2010 CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MEETING MINUTES

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 6, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 6, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale was absent at the beginning of the hearings.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-03, RESOLUTION APPROVING 2010 BUDGET FOR THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-04, RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2010: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE AND THE FOREST SERVICE, ARAPAHO & ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FORESTS AND PAWNEE NATIONAL GRASSLAND: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FOREST RECEIPTS ALLOCATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-07, AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITORIES FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FOR 2010: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT TO AMEND/EXTEND CONTRACT WITH BROKER: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 2010 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH JEFFERSON COUNTY: In attendance were Clear Creek Courant Editor Ian Neligh, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and County Administrator Tom Breslin. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

OPENING OF SEALED BID FOR LEGAL NEWSPAPER: Clear Creek Courant Editor Ian Neligh and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler noted the bid was the same as 2009. Commissioner Drury asked Ian Neligh if they had discussed the Treasurer’s fees. Ian Neligh replied that was all done at the corporate level and he had no involvement. Mr. Loeffler agreed to follow up with the Publisher of the Clear Creek Courant on their bid to be the county’s 2010 legal newspaper. The bid did not comply with statute. The bid was from Evergreen Newspapers (owner of the Clear Creek Courant) for $1.05 per line. For non-publicly supported legal ads it was $0.48 per line for the first publication and $0.34 per line for publicly supported legal notices. The Board agreed to wait until the following week to award the bid and allow time for Mr. Loeffler to speak with the Publisher.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #09-154, TEMPORARY SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE #SUP-2009-0008, TO ALLOW FOR A 60 METER (197’) TALL METEOROLOGICAL TOWER (MET TOWER) FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS, ECHO MOUNTAIN, CLEAR CREEK POWER/EMJ SQUAW PASS LLC: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. In attendance were Clear Creek Courant Editor Ian Neligh and County Administrator Tom Breslin. Frederick Rollenhagen stated the applicant was withdrawing their application as additional time was needed to explore alternative sites. A new application would be submitted at a later date. The Board recognized the withdrawal of this application. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-01, RESOLUTION TO NAME AN UNNAMED ROAD OFF OF HWY 103 TO WHEEL HAVEN ROAD: Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel presented. In attendance were Land Use Secretary Jan Patterson and Clear Creek Courant Editor Ian Neligh. Tim Vogel made the following presentation:  The proposal was to name an unnamed road off of Hwy 103 to Wheel Haven Road.  When a road, whether public or private, had three or more homes on it, it had to be named for Emergency Services purposes.  This road was a private road off of Hwy 103.  Public notice was sent out on November 23, 2009.  Three property owners responded with 100% consensus on the name of Wheel Haven Road.  Tim Vogel recommended the Board approve this road naming.  No public comment was received.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-01, resolution to name an unnamed road off of Hwy 103 to Wheel Haven Road. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the next hearing.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the next hearing.

Commissioner Dale attended the hearing.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f); and regarding railroads and the Board of Review as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 13, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 13, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-09, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CLEAR CREEK COUNTY TREASURER TO MAKE CERTAIN ASSIGNMENTS, SALES, OR TRANSFERS OF COUNTY CERTIFICATES OF PURCHASE WITHOUT PRIOR BOARD APPROVAL FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2010: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-10, RESOLUTION OF APPOINTMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CERTAIN COUNTY POSITIONS: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER #1 FOR COURTHOUSE INTERIOR LIGHTING PROJECT: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RETROFIT AGREEMENT WITH WESTERN STATES ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND LIGHTING, LTD., D.B.A. WSI LIGHTING FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING UPGRADES ON THE COURTHOUSE CAMPUS: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND JEFFERSON COUNTY FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1 TO ARRA CONTRACT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CDOT FOR THE PAVING OF THE BAKERVILLE TO LOVELAND TRAIL: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUDIT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SWANHORST AND COMPANY LLC: Chief Accountant Carl Small and County Attorney Robert Loeffler attended the hearing. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Liquor Licensing Authority to consider the following matter.

LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF HOTEL/RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR KERMITTS ROADHOUSE INC., D.B.A. KERMITTS: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Nanette Reimer stated the applicant had worked out the renewal of the property lease and all paperwork was in order. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the renewal of hotel/restaurant liquor license for Kermitts. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Liquor Licensing Authority then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #1O-02, RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICY FOR THE APPROVAL, MAINTENANCE, AND RELEASE OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEES: Mr. Loeffler stated they were not ready to present this Resolution for consideration today and asked for a continuation. Commissioner O'Malley asked if the county would still continue to accept bonds as a financial guarantee. Mr. Loeffler replied they would given they were used to secure telecom sites and Road & Bridge utility cuts. The new policy would also allow County Administrator Tom Breslin to approve these items instead of the Board. Commissioner O'Malley closed the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-08, RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT LEGAL NEWSPAPER FOR COUNTY LEGAL NOTICES FOR 2010: Mr. Loeffler stated if the Board accepted the bid, changes would be made to the Resolution of approval to reflect the fees. He had discussed the billing rates with Evergreen Newspapers. Evergreen Newspapers had concluded their rates were wrong and they submitted a new proposal. They offered a rate of 38 cents for the first publication and 27.5 cents for subsequent publications of public notices. There was a proposed rate of 32 cents and 23 cents for publicly supported documents and 75 cents for non-publicly supported documents. Treasurer Irene Kincade stated she had been paying $1.05 so these new rates were a good deal. Commissioner O'Malley believed the 75 cents was a “make-good” offer from Evergreen Newspapers.

Mr. Loeffler asked the Board to continue this hearing to 2:00 p.m. to allow amendment of the Resolution. Commissioner Drury made the motion to continue this hearing to 2:00 p.m. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Dale attended the hearings.

JAIL INSPECTION: Commissioner O'Malley performed the jail inspection with the following findings:  There were minor plumbing issues in the cell pods.  There were 82 prisoners and 54 were US Marshal holds.  Some laundry repairs were being made.  The jail was found in satisfactory condition.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-08, RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT LEGAL NEWSPAPER FOR COUNTY LEGAL NOTICES FOR 2010: Mr. Loeffler presented the revised Resolution reflecting the new rates from Evergreen Newspapers. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #10-08, Resolution to accept Evergreen Newspapers, Clear Creek Courant, as the legal newspaper for county legal notices for 2010. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 20, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH ANNIE WAESCHE FOR FUN FITNESS CLASSES AT THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE ON THURSDAY EVENING FROM 5:15-6:15 P.M. FOR JANUARY 1, 2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2010: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, AS FISCAL AGENT FOR THE SOUTHERN ROCKIES CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STAFF POSITION: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT MODIFICATION ORDERS FOR LAWSON WHITEWATER PARK CDOT PROJECT #STE 0703-311: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GIS SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE RENEWAL: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-12, SEEKING A NATIONAL REVIEW OF THE U.S. STATUTES AND RULES GOVERNING THE BALANCE OF POWERS BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND RAILROADS: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-05, CONCERNING DISTRIBUTION OF FOREST RESERVE APPORTIONMENT FUNDS: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE COUNTY TREASURER: In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small, Information Technology Division Director Matt Taylor, Open Space Commission Coordinator Martha Tableman, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Treasurer Irene Kincade, and engineer Craig Abrahamson. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Dale attended the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENTS WITH THE DLR GROUP: In attendance were engineer Craig Abrahamson, County Administrator Tom Breslin, Nursing Supervisor Jean Barta, and Nursing Secretary Sara Sage. Craig Abrahamson reported the proposal from DLR summarized their estimated fees for completion of phases 1-4 for interior design. Amendment #3 would come on next week’s agenda. Mr. Loeffler stated the Board could approve this amendment #2 and approve amendment #3 contingent on receiving the documents. Commissioner Drury made the motion o approve amendment #2 with the DLR group for $3000. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner O'Malley asked Craig Abrahamson if he had briefed County Administrator Tom Breslin on these phases. Craig Abrahamson had not but would as soon as possible. He reported that phase 1 needed to be approved as the work had already begun with DLR group. Commissioner O'Malley noted the schedule on these phases was extremely tight and they could not afford delays. Craig Abrahamson presented a budget update for the courthouse remodel and he would continue to update the Board on this budget.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING CSBG GRANT: BOARD OF HEALTH CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 2010 CSBG GRANT APPLICATION: In attendance were County Administrator Tom Breslin, Nursing Supervisor Jean Barta, Nursing Secretary Sara Sage, and Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline. Jean Barta presented the following information:  Commissioner Drury was the Chair of the Tripartite Board.  All bylaws and minutes were included in this grant.  The grant had not changed in three years.  The focus was on emergency medical needs with some dental and vision expenses.  There was no money for administration of this grant.  All of the dollars went for direct services to the vendors such as Meadows Family Clinic, Vision Clinic at Wal-Mart, and the Safeway Pharmacy.  No public comment had been received. Commissioner O'Malley closed public comment.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the 2010 CSBG grant application and thanked Jean Barta and Sara Sage for all their work. During discussion, Commissioner O'Malley noted how much time was invested by Staff for this grant and the grant award was only $6000. Jean Barta noted the county probably spent $12,000 to apply and administer the grant dollars. Commissioner O'Malley asked Staff to consider allowing the Board to appropriate $6000 for this program and save on personnel time. Jean Barta noted that Department of Local Affairs looked badly on the counties which did not apply for this funding annually. Commissioner O'Malley asked Jean Barta to explore this funding further and the repercussions of refusing this funding. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding litigation and legislation as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session. Commissioner Drury left the meeting.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 27, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 27, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PUBLIC TRUSTEE QUARTERLY REPORT: In attendance were County Administrator Tom Breslin, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Information Technology Division Director Matt Taylor, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, engineer Craig Abrahamson, Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, Treasurer Irene Kincade, Planner II Holland Smith, Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy, and Road & Bridge Tech Dave Haxel. Irene Kincade made the following presentation:  This Public Trustee Quarterly Report was for fourth quarter 2009.  The deputy Treasurer and Irene Kincade were paid out of the funds made.  Irene Kincade allowed additional compensation for her other two staff given the funds collected, for all their extra work. Usually there were no additional funds.  After paying the compensation, Irene Kincade presented $13,000 back to the county.  The Public Trustee handled 113 foreclosures in 2009 which was double that of three years ago. It did not appear to be slowing.  Irene Kincade had a deferment program but none of the Clear Creek County residents had been eligible. Even the large counties were having trouble qualifying their residents for the deferment program.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Public Trustee Quarterly report for fourth quarter 2009. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO G.L. DANYA SCOTT FOR ONE PARCEL OF COUNTY LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 73 WEST: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DONALD AND BARBARA POLAND FOR ONE PARCEL OF COUNTY LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 73 WEST: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH THE DLR GROUP: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO REPLACE CARPET PER THE COURTHOUSE REMODEL PLAN: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COUNTY VEHICLE DRIVING POLICY FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENTS: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMPLIANCE ALLIANCE – DRUG & ALCOHOL COLLECTION AND TESTING AGREEMENT, CONSORTIUM MEMBERSHIP CONTRACT: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF 20KW BACKUP GENERATOR FOR THE ANNEX BUILDING: 9. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PBS&J FOR THE BAKERVILLE TO LOVELAND TRAIL: 10.CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT REGARDING PROVISION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY 1041 REGULATIONS WITH ENGINEERING DYNAMICS INC: In attendance were County Administrator Tom Breslin, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Information Technology Division Director Matt Taylor, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, engineer Craig Abrahamson, Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, Planner II Holland Smith, Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy, and Road & Bridge Tech Dave Haxel. Patrick McCarthy asked the Board to remove Consent Agenda item #9 from their consideration. Commissioner Dale asked about item #10. Frederick Rollenhagen replied this consultant would help the Planning Department to understand noise directly related to wind turbines. They would also advise Planning on new regulations for utility scale renewable energy projects. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items as presented excluding item #9. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DECISION MEMORANDUM AND 2009 HUTF REPORT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER #1 FOR THE SQUAW PASS ROAD REMEDIATION PROJECT: Public Works Division Director Tim Allen and Road & Bridge Tech Dave Haxel presented. In attendance were Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy and County Administrator Tom Breslin. Dave Haxel presented the following information:  There were essentially only four changes.  Hidden Valley Road went from rough gravel to a road base road.  Fall River Road received an overlay on existing asphalt for 1.5 miles.  Stevens Gulch Road received an upgraded surface and additional road base.  Echo Lake Drive was paved with asphalt between Upper Bear Creek Road and Nuthatch Road.  The change from gravel to pavement would boost the county’s distribution a little.  No additional mileage was gained.

Regarding the change order for Squaw Pass Road remediation project, Tim Allen had a meeting with Mr. Loeffler who had easement concerns for this road. Mr. Loeffler wanted to change the easements to only ask for the easement outside of the county’s prescriptive right of way to the edge of what was needed. This would cause a change for some additional surveying of 1.5 miles. Baseline Engineering sent this change order estimated at $28,000 of additional cost. These changes would not be needed for the Forest Service portion of the road. Tim Allen estimated an additional $100,000 for the NEPA process with the Forest Service.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the HUTF report from Road & Bridge. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the change order #1 for the Squaw Pass Remediation Project with Baseline Engineering. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-13, RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY COMPENSATION PLAN: In attendance were Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy, County Administrator Tom Breslin, Chief Accountant Carl Small, County Assessor Diane Settle, and HR Director Cate Camp. Carl Small and Cate Camp presented the following information:  There were three basic changes to the plan. They were grades in the compensation.  There was an addition of a temporary employee in the Treasurer’s office.  MSEC recommended the county change the equipment operators from grade 12 to grade 13 per comparable job duties.  MSEC recommended a change to better incorporate the Ambulance employees into the Compensation Plan based on their 56 hour work week. Cindy Dicken and Jamie Kavanaugh had recommended this adjustment.  The resolution also addressed the change to move the county employees from 95% of market to 97% of market. The cost to implement this was less than $23,000. Very few positions were increased.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-13, resolution to amend the Clear Creek County Compensation Plan with the changes mentioned and effective date to start January 25, 2010. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner O'Malley noted the Board would have to begin the budgeting process to equalize the Sheriff’s office employees with the rest of the county employees. The vote was unanimous.

Commissioner Drury left the meeting temporarily.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT CASE #2009-CLA-0015, FOR PARSONS, WINTERLAND SUBDIVISION: Land Use Secretary Cyndie Ruschmyer presented. In attendance were Planner II Trent Hyatt, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy, County Administrator Tom Breslin, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, and Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel. Cyndie Ruschmyer presented the following information:  This proposal was to combined two lots in the Winterland Subdivision, lots 17 and 18 of Unit 3.  Lot 17 was 22,000 square feet and Lot 18 was 24,000 square feet.  They had a driveway permit and the house was on St. Mary’s Water and Sanitation.  A certificate of occupancy was granted in 2005.  Both lots were zoned R-1 and the property was gently sloping.  Xcel Energy responded with no conflicts as well as Qwest. None of the St. Mary’s special districts had responded.  Access was off of Alice Road.  The applicants were not asking to vacate the utility easements as they had no plans to build over the property lines.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Combination of Lots Agreement Case #2009-CLA-0015. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Drury attended the meeting.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding commissioner districts, legislation and drainage easements as allowed by CRS 24-6- 402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 3, 2010 The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 3, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMMITMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 2010 DENVER REGIONAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROJECT (DRAPP): 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT MODIFICATION ORDER FOR LAWSON WHITEWATER PARK CDOT PROJECT #STE 0703-311: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 16, 2009 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE UPPER CLEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PBS&J FOR THE BAKERVILLE TO LOVELAND TRAIL: In attendance were Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, Information Technology Division Director Matt Taylor, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, Environmental Health Department Tech Annette Colle, Environmental Health Department Director Tracy Volkmann, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy, and Open Space Commission Coordinator Martha Tableman. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SUBCONTRACT AMENDMENT #2 BETWEEN COLORADO PREVENTION CENTER AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH: Public Health Director Aaron Kissler presented. Aaron Kissler stated the contract was reduced due to reductions in Amendment #35. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Health Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-14, REVISION TO THE ISDS FEE SCHEDULE: Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, Environmental Health Department Director Tracy Volkmann and Environmental Health Department Tech Annette Colle attended the hearing. Commissioner O'Malley had read the material and believed some of the fee increases were justified. However, he was leaning toward keeping the fees the same. He appreciated that the staff was carefully watching their revenues. Rather than raise fees, Commissioner O'Malley was in favor of leaving them at the same rate. Aaron Kissler suggested keeping the fees the same and tracking what the difference would have been so the Board had this background. Commissioner O'Malley agreed. He explained there would be a time to increase fees in the future.

Tracy Volkmann noted some of the fees proposed to be increased in the schedule. The ISDS repair inspections were just as much work as the installation of a new system. She had researched seven other counties to compare fees. An ISDS repair normally cost the homeowner $5000-6000 and an advanced treatment system would cost around $20,000. Commissioner O'Malley stated there were many homes in the county which needed ISDS repairs but the cost was prohibitive. Tracy Volkmann agreed stating if people couldn’t fix their ISDS, they were forced to move out per the regulations. Commissioner Drury asked if grant funding was available for residents to repair their ISDS. Aaron Kissler and Tracy Volkmann were not aware of any individual grant funding for residents.

Tracy Volkmann stated other counties had inspections done at the sale of the home to confirm to the county that the ISDS systems were operable. Summit County implemented this program and found that 10-15% of the ISDS in the county were in need of repair. Commissioner O'Malley replied it was a good idea and the ISDS repair may have to come off the price of the home at the time of sale.

