiosk would be a product of the Scenic Byway Committee even though not included by the FHWA. • The Scenic Byway Committee was also working on signage for this area to reduce traffic hazards. • This area had been acquired by buying eight mining claims from Gary Oakley. • Ms. Wise urged the Board to consider this plan from a recreational aspect rather than an issue aspect. At the southern end of the property, Public Service Co. had created an access for emergency use to its towers. • The overhead pictures of the area showed that it would be very practical if someone built a bridge over the dam and worked with the Town of Georgetown. • Ms. Wise was unaware of a particular land use changes back in this area that would necessitate access. • Commissioner Sorensen asked about some of the private land claims that were along the boundary of the Silverdale Recreation area. Mr. Behrens replied that these private claims were still not resolved yet but the HDPLC was working to acquire them. Whether the HDPLC plan for the Silverdale area was approved or not, access was still covered under Clear Creek County Ordinance #4 with regard to access to private lands. Commissioner Sorensen requested a redrawing of the Silverdale boundary if the private land owners did not want to sell. Mr. Behrens agreed.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler made the following statements: • He stated that in the prior week the Board of County Commissioners was asked to adopt a plan of non-motorized designation of the lower Silverdale area. • As mentioned, this could already be addressed in Clear Creek County Ordinance #4. • Since the County presently had a pending application to recognize this access as a public road, the road being obliterated by this plan and suggests a footbridge for access, the County should be leery of making any decisions on this plan at present. • This plan was dealing with an area of interest to the upcoming historic road application in January and it may be best to hold off on any adoption. Commissioner Poirot agreed and suggested a site visit by the Board of County Commissioners and County Attorney.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the land involved in this adoption was owned by non-profits, publicly owned and governments. All of these owners were included in this designation of recreation. Mr. Loeffler replied that although the applicant in the historic road case was not within these boundaries, his proposed access did cross this property. To the extent that this adoption could vacate some roads, the vacation process would have to be completed. This was a difficult consideration. The HDPLC requested that accesses within this boundary were non- motorized as a recreational use. If adopting land uses, this would have to be a zoning process.

271 The concept of this proposed plan may overlap with the zoning and road designation processes. Additionally, this situation could have been done with Clear Creek County Ordinance #4.

Mr. Young made the following statements: • When the BLM Land Transfer Act became effective, it mentioned that the lands in this particular category would be managed under the principals of the cooperative management agreement for the HDPLC. • Clear Creek County Ordinance #4 came from this legislation and it was the Board of County Commissioners saying how they would implement it. The problem became that there were HDPLC lands and other town owned lands and a uniform use regulation was needed. This was what Ordinance #4 did. • The proposed plan for Silverdale was prepared by the HDPLC of which the County was a member. • The HDPLC was having each member approve this recreational plan for the Silverdale area. • The HDPLC was not requesting for zoning or land use decisions. This was a recreational plan. • Any other access rights were not affected by this plan, they would still remain. • This plan was needed to inform people that the roads in this area were non-motorized and ATV’s and OHV’s were not allowed. This plan was crafted so as to not affect anyone else’s rights.

Ms. Wise confirmed that there was no motorized access across the creek at this time and no historical access to date, only a footbridge. Mr. Loeffler stated that there were differences between Clear Creek County Ordinance #4 and this proposed recreation plan. Mr. Young agreed stating that Ordinance #4 covered the 2000 acres of land that were a part of the former BLM Transfer Act. The HDPLC was now attempting to refine the management within the boundary at Silverdale but not differently than Ordinance #4. Ms. Wise added that there were two activities provided in Ordinance #4 but not in this plan, camping and hunting. Mr. Loeffler noted that Ordinance #4 would have to modified to include this area as the ordinance would win the battle under enforcement. Mr. Young stated that one reason for the creation of Ordinance #4 was to allow the County Sheriff to do the enforcement on the members of HDPLC’s land. The HDPLC wanted uniform enforcement.

Commissioner Poirot asked if a township map with public roads had been done for this section. Mr. Vogel replied that it had not.

Mr. Loeffler reemphasized that a decision on this plan was premature until the other case was heard. Commissioner Poirot asked about Section 2.2.9 of the Ordinance #4. Mr. Loeffler replied that the applicant in the upcoming case could be undisturbed by this ordinance due to this section if the applicant was correct. If the applicant was not correct, any right he had would be eliminated unless he possessed a private right. The applicant would not be entirely foreclosed but it would close off the public road theory and the County could then proceed unaffected by his claim if they chose to close that access.

Mr. Skeen stated that the applicant had approached Historic Georgetown Inc. (HGI), requesting allowance to build a motorized bridge on their land and HGI denied this request due to their favor of having this area non-motorized. The applicant suggested a gated entrance for only himself and HDPLC. If only to be decided HGI, HGI would still reply no. HGI disagreed with the applicant’s historical evidence and they did not find evidence of a motorized vehicle bridge. Regarding the applicants claim to driving to his private lands, HGI stated that there was discussion of an old road across the dam. HGI desired to have the public use their land but in a non-motorized manner. It was difficult for HGI to allow this applicant motorized access, and deny all others. From the HGI perspective, they requested that the Board of County Commissioners amend the ordinance for recreational non-motorized use. Mr. Loeffler stated that since most of the discussion of this plan revolved around the upcoming applicant, adoption should be delayed. Commissioner Poirot agreed and asked that the HDPLC return for consideration after the Board of County Commissioners heard the case of the applicant. Mr. Loeffler agreed and suggested a working session with the HDPLC on exactly what they were requesting so that a process could be decided.