Commissioner O'Malley asked staff to calculate how many repair inspections were done each year and the county could possibly work with the USDA to build a fund to loan financially strapped clients funding to repair their ISDS. Aaron Kissler agreed and would update the Board on these issues in October. Commissioner O'Malley closed the hearing and asked staff to work on a way to assist residents repair their ISDS when it was needed.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-11, REVISION TO THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BUILDING CODE: Building Inspector Debbie Kirkham presented. Building Enforcement Official Lynette Kelsey, engineer Craig Abrahamson, Land Use Secretary Anna Easley, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Land Use Secretary Jan Patterson, and Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen attended the hearing. Debbie Kirkham made the following presentation:  She presented Resolution #10-11, revision to the Clear Creek County building code.  The proposal was to consider the adoption of the 2006 building code series which included 2006 international residential, building, plumbing, mechanical, energy codes, and fuel and gas codes.  The most significant changes included the expiration period for the time which permits were open. The time limit is 2 years.  For re-roofs, siding, and fencing, changes were made to shorten this term to six months with the homeowner receiving the expiration notice to remind them of the time limit.  A change was made with heating contractors who pulled a permit. These contractors would now have to call for an inspection to sign off on the permit before they completed their work.  Changes were made to the fee schedule. It was made more comparable to adjacent counties.  A plan review fee was added for the new energy codes.  Fees were also changed to make it fairer for smaller square footage homes. Currently, as the square footage of the structure increased, the fee decreased. So people building larger homes got a price break after a certain square footage. The fee structure was now adjusted to make it equal across the board. There was more work for the inspectors on larger structures so it made sense to increase the fee for staff time. Debbie Kirkham stated they could handle this additional workload without hiring any staff. Tom Breslin agreed with the increased fee for increased square footage. Commissioner O'Malley asked Debbie Kirkham to consider which fees did not have to be raised for a year and try to make those adjustments. This square footage fee adjustment was justified but he wanted her to consider any other fee increases. Tim Vogel and Debbie Kirkham had added an extension policy onto their permits so if a homeowner was approaching their expiration date, they could do an extension rather than starting all over again. This, too, was a cost savings for the homeowner.  Another change made to the building code was to define temporary occupancy. Problems were found with homes in foreclosure. Some homes which were foreclosed upon only had temporary occupancy status. The code now defined what had to be done at a minimum to bring a home into compliance. This was information for the banks.  Another change was to separate the Board of Adjustment from the Board of Review. The State statutes defined the Board of Review as people in the industry. The Building Department had spoken with some people in the industry and they would recommend some appointments.  Another change was to define a high wind load. There were some areas in the county where 100 mph was not strong enough for local high wind loads. The new wind map showed areas of 110 mph. these places have structural problems. There was a braced wall design with more nails and hold-downs to resist structural materials being blown away. Craig Abrahamson agreed adding there were hurricane clips which also could be used in this area.  Another change was the addition of snow load. They had been using the same snow load criteria as from 1976 but this was only ground snow load. Changes were made to clarify roof snow loads and elevations.  Regarding fire separation between a garage and the house, the Building Department retained the old code language to maintain a better fire separation.  Carbon monoxide detector requirements were added per State statute. It was not included in the code but the Building Department wanted it included. They sent out 145 notices to permit holders requiring a homeowner affidavit for carbon monoxide. If a permit was open, the Building Department could enter the house and show the homeowner how and where to install the detectors. Once the detectors were installed, the homeowner filled out the affidavit and mailed it back to the county. The Building Department had a good response with these. Commissioner O'Malley asked this info be located on the website as well.  The wildfire mitigation plan was still included in the code. It would have to be reviewed when the county adopted the 2009 building codes. If it became obsolete, it would require all single family homes to have a fire suppression system installed in the home. Tim Vogel asked that the county continue to use the point system and not require these fire suppression systems.  Within the international residential code, the biggest change was in the exterior wall protection and the braced wall designs. The braced wall designs were improved due to structural problems. An inspection was added to the public share wall. Exterior wall inspections were upgraded to include window installation, building wrap and flashing.  Regarding energy codes, the international code council was proactive in developing these codes and trying to make them more efficient. A significant amount of inspections were adding to the Building Departments inspection program. There was now an insulation inspection, a shared wall inspection, exterior wrap and in fenestration to ensure they were meeting energy code in terms of R values. Commissioner O'Malley stated builders complained that governments took too long for inspections. They don’t admit if they called earlier, the inspection would be timely. Debbie Kirkham replied it was a learning process for both the builders and the department.  Regarding the increase in the fee schedule, Lynette Kelsey noted the increase was only in the international residential code and no increases were made for the international building code.  Regarding varying building codes in the municipalities, Debbie Kirkham would be visiting with the Town of Empire to help them adopt a new code.  Regarding grants and rebates for renewable energy, Debbie Kirkham reported they had this info on their website and also links to the LEAD and build green initiatives. There was a lot of incentive for people to make their upgrades.  Debbie Kirkham stated the international code council would be publishing in March their first integrated green construction code. The code would dovetail with the existing code. The Building Department wanted to focus on renewable energy for the single family homes in the county as much as possible. Commissioner Drury agreed requesting the county make people more aware of the things they could do and what grants were available. Commissioner Drury added the county should set the example. Commissioner O'Malley agreed stating once the courthouse was remodeled, they could point at themselves as the example.  Regarding varying building codes in the municipalities, Tim Vogel stated the Towns/City also varied in their adopted fire codes. This required the fire inspectors to carry a “cheat sheet” reminding them of what code they were on and the requirements for each Town/City. Regarding the fee schedule changes, Patrick McCarthy clarified that the Board did not want any increase in fees other than the equalization per square foot cost to do construction. Commissioner O'Malley agreed and asked if the corrected language could be brought back later today for adoption. Commissioner Drury made the motion to continue the hearing to 2:30 p.m. today. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-06, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE #DR-2009-002, PROPOSED ADDITION TO BREEZE/STARBUCKS BUILDING AND RECONFIGURATION OF PARKING LOT, 999 COUNTY ROAD #308, DOWNIEVILLE: Planner I Adam Springer presented. In attendance were Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy, County Administrator Tom Breslin, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, and Land Use Secretary Jan Patterson. Adam Springer made the following presentation: CASE: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE # DR2009-0002

OWNER/ APPLICANT: Clear Creek Development Company, LLC. / Vail Summit Resorts, INC.

CASE MANAGER: Adam Springer, Planner I

LOCATION/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The subject property is the Breeze/Starbucks building, 999 County Road 308, lots 7, 8, 9 of the Isakson Subdivision, and part of Govt. Lot 35, S 24, T 3, R 74, and part of Govt. Lot 1, S 25, T 3, R 74, Clear Creek County, State of Colorado. All of these lots have been formally combined.

REQUEST: The applicant has submitted plans for an expansion, remodel, and revised site plan and parking lot for the existing building at the above indicated address, containing the Breeze retail store and Starbucks coffee shop. The improvements include the following: 1. Increased public restrooms from the existing two water closets, to new separate Men’s and Women’s facilities containing three fixtures each. More specifically the new bathrooms will have 3 lavatories, 2 urinals, and 1 accessible water closet in the Men’s room, and 3 lavatories, 2 water closets, and 1 accessible water closet in the Women’s room. Total of 6 lavatories, 4 water closets, and 2 urinals – all low-flow technology. There is an existing employee restroom in the retail side of the building that will remain as is. 2. An expanded lobby area that will accommodate customers for both businesses and the new restrooms 3. An extended counter area for the Starbucks franchise to better handle the volume of customers that patronize this business. 4. An expanded and resurfaced parking lot that can accommodate a higher number of customer vehicles.

The total additional square footage for this remodel is proposed to be approximately 1006 s.f. New ingress and egress points from County Road 308 are proposed as well. PARCEL #: 183725102202 CURRENT USE AND ZONING The subject property is zoned Commercial Light-Use District (C-1) and is combined with part of Govt. Lot 1 and 35 that are zoned Mountain Residential-Single-Family Units (MR-1). The property is currently being used for commercial purposes with one retail building which includes a Starbucks and a Breeze Ski Rental. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES All properties to the west are zoned Commercial One (C-1) with existing businesses (Conoco, Rafting/Ski and Snowboard rental shops, Burger King, RV storage) and the westbound C-DOT weigh station. South of I-70 is the eastbound C-DOT weigh station zoned Commercial One (C-1) and a large tract of vacant land zoned Mountain Residential One (MR-1). To the east are several lots zoned Commercial One (C-1) with one existing business, and mobile home units. To the north are vacant County lands zoned Mining Two (M-2) interspersed with mining claims zoned Mining One (M-1). The remainder of Isakson Subdivision, located to the northeast, is zoned Mountain Residential One (MR-1) with existing single family residences. REFERRAL RESPONSES Referral Agencies and adjacent property owners were notified on December 7, 2009, and Public Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on January 6, 2010. Clear Creek County Site Development Dept. A response was received on December 8th, 2009 from Tim Vogel, Site Development Inspector, stating the following: “1. West Access- the intersection of the access needs to be constructed at a right angle. A relaxation of up to 15 degrees could be requested with supported documentation. The current approach is shown to be around 43 degrees. 2. An engineered grading/drainage plan is required to detail the following a. Snow storage areas b. Flow lines for drainage c. Detention areas for stormwater management. The minimum sizing of these devices shall be to control a 10 year storm event. d. Infiltration devices for drainage from the roof area of the existing/proposed structure.” The applicant has since submitted a revised site plan as well as an engineered grading and drainage plan to address any and all comments. Clear Creek County Site Development Inspector, Tim Vogel, has reviewed the new plans and supporting calculations and has determined that the site plan, along with the grading and drainage plan, is satisfactory at this time.

Clear Creek County Fire Authority A response was received on December 29, 2009, from Kelly Babeon, Clear Creek County Fire Chief commenting that certain aspects of the reviewed proposed site plan does not meet fire code and include the following: “1. Trash dumpsters are exposed to the wind allowing for trash to fly out when lids are open or container is over full. This area has high wind activity and should be managed to reduce/eliminate waste materials from spreading to adjacent property and adding to wildfire potential. 2. Access to the perimeter of the building is more than 150’ from the roadway. This requires that an access of a minimum of 20 feet wide with an all weather driving surface be provided. This can be accomplished with a 20’ wide fire lane on the property in front of the building. The fire lane will require a minimum of 35’ inside radius on curbs and corners. All other concerns are related to building construction and will be addressed in building code review”. The applicant has since submitted a revised site plan to address any and all referral comments. Clear Creek County Fire Chief, Kelly Babeon, has reviewed the updated site plan with the following comments: “Revised site plan incorporates our requests and is satisfactory in meeting our needs. No further changes will be requested by CCFA.” Colorado Department of Transportation A response was received on December 17, 2009 from Nickolas Dickens, Region 1 Access Manager with the following comments: “1. I have no objections to the proposed expansion and remodel. 2. I have been working with the property owner for the past few months regarding the revised access to the site for the I-70 Frontage Road (CR 308). We have conceptually agreed to the proposed access configuration, but have not yet started the permitting process for each of the proposed access points. 3. In addition to the access permits, the property owner is also working with CDOT to try to determine an appropriate landscaping or construction treatment to eliminate wide open access across the front of the property and focus the access to the property to two locations. Depending on the proposed treatment, a Special Use Permit from CDOT will likely be required” The applicant has since submitted a revised site plan to address any and all referral comments. The applicant has also submitted to CDOT applications for access permits for the proposed, as well has a Special Use Permit for all uses within the CDOT ROW for CR308, which includes xeriscaping, and 4’ concrete filled steel bollards with chains to delineate parking lot boundaries. Nickolas Dickens, CDOT Access Manager has reviewed the most recent submittal of the site plan, and grading and drainage plan and has stated that the revision seems to address all of the concerns that were made regarding the proposal. Mr. Dickens has also informed Planning Staff that Access and Special Use Permits for the proposed are in the process of being issued, and just awaiting the applicable signatures. Central Clear Creek Sanitation District A response was received on December 24, 2009 from Jack E. Barker, Central Clear Creek Sanitation District Manager, stating that the new facilities will have to be evaluated and there will probably be an increase in sewer taps and user fees associated with the additions. Mr. Barker also requested that the above comment be a condition of approval. Clear Creek County Assessor A response was received on January 4, 2010, from Clear Creek County Assessor Diane Settle, stating that the property tax for the new development should increase approximately $3,360. Clear Creek County Environmental Health Department A response was received on December 11, 2009 from Tracy Volkman, Environmental Health Inspector, stating the following: “The Environmental Health Department would require a retail food service plan review for the modifications being made to the food service counter and restrooms of the above referenced facility as specified in Referral DR2009-0002. All modifications to the above referenced facility must comply with the Rules and Regulations of Retail Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado.” “Any modifications to a retail food service may impact the licensing of the facility. Please have the above referenced facility contact this Department regarding modifications and upgrades to the retail food service establishment.” The above comments can be addressed at the building permit stage of the proposed development review. Colorado Division of Water Resources A response was received on December 10, 2009, from Jeff Deatherage, Water Resource Engineer for the Colorado Division of Water Resources, stating that if augmentation water is received from the Clear Creek County Water bank then the applicant(s) need to obtain a new well permit to reflect these changes. Clear Creek County Building Dept. A response was received on December 7, 2009 from Deb Kirkham, County Building Inspector, requesting further details concerning the case to determine ADA restroom requirements. After review of the requested information the Clear Creek County Building Department has determined that the ADA restroom requirements for the proposed are adequate. Clear Creek County Community Development A verbal response was received from Bert Weaver, Clear Creek County Community Development Project Director, stating that “the Board of County Commissioners has received a request from the applicant for augmentation water from the Clear Creek County Waterbank. This application may be approved conditional upon Land Use Approval.” Adjacent Property Owners Joyce Bivens A response was received on December 10, 2009 from Joyce Bivens with no comments or concerns to the proposal. Roger White A response was received on December 12, 2009 from Roger White with no comments or concerns to the proposal DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL 1. Whether the proposed development has provided evidence that a legal water supply is available. The Board of County Commissioners has received a request from the applicant for augmentation water from the Clear Creek County Waterbank. This application may be approved conditional upon Land Use Approval. 2. Whether the proposed development has provided adequate evidence of the physical and legal capability to provide sanitation. The Breeze/Starbucks facility is served by Central Clear Creek Sanitation District. Jack Barker, for Central Clear Creek Sanitation District commented that the “new facilities will have to be evaluated and there will probably be an increase in sewer taps and user fees associated with the additions.” Central Clear Creek Sanitation has stated that the proposed additional sanitation facilities can be supported by the district. 3. Avoidance of or mitigation to significant adverse impact on wildlife habitat, including breeding grounds, nesting areas, migration routes, and wintering areas. Rare and endangered species habitat protection shall also be addressed. The proposed addition is roughly 1,000 sq. ft. The following is the Wildlife Impact Potential: Big Horn Sheep Winter Range Big Horn Sheep Overall Range/Summer Range Black Bear Overall Range Elk Summer Range Elk Overall Range Mountain Lion Overall Range Mule Deer Winter Range Mule Deer Overall Range/Summer Range Wildlife is more prevalent on the vacant hillside of the MR-1 Government lots, which the proposal should not affect. 4.Avoidance of or mitigation from geologic hazard areas and conditions, including all potential areas of unstable slopes, snow avalanches, explosive natural gases, debris flows, land slides, rockfalls, etc. According to remote sensing data, no geologic hazards exist on Lots 7-9. Potential Rockfall is identified for portions of Government Lot 10, however all development occurs within Lots 7-9. 5. Avoidance of or mitigation to 100-year floodplain, all existing watercourses, wetlands, streams, and lakes. The parcel is in Zone C, areas of minimal flooding. There are no existing watercourses, wetlands, streams or lakes on the property. 6. Avoidance of or mitigation to significant adverse impact on natural features, including major peaks, rock outcroppings, notable stands of vegetation, etc. The development avoids all of the above. 7. Will maintain the quality of peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water resources, if applicable. No impact to surface of subsurface water resources is expected with this proposal. 8. No significant alteration to existing drainage patterns or cause runoff or erosion that will have a significant adverse impact on the area. The existing impervious area of lots 7-9 is approximately 65% of the surface area. The proposed development will increase this percentage to 73% by adding .09 acres of additional impervious surface to these lots. To address this possible additional surface runoff the applicants have submitted a drainage plan for the Development which includes several 3ft retaining walls and a detention area devised with guidance by Clear Creek County Site Development Inspector, Tim Vogel. 9. Must meet the standards of the County adopted Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for control of stormwater runoff. The standards of the County adopted ‘Best Management Practices’ have been met. 10. Must, or will, meet all applicable County zoning, building, fire, and health codes, rules and regulations. All applicable zoning requirements will be met upon approval of this process. All County building, fire, and health codes will be met upon issuance of a building permit for this proposed development. The Development Plan has been reviewed and revised to meet the requirements of the Clear Creek Fire Authority Fire Code. 11. The location of existing or proposed structures and uses on the property will not impose an undue burden on public services and infrastructure. The proposed addition and remodel are not expected to impose an undue burden on public services and infrastructure. A letter from Central Clear Creek Sanitation District Manager Jack E. Barker, states that the new facilities will have to be evaluated and there will probably be an increase in sewer taps and user fees associated with the additions. Central Clear Creek Sanitation has stated that the proposed additional sanitation facilities can be supported by the district. Also, a preliminary water resources report done by Resource Engineering, Inc. states that “under current water demand conditions the on-site water supply is sufficient.” This statement was supported by a 24 Hour pump test indicating a higher long term yield of the well, with a sustainable range between 10 and 10.5 gpm. At these yield rates, Breeze/Starbucks could maintain a 12- hour peak day volume approximately 1.4 times higher than the peak day demand on record of 5,200 gallons. 12. The change in traffic patterns and potential increase in trip generation from the proposed development will not result in excessive congestion or traffic hazards. County Road 308 is maintained by the State of Colorado Department of Transportation. The proposed remodel and parking lot reconfiguration is not expected to result in excessive congestion or traffic hazards. If anything, the new access points and proposed traffic flow should help alleviate current traffic congestion to the site. 13. The form, height, size, density, location, exterior materials, and color of proposed structures and other physical elements of the proposed development must be compatible with the surrounding development, natural environment, and general character of the area. The proposed remodel is consistent with the existing building to all of the criteria above. The height of the building is not proposed to increase, and the remodel will match existing exterior materials and color. 14. Artificial lighting shall be in compliance with the lighting standards set forth in Section 5 (16) for commercial development, or in Section 2 (14) for residential development, of the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations. All Lighting shall be in compliance with the lighting standards set forth in Section 5 (16) for commercial development, as well as in section 14 (4) of the Off Street Parking regulation of the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations.

LIGHTING, Section 5 (16) Any outdoor light used for the illumination of parking areas, loading areas, recreation areas, or for any other private or public purpose, shall be arranged in such a manner as to meet the following conditions: a. Lights shall be shielded so that direct rays of light will not shine directly onto surrounding properties, except for porch or other lights attached to a structure that are non-reflective, and 100 watts or less; b. Neither the direct nor reflected light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public roads, and no colored lights may be used in such a way as to be confused or construed as traffic control devices; c. No blinking, flashing, intermittent, or fluttering lights, or other illuminated device which has a changing light intensity, brightness, or color, or which exceeds twenty-five (25) feet in height, may be permitted in any zoning district, except for temporary holiday displays or as required by local, state, or federal regulations. PARKING LOT LIGHTING, Section 14 (4) a. All parking lots for Commercial, Industrial, and Planned Development Districts, and access thereto from the business, shall be sufficiently illuminated to ensure the security of property and the safety of persons using such parking lots and access routes. b. Parking lot lighting shall be required to be provided during operating hours. c. Lights shall be shielded so that direct rays of light will not shine directly onto surrounding properties, except for porch or other lights attached to a structure that are non-reflective, and 100 watts or less. d. Neither the direct or reflected light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public roads, and no colored lights may be used in such a way as to be confused or construed as traffic control devices. e. No blinking, flashing, intermittent, or fluttering lights, or other illuminated device which has a changing light intensity, brightness, or color, or which exceeds twenty-five (25) feet in height, may be permitted in any zoning district, except for temporary holiday displays or as required by local, state, or federal regulations. Staff notes that no new additional lighting is proposed for the parking lot. As per section 14(4) (a), which states that “all parking lots for Commercial, Industrial, and Planned Development Districts, and access thereto from the business, shall be sufficiently illuminated to ensure the security of property and the safety of persons using such parking lots and access routes,” it appears that the east side of the parking lot may not be sufficiently illuminated. Currently there is one over head light at the northwest end of the proposed parking lot, and the remaining light comes from ambient light from the Breeze/Starbucks building and the illuminated signage. 15. Landscaping with species suitable for the environment shall be provided in amounts and sizes that will significantly enhance the appearance of the property, and soften the form and massing of structures. The only landscaping that is proposed with this project is xeriscaping within the CDOT right of way. No watering will be required to maintain the proposed xeriscaping. Furthermore, the existing pavement will be removed from the right-of-way area to allow for the proposed xeriscaping. The applicants have submitted a Special Use permit application to CDOT, which will include any physical items that are proposed in CDOT’s right of way; this will include 4 ft concrete filled steel bollards with chains to delineate access to the property, and gravel. No Plantings are proposed. (Please see grading/drainage plan for location of features). DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES PARKING Parking Spaces were figured using Section 14 of the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations ‘Off Street Parking Requirements’, and were applied as follows: 1. Retail Service – requires 5.5 spaces per 1000 s.f. of floor area. Breeze store public area and restroom areas are 3735 s.f. and would thus require 21 spaces. 2. Fast Food Restaurant – requires 10 spaces for every 1000 s.f. of floor area. Starbuck’s public floor area is 824 s.f. and would require 8 parking spaces. 3. Employees – 1 space for each employee at largest shift. Breeze has a maximum of 8 employees and Starbucks has a maximum of 6, requiring 14 spaces. 4. Remaining floor space consist of lobby, storage, kitchen, and counter area are of non-simultaneous use or ‘Unique Development’ and have no parking space requirements. On Street Parking is not allowed on CR 308. Total required parking spaces = 43 + 2 ADA spaces (one car and one van). Total provided spaces = 43 + 2 ADA spaces (one car and one van). The proposal meets parking space requirement for off-street parking. Staff notes that the existing plan shows only a total of 26 spaces available for parking. The new parking lot reconfiguration proposal would allow an additional 19 spaces for parking. Site Characteristics Analysis Wildlife Impact Potential: Big Horn Sheep Winter Range Big Horn Sheep Overall Range/Summer Range Black Bear Overall Range Elk Summer Range Elk Overall Range Mountain Lion Overall Range Mule Deer Winter Range Mule Deer Overall Range/Summer Range Slope: 25 % of area is between 0 to 8% slope 50 % of area is between 8 to 15% slope 25 % of area is between 15 to 30% slope Aspect: 75 % South 25 % South West facing slope. Taxes According to Diane Settle, County Assessor, property taxes will increase by approximately $3,360 with the 1,006 s.f. addition. CLEAR CREEK COUNTY MASTER PLAN 2030 The Clear Creek County Master Plan 2030 supports the concept of mixed use development in this area, and recommends promoting the establishment of a community core area in the Dumont, Lawson, Downieville area. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION During their regular meeting on January 20, 2010, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Development Review request as found in their attached resolution for approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Development Review case # DR2009-0002 with the following conditions for approval as stated in draft resolution # R-10-06.