272 Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue this hearing to February 4, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT TO THE COUNTY FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: CLARK, MCCRACKEN/METSCHER, MCCRACKEN, AND MALONE IN THE VIRGINIA CANYON AREA: County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended. Mr. Loeffler stated that these easements were for rights of way in the Virginia Canyon area for Road and Bridge work under the gaming grant. This was the beginning of these easements to be seen into the future as part of the drainage and flood mitigation project. These easements were negotiated by Director of Emergency Management Laura Nay. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the grants of easement to the County from the following parties: Clark, McCracken/Metscher, McCracken and Malone and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS FOR GAMING GRANT AWARDS FOR COLUMBINE FAMILY HEALTH, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, AND CLEAR CREEK ADVOCATES: County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler stated that these agreements were needed so that the agencies would receive their money and perform their required scope of services as agreed to in the grant award. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the contractual agreements for gaming grant awards for Columbine Family Health, Volunteers of America, and the Clear Creek Advocates. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SRO GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: Director of Emergency Management Laura Nay presented. Sheriff Don Krueger, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Nay made the following statements: • This grant was for the School Resource Officer which held onsite hours at the Clear Creek High School. • Ms. Nay stated that this grant application was late for submittal but the grant coordinator had agreed to accept the application late. • The Sheriff’s department had received $33,000 in the prior year and this year was requesting between $22,000 and $24,000. The reason for this decrease was that the School District was contributing more funds. • The ultimate goal was to sustain this program with contributions from the School District and the County.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the grant application for the School Resource Officer through the Sheriff’s Department. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Ms. Nay confirmed that the match for this grant was in the budget. Commissioner Sorensen stated that statistics showed that due to this officer, the crime statistics decreased by 4%. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-174, ADOPTION OF 2003 BUDGET FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-175, TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-176, TO LEVY GENERAL PROPERTY TAX; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT RESOLUTION #02-01, TO ADOPT THE 2003 EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BUDGET; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT RESOLUTION #02-02, TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT RESOLUTION #02-03, TO LEVY GENERAL PROPERTY TAX: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Small made the following presentation:

273 • Mr. Small submitted a summary spreadsheet and noted the Ambulance Department budget revision that had been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners this morning. • Changes were made in the mill levy to the Library to accommodate a fund balance. • Changes in employee benefits were noted. • These resolutions for budget were typical for each year with three resolutions to adopt and process the County budget and three resolutions to the same for the Emergency Services District budget. • The dental insurance option had not been chosen but Mr. Small was comfortable with the option that contained an employee contribution. • Mr. Small stated that he had not made the revisions to the budget with regard to the Sheriff’s and Ambulance’s budgets. • Mr. Small recommended postponing the County adoption of budget until the following day to allow for discussions with these departments.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the three County budget resolutions to December 11, 2002 at 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then convened as the Emergency Services District Board.

Mr. Small presented the Emergency Services District resolutions with the following presentation: • Mr. Small showed a district categorization of revenues and expenditures. • The mill levy was 4.569 totaling $340,000. • The temporary mill reductions produced a net property tax of $382,020. • A fund balance of $32,000+ in reserve for emergencies was include. • The resolution for appropriation was to appropriate these funds for expenditure. • The net mill for tax collection was 4.451.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Emergency Services District Resolution #02-01, to adopt the Emergency Services District budget. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Emergency Services District Resolution #02-02, to appropriate sums of money necessary for the Emergency Services District. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Emergency Services District Resolution #02-03, to levy general property tax for the Emergency Services District. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Emergency Services District Board reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-150, REZONING CASE #274, FROM PD TO C-TR (COMMERCIAL-TOURISM/RECREATION), FOR CLEAR CREEK RAFTING AT 350 WHITEWATER ROAD, IDAHO SPRINGS: Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Applicant John Rice, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: • The Rezoning Case #274 requested to change the zoning designation from PD for a rafting company to Commercial- Tourism/Recreation (C-T/R). • The property was located at 350 Whitewater Road. • The adjacent lands included CDOT right of way, Ferrelgas, Concrete Batch Plant and County Road #314. All surrounding uses were considered commercial uses, however, these uses range from industrial type to tourist-commercial type. Commercial uses such as these were appropriately suited for this area because of the proximity to I-70, Idaho Springs, and the availability of public services such as water, sewer, and road maintenance.

274 • Applicant John Rice and adjacent property owner Ferrelgas were in a boundary line adjustment case at this time. This case would, if approved, move the boundary line over so that all land east of Ferrell Way would belong to Rice and the property line would then be the road. This would allow more parking space for the rafting company. • The PD zoning for the rafting company specifically allowed rafting only. It specifically identified the building, its size and any other things on the property, i.e., driveways, etc. • With a C-TR zoning, there was a list of allowable uses and the property owner must comply with the zoning regulations for this zone. • Under a PD zoning, the landowner had to amend the PD to make any changes to the property. • Mr. Rice requested this rezone to C-TR to allow more uses on his land without having to amend his PD zone each time. • Referral responses were received from review agenceis with the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation in support, no objections from CDOT except for no access or disturbance to the CDOT right of way. • Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel and Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson had no objections. • Ferrlgas had no objections and the Tourism Board was in favor. • This property of discussion was access by two private roads, Ferrell Way and Whitewater Road. Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel had no problems with this rezoning. • A copy of easements was on file and they allowed appropriate access to any business. • The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval at their hearing. • The Planning Department Staff also recommended approval of this rezoning.

Mr. Rice made the following statements: • When Mr. Rice first began this business, the only zonings were Commercial and Industrial. • Mr. Rice wanted Commercial but Planning Staff denied this because there were uses allowed under Commercial that they did not want in this location. The Planning Staff then recommended a Planned Development zoning. • Since then, whenever the rafting company wanted another use, it was not allowed without a rezoning or an amendment to the PD. • After the previous drought year, the rafting company had learned that being diversified would better sustain their business. • This along with fencing and parking issues made the PD zoning too limited.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-150, Rezoning Case #274 for John Rice, K&J Management, LLC. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Mr. Vogel expressed support for the rezoning. The vote was unanimous.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-152, SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE #02-SUP-16, FOR LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN WATER DISTRICT, AMENDING THEIR PRIOR SUP #88-SUP-6, TO ADD A 12' x 20' SLUDGE DRYING BUILDING, BEAVER BROOK CANYON ROAD: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. Building Permit Coordinator Lynette Kelsey, Lookout Mountain Water District representative Rich Cassens, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, and Planning Commission member Donna Moody attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following presentation: • This request was to amend SUP-6-88 to add a 12' X 20' sludge drying building to existing water treatment facility. • The parcel was a 14-acre tract of land in the NE 1/4 Section 14, and known as parcel #1963-14-1-00-904. • The applicant was Lookout Mountain Water District represented by Rich Cassens.

275 • Notice was published int he Clear Creek Courant on November 6, 2002 and no comments had been received as a result of this notice. • Adjacent property owners and various referral agencies were notified. • Building Inspector Deb Kirkham stated a building permit was required for the 12' X 20' structure, and requested that it be stipulated that a permit application be required to be submitted within thirty days of approval of this Special Use Permit. This had been done. • This structure had actually already been built but Lookout Mountain Water District was unaware that they needed a permit. The first Special Use Permit was approve in 1988 for the use of this property for a water treatment facility. At that time, a Public Ways Review of the property was held also. A stipulation of that Special Use Permit stated that the permit approved applied specifically to the plans submitted at that time. Improvements in technology since then have shown the need for a sludge removal facility on site. The purpose of that facility was to de-water the sludge removed from the backwash of the filters. The sludge was dried from its original water content of 95%to a water content to of 10-12%. When the sludge had been thru treated, in its dry state it can be bagged and hauled to a sanitary landfill. • At a regularly meeting on November 20, 2002, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this special Use Permit, and unanimously approved the Location and Extent (Public Ways Review) of this use. • Ms. Kelsey noted that the original permit was not actually issued due to not enough of the required submittal to issue one. Ms. Wise stated that Stipulation #3 in the resolution cleared this problem. • Ms. Wise added that a section in the resolution was added to deal with future accessory buildings. In the event that a new building was added, it would not require a new Special Use Permit but a Public Ways Review and a building permit.

Commissioner Sorensen asked what happened to the sludge once it was dried. Mr. Cassens replied that a pumping truck would pump it out and haul it away. Since this dry sludge was inert from pathogens it could be hauled to landfills. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-152, Special Use Permit Case #02-SUP-16, for Lookout Mountain Water District to add a 12' X 20' sludge drying building. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

BOARD OF HEALTH HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION #02-154, FOR JUSTIN AND KIRSTY KNOBLAUCH, FALL RIVER AREA, TO ALLOW A PROPERTY WITH A PROPOSED ISDS ON A SLOPE OF 56%: Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Environmental Health Department Technician Tracy Bennetts, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Barta and Associates Engineer Ron Barta, and applicant Justin Knoblauch attended the hearing. Mr. Etcheson made the following presentation: • The problem to consider was that a new septic system was proposed to be installed within less than 35 feet horizontally of a slope in excess of 45%. (Actual slope was 56%.) • The Clear Creek County Board of Health could either approval of not approve the applicant’s request for an exception from the ISDS regulations. • Based on a site review conducted on October 1, 2002, all slopes in the area of the proposed septic system exceeded 45%. The slope was measured by the Environmental Health Department Director at 56%. The proposed drainfield location was not situated above a driveway or a road cut. The proposed drainfield design stipulated the installation of a 20 millimeter PVC liner to a depth of 6 feet on the downhill side and ends of the drainfield. The design also stipulated a bench above the drainfield to divert surface run- off and seeding of the disturbed areas. The separation distance between the proposed well and the drainfield met County ISDS requirements. There may be an increased risk of sewage surfacing downslope of the drainfield location, due to the steep slope of the proposed drainfield area. • The Environmental Health Department recommended consideration of approval of the requested variance with the following conditions: that no adjacent property owners object to this request for an Exception; that a valid ISDS permit be obtained; that a pre-treatment system in compliance with the local ISDS regulations be installed as a part of the septic system serving this property; that a surface water run-off berm be constructed immediately

276 upslope from the drainfield location; that a 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on the downslope side to a depth of 8 feet below grade; that all disturbed areas shall be seeded after completion of the septic system installation; and that blasting be conducted to create bedrock fractures to a depth of fourteen feet below the grade of the drainfield open hole excavation’s elevation. • The concern with these slopes was that sewage would surface lower downhill.

Mr. Barta made the following presentation: • Mr. Barta presented a modification to the original design that would enhance the overall performance of the system. • This modification had been used many times for steep slopes and the engineer was adding a dosing siphon to the system which would reduce the square footage of the area for the drainfield within regulations. • Instead of one bed, Mr. Barta’s modification included the proposal of two beds which would be 6-feet wide each to eliminate bleed out in the future. • This field would then be 60-feet long and the dosing siphon would feed the fields evenly and reduce the pressure on the effluent as it moved through the floor. • A liner would be installed to have a more slower and uniform displacement, therefore, chances of bleeding were almost impossible to occur. • Additionally, Mr. Barta proposed to increase the tank size to 1250 gallons to accommodate the dosing siphon. • This new modification would be submitted to Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson. • Mr. Barta had three suggestions with regards to Mr. Etcheson’s presentation. A 56% slope was steep but doable. Instead of a 12' X 80' field, he was proposing 2-6' X 60' foot fields and the dosing siphon reduced the need for a larger field. The dosing siphon would split the effluent between the two fields. • The dosing siphons were still being sized so the drawings were not yet complete. • The pretreatment plant did not work well for Mr. Barta’s plan and he did not see a need for one. There was not a water quality issue here but the separation had to be greater than 200 feet between the well and the drainfield. A pretreatment plant was very expensive. • Regarding Mr. Etcheson’s request for an 8-ft liner, this was difficult in the way the liners were manufactured and how they would be installed. Mr. Barta preferred to stay with the 6-ft liner. • Mr. Barta also disagreed with the recommendation of blasting within the 14-ft below the open hole pit. Mr. Loeffler stated that the blasting was only required if bedrock was found within this 14-ft. Mr. Loeffler added that this was to give fracture to the bedrock, allow the wastewater to a lower elevation and further from the ground surface. Mr. Barta still disagreed claiming he had not been required to do this in the past. He disagreed that this requirement was in the regulations. Commissioner Watrous stated that this was recommended in prior cases and approved.

Mr. Etcheson made the following comments in reply: • He stated that he could not respond to this newly presented design as he had been given no time to research it. Likewise, he had not seen a system like this before and the engineering was still incomplete. • Mr. Etcheson pointed out that since these drainfields were smaller, they resembled trenches. In researching the County ISDS code, trenches could not exceed 3-ft. • Mr. Etcheson requested more time to review this new design and the proposal of a new tank size. • Pretreatment would help this system in that it would reduce the solids in the equipment. Water coming from the pretreatment plant would be clear and the ground would accept it more readily. • Regarding the 8-ft liner, Mr. Etcheson reemphasized that these could be used and then backfilled. An additional liner could be hung at a lower level and backfilled too. • Regarding the 14-ft below the open hole pit and blasting, the past resolutions were explicit and binding to include this as a requirement. Mr. Etcheson stated that this had been stipulated in the past and he desired to see it as a condition.

277 • Regarding the practicality of determining bedrock at the 14-ft section, no prior cases had experienced difficulty in blasting to this required depth.

Commissioner Sorensen asked about scaled drawings. Mr. Barta stated that his drawings were to scale. Mr. Etcheson stated that his department did accept drawings that were not to scale. Commissioner Sorensen preferred more time on this case to allow Mr. Etcheson time to research this new design.