Commissioner Drury stated this would be an improvement for the area, especially for the parking.

Commissioner O'Malley asked about the drainage and infiltration improvements. Tim Vogel replied the applicant was proposing infiltration chambers in the parking area and water would be directed to a unit which provided more storage than just a pipe. The roof water would be sent to a separate unit to infiltrate back into the ground. Groundwater recharge would be greatly improved as well as decreasing runoff from the site to adjacent property owners. These techniques were implemented in the county in 2009 to better infiltration and groundwater recharge. Commissioner O'Malley was impressed and hoped other developers would use these examples.

Commissioner O'Malley commended the expansion for its increased restrooms. Commissioner Drury noted the traffic issues in this area of Downieville with the Burger King, Conoco, semi trucks, etc. Jo Ann Sorensen replied the applicant worked well with the county and CDOT to manage an exit and entrance plan to hopefully better direct people.

Patrick McCarthy noted a change in the language of condition of approval #5 to specify the plan was for this property. He noted the approval of this development review process was conditional upon the approval of the water supply plan for the subject property by the Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-06, with the clarification of the subject property, the approval conditional on the approval of the water supply plan, and changing the Chairman of the Board to Commissioner O'Malley. Commissioner O'Malley called for public comment. Hearing none, he seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF TWO PICK-UP TRUCKS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE: West End Foreman John Sanchez and Mechanic Pat Behring attended the hearing. In attendance were County Administrator Tom Breslin and Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the capital request for the purchase of two pick-up trucks for Road & Bridge. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Dale attended the hearing.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-11, REVISION TO THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BUILDING CODE: Lynette Kelsey presented. In attendance were County Administrator Tom Breslin and Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy. Lynette Kelsey understood the Board’s request to be more equitable to the small home builder so they were not charged more per square foot than a large home builder. Commissioner O'Malley agreed. The rates only increased for construction of larger homes. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-11, resolution to approve the adoption of the 2006 international code series with the changes to the permit fees. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding real estate issues as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); regarding employee benefits, legislation, and Guanella Pass rockfall as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated that no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 10, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 9TH, AND DECEMBER 23RD, 2009 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING MINUTES: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RUGGS BENEDICT CONTRACT FOR CARPET PURCHASE AS PART OF THE COURTHOUSE REMODEL PROJECT: In attendance were Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy, County Assessor Diane Settle, and Chief Accountant Carl Small. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #10-15, Lewis, Lamartine area: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Lewis group. Diane Settle recommended this abatement be considered with #10-17, Kallas, as well. Diane Settle stated these abatements were for the same mining claim and each party owned an interest. Diane Settle explained this was a difficult mining claim with no access and recommended $200/acre for 2007-2009. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s adjustment to $200/acre for 2007 to 2009. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-17, Kallas, Lamartine area: Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of $200/acre for abatement #10-17, Kallas, for 2007-2009. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-16, Antonucci, Berthoud Falls: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Antonucci group. Diane Settle had this property valued at $202,000 and the owner requested a value of $174,000. Given the comparable sales were difficult for this location, Diane Settle agreed to adjust the value to $174,000. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of $174,000. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-18, Walkup, St. Mary’s Subdivision: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation for the Walkup group. Diane Settle recommended an adjustment for this parcel from a traditional single family home to a cabin, adjusting the value from $124,110 to $99,710 for 2007 and 2008. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of $99,710 for 2007 and 2008. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-19, Breton Highlands LLC, Idaho Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Breton Highlands group. Diane Settle stated this was the antique shop in Idaho Springs and the back part was residential, unbeknownst to the Assessor. Diane Settle recommended an adjustment in the classification of the property to be 50/50, residential and commercial for 2007-2009. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of 50/50 residential/commercial for 2007 to 2009. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-20, LeBlanc, Hyland Hills: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the LeBlanc group. Diane Settle completed a site visit to find the home as three apartments. The condition was bad for this structure and it was a nonconforming use.

Commissioner Dale attended the hearing.

Wells Fargo owned the property in 2008 and the new owners came in 2009. This abatement was only for 2009. Diane Settle had it valued at $360,650 and recommended an adjustment for condition to $225,000. The new owners had paid $193,000 for the property from the bank. They were slowly converting it into one single family home. Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of $193,000. Commissioner O'Malley seconded. Commissioner O'Malley and Commissioner Dale voted in favor. Commissioner Drury abstained.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-21, RESOLUTION FOR AMENDING THE 2006 RESIDENTIAL CODE AND THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE BY ADOPTING THE “2010 MOUNTAIN DRIVEWAY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) MANUAL” FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel presented. In attendance were Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Land Use Secretary Jan Patterson, and Planner I Adam Springer. Tim Vogel made the following presentation:  Last year, Bert Weaver had contracted a document managing stormwater and this document information was included in this revised BMP manual.  This BMP manual was originally created by DRCOG and Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association and made into a more condensed manual.  This BMP manual covered standard BMP techniques for roadway and residential construction. There were a couple changes recommended by Tim Vogel.  Infiltration: In January of 2009, the county started requiring infiltration devices for all BMP permits. The new manual now also required infiltration for all roof structures in excess of 1750 square feet.  Natural Erosion Control Log: Under the section of Sediment Barriers, the county had added a new BMP called the “Natural Erosion Control Log.” This technique used existing material on site to control erosion and would be a good tool for implementing BMP’s in the county’s beetle kill areas. It was cost effective, easy to install and there was an abundance of material in the county that could be used.  Outlet & Inlet Protections: While this was a new BMP, it was new to the county manual. An example of outlet protection was rock or rip-rap, an example of inlet protection would be hay bales installed in front of a culvert to keep sediment from entering the drainage device.  Appendix Chapters: These pages had been added to give further descriptions of Stormwater Management techniques for residential, commercial and roadway development. These handouts were designed in conjunction with Bert Weaver’s project manual, “Managing Stormwater to Protect Water Resources in Mountainous Regions of Colorado.” Commissioner O'Malley asked about the additional cost for infiltration systems. Tim Vogel replied a minor system could cost around $1000 and a major infiltration system could run a homeowner around $5000. Additionally, this cost was derived from the square footage of the roof. Commissioner Dale stated there were benefits to the county and the neighborhoods by having less drainage on the roads and reducing erosion. These were both additional costs to the county and the taxpayers. Tim Vogel added that Clear Creek County was not required to meet the Phase II stormwater requirements for areas over 10,000 in population. One of the county’s goals for 2010 was stormwater management and the revisions to the BMP manual assisted with this goal.

Commissioner Dale asked about infiltration gravel pits and how deep they were. Tim Vogel replied the greater the width the more shallow the pit. The pits were easily maintainable.

Commissioner Dale asked how to manage water for a home built on a slope and keeping water out of the uphill side of the home. Tim Vogel replied gutters/drain spouts, and French drains at the foundation that lead out and around the house. He added the regulations gave him flexibility to work with a homeowner on a feasible solution. Commissioner O'Malley reminded Tim Vogel that it was a delicate balance of flexibility and complying with the regulations. He wanted staff to remain fair and treat all applicants the same. Tim Vogel agreed.

Commissioner Dale congratulated Tim Vogel and his department for being on the cutting edge of Best Management Practices. Tim Vogel replied the county had BMP regulations since the early 90’s and as each technique was used they learned what worked and what did not.

Patrick McCarthy recommended amending a definition of the “manual” in the building code as the county was not adopting the manual but the new building code which indirectly approved the manual. Tim Vogel agreed. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-21, Resolution to amend the 2006 Residential Code and the 2006 International Building Code by adopting the 2010 Mountain Driveway BMP Manual for the unincorporated area of Clear Creek County, with the amendment to the definition of manual meaning the adoption of the new code. Commissioner Dale seconded. There was no public comment. The motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES FOR THE COURTHOUSE REMODEL PHASE 1: In attendance were engineer Craig Abrahamson, Interior Designer Audrey Koehn, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy. Craig Abrahamson made the following presentation:  The contract was for phase 1 of the courthouse remodel which included the Attorney’s floor and the Sheriff’s waiting room restroom.  The work was advertised in the paper and there were three interested contractors. Two of the contractors had done work for the county before.  Craig Abrahamson, Tom Breslin, and Mr. Loeffler had reviewed the bids and had questions for some of the bidders. They reached out to the contractors and had their questions answered.  Based on the responses, they believed that MR Construction was the most responsive bidder.  The bid from MR Construction was $107,139. Adding in carpet and permits, the total became $130,000+. Carpet was a separate bid submitted by the manufacturer.  Craig Abrahamson had met with MR Construction to review the HVAC portion of the project to confirm details.  Three items increased the bid beyond the original estimate: new door frames, the addition of the Sheriff’s restroom, and the countertops. The group agreed on a less expensive solid surface countertop and suggested the new door frames remain.  Craig Abrahamson noted the new total with the door frames and a different countertop would be $105,177.  Craig Abrahamson asked for the Board’s approval on a cost and the contractor. Mr. Loeffler suggested the Board approve the contract now and authorize County Administrator Tom Breslin to sign it.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the contract in the amount of $105,177 with MR Construction with the anticipation of a change order in the countertop material, installing the new door frames, and authorizing County Administrator Tom Breslin to sign the contract in its final form. Commissioner Dale seconded. There was no public comment. The motion passed unanimously.

JAIL INSPECTION: Commissioner Dale completed the jail inspection with the following findings:  The jail installed a new fingerprinting station two weeks ago.  There were new cameras in the holding cells.  They were working to install a dispatch-style console in the control room for monitoring the jail.  There was little snow so they were able to use the outside recreation room.  There were 79 total holds with 48 of them being US Marshal holds.  The jail was found in satisfactory condition.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CANCELLATION OF UNCOLLECTIBLE TAXES FOR THE COUNTY TREASURER: County Treasurer Irene Kincade presented. Irene Kincade made the following statements:  This report was usually presented at the end of the year for taxes deemed uncollectable.  One of these claims was for personal property and the remainder was for real property.  One claim which came to attention was the claim for the Franklin Mine. These uncollectable taxes went back many years. The county never sold these tax liens as they felt the property was a problem.  This property had gone to court regarding these taxes. Following court, the owner paid 2006 to 2008 taxes with interest. Irene Kincade told the owner if these were paid with interest she would approach the Board about writing off the remainder.  The taxes for the remaining years, 2000-2005, were $36,573 with no interest.  The property was in bad shape. The people the owner leased the land to had really taken advantage of her as the landowner and never paid the taxes.  Irene Kincade and Diane Settle had worked to properly align each mining claim with each building on the property. The owner was trying to clean up the property and this realignment assisted with property records.  Irene Kincade believed she could not recover any more taxes on this property.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the cancellation of uncollectible taxes as shown on the Treasurer’s report dated February 10, 2010. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: In attendance were Cindy Neely and Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy. Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding Health & Human Services and the Youth Empowerment Program and legislation as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); regarding negotiating strategies regarding roads as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e); regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f); and regarding real estate matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 17, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 17, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LAND LEASE FOR 2010 RAFTING SEASON: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO IDAHO RIDGE LLC FOR TWO PARCELS OF COUNTY LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH RANGE 73 WEST: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF YEH AND ASSOCIATES PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF OUT OF STATE CONFERENCE FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: In attendance were Clear Creek Courant Editor Ian Neligh, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Public Health Educator Linda Trenbeath, Planner II Holland Smith, County Administrator Tom Breslin, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, and Public Works Division Director Tim Allen. Regarding item #4, Mr. Loeffler stated the revised proposal arrived yesterday afternoon and paragraph three explained the heart of the proposal regarding the Guanella Pass rockslide. The contract identified the type of monitoring used and what would be important for opening the road. Yeh & Associates would provide the geotechnical expertise needed. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE 2010 TOBACCO GRANT CONTRACT: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN LOAVES AND FISHES AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Public Health Director Aaron Kissler presented. In attendance were Public Health Educator Linda Trenbeath and County Administrator Tom Breslin. Aaron Kissler explained the tobacco grant was for Clear Creek and Gilpin but Gilpin had backed out so their portion was written out of the contract. Regarding the Loaves and Fishes agreement, this was a pass though funding agreement for a grant received because the buying power was greater for Loaves and Fishes. The local Safeway grocery store was supported in this grant program. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Health Consent Agenda items as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

Commissioner Dale attended the meeting.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PROPOSAL FROM ROCKWEST TECHNOLOGY GROUP FOR CARD READER ACCESS CONTROL: County Administrator Tom Breslin presented the following information:  The proposal from Rockwest would include card readers at the back and middle door entries to the courthouse.  The card readers were mobile so could be moved during the courthouse remodel.  The proposal included a panic bar at the exit door located near the Clerk & Recorder’s office.  This expense was outside the budget for a total of $13,000. The county only had $4000 budgeted. The remaining funding could come from the courthouse remodel fund.  Rockwest was the same vendor who installed the other card readers in the building.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the proposal from Rockwest Technology. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy attended the hearing. Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding zoning and legislation as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 24, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LICENSING AGREEMENT #RV10016 BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND DRCOG FOR THE 2010 DENVER REGIONAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROJECT (DRAPP): 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AIA AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND DLR FOR COURTHOUSE REMODEL: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT (VACANT LAND) BETWEEN COUNTY AND CDOT FOR PROPERTY USED FOR AMBULANCE FACILITY ON HWY 103, IDAHO SPRINGS: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PILT APPLICATION FOR THE ASSESSOR’S OFFICE: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-25, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DONATION OF COUNTY FURNITURE TO PROJECT SUPPORT: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-27, A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING GRANT APPLICATION FOR LOCAL PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION PLANNING GRANT WITH GOCO FOR THE OXBOW PROPERTY: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JANUARY 20TH, JANUARY 27TH, AND JANUARY 6TH, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small, engineer Craig Abrahamson, Information Technology Division Director Matt Taylor, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, and Paralegal Nanette Reimer. Regarding item #3, Craig Abrahamson explained the contract was amended to subcontract with the mechanical engineers. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WIC BREAST FEEDING PEER COUNSELING CONTRACT FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Public Health Director Aaron Kissler presented. Aaron Kissler stated this contract would provide the county money for a counselor to run the program. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Health Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AIA 133 CONTRACT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND FCI CONSTRUCTION FOR THE JAIL RENOVATION: In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small, and engineer Craig Abrahamson. Mr. Loeffler made the following presentation:  This AIA contract was for the county to contract with FCI Construction as the construction manager/general contractor for the jail renovation.  The contract was for $5000 unless the county kept FCI on for other projects. If the contractor continued on, they would receive 4% only after the Board received the agreement on the GMP.  This contract would govern the entire jail renovation project.  Mr. Loeffler explained the discussion on payment terms with FCI Construction and the turnaround payment time of seven days. Commissioner O'Malley stated if FCI wanted to be paid at a certain time of the month, then they needed to submit their bills in the corresponding timeframe.

Commissioner Dale attended the meeting.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the AIA contract between Clear Creek County and FCI Construction for the jail renovation which included the A201 general conditions. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATION OF CITIZEN SURVEY CONSULTANT: County Administrator Tom Breslin presented. Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel and resident Linda Browning attended the hearing. Tom Breslin made the following presentation:  Six proposals were submitted to the county for the Citizen Survey Consultant. These were narrowed down to four.  Of these four, the review committee recommended NRC.  NRC had tailored their presentation to the request for proposal, had lots of repeat customers and had a lot of mountain experience.  They had a unique approach to mailings of which they do three direct mailings. The first was a postcard, then the survey with a cover letter, and then a follow-up survey again to the same people.  Their return rate was 25-40%. The standard in the industry was 15%.  One of the NRC specialties was geo-data in which they use coded mailings so they know what area the responses were coming from yet maintaining anonymity.  NRC presented other ala carte options and add-ons the County could purchase such as benchmarking against other communities, etc.  In researching the survey consultants, county staff learned that the internet wasn’t as popular with accurate surveying. The best response rate was still with direct mailings. Commissioner O'Malley asked about an online response if the citizens so desired. Tom Breslin replied NRC had a sample size without the internet of 2.5-4% margin of error with 95% certainty.  Tom Breslin had informed the consultant of the newspaper articles the Board had written and they would review the articles to advise whether or not to print them.

Commissioner O'Malley wanted the best answers from the community. The more information they had, the better off they were. Commissioner Drury agreed stating citizens were constantly asking her for more information. She wanted the public to make good decisions based on factual information.

Mr. Loeffler stated the Board would first have to award the contract to a survey consultant, then sign a contract and then the Board could move forward with meeting with the consultant. The consultants definitely wanted to know what the Board wanted to know. Lisa Vogel noted this group was one of the survey consulting firms recommended by resident Jan Ziman.

Carl Small noted it was important to coordinate the DRCOG grant with the signing of the contract given the county received $10,000 for this survey.

Tom Breslin stated the postcard mailing ran for six weeks from the start date which would allow some lead time for the newspaper articles should the consultant approve them. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the recommendation of NRC as the consultant for the citizen survey. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Linda Browning thanked the Board for doing this survey.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Social Services to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-26, ADOPTING YOUTH EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (YEP) AND APPOINTING CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP FOR 2010: In attendance were Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline, and YEP Board member Joe Flannigan. Cindy Dicken had met with Mr. Loeffler and discussed the use of TANF to operate the YEP program and its volunteers. Mr. Loeffler agreed stating that Cindy Dicken was also working with Clear Creek Metropolitan Recreation District to consider operating the program via the district. This Resolution would set up the YEP program for the 2010 year under the TANF umbrella. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-26, with the wording change in item #10. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Social Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding the Ambulance Department as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); and regarding negotiating strategies as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 3, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 3, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Drury was absent.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GROUP SERVICE AGREEMENT – ADDENDUM MYHEALTHIQ PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-28, RESOLUTION AMENDING CERTAIN PERMIT FEES OF THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SITE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 2010-11 CLEAR CREEK COUNTY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-30, RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY OPEN SPACE COMMISSION: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EXERCISE OF 2010 WATER OPTION RIGHTS: In attendance were Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, Chief Accountant Carl Small, HR Director Cate Camp, and Public Works Division Director Tim Allen. Regarding item #6, Mr. Loeffler stated this did not require Board approval but given the amount of money it was, he wanted the Board to review the option. This option was for 11 acre feet of storage. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ROAD AND BRIDGE PURCHASE OF WATER TRUCK: Public Works Division Director Tim Allen presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Tim Allen was working with a representative from Ritchie Bros in the auction to find a new water truck. Tim Allen asked the Board to approve the Road & Bridge department the spending ability up to $70,000 for a water truck whether through the auction or at another location. Some of the trucks they had inspected were in bad shape and they wanted a good truck. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the purchase of a water truck by the Road & Bridge department up to $70,000. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-02, RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY FOR THE APPROVAL, MAINTENANCE, AND RELEASE OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEES: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small and Public Works Division Director Tim Allen. Nanette Reimer had discussed this policy with Treasurer Irene Kincade, Land Use Secretary Cyndie Ruschmyer, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Road & Bridge Secretary Judi Wilson, and Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen. Everyone was in agreement for the county to continue to accept letters of credit, cash and bonds for Road & Bridge utility cuts and telecom projects.

Mr. Loeffler explained this was an administration of security. The current county regulations determined what form of security was acceptable to the county. This Resolution also set policy and delegated which department heads and Division Director could accept security up to $7500 without engaging the Board’s attention. This was a new policy and coincided with the new purchasing policy.