Commissioner Poirot asked about the efficiencies of the trenches. Mr. Etcheson replied that the code did allow trenches and beds for drainfields. He requested that whether a trench or a bed, they be in conformance with the codes. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the hearing to later date. Mr. Etcheson stated that whether the drainfield was done as a trench or a bed, his recommended conditions would be the same. The ISDS would be confirmed to meet code before an ISDS permit could be obtained. He added that the Board of Health could proceed with this case without continuing as his recommended conditions would ensure that the system was up to code. Commissioner Sorensen asked about the square footage of these drainfield beds. Mr. Etcheson stated that square footage was considered as well as soil type and estimating the water coming out of the home. Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern in that there was a large difference in the square footage of beds. Mr. Etcheson replied that this was due to the use of a dosing siphon which allowed an engineer to reduce the size of the beds. Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern with regard to the new design being very different from the original design submitted.

Mr. Etcheson suggested that the Board proceed with their hearing and approve it contingent on receiving a valid ISDS permit as Mr. Etcheson would be the one to approve it and ensure code compliance. If the applicant changed the design, Mr. Etcheson could work with them through the permit process. If the design was not right, then no permit.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern about what the Board of Health should be deciding on in this case. Mr. Loeffler stated that the Board of Health was being asked to approve an application for a permit in a geographical setting that they applicant could not meet due to slope. This was the reason for the request of variance. Additionally, the applicant would still have to apply for the ISDS permit and be in compliance with the Environmental Health Department and ISDS codes. Commissioner Watrous agreed with Mr. Etcheson’s recommendation of the approving the permit and having the design go through approval with the ISDS code and the Environmental Health Department. Mr. Loeffler stated that the approval should be int he interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens and within the ISDS regulations. Additionally, the decision should not create an undue hardship on the applicant. The ISDS regulations did not require a to-scale site plan.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if the Environmental Health Department had submittal requirements for this process. Mr. Etcheson replied that they had a short application.

Commissioner Poirot asked if the 200-ft separation between the well and drainfield infringed on other parcels. Mr. Barta replied that it did not. Mr. Etcheson replied that sometimes it does affect other parcels in subdivisions and then the situation becomes first come, first served. If someone still wanted to build, they may be required to install a pretreatment plant and this could prove to be more expensive for people who build later.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern on what information the Board of Health needed in order to make a decision. Commissioner Poirot stated that the stipulations suggested by Mr. Etcheson were the protection needed to approve this case and the system would be evaluated before it was permitted. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Board of Health Resolution #02-154, for Justin and Kirsty Knoblauch, to allow an ISDS variance on a slope of 56% with the stipulations listed by Mr. Etcheson. Commissioner Watrous seconded. Mr. Knoblauch’s father stated that a pretreatment system and its expense would be a hardship on his son financially. Mr. Barta asked if the resolution included the requirement of the pretreatment plant. The responses were as follows: Commissioner Poirot – yes; Commissioner Sorensen – no; and Commissioner Watrous – no.

278 Commissioner Sorensen reemphasized the need to know what information was needed by the Board to make a decision. Mr. Etcheson made the following statements: • The ISDS code stated that when an ISDS was requested on steep slopes, it required approval by the Board of Health. • The ISDS code also stated that areas of concern must be considered, i.e., road cuts, small lots, etc. • This information had to be considered by the Board when making a decision. • He emphasized that no permit would be issued that did not meet code. • The Environmental Health Department would verify that all designs were appropriate. • The decision should not cause hardship on the applicant but also protect the code, and safety and welfare of the community.

Commissioner Poirot suggested a continuance of the hearing to determine if pretreatment was needed. Mr. Etcheson stated that he and the applicant did not agree on pretreatment plants and how this field was laid out did not affect the question. Whether the hearing was done today or later, the conditions and issues would remain the same.

Mr. Loeffler stated that determining the cost of compliance and whether to have a pretreatment plant was difficult. It was the burden of the applicant to satisfy the required conditions. With this case, Mr. Etcheson was explaining his conditions and that a pretreatment plant would be useful. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to continue the hearing to January 7, 2003 at 11:15 a.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded. The vote was Commissioner Poirot and Commissioner Sorensen in favor and Commissioner Watrous opposed.

BOARD OF HEALTH HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION #02-169, FOR JOLEEN PINKOCZI, HIDEAWAY CIRCLE, TO ALLOW A PROPERTY WITH PROPOSED ISDS ON A 49% SLOPE: Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson presented. Environmental Health Department Technician Tracy Bennetts, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, E.O. Church Engineer Joe Kordzial, and Planning Commission member Donna Moody attended the hearing. Mr. Etcheson made the following presentation: • The situation for this case was that a new septic system was proposed to be installed within less than 35 feet horizontally of a slope in excess of 45%. • The Clear Creek County Board of Health could either approve or not approve the applicant’s request for an Exception from the ISDS regulations. • Based on a site review conducted on November 7, 2002, slopes in the area of the proposed septic system exceeded 45%. The slope was measured by the Environmental Health Department Director at 50%. The proposed drainfield location was not situated above a driveway or rod cut. The proposed drainfield design stipulated the installation of a 20 millimeter PVC liner to a depth of 6 feet on the downhill side and ends of the drainfield. The design also stipulated a drainage berm above the drainfield to divert surface run-off and seeding of the disturbed areas. The separation distance between th proposed well and the drainfield met County ISDS requirements, due to the proposed use of the pretreatment system. There may bean an increased risk of sewage surfacing downslope of the drainfield location, due to the steep slope of the proposed drainfield area. • The Environmental Health Department recommended consideration of approval of the requested variance wITH the following conditions: • That no adjacent property owners object to this request for and Exception. • That a valid ISDS permit be obtained. • That a pretreatment system in compliance with the local ISDS regulations be installed as a part of the septic system serving this property. • That a surface water run-off berm be constructed immediately upslope from the drainfield location. • That a 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on the downslope side to a depth of 8 feet below grade. • That all disturbed areas shall be seeded after completion of the septic system installation. • That blasting be conducted to create bedrock fractures to a depth of 14 feet below the grade of the drainfield open hole excavation’s elevation.

279 • Mr. Etcheson noted that this proposal did include a pretreatment system due to nearby wells and the lot size was only 1/4 acre. • The separation distance did meet requirements on this parcel but the parcel was encroached by adjacent wells.

Mr. Joe Kordzial of E. O. Church made the following presentation for the applicant: • Mr. Kordzial stated that his measurements of the slope were different than that of Mr. Etcheson’s, however, he and the applicant did not contest the Board of Health hearing. • Blasting was addressed in their drainfield design however, E.O. Church had a different reason for blasting. Mr. Kordzial stated that blasting could cause a fracture plain where the ground could blow outward instead of into the slope. If blasting was used to open fractures, it could backfire, and create fractures downhill on the slope. E.O. Church did not recommend blasting for fracturing as it could increase the surfacing of effluent. • A liner was proposed on the downhill side to promote infiltration downward and not toward the open face. • The design would use a dosing siphon for better distribution. This would be one step up from a pressurized dosing in that it had smaller lines in the drainfield to evenly distribute throughout the field. • The design was using a pretreatment system that was a long term system with a Biomat development between the gravel and the drainfield. The success of this pretreatment system was that it cleaned the effluent and made a longer life for the drainfield. • A liner was proposed on the downhill side with the 8-ft length. • Mr. Kordzial did confirm to Mr. Etcheson that the fracturing could be controlled by the magnitude of the charge. Mr. Dale asked if drilling could be used instead of blasting. Mr. Kordzial replied that it could be used and it depended on the hardness of the material.

• The proposed well would be at a depth of 190 feet. • The pretreatment plant would reduce the distance to surrounding lots to 100-ft.

Commissioner Sorensen was inclined to following the recommendation of the engineer on the blasting due to the close proximity of adjacent parcels. She recommended eliminating condition #5. Mr. Kordzial stated that he had been uninformed of Resolution conditions #3 and #5 regarding the depth of the PVC liner and the blasting. He was unsure if they would have to blast to this depth. However, if the septic was moved to another location, the applicant would not meet setbacks. Commissioner Poirot stated that if the blasting requirement was removed then he insisted on the 8-ft deep liner. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Board of Health Resolution #02-169, ISDS variance on a slope of 50% with the agreed upon conditions that no blasting would occur below the 8-ft depth unless bedrock was discovered when installing the 8-ft liner. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - DECEMBER 11, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on December 11, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-174, ADOPTION OF 2003 BUDGET FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-175, TO APPROPRIATE SUM OF MONEY AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-176, TO LEVY GENERAL

280 PROPERTY TAX: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Sheriff Don Krueger and Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson attended the hearing. Mr. Small made the following statements: • Mr. Small presented a summary of all funds of the County. • The revenues included a property tax displaying a mill levy increase of 3.787 and a total mill levy of 36.656. • The temporary reduction was 2.210 of which .076 was to refund. The refund was not required as the County was not subject to Tabor on property tax. • Property tax generated would total $5,758, 212. This was an increase of $88,427 from the prior year. • The General Fund was reduced and all mill levies were adjusted to accomplish a balanced budget. • The General Fund would have a negative balance of $4189 and the Road and Bridge department would have a negative balance of $2565. The Ambulance and Social Services Departments each experienced a negative balance. • A reserve was freed up from the Sheriff’s Department to prevent the prior requirement for employees to take leave without pay. This would result in the County being responsible for County transports and medical care. • The enclosed resolutions included these changes to accomplish a balanced budget.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-174, adoption of the 2003 budget for Clear Creek County. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen stated that this had been a very difficult budget year and the department heads and elected officials responded in the finest spirit to control expenditures. Faced with a bad decline in revenue, this proved to be a difficult challenge for the department heads and elected officials. Commissioner Sorensen acknowledged the Sheriff’s contribution to resolving part of the issue and she expressed hope that as the Sheriff’s funds were expended in the interest of the County that his office would be able to continue the law enforcement services for this growing County. The vote was unanimous.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-175, to appropriate sums of money. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-176, to levy general property tax. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GAMING CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE VIRGINIA CANYON PROJECT: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger attended. Mr. Allen made the following statements: • Department of Local Affairs submitted an amendment form to the County to extend this Gaming Contract for Road and Bridge #00-123 for another year. • Department of Local Affairs wanted to bring this contract into the format for contracts with their agency. • Most of this grant had been completed except for property acquisition and grants of easement. • Approximately, $54,000 of this grant would be reallocated to another project in the County since not as much acquisition funding was needed. • Department of Local Affairs representative Clay Brown was working on this new process and the reallocation of funding.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Contract Amendment #3 for Road and Bridge Gaming Contract #00-123 and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign when the originals arrived. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding

281 Boundary Line Adjustment cases on mining claims as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) and regarding personnel matters not related to elected officials or County commissioners as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on December 17, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Human Services. Minutes for the Board of Human Services are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(c) and CRS 19-1-307(1)(a). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY SERVICES CONTRACT FOR HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Attorney Services Contract for Human Services Department. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Social Services session ended and the Board reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT AWARD FOR THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: Emergency Manager Laura Nay presented. Sheriff Don Krueger, Undersheriff Stu Nay, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Ms. Nay stated that this grant was for “meth” lab equipment and training and was a no match grant totaling $11,500 for Clear Creek County. Ms. Nay requested that the Board of County Commissioners sign the grant award so the Sheriff’s Department could receive the money. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the grant award for the Sheriff’s department and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EME SOLUTIONS INC., PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING FOR BLUE RIDGE ROAD: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Senior Planner Lisa Vogel, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Mr. Smith made the following statements: < This contract had been approved by Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen and County Attorney Bob Loeffler. < Mr. Smith requested that the Board approve this contract and allow the Chairman to sign the enclosed documents. < This contract was for the engineering of Blue Ridge Road for the first five lots.