Carl Small stated these forms of security were held by the County Treasurer. If the funds had to be drawn upon, they would be transferred from the Treasurer to the General Fund for spending. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #10-02, Resolution adopting a policy for the approval, maintenance, and release of financial guarantees. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACTOR SELECTION FOR PHASE II OF THE COURTHOUSE REMODEL: In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small, Assistant County Attorney Patrick McCarthy, and engineer Craig Abrahamson. Tom Breslin stated there were five interested contractors and only two bids were submitted. One bid from Phipps was extremely high and did not itemize the project. SP Construction submitted a bid of $150,078 and itemized the bid. The original estimate for this project was $146,000. Money had been saved in the contract with the Interior Designer. SP Construction could start this project by the end of the week and construction was an 8-week schedule. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the contract for Phase II of the courthouse remodel to SP Construction for $150,078. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: This hearing was canceled.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 10, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale was absent.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF PAVING CONTRACT FOR THE BAKERVILLE TO LOVELAND TRAIL TO STAN MILLER INC.: 3. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO AWARD BAKERVILLE TO LOVELAND TRAIL CONTRACT TO STAN MILLER INC.: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE 2010-11 COUNTY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE COPIER/PRINTER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/CONTRACT FOR THE NEW SAVIN 9020SPF’S AT THE MAIN FLOOR COPIER ROOM: Sheriff Don Krueger, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Public Health Director Aaron Kissler were in attendance. Mr. Loeffler asked the Board to remove Consent Agenda item #2 from consideration to allow more time to consider it. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented excluding item #2. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matters.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CSBG APPLICATION AND PLAN FOR 2010: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GENERAL IMMUNIZATION CORE SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN CCCPEH AND COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: Public Health Director Aaron Kissler presented. Aaron Kissler stated the CSBG grant would be used for dental expenses and was more dollars than the prior year. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Health Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter. JAIL INSPECTION: Commissioner Drury completed the jail inspection with the following findings:  New equipment was installed for the fingerprinting station via a $50,000 grant.  The jail population was 49 US Marshal holds, 20 county holds, and one female inmate was a US Marshal hold.  The jail was found in satisfactory condition.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: This hearing was canceled.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 17, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 17, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SOFTWARE SALES & INSTALLATION AGREEMENT FOR CLEAR CREEK EMERGENCY SERVICES: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FROM THE WESTMUTTSTER DOG SHOW: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PLANNING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DRCOG REGARDING GRANT FOR CITIZEN SURVEY PROJECT: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER INC. FOR CITIZEN SURVEY PROJECT: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-34, RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE CLEAR CREEK TOURISM BUREAU: In attendance were Planning II Holland Smith, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline, OEM Director Kathleen Krebs, Major Rick Albers, Sgt. Rick Safe, OEM Assistant Jane Thomas, Fire Chief Kelly Babeon, West End Fire Chief Mark Abrahamson, Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, and Colorado State Forest Service Regional Manager Allen Gallamore. Regarding item #3, Mr. Loeffler stated if this was approved the Board would need to also approve a Services Agreement. Regarding items #4 and 5, Mr. Loeffler stated DRCOG had confirmed with Lisa Vogel that the county could sign the contract with National Research Center for the citizen survey even though DRCOG had not signed their grant contract yet. Regarding item #3, Commissioner O'Malley suggested the Board sponsor what they did last year which was $600. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented with a $600 donation to the Westmuttster Dog Show. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding real estate matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); regarding donations as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session. The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 24, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 24, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale was absent.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FSA PLAN AMENDMENT HEROES EARNINGS ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF TAX ACT OF 2008: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FSA PLAN AMENDMENT GRACE PERIOD AMENDMENT: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SECTION 125 FLEX PLAN AGREEMENT: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 2010 ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JANUARY 13TH, FEBRUARY 17TH, AND FEBRUARY 24TH, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BOOSTER CLUB INC: In attendance were Bookkeeper Marilyn Marxuach, Noxious Weed Supervisor Ted brown, and Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline. Mr. Loeffler requested the Board remove Consent Agenda items #2,3, and 4 per the request of Human Resources. Regarding item #7, Mr. Loeffler stated the Board needed to decide a date of payment. Mr. Loeffler noted that Stephan Andrade of the Booster Club requested $4000 instead of the draft agreement specified $3000. Mr. Loeffler stated he would fill in the date and dollar amount in the Booster Club Services Agreement following the Board’s approval. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Consent Agenda items #1, 5, 6, and #7 with the dollar amount being $3000 and the payment date by July 1, 2010, and assigning the proper name of the Booster Club Secretary in the agreement. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Noxious Weed Advisory Board.

The Noxious Weed Advisory Board then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #10-33, Howes, Trail Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mark Howes attended the hearing. Diane Settle explained the subject property had only one cabin instead of two. This was corrected along with the square footage of the cabin. Diane Settle had the property valued at $43,510 and Mr. Howes had paid $25,000 for it. Diane Settle explained the land value was $24,790 and the cabin was valued at $18,720. Commissioner O'Malley suggested adjusting the cabin to match the adjacent cabin value. Diane Settle did so and recommended a new value of $36,910. Mr. Howes believed he was deceived in the purchase of the property as sale flyer described a larger cabin which was actually located on the adjacent property. He also had conflicting surveys of the property. The Board suggested he follow up with the surveyor. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s new recommendation of $36,910 as the value of the subject property. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-31, Tomkins, Fall River Reservoir: County Assessor Diane Settle requested this hearing be continued at the request of Mr. Tomkins. Commissioner Drury made the motion to continue this abatement hearing to April 21, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-32, Tobisch, Blue Valley Acres: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Tobisch group. Diane Settle recommeneded an adjustment from $229,810 to $181,630 for 2008 and recommended an adjustment from $285,190 to $221,060 for 2009. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation for 2008 and 2009 for the Tobisch property. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Noxious Weed Advisory Board.

The Noxious Weed Advisory Board then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding negotiating strategies as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e) and regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 31, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 31, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF BID FOR THE PAVING OF THE BAKERVILLE TO LOVELAND TRAIL: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR THE PAVING OF THE BAKERVILLE TO LOVELAND TRAIL: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND JEFFERSON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATE CONTRACT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND JEFFERSON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE BAKERVILLE/LOVELAND PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE FACILITY: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT GRANT CONTRACT WITH CDOT REGARDING BAKERVILLE-LOVELAND PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE FACILITY: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SENIORS RESOURCE CENTER AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: In attendance were Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Planner I Adam Springer, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Health & Human Services Office Manager Candy Morehouse, and Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel. Mr. Loeffler noted Consent Agenda items #2, 3, and 6 were not yet ready to approve and sign. Mr. Loeffler added that item #7 required a resolution format for CDOT so he requested the Board approve resolution#10-37. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Consent Agenda items #1, 4, 5, 7,8, and resolution #10-37. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-29, REZONING CASE #RZ-2010-0001, FROM M-=2 TO R-1 TO RESOLVE A LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE ISSUE, STEPHENS, VIRGINIA CANYON: Planner I Adam Springer presented. In attendance were Planner II Holland Smith, and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel. Adam Springer made the following presentation:  The request was to rezone a property from M-2 to R-1, to allow the zoning to match the actual use of the property. The subject property had been used as a residential property since the early 1900’s and was currently being served by the City of Idaho Springs for both sanitation and water; therefore, an R-1 zoning designation appears to be appropriate for the current use of this property.  In 1995, the subject property was transferred from BLM to the county. The current owner at that time was approached by BLM and County Lands offered the purchase of this property, and both timeS the owner declined. In October 1999, this lot and approximately 400 acres north of Idaho Springs was zoned M-2 in the township zone plan. It is not known why the lot was not zoned to a residential zoning to acknowledge the existing house. It may have been presumed that a forth coming annexation into Idaho Springs would include this property along with several other privately owned lands throughout this area; however, this did not happen. This residence was currently considered a legal non-conforming structure. The current single family residence , out of use outhouse, and old frame barn on the property have existed since the early 1900’s. A variance for an addition to the residence was granted in 2005.  To the north of this property was another privately owned M-2 parcel which contained a single family residence. To the west was the City of Idaho Springs and one privately owned M-1mining claim. To the south was the City of the Idaho Springs and two privately owned M-1 claims. To the east of this property was an M-1 and MR-1 zoned properties that were private owned.  Referral agencies and adjacent property owner were notified on February 11, 2010 and public notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on Wednesday, March 3, 2010.  The Clear Creek County Road & Bridge, Environmental Health Department, the Clear Creek Fire Authority, and the City of Idaho Springs responded with no comment.  Clear Creek County Lands responded stating two points:  Clear Creek County Lands Department agreed with the rezoning to conform with the land use of the property.  Mr. Smith noted the encroachment license agreement that was recorded in 2003 to allow an existing retaining wall to encroach into County Road right of way (Virginia Canyon Road). Currently, this retaining wall had been removed, and as a condition of the subject encroachment license, once the encroachment was removed the license shall automatically terminate. Therefore, the encroachment license agreement was believed to be terminated, and as per condition of the license, the area was to be restored to a satisfactory condition as determined by the county.  A response was received on March 4, 2010 from Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, stating that the driveway on the site plan would not meet the driveway design standards. Mr. Vogel advised that the driveway and proposed building should be removed from the site plan because it was not part of the rezoning proposal, and could not be approved or denied by this rezoning process. Tim Vogel also stated the encroachment license agreement for the retaining wall had been removed so the subject license agreement was void.  A response was received on February 23, 2010, from Edward C. Nichols, State Historic Preservation Officer, stating that it appeared there were several buildings on that property that could be eligible of the National Register of Historic Places. However, Mr. Nichols did not believe that rezoning the subject property from M-2 to R-1 would have an effect on these buildings or on potential archaeological resources.  No responses were received from adjacent property owner.  Currently the owners and residents of this property park on the east side of Virginia Canyon Road and walk across the street to access their house. At this time, the applicants are working with Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, to establish proper access to their residence.  In 2003, an encroachment license was entered into between Clear Creek County and the current landowner at the time (Kenneth L. Walters) to allow for an existing earth berm retained by a wall constructed of hot water heaters arranged vertically side by side and stairs accessing a home on the property. The license agreement stated that the license shall automatically terminate at any time the encroachments described were removed. According to the attached Improvement Survey Plat, and site visits by Planning Staff and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, these encroachments had been removed, and the license area had been revegetated and restored to a natural state satisfactory to the county.  During their regular meeting on March 17, 2010, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning request.  Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request.

Regarding the driveway/access issue, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel had reviewed the driveway ideas with an engineer and one solution would be to construct a parking area in front of the proposed structure and this would become the retaining wall for the garage the owners desired. He did not think it would be possible to construct a driveway up to the house. The owners could get down to a 12% grade on the driveway but they would need another license agreement to build a retaining wall into the road right of way. An enormous amount of strengthening would be needed for the wall because of the excavation that would occur.

Mr. Loeffler requested the language be changed in the resolution to read that the Board wanted to approve the rezoning only and was not taking any action on the improvements identified in the improvement survey plat dated November 18, 2009 which was submitted by the applicant with their application. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-29, Rezoning Case #RZ-2010-0001, with the amendment that the Board was only approving the rezoning at this time and not the improvements on the improvement survey plat. Commissioner O'Malley seconded. There was no public comment. The motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: This session was canceled.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 7, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 7, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND FRIENDS OF CHARLIE’S PLACE: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MARCH 24TH, FEBRUARY 10TH, MARCH 10TH, AND MARCH 17TH, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Loeffler requested item #2 be removed and placed on the following week’s agenda. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve items #1, and #3. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

Commissioner Dale attended the hearing.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT FOR ADDITIONAL WIC FUNDING FROM COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT FOR ADDITIONAL H1N1 FUNDING FROM THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: Public Health Director Aaron Kissler presented. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Health Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding legislation as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 14, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 14, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

PRESENTATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF GAMING GRANT APPLICATIONS: In attendance were Clear Creek Advocates representatives Kathryn Johnson and Joni Hargitt, Rock House President Cheryl Holmberg, Secretary III Donna Gee, Mount Evans Hospice representatives Bob Poirot, Kathy Engel, and Nancy Hiester, and Sheriff Bookkeeper Diane Rogers. The Board reviewed the new rules of the gaming impact grant applications to be a 50% request instead of the full year request. This would be a more competitive grant season. County Administrator Tom Breslin suggested requesting additional funding for the jail remodel. Sheriff Krueger agreed they could use more capital funded projects. Commissioner O'Malley suggested they ask Clay Brown from Department of Local Affairs about that later in the day.

Mount Evans Hospice Grant Application: Kathy Engel stated their reimbursements had decreased and their patients had increased. The hospice was at a point where 25% of their funding was from fundraising. Commissioner O'Malley suggested the hospice review their numbers with the finance department. If the $40,000 was non- reimbursable, then they should apply for more funding. The group agreed.

Clear Creek Advocates: The Advocates requested $3000 less than last year. They were requesting $35,457. They revised their grant application to request the in-kind donation from the county instead of the Sheriff’s office. They believed 38-40% of their cases were gaming related.

The Rock House: Over 30% of her students were gaming related. She had been writing for other grants anticipating the granting funding would not come through. Commissioner O'Malley suggested emphasizing the gaming related cases she has as this was a large percentage.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SIGNING AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND RODERICK CONSTRUCTION: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INITIAL PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIALS FOR BUILDING FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT PER 4.A OF THE AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND FRIENDS OF CHARLIE’S PLACE: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LEASE OF IMPROVED REAL PROPERTY INCLUDING LICENSE OF REAL PROPERTY BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK FAIRGROUNDS ASSOCIATION: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SECTION 125 FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN DOCUMENT WITH HSA OPTION: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FSA PLAN AMENDMENT GRACE PERIOD AMENDMENT: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FSA PLAN AMENDMENT HEROES EARNINGS ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF TAX ACT OF 2008: In attendance were Bookkeeper Marilyn Marxuach, HR Director Cate Camp, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, and Public Works Division Director Tim Allen. Regarding item #2, Mr. Loeffler asked to include a completion date within the contract. Tim Allen agreed to July 31, 2010. Regarding item #5, Commissioner Dale noted the rodeos would be complete by July 18, 2010. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items with the completion date added to item #2, of July 31, 2010. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Dale left the meeting for an I-70 meeting.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT AND NOTICE TO PROCEED FOR CONTRACT FOR PHASE IV FOR THE COURTHOUSE REMODEL: Engineer Craig Abrahamson presented. Craig Abrahamson stated this phase was for the Probation and OEM offices. Two contractors submitted bids. One was from Clear Creek County and one was from Denver. MR Construction submitted a bid for $240,048 and Caliber Construction submitted a bid for $256,128. This remodel was set up for second shift and weekend work. The budget for this phase was $250,000. MR Construction’s bid did not include carpeting of $13,000 so the total phase would be a little over budget. Craig Abrahamson was working with MR Construction on other cost savings they could implement. Commissioner Drury made the motion to award the contract and notice to proceed for phase IV of the courthouse remodel to MR Construction. Commissioner O'Malley seconded. There was no public comment. The motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF BID FOR THE PAVING OF THE BAKERVILLE TO LOVELAND TRAIL: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR THE PAVING OF THE BAKERVILLE TO LOVELAND TRAIL: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE BAKERVILLE/LOVELAND PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE FACILITY: Mr. Loeffler and Tom Breslin presented the following information:  Stan Miller was the lowest bidder of six bidders.  PBS&J recommended Stan Miller for this job.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the award of bid to Stan Miller for the paving of the Bakerville to Loveland Trail. Commissioner O'Malley seconded. There was no public comment. The motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the contract for services with Stan Miller for the paving of the Bakerville to Loveland Trail. Commissioner O'Malley seconded. There was no public comment. The motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Amendment #1, Professional Services Agreement, due to the addition of $390,000 worth of work, for PBS&J for construction oversight, and these funds coming from the Conservation Trust Fund. Commissioner O'Malley seconded. There was no public comment. The motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: This hearing was canceled.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-22, RESOLUTION TO REVISE THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS FOR UTILITY SCALE WIND AND SOLAR FACILITIES: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-23, RESOLUTION TO REVISE THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY 1041 REGULATIONS FOR UTILITY SCALE WIND AND SOLAR FACILITIES: This hearing was canceled. Notice was published of a new hearing date on May 19, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 21, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 21, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale was absent.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE QUARTERLY REPORT: In attendance were Public Trustee Irene Kincade, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, resident Larry Kramer, County Assessor Diane Settle, resident Jeannette Peterson, and resident Christopher Tomkins. Irene Kincade reported the same data as in prior reports as there was no new data. They had approximately the same amount of foreclosures as last year. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Public Trustee Quarterly Report. Commissioner O'Malley seconded. There was no public comment. The motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATE PRIVACY AND SECURITY AGREEMENT WITH JEFFERSON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL PURCHASE OF 1000 GALLON FUEL STORAGE TANK FOR BROOKVALE SHOPS: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-44, RESOLUTION TO REVISE MEMBER APPOINTMENTS TO THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY JUVENILE COMMUNITY REVIEW BOARD: In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small, Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, resident Larry Kramer, County Assessor Diane Settle, resident Jeannette Peterson, and resident Christopher Tomkins. Mr. Loeffler requested the Board remove item #2 as it was not ready to sign. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented excluding item #2. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #10-39, Kramer, York Gulch: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Larry Kramer attended the hearing. Diane Settle recommended denial on the valuation but recommended taking the property to a residential classification as it was used in this manner adjacent to his home. Larry Kramer agreed. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to reclassify the property as residential. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-42, Peterson, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Jeannette Peterson attended the hearing. Diane Settle stated this was the Mountain Miniatures building in Georgetown with a store downstairs and a guesthouse upstairs. Last year, following the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals, she reclassified the guesthouse as residential. Diane Settle recommended adjusting 2008 for this residential classification but the year 2007 was outside of her legal timeframe for adjustments. Jeannette Peterson disagreed stating the adjustment should still be made for 2007. It was proven in a case at the Board of Assessment Appeals for another property owner for the years 2007 and 2008 and she wanted the same adjustment. Jeannette Peterson was a taxpayer, supported local county government and had obeying the law. Therefore, she wanted her adjustment for 2007.