282 < The remaining two lots would have to work with the existing road. < The challenging rock face section of the road was within the first five lots portion. < This engineering firm was chosen from three different solicited firms.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the EME Solutions Inc ., proposal for engineering for Blue Ridge Road and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the required documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-171, PARTIAL RELEASE OF LETTER OF CREDIT FOR SADDLEBACK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SUBPHASE 1-D-2: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, and Saddleback Development Corporation representative Rich Cassens attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following comments: < Ms. Wise stated that some revisions had been made to the resolution and she presented a new resolution. < Ms. Wise stated that a written application for release of the collateral for subphase 1-D-2, together with written statements from Colorado licensed professional engineers verifying that Packsaddle Trail had been constructed per the approved design. A portion of this road, as pointed out by Tim Allen, would need to be redone, and funds in the amount of $40,822.50 were being withheld from the release to cover this cost. < Final inspections were performed by Mr. Vogel and Mr. Allen. In addition to the road deficiencies, there were incomplete items in the erosion control and revegetation category. An amount of $8580, plus 1.635 of this amount were also being withheld. < After preparing the staff report, in determining the status of funds being held under the Letter of Credit, Ms. Wise realized that the revision of Subphase 1-D into 1-D-1 and 1-D-2 by the developer had resulted in the discrepancy of $6000.01 in the County’s favor. In other words, the totals shown for 1-D-1 and 1-D-2 were $6000.01 short of the total amount being held for Subphase 1-D. Therefore, the developer had amended the request to include release of that amount, as the County did not need this to retain the additional amount to cove the work remaining to be done. < Staff recommended release of partial collateral in the amount of $409,353.28, representing the full remaining balance held for Phase 1-D, less the amount of $16,840.50 being retained for uncompleted erosion control and revegetation, and less $40,822.50 plus 1.635 of that amount, being retained for completion of road construction on Packsaddle Trail. < A difference in the location of a bus turnaround would be considered in a later hearing for a plat amendment for Saddleback Development Corporation.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-171, partial release of Letter of Credit for Saddleback Development Corporation for subphase 1-D-2 with the withholdings mentioned and to allow the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the appropriate documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen asked about the contingencies for erosion and revegetation. Mr. Cassens replied that his estimates included a 10% contingency. The estimate for Packsaddle Trail was the contractor’s bid and did not include a contingency. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-172, CERTIFICATION OF MILL LEVIES AND PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-173, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS OF THE 2002 BUDGET: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Mr. Small made the following statements: < The first request was for Resolution #02-172 to certify mill levies for Clear Creek County. < Each of the certifications had been received by the taxing entities. < There were two entities that did not certify tax levies, Beaver Brook Water and Sanitation District and Lookout Mountain Water District. These two had overlapping districts in Clear Creek County but they did not tax here.

283 < Mr. Small provided the Board with a review of the levies for the present and prior years so changes could be viewed. < The Town/City mill levies remained constant and the County had decreased its temporary tax credit from the prior year. < The School had increased its levy for bonds and override. < Emergency Services District had a mill levy change in its temporary tax reduction. < The net mill had increased for the Chicago Creek Sanitation District as well as the Clear Creek Metro Rec District. < Evergreen Fire Protection District had increased their operating mill levy by election to 5.526. Commissioner Sorensen asked if this mill level was high when compared to other districts. Commissioner Poirot replied that this was high. < Mr. Small requested that this certifications be signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. < He added that an original signature form was still waiting to be received from the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District and then all forms would be complete.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-172, to certify mill levies for Clear Creek County and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the appropriate documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Small then presented Resolution #02-173 regarding supplemental appropriations for the 2002 budget. Mr. Small made the following statements: < The required public notice and legal ad was placed for this public hearing. < In preparing and closing out the budget for 2002, some funds were over budgeted based on projections. < The General Fund had the potential to be over budget and this was mostly due to confinement expenses. Mr. Small requested a supplemental appropriation of $105,000 for wages in the confinement budget. < A value of $385,000 was shown as the amount in the Special Projects fund for the water rights acquired with the City of Golden as part of the Settlement Agreement. < Also in the Special Projects fund, the Slacker Fund and Beanpole Grant were shown as revenues and expenditures. < An estimate of the fire expenses was included in the Emergency Reserve Fund at a total of $500,000 even though a confirmed amount of the fires was not known at this time. < Mr. Small confirmed that if the fire expenses did not total the $500,000, this would not harm any funds but he cautioned against the impacts if this funding was not there and it was needed. < The Revolving Loan Fund would expend $5000 more than it had which would be appropriated by grant funding. < The Ambulance Fund would be short a total of $43,454 due to uncollected accounts based on fee revenue.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-173, supplemental appropriations to the 2002 budget. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS AND CORRECTION DEED FOR COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: < All of the Special Warranty Deeds and Combination of Lots Agreements were for 16 County Lands parcels zoned either M-1 or M-2, all to be combined with contiguous lands.

< For these 16 parcels, no new building sites would be created. < The Correction Deed was for Harold S. Colen Family Trust to correct a legal description known as parcel #1835-20-1-00-960.

284 Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Correction Deed for Harold S. Colen Family Trust and authorized the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Special Warranty Deeds and the Combination of Lots Agreements for the 16 County land parcels were as follows: < #1835-25-3-00-986 for McCracken/Metscher < #1835-25-3-00-985 for McCracken/Metscher < #1961-05-4-00-972 for Pallarito < #1961-04-4-00-977 for Kazel < #1961-04-4-00-986 for Kazel < #1961-03-1-00-969 for Bjorklund < #1961-03-1-00-963 for Bjorklund < #1961-03-1-00-964 for Stoddard < #1961-03-1-00-974 for Kazel Mountain Mines Corp. < #1961-03-1-00-973 for Kazel Mountain Mines Corp. < #1961-04-4-00-971 for Kazel Mountain Mines Corp. < #1961-04-4-00-974 for Kazel Mountain Mines Corp. < #1961-04-4-00-972 for Kazel Mountain Mines Corp. < #1961-04-4-00-973 for Kazel Mountain Mines Corp. < #1961-04-3-00-975 for Kazel Mountain Mines Corp. < #1961-04-3-00-976 for Kazel Mountain Mines Corp

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deeds and Combination of Lots Agreements for the listed parties and authorized the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. .

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS FOR COPY AND FAX MACHINES AT CLEAR CREEK COUNTY OFFICES WITH PEAK PERFORMANCE: Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger presented. Ms. Krueger made the following statements: < These agreements were annual maintenance contracts with Peak Performance for 2 Savin copy machines, 1 Konica copy machine, and one fax machine. < Peak Performance charged the County per copy and this fee included unlimited service calls, labor, parts, developer, etc. < The rates were very reasonable and the total fee depended on the number of copies made. < Ms. Krueger stated that she was considering charging the County Lands and Human Services for their departmental uses of copies. The Board agreed that County Lands should be assessed as this was charged back to BLM. Ms. Krueger agreed. < Ms. Krueger noted that the fax machine cost went up to $50 per year and this did not include drums or toner. Ms. Krueger found this fee to be reasonable as Human Services had the same machine and one service call for their machine totaled $300.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the maintenance contracts with Peak Performance for the copy machines and fax machine for Clear Creek County offices. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Watrous temporarily left the meeting at this time.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS WITH MOUNT EVANS HOSPICE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE: Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Ms. Krueger stated that these agreements were made in order to comply with the Department of Local Affairs Gaming Grant Awards for these two agencies. County Attorney Bob Loeffler had reviewed these agreements and approved their form. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Contractual Agreement with Mount Evans Hospice and Clear Creek

285 County and for the acting Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with the District Attorney’s office and Clear Creek County for the District Attorney’s gaming grant award and for the acting Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-156, MINOR PLAT AMENDMENT CASE #02-PDA-2 FOR SADDLEBACK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-177, FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR SADDLEBACK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Planning Director Carol Wise presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman, Saddleback Development Corporation representatives Charles Choi, Rich Cassens, and Russ Sindt, and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel attended the hearing. Ms. Wise made the following presentation: < The request of this plat amendment was to amend subdivision case #SUB-1-98 to relocate easements for three fire cisterns, to relocated one schoolbus turnaround and delete another, and to rename a short section of road. < Formerly, this was an administrative process but it had been determined that this was not authorized under subdivision regulations so a full hearing was scheduled. This case had also re appeared before the Planning Commission. < Maps were shown displaying the current and proposed locations of the fire cisterns. Fire Chief Kelly Babeon was in agreement with this proposal. < The proposed and prior locations of the bus turnarounds were displayed. < The fire cisterns were proposed on Lot 7, Lot 12 and Lot 36. < The bus turnaround at the intersection of Steeldust Lane and Halter Way was proposed to be deleted. < The proposal included a renaming of the portion of Steeldust Lane south and east of its intersection with Halter Way, that portion to be called Halter Way. < The amendment proposed to move the bus turnaround easement at the beginning of Packsaddle Trail to the immediate northwest of its previous location. < The School District and the Fire Chief agreed with these changes. < Mapping Director Matt Taylor had submitted a letter stating that the renaming of this road was acceptable and the applicants felt this was a more logical road naming system. < Ms. Wise presented photos of the area to prove the locations were better. They were easier to build and less disruptive to the environment. < Ms. Wise stated that most of the public comment was related to the turnarounds and cisterns. At the Planning Commission hearing, the public attended and supported this new proposal.

Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale stated that he had submitted a letter on behalf of the Floyd Hill property owners in support of the turnaround at Halter Way being deleted. Mr. Dale felt that the Floyd Hill property owners would be pleased with this proposal. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-156, Minor Plat Amendment Case #02-PA-2 for Saddleback Development Corporation and for the acting Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Wise presented Resolution #02-177, the Certificate of Compliance for Saddleback Development Corporation. Ms. Wise made the following presentation: < All of the improvements required by the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Saddleback Mountain Lots 1012, Phase 1, appeared to be complete, with the exception of those for which the County was retaining funds to ensure completion. This had been verified by all staff concerned. Therefore, staff recommended issuance of a Certificate of Compliance on these lots, as requested by the developer. < Since at least part of the improvements will likely not be done until spring, and the Letter of Credit expires on April 11, 2003, an agreement for extending that instrument or issuing a replacement Letter of Credit must be in place prior to that date, in order to protect the County’s interest in completion of all improvements.

286 < Saddleback Metropolitan District had certified to the County that well permits would be issued to new owners of Lots 1-12, in a letter dated December 16, 2002. < Ms. Wise had confirmation from Fire Chief Kelly Babeon that three cisterns were completely installed and operational: one at Halter Way totaling 15,000 gallons, one at Packsaddle Trail totaling 25,000 gallons, and 2 at Packsaddle Trail near the outpost totaling 45,000 gallons. < Ms. Wise confirmed that the significance of the Certificate of Compliance was that it allowed Saddleback Development Corporation to sell the lots and the purchasers to obtain building permits. This was required by the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. It assured completion of public improvements and the meeting of County standards. The special district would submit a letter stating that water taps would be issued for Lots 1-12. Mr. Vogel agreed and requested that the specified portion of road be completed before the lots were sold.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the resolution required things to be completed, i.e., erosion control, road work, revegetation, bus turnaround, and that the Site Development Inspector, Planning Director, and Road and Bridge Supervisor be satisfied. Saddleback Development Corporation would also have to receive approval from the special district in the area too. Mr. Loeffler noted that since the Letter of Credit expired on April 11, 2003 and the work may not be finished, a replacement letter would be needed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #02-177, Certificate of Compliance for Saddleback Development Corporation and to authorize the acting Chairman to sign the necessary documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING TO CLOSE PRESENT CDBG GRANT FOR CLEAR CREEK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND APPLICATION FOR NEW CDBG GRANT: Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Director Peggy Stokstad presented. Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation representatives Gayle Johnson and Lynn Miller, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Ms. Stokstad made the following presentation: < Ms. Stokstad requested the closing of the present CDBG grant and open another application for a new CDBG grant. < Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation was making this request simultaneously to save time. < Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation had a waiting list for applicants needing funding and the State suggested they do it this way. < Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation had been in existence since 1984 and this contract to be closed was #5. < Each contract was worth $250,000 to $350,000 and the State entered two year contracts with Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation. < With contract #5, Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation received $300,000 for assistance and $50,000 for administrative expenses for the office. < Contract #5 provided for five different loans and loan program covered Clear Creek County and Gilpin County. < The leveraging goals were 3:1 and this year Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation would leverage at 6:1, meaning every dollar they brought in resulted in $6 to the community. < The Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation was currently undergoing an independent audit with Accountant Ned Biggs as required by the State to monitor the loan program. < The goal of the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation was to key in on low to moderate income levels of people in Clear Creek County and Gilpin County. They also wanted to commit to hiring 70% of the loan program to meet the low to moderate income guidelines. In the past, the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation has met these goals. < To date, the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation had loaned out $4 million, did 125 loans, and only 13 defaults over their years of the program.