Mr. Loeffler apologized there were no other options for this case. The County Assessor and the County were limited by State law on what years they could adjust. The Colorado Revised Statues did not allow the county to act on a petition more than three years old. Diane Settle stated following the Hodge Board of Assessment Appeals case, vacation homes were changed to residential but they took time. The Board was disappointed they could not make this adjustment for Mrs. Peterson. Commissioner O'Malley asked to continue this hearing to see if there was some other resolution to be found. Commissioner Drury made the motion to continue the hearing to May 5, 2010 at 8:45 a.m. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-31, Tomkins, Fall River Reservoir: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Christopher Tomkins attended the hearing. Diane Settle stated this property was a mining claim off Rainbow Road near the Fall River Reservoir. Her comparable sales supported the value. Christopher Tomkins was appealing his taxes because his neighbor’s taxes were much lower. Diane Settle stated her office believed the adjacent claims to Tomkins did not have access but they did so their values and taxes would soon be adjusted. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-43, Phipps, Saddleback Mountain: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. Phipps attended via speakerphone. Mr. Phipps had reviewed all the homes sold on Saddleback Mountain over the last 12 months and in most cases the sales were below the tax valuation. Most of the disparities were between 94-95% of tax appraisal. The property next door to his was sold for more than he purchased and their taxes were cheaper. He understood he bought his property at a sale price but he did not think it was worth $1.7 million. Diane Settle explained the Assessor’s office could only consider sales between 7/1/06 and 6/30/08. Commissioner O'Malley explained the county was in a tough place in terms of what they were allowed to consider and adjust. Within the next time period, they could consider this adjacent property sale but currently, it was outside the legal timeframe. Commissioner O'Malley asked why the property adjacent was valued differently. Diane Settle would investigate and bring the information back to the Commissioners. Commissioner Drury made the motion to continue this hearing to May 12, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-38, Healy, Silver Lakes: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Healy group. Diane Settle stated this was the cell site at Bakerville. It was valued at $56,370 and she recommended valuing it at $12,330 for the value of the cell site only. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a value of $12,330. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-40, Seward, Blue Valley Acres: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Seward group. Diane Settle stated this was a 1.02 acre lot in Blue Valley Acres valued at $35,420 and she had comparable sales that supported the value. The owners paid $11,500 for it but it was outside the allowed timeframe. All of Diane Settle’s comparable sales were from the Blue Valley Acres Subdivision. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-41, Ackerman, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Ackerman group. Diane Settle had the property valued at $207,410 and her comparable sales supported the value. The owner bought the home after the allowed timeframe and paid more than the Assessor’s had it valued. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ABOUT IMPROVEMENTS TO ARGENTINE STREET AND FOURTH STREET IN TOWN OF GEORGETOWN: Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Carl Small stated the county had budgeted $60,000 for this project and had recently increased the amount to $68,400 as they were paving Fourth Street and the entrance to the county parking lot. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between Clear Creek County and Georgetown for the road improvements on Argentine Street and Fourth Street. Commissioner O'Malley seconded. There was no public comment. The motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FROM THE AFTER- PROM COMMITTEE: Residents Cindy Talbott and Paula Suggs presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Cindy Talbott and Paul Suggs made the following statements:  They were requesting funds to provide an after-prom party for the students at the high school.  The prom would be held at the Evergreen Lake House.  They would provide activities such as inflatable games, casino games, and big screen Wii.  The chaperones would be staying all night with the kids and driving them home if needed.  They were requesting $500.  Some students did not attend prom but did attend the after-prom party.  The after-prom party prevented students from consuming alcohol and driving. Carl Small stated this was a new request to the county. Mr. Loeffler stated the Board could fund it through TANF on the theory that if the students were at the school, they were not getting pregnant. It could also be funded as a public safety provision by keeping students off the road late at night. The Board asked Carl Small and Mr. Loeffler to review funding the after-prom committee request. Commissioner Drury made the motion to fund the after-prom committee $500 for the purpose of public safety by keeping young people in a situation in which they historically would have exhibited bad behavior and exposed themselves to harm. The after-prom party prevented that. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

JAIL INSPECTION: Commissioner O'Malley completed the jail inspection with the following findings:  The law computer would be moved to an area inside the cell area which would make it easier to regulate.  The toilets remained an issue in the cell pods.  A shower repair was needed in the eagle pod.  There was no recent activity for the inmate workers except at the animal shelter.  There were 77 prisoners in the jail with 50 of them being marshal holds and three were women.  There were 27 county holds and three were female.  The jail was found in satisfactory condition.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: This hearing was canceled.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 28, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 28, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Vice Chairman Joan Drury called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner O'Malley was absent.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DELTA DENTAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATE AGREEMENT: In attendance were Paralegal Nanette Reimer, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, HR Director Cate Camp, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, and Echo Mountain Park representatives Mark Pettit and Cindy Dady. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT FOR THE TRIAD GRANT: In attendance were Paralegal Nanette Reimer, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, and Echo Mountain Park representatives Mark Pettit and Cindy Dady. Aaron Kissler stated this funding was for the position of Health Advocate. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Board of Health consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Liquor Licensing Authority to consider the following matters.

LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MANAGER’S REGISTRATION FOR EMJ SQUAW PASS D.B.A. ECHO MOUNTAIN PARK: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE FOR EMJ SQUAW PASS D.B.A. ECHO MOUNTAIN PARK: In attendance were Paralegal Nanette Reimer, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, and Echo Mountain Park representatives Mark Pettit and Cindy Dady. Paralegal Nanette Reimer made the following presentation:  Echo Mountain Park was first requesting the Board give approval for Mark Petitt to be the new Indoor Operations Manager for Echo Mountain, and they have submitted the proper paperwork for this purpose. Mr. Petitt was fingerprinted and the results of his background check from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were attached. No criminal history was found for Mr. Petitt.

There was no public comment. Commissioner Dale made th emotion to approve the manager’s registration for Echo Mountain Park, EMJ Squaw Pass. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the liquor license renewal, Nanette Reimer made the following statements:  EMJ Squaw Pass, LLC, d.b.a. Echo Mountain Park, had submitted its application to renew their liquor license. EMJ Squaw Pass LLC had paid all fees associated with this application. The property was posted for the statutory 10 days prior to Wednesday’s public hearing.  The license expired on March 26, 3010. Under the Colorado Liquor Code a licensee can legally operate under an expired license while its renewal application was pending with the local licensing authority, as long as the application and proper fees were submitted prior to the expiration date of the license. The renewal application and associated fees were submitted to the County Attorney’s office prior to the expiration date of the license. The Local Licensing Authority had 90 days past the expiration date, or until June 24, 2010 to approve or deny this renewal application.  The Planning Department, the Health Department and the Sheriff’s office had all given their approval for renewal of the liquor license for Echo Mountain Park.  No comments were received from the Building Department.  The Environmental Health Department had previously approved this license with restrictions which shall remain in place upon approval of this renewal.  Echo Mountain Park wanted to reduce their monitoring of wastewater to just once a week as there were no weekend events over the summer. Mr. Loeffler had agreed. Mr. Loeffler recommended language changes to reflect the once a week monitoring beginning at the end of their ski season and end when ski season reopens. He also recommended that Echo Mountain Park would report their usage whenever they had special events between closing and opening days. Cindy Dady reported they had 10 weddings on reservation for this summer. She would measure the usage weekly.

There was no public comment. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the renewal of the tavern liquor license for Echo Mountain Park with the change to monitoring once a week during the off season. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Liquor Licensing Authority then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR PHASE III, COURTHOUSE REMODEL: This hearing was canceled.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR OLD SQUAW PASS ROAD PROJECT: Public Works Division Director Tim Allen presented. In attendance was Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Tim Allen made the following statements:  He followed the competitive process and Tom Breslin was a part of the selection committee.  Tim Allen recommended Baseline Engineering for this contract.  The engineering should be completed this summer and work to begin in August.

There was no public comment. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Contract for Engineering Services with Baseline Engineering for Old Squaw Pass Road project. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-45, RESOLUTION TO DECLARE MAY AS MENTAL HEALTH MONTH IN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: In attendance were Jefferson Center for Mental Health Regional Manager Tom Henry, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, resident Ed Rapp, and Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken. Tom Henry made the following statements:  He thanked the Board for their proclamation of May as Mental Health Month in Clear Creek County.  He appreciated their support as they tried to make a difference in this county.  The intakes were on the rise in Clear Creek County but not as much as Jefferson County.  Jim Reeves’, therapist in Idaho Springs, caseload had increased 15% over the past year and they had doubled their number in the service area.  March was a record month for Jefferson Center for Mental Health. With the unemployment numbers, anxiety and depression were on the rise.  Jefferson Center for Mental Health had two counselors at the schools.

Cindy Dicken agreed with the increase in numbers. She stated that Tom Henry had a special understanding for the mountain communities. Recently, there had been an increase in suicides and Jefferson Center for Mental Health came in to do some training and outreach. Commissioner Dale asked if residents knew about Jefferson Center for Mental Health services. Tom Henry replied they alerted the residents in a number of ways. They had a senior outreach program and provided services for the homebound too. Jefferson Center for Mental Health was currently working on services for veterans.

Cindy Dicken noted that Jo Ann Sorensen was now the county’s representative on the Jefferson Center for Mental Health Board of Directors. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #10-45, Resolution approving May as Mental Health Month in Clear Creek County. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Drury made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f); and regarding litigation as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Drury stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES -MAY 12, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 12, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Drury was absent.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CREICO AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FOR RAFTING BUS PARKING: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EDUCATION PAYBACK AGREEMENT FOR GARY EHRHARDT: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND MOUNT EVANS HOSPICE: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LAND USE FEE WAIVERS FOR CLEAR CREEK FIRE AUTHORITY, 681 COUNTY ROAD #308: In attendance were Sheriff Don Krueger, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Land Use Secretary Cyndie Ruschmyer, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Planner II Holland Smith, IT Division Director Matt Taylor, and Noxious Weed Supervisor Ted Brown. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

JAIL INSPECTION: This inspection was canceled.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding municipal subsidies, medical marijuana, and Guanella Pass rockslide as allowed by CRS 24-6- 402(4)(b); regarding personnel matters and the retirement plan as allowed by CRS 24- 6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #10-49, Mosch, Turkey Gulch: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Al Mosch attended the hearing. Diane Settle stated the mining claim was located above the frontage road and was very steep. It was valued at $8010 and she now recommended it at $200/acre. Al Mosch agreed stating he bought it from some folks because it adjoined his other properties. Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of $200/acre. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-43, Phipps, Saddleback Mountain: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. Phipps attended via speakerphone. Diane Settle explained that Mr. Phipps questioned why his taxes were more than his neighbors. Diane Settle reported the neighbors taxes did increase a year after Mr. Phipps’ did because they had built a house. Diane Settle recommended taking Mr. Phipps’ valuation from $1.7 million to $1.3 million. Diane Settle was adjusting the entire neighborhood. Mr. Phipps believed his value was still high considering current economic times. Commissioner O'Malley agreed and said this economic downturn would be reflected in the coming assessment period. Mr. Phipps understood the outcome. Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to adjust the value to $1.3 million. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-48, McFarland, York Gulch: Commissioner Dale made the motion to continue the abatement for McFarland to May 26, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. CONTINUED EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to continue the prior discussion. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES -MAY 19, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 19, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-57, RESOLUTION TO AMEND COMPENSATION PLAN FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES (EXCLUDING SHERIFF’S OFFICE EMPLOYEES): 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-56, RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AMBULANCE FEES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION #09- 165: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATIVE NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND TOWN OF EMPIRE: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH VICKI HAAKES: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR REVIEW APPRAISAL BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND DENNIS DEVORE: In attendance Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Public Health Educator Linda Trenbeath, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Noxious Weed Supervisor Ted Brown, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TRANSITIONAL FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR STEPP WITH COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: In attendance were Public Health Educator Linda Trenbeath, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Board of Health consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding code enforcement as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MINUTES -MAY 26, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 26, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 3, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SECURITY ACCESS PROPOSAL FROM ROCKWEST TECHNOLOGY GROUP: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATIVE NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CITY OF IDAHO SPRINGS: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATIVE NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND TOWN OF GEORGETOWN: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATIVE NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND TOWN OF SILVER PLUME: In attendance were residents Mike Heidorn, Tom McFarland, Jacqueline Voss, County Assessor Diane Settle, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, resident Jeff Ludwig, and Chief Accountant Carl Small. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Drury expressed her happiness that the noxious weed management plans were finally complete with all the municipalities. She commended Ted Brown on his perseverance.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter:

BOARD OF HEALTH: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY FUNDING: In attendance were residents Mike Heidorn, Tom McFarland, Jacqueline Voss, County Assessor Diane Settle, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, resident Jeff Ludwig, and Chief Accountant Carl Small. Aaron Kissler stated there were no clients in the county with traumatic brain injury but if a case developed, this funding would assist them. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Health Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #10-50, Heidorn, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mike Heidorn attended the hearing. Diane Settle recommended adjusting the adjacent vacant lot to residential as the Heidorn family used it with their home property. Mr. Heidorn agreed. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of reclassifying the lot to residential. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-48, McFarland, York Gulch: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Tom McFarland attended the hearing. Diane Settle stated a portion of this mining claim was in Gilpin County of which Mr. McFarland didn’t own. The portion in Clear Creek County was most likely not buildable so she recommended a value at $200/acre for 2008 and 2009. Mr. McFarland agreed. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of $200/acre. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-51, Voss, Idaho Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Jacqueline Voss attended the hearing. Diane Settle stated this property increased in value because of the remodel done to the back of the building. There was a residence in the back of the store and the shop in the front. Ms. Voss disagreed stating the value went up too much, 35%. Diane Settle was recommending a small adjustment in value from $320,100 to $300,000. She had the property valued at 50/50, residential/commercial. Ms. Voss noted the commercial portion was only 1000 sq. ft. So, 1400 sq. ft. was residential. Diane Settle replied this would adjust the value more for Ms. Voss since most of the property was residential. Diane Settle would review the numbers based on the new split of residential and commercial and present a new value.

Commissioner Dale attended the hearing.

Diane Settle recommended a 56% residential and 44% commercial split. Ms. Voss agreed. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to adjust the split in residential/commercial value and submit the new value. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-53, Ludwig, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Jeffry Ludwig attended the hearing. Diane Settle recommended that Mr. Ludwig’s adjacent vacant lot to his home be reclassified to residential as he used it with his home. Mr. Ludwig agreed. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to reclassify the parcel as residential. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10=52, Yard, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Yard group. Diane Settle recommended reclassifying the adjacent vacant lot as residential as it was used residentially with the Yard home. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to reclassify the parcel as residential. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-54, Hair, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Hair group. Diane Settle recommended adjusting this parcel based on the condition of the house at the time of sale. She recommended adjusting the value from $238,900 to $142,000 for 2009. The owner was working to improve the home so the value would increase. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation to adjust the value to $142,000. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-55, Colburn, Pine Valley Estates: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Colburn group. Diane Settle recommended adjusting the value of this home from $845,380 to $775,000 based on the wide range of comparable sales and the length of time the home had been on the market. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of $775,000 as the value of this property. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.  CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER FOR SEMA CONSTRUCTION FOR ALVARADO ROAD: Public Works Division Director Tim Allen presented. Tim Allen requested change orders be approved for this project which included:  Moving of fences, addition of fences, moving of culverts;  Design changes for utilities;  Agreements made to obtain easements;  Culvert outlet change;  Delays in the project creating extra expenses to supervisors and project managers;  One credit of $7000.  Total change orders totaled in $74,206.51.

Tim Allen reported as soon as Qwest completed moving their utilities, SEMA Construction could begin paving the road. It would be a six week construction period. The pre-construction meeting was on June 1, 2010. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the change orders with SEMA Construction for $74,206.51. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding public hearings and conflicts as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); real estate matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); and personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT CASE #CLA-2009-0002, FOR ECLIPSE SNOW PARK LLC: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-35, 1041 CASE #SI-2010- 0001, FOR ECLIPSE SNOW PARK LLC: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-36, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS CASE #DR-2009-0002, FOR ECLIPSE SNOW PARK LLC: Planner II Trent Hyatt presented. In attendance were Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Sheriff Don Krueger, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Planner I Adam Springer, Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Director Peggy Stokstad, residents Karl Schell, Bill Arnold, Steve Axtell, Lou Walker, Julie Westland, Jason Pavlovic, Bruce Wolken, Mary Ann Wolken, , Jeff Kellner, Todd Wilderman, Donna Kline, Mark Kline, Bill Clark, Marshall Ulrich, Heather Ulrich, County Engineer Jenny Riley, resident Jim White, Eve & Tony Godzak, John Wood, Rich Galmish, George & Nickee Anado, Paulette Crisman, Jim Schaitel, Peter Prutch, Tim Wheeler, Terry Hebebrand, Mari Matson, John Matson, Greg Dighero, Lori Dighero, Omer Humble, Phlip Roy, Howard Beal, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Land Use Secretary Jan Patterson, residents Randy Dorcey, Franci Dorcey, Roger Kaufhold, Tom Wilson, Jim McKenna, Bob & Diane Smith, Brett Hochmuth, Sandra Goflt, George Aunte, Shirley Nash, Leo McFadden, Dan Dalpes, Mark Petitt, Cindy Dady, Don Bucher, Anne Morgan, Jan & Bart Ziman, Kathy Hager, Andy Dees, Jan Wood, Dan & Peech Keller, Marion & Clyde Anderson, Erin & Paul Johnson, Linda Feidler, Russ Van Duyn, Marisol Terrer, Steve Schultz, Kay Axtell, Melissa Mannix, Glenn & Sarah Clark, Melvin Opel, Sandra Goff, Craig Abrahamson, and Tim Hamid.

Commissioner O'Malley called the meeting order to consider the Development Review Process case #DR-2009-0001, Combination of Lots Agreement Case #CLA-2009-0002, and Areas and Activities of State Interest 1041 permit Case #SI-2010-0001, and the discussion of creation of vested property rights as a part of the Development Review Process case.

Commissioner O'Malley introduced the people at the table with the Board of County Commissioners which included County Administrator Tom Breslin, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Planner II Trent Hyatt, and Transportation Consultant Chris Sheffer. The Board would open and consider each of the three hearings individually. The first hearing to consider would be the Development Review case and vested rights, then the 1041 case and finally the Combination of Lots Agreement case. A case or two may be completed tonight or possibly no cases will be completed. The county only had use of the building until 10:00 p.m. He expected this hearing would continue until June 16, 2010.

Commissioner O'Malley explained how the process would go with the staff presentation, applicant presentation, questions of staff and applicant, public comment, deliberations, and a decision. As many people probably wanted to speak, there were time limits. For the Development Review Process, the Board would allow four minutes per speaker. For the 1041 and Combination of Lots Agreement cases, the Board would allow three minutes per speaker. Formal homeowners associations and referral agencies would be allowed up to ten minutes. Commissioner O'Malley asked that folks not be redundant in their comments but to state they agree with another speaker.

If a speaker had time donated to them by another person, this would be allowed.

Regarding speakers, Commissioner O'Malley understood folks were passionate about their opinion of this project but he asked folks to keep their remarks from being personal and no heckling, applauding, etc. In their own way, everyone here was trying to see Clear Creek County either stay or become the place they felt was best.

Anyone submitting documents should present them to Deputy Clerk & Recorder Beth Luther to be included in the record.

Regarding Steve Schultz’s question on allowing speakers to give their time to another speaker, Commissioner O'Malley stated the Board would allow this at this hearing. The Board wanted to make sure everyone had the opportunity to speak.

Trent Hyatt made the following presentation:  He opened the hearing with the consideration of development review case #DR- 2009-0001 which included the vested rights.  This meeting followed the approval of the 2007 rezoning of the subject property Commercial-Outdoor Recreation (COR). The rezoning was outlined in Resolution #07-154 which outlined certain considerations for the use of the property as a ski/snowboard facility. The Board accepted this Resolution as Exhibit #1 into the record.  The Planning Commission heard the Eclipse Snow Park Development Review Process case and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners via Planning Commission Resolution #10-04. The Board accepted the Planning Commission Resolution #10-04 as Exhibit #2 into the record.  Trent Hyatt presented two proofs of publication for the public notice of tonight’s meeting. The Board accepted these two proofs as Exhibits #3 and #4 into the record.  Trent Hyatt presented the development review application to the Board and it was also available on the county website. The Board accepted this application as Exhibit #5 into the record.  He directed the meeting to the applicant's presentation.

Michael Coors made the following statements:  He thanked the Board for the hearing and the Planning staff for investing all their work in this application.  It was two years ago he was in front of the Board and the Board had given him clear directive to bring something concrete to the community.  He was very proud of the project he was presenting and they had done their best to embody what they believed would fit with the community.  He had hired a staff of experts to assist with the project and answer questions.  He introduced Kent Sharp of the SC Group for the remainder of the application. Kent Sharp of the SE Group made the following presentation for the applicant:  SC Group was based in Frisco Colorado.  He thanked the Board for the opportunity to present and he thanked Trent Hyatt and Frederick Rollenhagen for their efforts in this process thus far.  They had a great team of consultants for this project.  He introduced David Leahy, TDA Colorado, who was their traffic engineer, Kelly Culver from Western Bionomics, Metcalf Archaeology (who was absent this hearing) who assisted with cultural and heritage resources, Pearson Engineering, Greg Pearson who was the project civil engineer, Geonomics Geotechnical Engineering (who was absent this hearing) but did the geotechnical and avalanche land stability issues for the project, Kennedy Advisors, a mountain resort economist that completed the economic work, and Andy Spielman and Tony Ryan with Hogan and Lovells Law Firm in Denver.  His presentation was via PowerPoint with the following information. The Board accepted the applicants PowerPoint presentation as Exhibit 6 into the record.  SC Group had a 52 year history in mountain resort planning and had done resort planning all over the world. They had worked for all but two of the 26 ski areas in Colorado.  He introduced Travis Beck of the SC Group who would speak on a portion of the project later.  At the last hearing with the Board of County Commissioners, the Board allowed them the rezoning with conditions. The Board had granted them a challenge. The applicant had to work with the physical constraints of the resources, land, neighborhood, etc to try and make this proposal fit with the neighborhood. He had a great presentation for the Board this evening.  Eclipse Snow Park was happy the Planning Commission granted the recommendation of approval for this proposal as well.  The goal was to reopen and reinvigorate the historic ski area where St. Mary’s and Alice communities were formed around. It was interesting that the ski area predated all of the development in the area, with the exception of mining.  The Clear Creek County 2030 Master Plan encouraged residential and recreational uses at the north end of Fall River Road near the glacier. The Eclipse Snow Park team had completed studies, analysis, and inventories since the rezoning approval. In February of 2009 they held an open house in Alice to give a better understanding of the project to the neighbors. They had 67 attendees that signed a comment card indicating their preference about the project. At that time, 60 of them were in favor, five were opposed and two were undecided. Some of those in support had previously been in opposition. The applicant believed they had done a good job in listening to the comments of the community and addressing them with the scaled down version of the proposal  One comment card discussed the support of the scaled down proposal as it was low impact on the land, the road and the community. It would provide jobs and social opportunities.  In March of 2009 the applicant met with 19 local businesses in Idaho Springs to share the details of their proposal and obtain their input. The comments from these meetings were included in the application appendix.  The project had many benefits to the community including jobs, economic stimulus, and a net positive revenue to the county. It provided renewed recreational offering, a social gathering place for the community, and made safety improvements to Fall River Road.  Following the rezoning approval, the Eclipse Snow Park team met to evaluate the future vision of the project, for the land, and to determine the recreational opportunities.  The resulting vision was a family oriented, day use, learn to ski opportunity.  A few years ago, the vision was for a snow park for folks in their early 20’s or teens. This concept died a few years ago and was not the current proposal. He wanted to be clear that the proposal had definitely changed.  The new proposal was a learn to ski snow play market seeking quiet, uncrowded, no hassle, low stress opportunity for families and those learning to ski. This was a feeder ski area where folks learn to ski before they go to the larger mountains.  The project had been scaled to fit within the community and surrounding neighborhood and reinvigorate and reopen the ski area that used to be there.  They researched the topography of the site including wells, streams, cultural and historical resources, and the constraints of the road access.  This project proposed 50 guests on an average weekday and 100 on an average weekend with 300 maximum people on a busy day. This was clearly a small, low scale ski area.  The Eclipse Snow Park proposal was fully consistent with Clear Creek County land use regulations and fit perfect into the Commercial-Outdoor Recreation zoning, which was created for this project.  The applicant had complied with the 1041 regulations and Planning Commission had reviewed this detail.  For the project, they proposed 10.5 acres of beginner learn to ski terrain. Loveland current provided 1570 acres. Echo Mountain Park provided 85 acres of terrain.  Regarding lifts, they proposed a couple small lifts and two conveyor-styled teaching carpets.  They proposed a 420 square foot day lodge, small maintenance building, three parking lots covering 88 spaces, and a community-oriented learn to ski area with no more than 300 guests.  This project did not propose snowmaking, night lighting or night skiing, half pipe, loud music, thousands of people, long lift lines, and no high prices. These types of amenities were provided elsewhere in the state.  He displayed on a schematic of the proposed ski area the terrain, the access, the existing a-frame, the day lodge, the parking, the maintenance shop, the small chair lift, the double chair lift, a service lift, a small bridge over the creek connecting ski areas to the lifts, the conveyor magic carpet lifts, the longest ski run of 1000 feet, and the terrain to be groomed on a daily basis.  In comparison of the new proposal to the old ski area layout, the terrain and lift locations were almost the same. The topography dictated the design. It sort of was a resurrection of the prior ski area.  The conveyor lifts were on low angled terrain and were about 80-140 feet in length respectively. He displayed a photo of a conveyor lift at another ski area.  He presented photos of a small double chair lift for beginners from A-Basin Ski Area.  Regarding ski area capacity, in the industry it was referred to as comfortable carrying capacity. This assisted with site design at a ski area. It accounted for the uphill capacity of the lifts, the downhill capacity of the trails, surrounding capacity of the support facilities, day lodge, restrooms, toilets, parking spaces, and which people skied on what terrain. Fast skiers had a higher consumption rate and beginner skiers were much slower.  When using these numbers, this facility resulted in a 300 person maximum capacity.  Regarding the day lodge, he presented a rendering looking at it from the slope side. They proposed a deck with fire pit and views of the hill. They proposed solar aspects and a small bridge across the creek to the facility. The day lodge was proposed to be 4270 square feet. It would house skier functions like ticketing, rentals, retail, restrooms, ski school, guest services, restaurant, bar, seating and administrative space.  The building materials were specifically chosen to blend with the surroundings.  Regarding parking, 88 spaces were provided over three parking lots. In working with the county traffic engineering consultant, they were able to confirm adequate parking for 300 guests on a full capacity day. There was enough parking for skiers, skier drop-off, and 17 employees. The main lodge had four handicapped accessible parking space.  Regarding guest amounts, SC Group anticipated Eclipse Snow Park would hit their maximum 300 person days about twelve times a season. The remainder of the season would be lower. All of their planning for this proposal worked around the maximum capacity so even with 50 skiers a day, they were planning for the higher number.  Regarding the maintenance shop, it was proposed at 3500 square feet, indoor bays for working on snow vehicles, fuel storage, oil/water separator for managing in-floor drains to appropriately deal with things which melted off the vehicles.  He displayed an overhead view of the proposed ski area showing the resort, the day lodge, the conveyor lifts, etc to demonstrate a view of the full build out.  He summarized the applicant’s consultant’s proposals.  Regarding the traffic impact analysis, it was completed by TDA Colorado and David Leahy, who had over 30 years experience in traffic transportation particularly geared toward mountain and resort community projects.  The traffic impact study utilized two data sets: one which existed from July 2006 and the extensive data from March/April of 2007 (ten consecutive days to represent peak ski times). There had been data presented in the past from December 2006/January 2007, but it was found suspect due to a winter snowstorm so that data was thrown out.  Two primary issues were considered in the traffic analysis: capacity and safety. Regarding capacity, this was the big issue at the Eclipse Snow Park rezoning hearings. Many models were used to look at the design capacity of Fall River Road. These were eliminated as the county had determined the capacity should be 2000 vehicles per day. County Planning Staff did retain an outside traffic consultant to represent the county and review the applicant’s work from TDA Colorado. The county’s traffic consultant was present to answer questions.  The applicant’s traffic study showed there were no capacity issues with the road related to this project. He displayed the comparison of the capacity maximum with the Eclipse Snow Park proposed traffic given the winter data, and the summer data. Existing winter weekday data showed just over 1000 vehicles per day. The existing winter weekend day showed 900 vehicles per day. Projected with Eclipse Snow Park would increase the weekday traffic by 300 vehicles per day. It was a coincidence that the maximum person capacity for the ski area was 300 and the additional vehicles per day on a weekday was 300. It just worked out this way.  Existing vehicles per day on a weekend were lower than the weekday projections. The highest traffic year round occurred on summer week days. The corollary was that the lowest current volumes occurred on a winter weekend day which was the when the bulk of the Eclipse Snow Park usage would be.  Eclipse Snow Park did project their vehicle trips per day out to year 2030 to account for the assumption of development of surrounding home sites and the generation of traffic. Even 20 years from now with the Eclipse Snow Park, and with the additional development in the community, the traffic volumes would still be under 2000 vehicles per day.  He displayed the 2030 weekend day without Eclipse Snow Park where it reached 1500 vehicles per day. In 2030, with Eclipse Snow Park, the weekday vehicle trips per day increased to 1700. In 2030, on a weekend day, with Eclipse Snow Park, the number climbed to slightly over 1600 vehicle trips per day. The road had substantially more traffic in the summer than in the winter.  Using a year round average of 1200 vehicles per day, and considering the Eclipse Snow Park proposal, the ski area would account fro 3.5% of the average annual traffic on the road.  Eclipse Snow Park’s discussion with the county’s traffic consultant focused on how to improve safety aspects of Fall River Road. The applicant was committed to doing mitigation projects on the road as recommended by both TDA and the county’s consultant.  The identified traffic concerns were opposing traffic flows. Residential traffic traveled downhill in the morning and uphill at night. Skier traffic would travel the opposite.  The mitigations proposed were the centerline rumble strips and the guardrail installations along sections of Fall River Road, particularly on the switchbacks.  The second concern was the potential for on road, overflow parking. The applicant believed their parking plan was adequate for the project design.  Regarding signage on Fall River Road and I-70, a plan was submitted to have signage and/or an attendant at this intersection to alert folks if the ski area was full. This attendant could turn folks away and invite them to Eclipse Snow Park another day if the ski area was full. Eclipse Snow Park did not want to generate traffic on the road by sending people up to the ski area, only to turn them back around, if the ski area was already full.  Regarding road maintenance and snow plowing, discussions were made about giving 1% of ticket sales to be contributed to Road & Bridge and Emergency Services. There was also a proposed guardrail installation along a critical section above the switchback. With the proposed safety mitigations, Fall River Road would be safer than it was today. These safety improvements would also be extended to the summer motorists as well.  Regarding the wildlife findings from Kelly Culver and Western Bionomics, they had been active in the ski industry analyzing ski area related impacts to wildlife for many years. The project would not impact production ranges for elk, mule deer, or bighorn sheep. This included the production range for the bighorn sheep and the lambing issue which staff came up with during the rezoning hearing.  The impacts to the lakes would be insignificant per the Endangered Species Act. There were no impacts to other threatened or endangered plant or animal species. There were no effects on hydrology or water quality or trout.  There were no rare or special status plants or wildlife found in this area and the Division of Wildlife concerns were addressed.  Regarding the watershed, Greg Pearson, the applicant’s civil engineer and senior hydrologist had reviewed the proposal. There were seven planned detention basins within the project design. They would contain and capture all runoff. Staff had recommended the replacement of a downstream culvert and the applicant would comply with this request.  Regarding drainage plans in the staff report, the applicant’s plans were reviewed by Site Development and found adequate.  Regarding community benefits, the applicant had an economic analysis completed by the Kennedy Advisor Group from New England.  Regarding the job potential of this proposal, the data presented by the applicant was in terms of FTE’s or full time equivalent. One FTE equaled one full time person for a period of one year. Two people working half time for one year would also equal one FTE.  He presented job information in terms of three main groups: the first year with construction activities which continued into years 2-6. By the end of year 6, most of the construction would be complete. Following construction would be normal ski operations. The first year would generate 25 FTE. During the initial six year period, there would be 116 cumulative FTE. Following construction, the FTE’s would drop to 20.  Regarding economic stimulus, the applicant’s economist ran a complex model called Implant to project consequences to the county should Eclipse Snow Park be approved. In the first year, Eclipse Snow Park would generate $2.4 million in local economic stimulus. This included park construction, the spending of employees, employee expenses such as rent and groceries, etc.  For the initial six year period, the model reflected $8.6 million of local economic stimulus. Following construction, the regular operations would generate $1.3 million per year in economic stimulus. It also reflected for each $1 spent at Eclipse Snow Park would equal $2.83 to other local businesses.  Regarding the impacts on county services and revenues, revenues came from sales tax, lodging tax, property tax and the 1% ticket sale contribution. During the first year, county revenues would be $33,000 and the six year period would total $250,000. At normal operations after construction, county revenues would return to $48,888 per season. This did not include the numbers mentioned in the economic stimulus piece.  The applicant modeled cost of services which included the cost of Emergency Services related items. The first year would cost approximately $14,000, and it would total $110,000 during the initial six year period. Following construction, the costs would return to $21,000 annually.  When calculating the county revenues to the cost of services, this resulted in a net positive to the county of $18,000 for the first year. The six year period resulted in a $139,000 net positive. Following construction, the normal operations would result in a net positive of $27,000 annually.  Kent Sharp stated the proposal would provide renewed recreation to the county and its youth. This would be an uncrowded experience before moving on to the larger mountains. In reviewing the numbers, one didn’t have to create a place for a lot of people in order to make this successful. This was an opportunity to pull some of the travelers off of I-70 and have them experience Clear Creek County.  For families with small children, this was an opportunity to teach them how to ski without all the stress of the larger mountains.  At the open house held by the applicant, many residents discussed how this project would create a gathering place for them in their community. It also provided a space for folks to enjoy a meal or watch a game. The lodge could also be used for a community meeting place.  Regarding tangible safety improvements to the road, guardrails were proposed in certain areas, and centerline rumble strips if so desired. He understood from the Planning Commission hearing that many residents did not want the centerline rumble strips. The applicant was ready to install or not install them at the Board’s request.  Regarding vested rights, given the time it would take to construct the project and the short construction season at St. Mary’s the applicant was requesting that the statutory three year period be extended to five years.  Kent Sharp hoped this presentation was helpful and the Eclipse Snow Park team was excited about it. The applicant believed they had addressed the concerns presented at the Planning Commission and rezoning hearings as well as those heard from staff. They had worked hard at creating a neighborhood scale proposal.  There would be opponents who would try to convince the Board about the unacceptable impacts e.g. the road congestion, the degradation of the neighborhood, etc but the applicant did not believe them to be true.  The applicant believed this project provided opportunity for Clear Creek County and captured travelers from I-70. The project offered employment opportunities for local residents and renewed recreation for families. It also provided long overdue road improvements to Fall River Road.  The proposal also embodied the Clear Creek County visitor logo of “Drive Less, Play More.”  He thanked the Board for their patience and the applicant’s team was prepared to answer questions.

Commissioner Drury asked if Fall Rive Road were closed due to an emergency, and people were stranded at the ski area, was the applicant prepared to shelter some 300 people with food, water and medical needs? Kent Sharp replied that he did not speak about this issue. He explained that other county benefits recommended by planning staff as well as Emergency Services; the lift ticket revenue sharing would provide dollars to Road & Bridge for assistance with snowplowing and to Emergency Services with regard to the sheltering. The day lodge had the capacity to shelter this many people, and hosted food/beverage facilities and restrooms. The maintenance shop was 3500 square feet and could also be used as an additional shelter. The applicant also envisioned the ski area as a search and rescue base for area operations in the community, e.g. James Peak Wilderness or the glacier. The parking lots could be used as a helipad for rescues as well.

Commissioner O'Malley stated the property was listed as 180 acres but the ski area only as 12 acres. Why? Kent Sharp replied the skiing terrain ended up at 10.5 acres and the applicant owned 180 acres of total private land. It extended to the ridgelines but was fragmented by Forest Service parcels. Even though the applicant owned 180 acres in the general basin, the contiguous area for the ski terrain was smaller.

Commissioner O'Malley asked why the change in focus from a young people’s park to a family park. Kent Sharp replied that mostly, it was about terrain. Michael Coors interjected that part of it was listening to the community. The community had pushed back at his original proposal and he had listened. He noted he had grown up a little as well. Commissioner O'Malley asked about plans for summer usage. Kent Sharp replied they had discussed keeping the food service open primarily for catering to locals if the business warranted keeping it open. They had also considered serving folks visiting the glacier and catering to weddings.

Commissioner O'Malley asked about the costs Sharp mentioned. Where did they come from? Kent Sharp replied they worked with the economist that used the Implant model which considered county parameters and costing factors.

Commissioner O'Malley asked Mr. Loeffler about exactly how the vesting rights would work for this project. Mr. Loeffler replied vesting was complicated. The project would begin in a material way and this would begin the vesting period.

Following the rezoning hearing, Commissioner Drury mentioned hearing about the Forest Service land swap. Was this no longer happening? Kent Sharp replied it was still in the discussion with the Forest Service but the applicant had not met with them in over a year. Commissioner Drury asked if the Forest Service swap were accomplished, how would the county be assured the ski area would not expand beyond its 10.5 acres. Andy Spielman stated any additional use of the private property outside of this mentioned 12 acres at this hearing would require the process to begin again with the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for subsequent approvals.

Commissioner O'Malley asked about the rules and regulations for Development Review Case and when they were triggered. Mr. Loeffler replied the Development Review Case was triggered when a proposal had building construction in excess of 10,000 square feet and hence, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners review. If the construction were only at 5000 square feet, it would be reviewed by planning staff. Vehicle trips generated at more than 280 would bring the case to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for review. Vehicle trips at 180 would be reviewed by the planning staff. Certain sized site disturbances would also bring the case to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner O'Malley noted with any significant expansion of the ski area, the Development Review Case would be triggered.