287 < The Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation had leveraged $4 million to $11 million in the community and had created 342 jobs. < After the CDBG loans went out, it came back to the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation in the form of the Revolving Loan Fund which provided more flexibility. < The Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation was able to set up more loan funding with this Revolving Loan Fund. < The Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation office was run off the interest income from the Revolving Loan Fund. < In the 2002 year, Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation had loaned $700,000 out of the Revolving Loan Fund. < Regarding application for CDBG Contract #6, this contract was mostly Federal boiler plate language dealing with assurances, certifications, and anti-displacement guidelines that the County had. < Clear Creek County was a lead County in this when utilizing HUD funding. < For Contract #6, Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation was requesting $665,000. This was the largest amount requested by Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation but it was done since they had loaned out $200,000 of this amount already and they were asking the State for $90,000 in administrative expenses. This would leave a total of $575,000 for the loan funds. < 60% of this funding would be for low to moderate income employee jobs. < Contract #6 asked for a Master Plan so Ms. Stokstad had submitted information on issues such as housing needs, lack of child care, healthcare, poor infrastructure and no public transportation. < Ms. Stokstad stated that Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation was governed strictly by the Federal and State Government and HUD. < Ms. Stokstad stated that this application also included an Intergovernmental Agreement between Clear Creek County and Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation. < Ms. Stokstad stated that this grant had done much for Clear Creek County and they wanted to increase their presence in Gilpin County. The Gilpin County Board of County Commissioners would be submitting a member to sit on the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Board.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the CDBG grant contract #5 completion and to apply for CDBG grant contract #6 and to authorize the acting Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Ms. Stokstad introduced a grant recipient Don Etcheson whose company produced a new brand of motorcycle. Mr. Etcheson attested to the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation process for loan funding. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PACIFICARE AND DELTA DENTAL CONTRACTS FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY EMPLOYEES: Human Resources Director Gail Buckley presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Ms. Buckley made the following presentation: < The Pacificare contract had not yet been received so this would be considered at a later date. < Regarding the Delta Dental Contract, Ms. Buckley presented two options. < Delta had submitted one option to keep program as it was but due to increases in rates, the County would not be able to afford this option. < Therefore, Ms. Buckley recommended Delta’s Option #2 which was a DPO/non-DPO plan with coverage levels of 100%, 80%/20%, 50%/50%. < This plan would also propose to keep the deductible at $25. < The services affected by this option are the diagnostic preventative ones < This would also require some local dentists to become DPO’s in order to keep the County employee clientele. < This option #2 would cost the family members $9.96 per pay check. < The second recommendation was the same plan but would be to raise the deductible to $50. This would be a double hit to employees since the plans now required an employee copay and an increased deductible.

288 < It could take employees many visits to total the $50 deductible. < Ms. Buckley would obtain a book of dentists that were DPO and non-DPO for employees to review. < The present plan allowed employees to see any dentist they wanted to but with the increases in insurance coverage and the limited County budget, the Board would need to consider one of these two recommendations for employees. < Ms. Buckley showed the Board the impact to dentists that had employees as clientele. She noted that it would behoof them to become DPO and keep their clientele as most local dentists were compensated over $5000 due to County employees. < Ms. Buckley stated that the Delta Option #2 was minimal out of pocket expense and employees could still choose a non- DPO provider with little out of pocket.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to accept the contract with Delta Dental Option #2 for County employees for 2003. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Watrous returned to the meeting at this time.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGARDING RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION: County Attorney Bob Loeffler presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler made the following statements: < At their meeting last week, the Town of Georgetown signed the cooperative agreement with the FHWA and agreed to pay $25,000 toward the right of way acquisition on Guanella Pass Road over a five year period beginning in 2004. < The remaining $50,000 would be covered by the County in $23,000 cash and $27,000 remaining in in kind services. < The Town of Georgetown’s attorney Jed Caswell did delete the language in the IGA regarding cost sharing in the condemnation process. Georgetown’s reasoning was that if the FHWA was paying anything over the $75,000 cap, then this clause was meaningless. < Mr. Loeffler had requested a clean copy of Mr. Caswell’s amendments to be sure of the changes. < The FHWA confirmed that this IGA was not required to be completed before the end of the year, only the cooperative agreement. < The County, according to this IGA, would be the appointed agent of the Town in the condemnation proceedings. The Town had agreed to use its best efforts to cooperate with the County. Commissioner Poirot expressed concern with regard to some property owners wanting 10 times the worth of their land along this road. < The next negotiations with the FHWA were to discuss the in kind services and covering the paperwork with County staff. If agreements could not be reached with property owners, then condemnation proceedings would result. < Whatever in kind services the County could not fulfill would have to be submitted to the FHWA in the form of cash.

The Board agreed to make early contacts with property owners and to continue discussions on this to December 24, 2002 at 11:15 a.m.

The Board of County Commissioners then convened as the Board of the Emergency Services District.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK FIRE AUTHORITY AND INVENTORY LIST: Fire Chief Kelly Babeon presented. Commissioner- Elect Harry Dale and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Mr. Babeon made the following presentation: < After the last Clear Creek Fire Authority meeting, Exhibits A and B were agreed upon to add to this agreement. Exhibit A would be the original exhibit showing original inventory and Exhibit B would be a list of inventory as it existed in the present.

289 < The towns were expecting that if they withdrew from the Clear Creek Fire Authority in the future, they would take with them their inventory list no matter who the actual inventory belonged to. Commissioner Sorensen assured the Board that no one was leaving the Clear Creek Fire Authority and the Authority would work hard to keep all members. < This was a unique setup for this County as compared to other districts however, it was temporary until the Clear Creek Fire Authority became a Title 32 agency. < The individual fire stations were on the positive side of this agreement since the Clear Creek Fire Authority had input more inventory than they had individually.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this agreement was ready to sign if the Clear Creek Fire Authority was ready. Mr. Babeon replied that there were two items not in the exhibits that were requested by Empire and Silver Plume. Commissioner Sorensen stated that at the last Clear Creek Fire Authority meeting, all the towns/city were in agreement with the modifications made to the Intergovernmental Agreement. County Attorney Bob Loeffler recommended dating each amendment made to this agreement and inventory list. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the amended Clear Creek Fire Authority/Clear Creek County Intergovernmental Agreement and inventory exhibits A and B. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board then reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #02-178, WATER COURT APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTIONS AND EXCHANGES REGARDING ALL CLEAR CREEK COUNTY RESERVOIR SITES: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver stated that this was necessary to file on all of the County reservoirs in order to get direct flow rights which were released in Clear Creek. It was the substituting of the actual flow of water. Johnson Gulch would be included in this application. Additionally, the substitution and exchange would be approved for reservoirs in which the County had agreements to store too. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #02-178, Water Court application for substitutions and exchanges regarding all Clear Creek County reservoir sites. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding personnel matters but not regarding commissioners or elected officials or to discussions of personnel policies generally as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - DECEMBER 24, 2002

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on December 24, 2002 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Jo Ann Sorensen and Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding

290 conferences with an attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) and regarding personnel matters but not regarding commissioners or elected officials or to discussions of personnel policies generally as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGARDING RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION: This hearing was not held as an action item.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

291