Trent Hyatt entered additional items into the record.  This meeting was originally to be held at the Georgetown Community Center but was moved to this location. He presented photos of the changed locational signs posted at the Georgetown Community Center as an exhibit. The Board accepted this as Exhibit 7 into the record.  Trent Hyatt also presented some additional emails sent to the Board as public comment. The Board accepted these items into the record collectively as exhibit 8.  Trent Hyatt presented additional correspondence received after the Board packets were submitted to be entered into the record. The Board accepted these items as exhibit #9.  Section 28 outlined the purpose of the Development Review Case application. The general purpose of the resolution was to ensure the development which was responsible to both the surrounding environment and the changing needs of the community. The development will accomplish this through the use of building form materials which were derived from the mountain environment. The application must also be responsive to the needs and climate of the county.  The property was rezoned by the Board of County Commissioners on January 31, 2007 to Commercial-Outdoor Recreation for a ski and snowboard park. The property was again rezoned on December 12, 2007 in response to an impending order from Clear Creek County district court case number 2007 CV 134 which invalidated the original rezoning.  Referral agencies were notified of this application on May 18, 2009; March 25, 2010 and on May 11, 2010. Notice was placed in the Clear Creek Courant on March 31, 2010 and May 12, 2010. Responses were attached to the Board packet as items E and F.  Regarding the responses received, Trent Hyatt reviewed them starting with the adjacent property owners: Iran Emeson responded with no conflicts and supported the proposal; Anna and Don Preston responded with no conflicts and supported the proposal. Dora & Sergio Aradillas responded recommending no mountain wide music and dimmed lighting for any night time recreation. They submitted an additional response which asked how the developer would limit or prevent the number of skiers, night skiing and mountain wide music. They also asked why restrooms were not provided in the maintenance shed.  Lillian Churches and Robert Mares responded with no conflicts. Henry Debooy responded with no conflicts. Camelia Marinescue and Ion Iugo responded with no conflicts. Frank Strazzabosco responded with no conflicts and supported the proposal.  Therese and Raul Barela responded with no conflicts. Orlando Lara responded with no conflicts and then submitted an additional response supporting the application. Jeff Kellner and Diane Holum responded with no conflicts. Gregory Romero responded with no conflicts.  Terry Laudick responded with concern over driving conditions on Ebert Hill and traffic impacts related to Emergency Services. He submitted an additional response discussing the number of skiers allowed at the area and the quality of life degradation to the area.  Barbara Vetter and John and Jan Wood responded with no conflicts and supported the application. David McConnellogue and Katherine Anne Bachman responded with no conflicts.  Linda and Ed Riedel responded with concerns over disturbances and private property rights violations associated with visitors near the glacier. They suggested a fee to maintain and control the glacier hike and that this area was not intended for the population of a ski area.  Betsy Berarducci responded with concerns over the Combination of Lots Agreement and development of the acreage, snowmaking, lift ticket sales, vested rights, future expansion, reclamation, and access to the James Peak Wilderness Area.  Thomas Austin Estate, Philip Roy, Tim Wheeler and Mildred Verbeck all responded with no conflicts. Philip Roy and Tim Wheeler supported the proposal.  Michael Boyd did not object to the development but submitted concerns with noise, traffic, screening of maintenance building, and the lack of water and sanitation at the maintenance building.  Jean and Donald Saum had no conflicts and supported the proposal.  Don Bucher responded with concerns for noise, light, traffic, and reduction in development size since the rezoning hearing. He recommended no snowmaking, a daily lift ticket limit of 300, grooming curfew of 7:00 p.m. and no outdoor speakers. He also opposed the Combination of Lots Agreement as proposed.  Marshal Ulrich outlined concerns with regard to winter traffic counts, number of parking spaces, and lack of info regarding long term development plan.  Dawn and Eric Werner and Melvin Opel indicated no conflicts and were in support of the proposal.  Omer Humble requested denial of the proposal with concerns for traffic, the 2000 average-daily-trips design capacity for Fall River Road, the applicant not improving the road to a higher standard, switchbacks, steep grades, no school bus service and aggressive driving. He submitted an additional response stating concerns regarding water, economic impact, project need or necessity, zoning regulations, the County Master Plan and emergency preparedness. Gloria and John Hernandez and Ann-Margaret & Patrick Manyak outlined no conflicts.  Jan Ziman stated concerns of the Combination of Lots Agreement, the Forest Service land exchange, vested rights, economic impacts, need for the project, traffic issues with Fall River Road, technical issues with the traffic report, signage, parking burden on county services, water supply, environmental impacts, geologic hazards, Master Plan 2030, nuisances, and public health and safety. Thirty nine members of the public signed Jan Ziman’s comments in opposition.  Randy Juentopp responded with no conflicts and was in support of the application.  Pat Tracy responded with concerns over the increased traffic and condition of Fall River Road with the winter driving conditions.  Sue Wilson, Nancy Wong-Bull and Ian Bull, the Joe Craven Family, and Reba Bechtel indicated no conflicts with the proposal. The Bulls, Cravens and Ms. Bechtel were in support of the proposal.  Andrew Evans and Timothy Zuroski indicated no conflicts with the proposal. Michelle and William Petitt were in support of the proposal. Max Brinker desired no parking along Fall River Road or in St. Mary’s.  Ken Fredricks, Mari & John Matson were in support of the project. Linda Patton had no conflicts with the proposal. Tom Wilson was in support of the proposal due to its reuse of the property, its aid to businesses in the county and diversification of the county tax base.  Andy Dees indicated support based on its use of the property, addressing public concern and support of the master plan.  Clyde Anderson was in opposition due to conflicts with the county master plan.  Helen and George Hill had no conflicts with the proposal.  Susan West was in opposition because of Fall River Road safety issues.  Pamela and David Thomas were in opposition due to Fall Rive Road safety issues, impacts to the environment and impacts to county services.  Ronald Lane and Charles Black outlined opposition due to Fall River Road Safety issues.  Mark Kline was in opposition due to manipulation of the statistics, traffic counts, exceeding the design of Fall River Road, the full plan not being provided and the economic impact to the taxpayers.  Bart Ziman opposed the application and the outlines in Jan Ziman’s submittal.  Anne Morgan opposed the project.  Shawna and Glen Fancher had no conflicts with the proposal.  The Chrisman family was in opposition due to quality of life impacts.  Linda Feidler opposed the project due to economic impacts to the county, single point of ingress/egress, traffic issues and litter.  Deitra Depraay was in support of the project for its potential to beautify the area.  Erin Johnson recommended approval due to the positive impacts to the community. She also recommended not requiring road improvements prior to the issuance of a building permit. She requested that the snow removal at night should only be required downhill from the project and recommended no removal of roadside trees and no rumble strips.  Paul Johnson recommended approval because of the potential to create new business in the area like lodging.  Daniel Keller opposed the application due to impacts to county services, long term development plans not addressed, rumble strips to mitigate traffic and outlined the traffic impacts were less than they appeared.  Diane and Bob Smith opposed the project because of economic factors, the potential decrease of property values, the existence of Echo Mountain Park, Fall River Road safety issues and noise.  Graham Knight opposed the application due to rumble strips to mitigate traffic, negative tax impacts, and future expansion plans not being addressed. He recommended specific hours of operation, prevention of snowmaking and on mountain music, and the maximum number of skiers should be a condition of approval.  William Arnold outlined opposition as the project did not benefit the community, did not share the entire long term goal, did not conform with the existing residential uses, had no fiscal benefit to the county and would negatively impact the environment.  Peech Keller opposed the project due to concerns with the long term development plan, rumble strips, roadway tree removal, economic impact, impact to county services, and the future Forest Service land exchange.  Debra Arnold was in opposition with concerns for traffic on Fall River Road.  Heather and Marshall Ulrich had concerns regarding the full buildout of the development, the Forest Service land exchange, the Combination of Lots Agreement, the character of the residential neighborhood, environmental impacts, remote area management with regard to the county master plan, Fall River Road traffic and safety issues, emergency response times and evacuation, road maintenance and snow removal, the James Peak Wilderness Area, wildlife impacts, bristlecone pines, noise, lighting and watershed impacts. They submitted an additional response outlining concerns with the 1041 application.  Echo Mountain Park submitted a response stating county ski areas had not seen an increase in skier days of 150%.  Kevin and Jacquie Zegan submitted a response in support.  Regarding referral agencies, Jamie Kavanaugh of the Ambulance Department submitted a response discussing the user fee to offset Emergency Services costs resulting from increased responses.  Sheriff Krueger opposed the proposal for reasons of parking, traffic, switchbacks, hidden driveways, and no means of secondary access which made rescue and evacuation difficult. He submitted an additional response stating he was still in opposition because the issues previously identified were not addressed by the applicant.  Colorado Geologic Survey responded stating Anchor Gulch could flood during heavy storms which would impact the lodge and parking areas. It could also affect some slopes and produce rockfall. Removal of trees could increase this risk. Slope erosion could be associated with the cuts proposed and open pits should be fenced for safety.  The Open Space Commission responded asking the applicant to submit a sustainable management plan which recommended no cutting of bristlecone pines, the local use of cut timber, planting of seedlings to offset tree removal, Division of Wildlife review of wildlife mitigation and long term enforcement, recycling, and accommodation of the sanitary needs of the users of the St. Mary’s area.  The St. Mary’s Water & sanitation District responded with their willingness to provide services within the district boundaries as outlined in the Eclipse Snow Park application.  Colorado State Forest Service Allen Gallamore responded requesting a forest stewardship/management plan to address forest resources. He submitted an additional response requesting the need for the presence of current and future hazard trees in the area or around infrastructure, mitigation needs for summer uses, long term forest health needs and maintenance o the defensible space areas be addressed in this document.  Clear Creek Fire Authority chief Kelly Babeon requested the site plan show a fire hydrant on the property.  Kathleen Krebs of OEM responded recommending a sheltering plan for patrons when Fall River Road was impassable and a fire evaluation plan for summer recreational use.  The Division of Wildlife responded requesting a breeding bird survey in the spring prior to construction, condensing trails and human impact on the property, minimum night skiing and music, use of bear resistant garbage containers, fencing and/or clearing of vegetation near buildings, noxious weed management, minimum use of ice-melt fertilizers, protection of wetlands, and bighorn sheep crossing and/or signage.  The Clear Creek Watershed Foundation responded stating the development was beneficial and sustainable to the economic and social base of the county. It did not have any negative environmental impacts.  The Army Corp of Engineers responded stating a Section 404 permit would be required for work in the wetlands and streams.  The county Building Department, Xcel Energy, and Qwest Corporation had no conflicts with the application.  The Fall River homeowner association responded with concerns regarding health and safety of the county citizens, incompatibility with existing community character and residential uses, erosion of the land values and the county tax base, degradation of natural environment, and that the revenue was not positive or neutral but burdened tax payers.  The Environmental Health Department responded stating the food service would have to receive approval from the county, dry cleaning methods for hazardous waste cleaners, a vault with no outlets was required and vault cleaning may be required by a licensed hazardous waste cleaner. The Planning Department should consult with Bert Weaver regarding compliance with the glacier wastewater utility plan. The applicant should contact Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment regarding the construction of an above ground fuel tank. A additional response was received from Environmental Health Department stating sanitation facilities were required in buildings being used for four hours or more.  The Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation responded welcoming the application because of its use of county natural resources.  SOLVE responded stating the county costs to sustain this development would exceed the expected revenues.  US Fish and Wildlife responded stating the project should not impact the lynx and the removal of vegetation should occur during the fall.  The Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation or state historic preservation officer, outlined no significant effect to a cultural resource located in the project boundary.  An additional response from the Public Works Engineer required the replacement of a 30” culvert downstream from the project along Anchor Gulch and replacing it with a 48” culvert. Outside of this, Road & Bridge was satisfied with the applicant’s drainage plan.  Section 20(g) of the zoning regulations states standards for approval for a Development Review Case application.  Some of these include the project must demonstrate a sufficient water supply. The lodge was located in the St. Mary’s Water and Sanitation District which had committed to supply the inside water at a rate of 30,000 gallons a month. The maintenance building proposed water tanks for fire suppression and inside use. This water would be provided by a private water service and cisterns.  The project must demonstrate legal and physical capability to provide sanitation. The lodge was located within the St. Mary’s Water and Sanitation District for this service. The maintenance building was outside the sanitation district and no restrooms were proposed for this building. There would be an oil and sand separator proposed for floor drainage in the maintenance building.  Avoidance of or mitigation to significant adverse impacts on wildlife habitat: There were recommendations provided by the Division of Wildlife for the developer. The planning staff also supported these recommendations. One being the signage along Fall River Road to identify the bighorn sheep crossing zone at the bottom of Fall River Road. The staff also supported the recommendation of a breeding bird survey in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, to approve nest removals for construction activities from April 1st to July 31st which had to be reviewed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Staff also agreed with the recommendation on minimum use of ice melt and fertilizers when possible on the property.  Avoidance of or mitigation of geologic hazard areas: Geologic hazard areas had been identified on the property and staff recommended mitigation measures. One was to review and implement an avalanche analysis prior to opening, monitoring and ski cutting of steep slope adjacent to the center parking lot, preparation of subsurface geotechnical analysis following a fire to determine rockfall hazards, fencing of any steep prospecting pits which were inside the project boundary.  Avoidance of the 100 year flood plain: This project was located outside this 100 year flood plain.  Practical use of natural assets: The project did utilize a lot of existing terrain in the ski area.  Maintain quality of downstream and subsurface water: No negative impacts were identified to downstream water.  No significant alteration to drainage: county Road & Bridge recommended the culvert replacement on Silver Creek to mitigate this concern.  No significant alteration to existing drainage patters: This was addressed by the Road & Bridge suggested culvert replacement.  Best Management Practices: A financial guarantee would be required prior to issuance of a BMP permit.  Must meet all applicable county rules and regulations: Staff found that the applicant met all conditions and there were recommended conditions of approval to meet the regulations.  Project will not impose an undue burden on public services and infrastructure: Two things were proposed to address the public service concerns. Regarding road maintenance and Emergency Services, 1% of skier ticket sales revenue was recommended with a half percent going to Road & Bridge for maintenance on Fall River Road and a half percent going to Emergency Services for calls they don’t receive revenues on.  Regarding increased illegal parking which currently exists on Fall River Road, the applicant proposed to monitor that parking and implement a parking advisory plan if needed. The applicant also had plans to implement a forest management plan and Staff recommended the revisions by the Colorado State Forest Service.  Regarding the change in traffic patterns and the increase in trip generation, these would not result in excessive congestion or traffic hazards. Fall River Road provided access to the site. The applicant provided a traffic impact study and the county hired a traffic consultant third party to review this study.  Trent Hyatt explained a vehicle trip equaled one trip either in or out of the development; so, one round trip equaled two vehicle trips. The county roadway design construction manual defined one vehicle trip as an average daily traffic so one round trip equaled two average-daily-trips. The numbers in the applicant’s study assumed the comfortable carrying capacity of 300 guests.  In the July 2006 traffic count, it resulted in 1845 vehicle trips on a weekend day. The highest traffic on Fall River Road was seen on a weekend day and this could be attributed to the recreation in the area. There were more summertime guests to this area.  The March/April 2007 counts resulted in higher traffic on a weekday which was 990 vehicle trips. This could be associated with people commuting to work.  The winter 2009 peak estimates were 1020 vehicle trips on a weekday. These counts were taken in 2007 into a 2009 projection.  The applicant expected 300 vehicle trips; 150 in and 150 out on an average day. Of these 176 were passenger cars, 10 were vans, 80 were drop-off/pickups and 34 employees.  Regarding the 2030 projections, on a weekday without Eclipse Snow Park was 1450 vehicle trips. Projected 2030 counts with Eclipse Snow Park were 1750 vehicles per day on a peak day.  The applicant used the same growth factor as the I-70 PEIS which was 1.7% per year.  The county roadway design and construction manual classified Fall river Road as a local access road. This was based on design speed, lane width, shoulder width, grade, etc. The design capacity for a local access road was 2000 average-daily-trips. Count roads were classified at some point in the history under more lenient standards.  2030 projected traffic volumes did not show an increase over 2000 average- daily-trips with 1750 average-daily-trips being the average.  The county roadway design and construction manual addressed roadway improvements when a development was proposed. One requirement was the developer was responsible for the cost of improvements on the affected road to a cost where the maximum was not exceeded. The development had to consider the cumulative traffic volumes based on surrounding land uses and zoning and not just traffic counts.  Trent Hyatt presented a table of what the average-daily-trips would be based on the roadway design and construction manual, given the number of lots which currently existed on Fall River Road. There were approximately 2300 lots which would project an average-daily-trip of over 18,000. It was not typical that these lots would result in that many average-daily-trips. This was because many of the lots in the area were already combined with others, and others had topographical issues. Hence, Eclipse Snow Park would not cause existing or cumulative traffic counts to exceed the 2000 design capacity, so staff believed the applicant was not responsible for improving the road to a higher classification. Nonetheless, mitigation measures were proposed to address the increase in traffic.  Regarding the CDOT referral, The State Highway Access Permit was mailed to the developer and the permit must be signed prior to issuance of the notice to proceed. If the applicant proposed signage in the CDOT right of way, they would need a special use permit for that signage. CDOT also noted they were opposed to overflow parking in their right of way.  Regarding the Road & Bridge referral response, Tim Allen noted certain facts about the road and the increase with the development. He stated the development would significant change the traffic pattern that local users were used to. He stated the mitigation efforts must address the snow removal problems for the hours of operation which extended past the Road & Bridge ability. Tim Allen identified multiple safety concerns including wildlife, curve and narrow segments, slope failure locations, lack of shoulders, no passing zones, tight curve radii, limited sight and stopping distances, hidden driveways, snow drifts, and local drivers tended to use more than the width of their lane.  Tim Allen met with the developer’s traffic engineer and Mr. Sheffer recommended other traffic mitigations. Tim Allen recommended repair of a guardrail at mile post 6.5 through mile 7, after hours snow removal, and a reliable plan to reduce traffic on Fall River Road.  Mitigation measures were proposed to address increased traffic on Fall River Road. These included centerline rumble strips from mile post 0.5 to 8.0 as determined necessary by the sheriff or the public works director for a 10 year period following full buildout. Another measure was guardrail installation at the switchback between mile post 4.8 and 5 and removal of roadside tree hazard. The ongoing maintenance of Fall River Road would receive half the percent of ticket sales.  Planning staff also recommended mitigations which included delineator posts through curving sections of the road from mile post zero to the project site. They recommended a snow and ice removal plan for evening hours from mile post zero to the project site.  All of the costs of mitigation would be borne by Eclipse Snow Park and they should adhere to any requirements from CDOT.  Building design should complement the county heritage and outdoor signage and lighting should comply with zoning regulations.  Staff believed the applicant had addressed the landscaping site plan.  Staff found the proposal in conformance with multiple goals, objectives, and/or intents of the county wide master plan: chapter 2, goals 2-1 and 2-8; chapter 5, economic diversity and vitality, and economic development strategies 4, 9-10, 14-15, 17, 19, and 36; Chapter 6, significant areas; and it discussed the St. Mary’s implementation strategies which were also addressed.  On May 5, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this application. Their discussion included Fall River Road safety and traffic concerns, rumble strips as a safety measure, sanitation for the maintenance building, economic viability of the project, summer use of the facility, building materials, shelter/evaluation of visitors, long term project goals, and drainage.  Planning staff believed that the development review standards had been met and they recommended approval via a draft resolution #R-10-36. A resolution for denial was also attached to the Board’s packet.  He emphasized that the applicant requested vested rights of five years.  Trent Hyatt entered his presentation into the record. The Board accepted the staff PowerPoint report as Exhibit 10 into the record. The Board accepted the paper staff report into the record as Exhibit 11.

Commissioner O'Malley opened public comment and stated there were 41 people desiring to speak. He asked if anyone wanted to donate their time to another person. Kay Axtell donated her time to Omer Humble. Steve Axtell donated his time to Omer Humble. Anne Morgan donated her time to Don Bucher. Donna Kline asked to be added to the public comment list. Mark Petitt, Echo Mountain Park Mark Petitt withdrew stating he signed the wrong list.

Don Bucher, 353 Brook Drive Don Bucher made the following statements:  Following the rezoning hearing, he was convinced that Fall River Road was close to its design capacity. Eclipse Snow Park would have a heavy burden to come forward to Development Review Case with traffic mitigation plans.  Eclipse Snow Park was now here with a pretense that there wasn’t a traffic problem on Fall River Road.  Eclipse Snow Park was asking the audience to forget about the traffic impacts study they submitted with their rezoning application. He stated they used a 1845 summer traffic count and then estimated 74% of that which was 1334 average- daily-trips for an average winter weekend.  Second, Eclipse Snow Park conducted a traffic count during a high profile blizzard, during December 2006 and January 2007 which closed I-70. This was significant. During this time they counted 850 average-daily-trips per day on Fall River Road and this count was not withdrawn during the rezoning. This count was discredited by the Board of County Commissioners but Eclipse Snow Park continued to use it until recently.  Following this, Eclipse Snow Park looked for a lower profile traffic period to count traffic on Fall River Road which was spring break of 2007. During this time, there was a bad spring snowstorm and an ambulance could not respond to a call in St. Mary’s. A lawsuit was filed. It was Saturday, March 23rd, when Eclipse Snow Park started counting traffic on Fall River Road. The IT standard stated if you count traffic during bad weather, you must disclose it. He could not find this disclosure in the Eclipse Snow Park traffic study.  This winter storm started on March 23rd and continued to March 24th. On March 24th, Eclipse Snow Park counted 857 average-daily-trips on Fall River Road. This was still during this spring blizzard.  If the Board found the traffic count in December of 2006/January of 2007 number low, then the traffic count of spring break 2007 was too low as well given the weather conditions. He stated the applicant found the trip generation per household was .191. This assumed that residents served by Fall River Road made less than one round trip per household on Saturday and less than one round trip per household on Sunday. His conclusion was that this count was flawed.  Per Tim Allen’s memo, he stated the low trip generation number per household on Fall River Road indicated to him the spring break data was flawed.  Don Bucher quoted the roadway design and construction manual, section 1.7.2, in determining traffic volumes, the cumulative traffic volumes based on surrounding land uses and approved zoning and not just existing traffic levels should be used. Since this section was highlighted, he believed it was significant.  The applicant’s traffic impact study ignored the first requirement which was to examine surrounding land uses. It was ridiculous to consider a home on every lot. Many lots had been vacant for decades and would continue to be vacant.  The County Assessor informed him that there were 489 households serviced by Fall River Road and 31 of those were condominium units. There was no data on full time vs. part time residents.  The homeowner association stated there were 100 homes below the switchbacks, 12 part-time occupied. The St. Mary’s Water and Sanitation District estimated half the homes or 191 homes were part time occupied.  Per the average-daily-trips numbers and the ITE trip generation, this resulted in a 2027 average-daily-trips which was consistent with the traffic counts done by staff in 2003 and 2006. (Clyde Anderson donated his time to Don Bucher.)  No one could argue the numbers of the households, the type of dwelling units, the ITE trip generation, and the county zoning regulations. This confirmed that Fall River Road was near its full capacity. If the Board accepted the current 2027 count, then the road was over the design capacity. C.H. section 2.5.1.A1A provided that if a road was not in compliance with current standards, then no new development could be approved.  The rumor that if the capacity has already been exceeded then there were no limitations on the developer didn’t work here, or to the county roadway design and construction manual. If the capacity of the road was already exceeded, then no development could be approved. It would irresponsible to put more traffic on a road under these circumstances.  He asked for permanent restrictions on snowmaking and night operations as well as a more meaningful traffic mitigation plan. He stated that the applicant mentioned no snowmaking “at the moment.” These types of comments made him concerned about an expansion of development.  He agreed with Tim Allen that signage at the bottom of Fall River Road was not a sufficient means of traffic control.  He spoke to staff who stated there was nothing to keep Eclipse Snow Park from changing their mind about night operations without getting anyone else’s permission.  He asked the Board to impose enforceable restrictions if they were considering approval of this Development Review Case. This, given the capacity of Fall River Road wasn’t already exceeded.

The Board accepted Don Bucher’s PowerPoint presentation as Exhibit 12 into the record.

Jan Ziman, 2895 Fall River Road Jan Ziman made the following statements:  She displayed a photo at the time of the hearings in April displaying the condition of Fall River Road.  She asked the Board not to negotiate the citizen’s safety. On a snowy day, one could not hear the rumble strips during a head on collision. A variable message sign at the bottom of Fall River Road was not realistic.  County regulations stated a sign must not be in CDOT right of way but the sign must still comply with county regulations. This would cancel out a parking attendant as well. To agree with Tim Allen, this proposal lacked serious visitor control. There was no real strategy to keep the traffic numbers down.  Regarding the average-daily-trips, the numbers were constantly changing. First the March counts were unreliable and then the other count was an estimate off arbitrary reduction factors from the 2006 counts. The SC group stated the 2030 traffic projections estimated Fall River Road would be under capacity. The county’s staff report said the contrary without any traffic from this development.  The SC Group utilized a 1.7% per year growth rate but the master plan estimated a growth rate for Fall River Road of 23% between 1998 and 2001 which was 5.75% per year.  There were 1100 vacant lots at St. Mary’s. Building homes did not change the character of the area as it was already residential.  If the Eclipse Snow Park proposal had any validity, it would not have had to rezone. The ski area had been closed for 25 years. The change referred to use and character before and after construction.  The current zoning was residential and mining so the use was such. The Commercial-Outdoor Recreation zoning was for new development. The rezoning regulations stated the Board had to follow the traffic controls for the most restrictive zoning.  No one wanted the road upgraded. It was too costly and would destroy the riparian area. The Board had to control growth here.  Regarding vested rights, the applicant was asking for five years instead of three years to allow for economic consideration. The application was only for 12 acres. No concession should be given to the developer. The limit should be three years.  She believed the applicant was waiting for the land exchange with the Forest Service so he could expand his operation. She believed the applicant was piece- mealing this application to get around the 12 acres.  The applicant should be presenting his full buildout plan and show what he was intending to do.  At last year’s Forest Service proposal, the applicant discussed a 300 acre facility with parking for 491 cars and 213 acres of skiable terrain. The Board entered Jan Ziman’s PowerPoint presentation into the record as Exhibit 13.

Bart Ziman, 2895 Fall River Road Bart Ziman made the following statements:  He thanked the staff for the detailed review of the written testimony submitted about the case. Many of the constituents spent a lot of time on their documents. Given the time restrictions on the speaking, the written documents were the best method to present their positions.  He shared the concerns expressed by his neighbors.  His biggest concern was that his tax money would subsidize what he perceived as a decrease in his safety and a disruption in his quality of life.  As a taxpayer, he needed to see that the development costs would offset any additional costs to the county. It was unfortunate the economic model focused mostly on the benefits. He had additional information which indicated the cost was more significant than presented.  He was concerned about the benefit numbers provided. The assessments referred to existing ski area operations but the applicant’s proposal describes its plan as very unique. Could one expect the numbers from Winter Park to be the same for Eclipse Snow Park? The economic assessment also assumed that the 4000 to 10,000 users of Eclipse Snow Park would be new customers to the county. Would this be true if Eclipse Snow Park was drawing form the same customer base as existing snow parks? Little kids learning to ski was not a new market. There were learn to ski areas at Loveland and at Echo Mountain Park.  Regarding the FTE’s presented in the assessment, the reality was most of these jobs would be temporary, part time or seasonal. He was skeptical these jobs would truly provide a living wage. How many of these jobs would be filled by local residents?  Regarding the flow of dollars into the county, those dollars would flow outside the county unless building materials were bought inside the county.  Many of the technical details of the proposal troubled him. He was mostly concerned about the cost of personal impact Eclipse Snow Park would have on many people yet benefit very few. He hoped the Board would reach the same conclusion.

Cathy Hager, 816 Silver Creek Road in Alice Cathy Hager made the following statements:  She and her family lived in Alice and they were in support of Eclipse Snow Park. They believed it would benefit the community.  They had family for the holidays with small children and wanted to take them to a learn-to-ski area but didn’t want to fight I-70 traffic. They were disappointed they couldn’t take their kids to ski.  The restaurant would be a perfect addition to the community.  Her son just graduated from Johnson & Wales and he may be able to be a chef at the ski area lodge.

Andy Dees, 6707 Fall River Road Andy Dees made the following statements:  The Fall River homeowner association did not speak for all of the residents of Fall River Road. He was 6.7 miles up the road and had been there for 10 years.  He had heard a lot of facts, numbers and details and all this could be manipulated to say what was wanted.  He voiced strong support for Eclipse Snow Park.  He had an academic background in environmental design and land planning. He understood this process before the Eclipse Snow Park.  He wasn’t necessarily in favor of Eclipse Snow Park when he first heard of it. He and his wife followed the process and educated themselves on what the design team was doing. They simultaneously considered the 2030 master plan. After finding that the proposal met all county requirements, they thought the county would support it overwhelmingly.  Within the design process was three elements: access, esthetics, and environmental. The Board wanted to make sure all three elements were taken care of. He believed they were.  He believed the design triangle was closed by Eclipse Snow Park and he hoped the Board would view it the same. He hoped the Board would take a broader look than just the numbers people were throwing around that some residents may or may not like.

Jan Wood, 48 Overlook Court Jan Wood made the following statements:  She also owned a home in St. Mary’s as well.  She had done much research over the past few weeks. She discovered that Fall River Road was in existence servicing the glacier long before any of the homes were on Fall River Road. The Fall River Road residents had built their homes on an access road to the glacier and to St. Mary’s. It was like building a home next to an airport and complaining the planes were too loud. If people built their home on an access road, people would be requesting access on that road.  She found it interesting that now people cared there was no guardrail on the switchbacks. People hadn’t cared about that for a long time. Now that Coors wanted to develop a ski area, the county was making it, in some ways, very prohibitive in terms of making changes, e.g. replacement of culvert. The same snow was there now and now it was causing more drainage?  Coors had bent over backwards trying to do things in this project that the county did not have the funds for, nor cared to do it.  She supported the project.  Years ago, the Planning Commission had supported the St. Mary’s Subdivision.  She didn’t agree with Don Bucher that all the lots in St. Mary’s wouldn’t be developed. She hoped they did. If 25% of the buildable lots in St. Mary’s had been built on, they would have been way over the capacity of Fall River Road and wouldn’t be in this hearing.  Now, it was about Coors wanting to build a ski area. This wasn’t about the road. It couldn’t be about the road with 1100 lots in St. Mary’s still available.  She was not buying the reasoning and she supported this project wholeheartedly.

Dan Keller, 5422 Fall River Road Dan Keller made the following statements:  He was generally opposed to the project even with the reduction in the proposal size.  There were pros and cons to the economic impacts that when the math was done, it didn’t work out. This project would cost the county money. This project would cost him money.  It was clear this presentation was phase 1 of a larger vision and not representative of full buildout.  The only constraint at this time was whether the Forest Service would do the land exchange. If they did, full buildout would be a much bigger proposal.  He knew the Board had been studying this development proposal but there were comments made at the Planning Commission that were not included in this staff report. These regarded the applicant’s predevelopment mitigation of installing rumble strips down Fall River Road. This meant a noise nuisance would be created prior to development.  The audience could argue about traffic counts and reports but no one knew if there would be a traffic problem or not. Dumont residents could state how annoying rumble strips were. These rumble strips would be a 24/7 nuisance which would affect everyone’s quality of life. He slept with his windows open and he would hear these strips all night.  The idea that a predevelopment mitigation would affect the entire valley would be a very bad idea. He encouraged the Board to oppose the centerline rumble strips until a traffic problem was proven. He didn’t want the Board to approve them for a traffic problem which may occur for only two hours during the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon for just 12 days a year.

Peech Keller, 5422 Fall River Road Peech Keller made the following statements:  She had been opposed to this project since the beginning.  Coors would have the group think she supported it due to the comment card she wrote in favor of a 12 acre snow park.  This was not about a 12 acre snow park. This was about Coors getting “the camel’s nose under the tent” and having the public believe it was only 12 acres.  If it was only 12 acres then why was Coors still pursuing the Forest Service land exchange? Most likely, Coors still wanted the 300 acre snow park.  The Board of County Commissioners held the public’s trust. The public counted on the Board to have their best interests at heart and ensure health, safety, and quality of life.  The Board found the road issue important enough to require it as a condition of approval in the rezoning case. This included the use of shuttle buses to mitigate traffic and not exceed the average-daily-trips of Fall River Road.  Coors would have the Board believe he listened to their concerns and requirements of reducing traffic by reducing the size of his proposal to 12 acres.  The Board needed to ask Coors what his full buildout plan was. If this was a 300 acre snow park then what would the Board require for traffic mitigation and how would they enforce it?  What happened if Coors built more ski lifts, offered night skiing, outdoor music, or snowmaking? What happened if the size of the parking lot were increased? What would the public do when the capacity of Fall River Road was exceeded?  What controls did the Board have over incremental expansion of Eclipse Snow Park? How would the Board protect the people and the environment from the impact of a large snow park? Was the Board giving up their right to consider the larger 300 acres because it wasn’t on the table at this time?  She asked the Board to be diligent and resist the piecemeal review of this proposal. She asked the Board to deny this development and put in place a permanent prohibition of snowmaking, outdoor lighting, night skiing, land grooming, and requirements of another public hearing before any expansion.  If the 12 acre proposal was the full buildout, she expected the probability of success was slim. She requested an exit plan so the county and taxpayers weren’t left with the cleanup of another abandoned ski area.  She asked the Board to ask the right questions and do the right thing. The public had the right to count on the Commissioners, the zoning laws, rules and regulations. The Board accepted Peech Keller’s presentation into the record as Exhibit 14.

Marion Anderson, 765 Fall River Road  Marion Anderson made the following statements: Per the submittals by many people tonight both written and oral, the applicant had failed to satisfy the requirements set forth by the county and by the State’s 1041 regulations.  The proposal failed to comply with the purposes of the local zoning regulations.  Per section 1.E, the purpose of zoning regulations stated was to preserve, protect and promote the quality of life, real estate values, the esthetic character of neighborhoods, and the riparian areas of the mountain residential community.  She was an advocate for the Fall River community and of the rural and riparian environment. She asked the Board to honor the contract between the county and the landowners to preserve, protect and promote the nature and character of their residential environment.  The Eclipse Snow Park proposal would change the character of the area and degrade the quality of life which gave the county greater value.  The proposal was incompatible with the residential nature of the area.  She asked the Board to honor the longstanding contract with the residential landowner and its government to preserve, protect and promote the quality of life and esthetic character.  On behalf of the residents in the Fall River valley she asked the Board to deny this proposal for Development Review Process along with the vested rights, Combination of Lots Agreement and 1041.

Sheriff Don Krueger made the following statements:  When the project was first started, the applicant came to the Sheriff’s office and met with him and his staff. They discussed a lot of life safety and law enforcement issues. Some suggestions were made to the applicant on what could be done.  Since this meeting, over a year ago, Don Krueger had no contact with anyone from the development about any of the mitigation issues discussed.  The issues the Sheriff brought up were blind driveways, speed control, steep grades, parking problems, etc and no part of the applicant’s presentation had addressed these issues adequately.  Regarding the signage at the bottom of Fall River Road, Don Krueger asked how the applicant’s traffic agent would know whether people were going to Eclipse Snow Park or whether they were going elsewhere in St. Mary’s.  Regarding parking issues, the applicant claimed to monitor parking and have illegally parked vehicles towed. Under what authority?  Don Krueger stated the issues brought up at the meeting with the applicant were not addressed as far as he was concerned.  He would adamantly oppose this proposal due to life safety and law enforcement issues.

Erin Johnson, 337 Nebraska Drive Erin Johnson made the following statements:  She thanked the Board for listening this evening.  She asked the Board to approve the Development Review Process, the 1041, the Combination of Lots Agreement and the 5-year request for vested rights.  She did not want the rumble strips, or the tree cutting, and opposed the road maintenance by the developer.  She asked the Board to issue a road bond so the developer could start building.  She asked the Board to issue the developer a building permit and to paint lines on Fall River Road.  For the 12 years she lived in the area, there were no white lines on the side of the road for 10 years. No one could stay in their lanes if they didn’t know where they were.  She asked the Board to invest in the community by approving this proposal.  She did not believe the applicant should be forced to divulge any future plans. If there were future plans to expand, those would be reviewed in a public hearing like tonight. Everyone would be able to speak publicly.  If the park expanded, this would be a good thing. It would mitigate the use of the area already on private property.  This was a welcome proposal and the Forest Service had done nothing to mitigate or control the use of their land the homeowners’ backyard.  Eclipse Snow Park would make a positive difference for her family and quality of life. Living in this area in the winter was tough and having something to do would be good. It would also alleviate the driving all the way down Fall River Road.  Her family did not have a lot of money to go to the large ski areas. She wanted a ski area which fit her pocketbook and let her recreate like everyone else.  She asked the Board to approve the development as it would be good for the community.

Paul Johnson, 337 Nebraska Drive Paul Johnson made the following statements:  Regarding emergency situations, Paul Johnson asked if St. Mary’s had a new fire station which would be full time. This could be a possible solution for the area.  The community also had a schoolhouse and other buildings owned by the Metro District which could house people during emergencies.  If the ski area was approved, more lodging opportunities would be available. This would happen. This was how he saw the emergency sheltering being addressed.  Everything stated by Marion Anderson could be said the same way but in favor of Eclipse Snow Park. He asked the Board to respect his property right and how he felt about the community.  He was opposed to rumble strips.  The Board could review this development to see how it could work. As long as he had lived here, he hoped to have a valued and respected opinion of what should happen in the area.  Eclipse Snow Park had done everything requested by the county and was also offering a percentage of ticket sales revenues. He had not seen other developments offer this.  He looked forward to Coors opening the ski area and it being family based to offer something to do for the people up there. There had been hundreds of property inquiries in the area since Coors began his process.  Some properties were sold to out of state residents looking forward to a local ski area. Property was moving in this area now and would continue to move.  The ski area would be one of the best things to happen in this community. The fire station was great and he looked forward to Eclipse Snow Park as a goal.  He appreciated the Fall River residents’ opinions and the Sheriffs. However, those living at St. Mary’s had lived there with all these problems that were not addressed and they looked forward to some solutions to these problems.  The residents had found one solution with the paid parking lot near the glacier. They also provided sanitation and trash for the many visitors.  There could be other parking solutions in the future to handle the influx of visitors besides those visiting Eclipse Snow Park.  He thanked the Board for their time.

Linda Feidler, 1983 Fall River Road Linda Feidler made the following statements:  In 2006 the Colorado College gave a State of the Rockies report card stating the Colorado Tourism Center could see significant economic loss due to climate change. There were statistics to prove something was happening out there.  This report card stated the ski areas must remain open for 105 days to meet the industry profit.  If the ski areas suffered just a 1% decrease in visitors to the resorts, the total economic effect would be more than $375 million and more than 4500 jobs by 2017.  She displayed a chart which measured skier totals and the Rocky Mountains remained relatively flat through the years. All but the southeast region had declined in numbers.  Copper Mountain was being sold for less than half of what it was bought for in 1996. Vail Resorts had more skiers but less income. Reports stated that skiers were spending less money on lodging and restaurants.  She presented a copy of the December 2009 5280 Magazine stating ski areas were barely hanging on. The article was about how small ski areas were subsidized by tax dollars. This was brought up by those in the audience who were opposed to Eclipse Snow Park.  She displayed other articles stating ski areas were pushing to improve their visitor numbers so she didn’t understand why there was another ski area at all.  From 2003 to 2006 she was a realtor for Coldwell Banker. From talking to homebuyers she heard what the buyers wanted which was nature and tranquility.  At the Planning Commission meeting she spoke about how she had researched Fall River Road before moving there and now she had been there for 20 years. She had seen a huge increase in traffic. This was due to residents, which she welcomed. Those people have the right to build as she did.  To invite development, she didn’t see how it fit with the county. The Board accepted Linda Feidler’s presentation into the record as Exhibit 15. Russ Van Duyn, 24 York Gulch Road Russ Van Duyn made the following statements:  He was opposed to Eclipse Snow Park due to the traffic and safety factor of getting ambulances up to the ski area.  He hoped the Board was smarter than he was to figure all these details out.  When he applied for his building permit in 1996, the building department held up his permit as they didn’t want another driveway on Fall River Road. What had changed with traffic since then that didn’t matter?  He agreed with many of the speakers this evening. He thanked the Board for their time.

Marisol Terrer, 451 Harris Drive Marisol Terrer made the following statements:  She asked everyone to focus on the fact that this proposal was a 12 acre park.  There had been some distractions to possibilities in the future. The application for a 12 acre park was appropriate.  Instead of people speaking against the 12 acre park, they were looking for other things to talk about.  She supported Eclipse Snow Park for the following reasons: it would improve the quality of life and increased opportunity for outdoor recreation. Second, it would allow for improvements for safety on Fall River Road.  She was shocked that people were aware of how unsafe the road has been without any solutions provided before now.  She traveled 8.5 miles down fall River Road each day and she knew the dangers, yet she heard no one bringing up solutions. At least, Eclipse Snow Park was presenting some solutions.  For those living one mile up Fall River Road, they did not endure the same driving issues that she and others who lived at the top of Fall River Road. The residents at the top of Fall River Road wanted Eclipse Snow Park. It was important to note that those who drove in the most danger were those willing to deal with more traffic.  She believed this should be approved because it was privately owned land that was zoned for this purpose. This was also approved by the Planning Commission.  Some people had individual preferences on how land should be used and it was fine to listen to this. However, the people should consider what the land was zoned for. The land was zoned for recreational activity.  The Board should approve a facility which would encourage community connection. This appeared to be established in the Fall River area as their comments were connected and organized.  Where she lived part-time now was not a well networked community. Part of this was because opportunities didn’t exist as easily. Eclipse Snow Park would provide an opportunity with a building so individuals could meet formally and connect.

Omer Humble, 4083 Fall River Road Omer Humble made the following statements:  This was a very complex and multifaceted group of regulations to review. He began by reading the Clear Creek County zoning regulations. It was his understanding that any proposed development would have to comply under these regulations.  As he reviewed the zoning regulations, he prepared a summary of what was required. He looked for regulations that clearly applied to this development. He asked to enter this document into the record. The Board accepted this document as Exhibit 16 into the record.  These regulations stated with section 1, purpose, and went through section 19. Of these 19, 17 were in conflict with the proposal.  Much had been said about section 20, Development Review Process. Under this section 20(g)(10), it stated any application must meet all applicable county zoning regulations. Omer Humble submitted that this application did not do that.  Section 20(g)(11) stated the use of the property would not impose undue burden on public services, infrastructure, etc including maintenance, fire, sheriff, and ambulance. He had heard from Don Krueger and Tim Allen about their serious reservations with this project. He had also heard from OEM about its compatibility on what was proposed.  He asked to enter into the record comments made by one of the Commissioners at the rezoning hearing. The Board accepted this document as Exhibit 17 into the record.  Omer Humble read the quote of the Commissioner: “I have tremendous concerns about quality of life applications for the people that live on Fall River Road and, really, if they can’t be mitigated, then I think we would have to take a step back and say no.”  He asked to enter into the record a portion of the rezoning regulations done in 2007. This Board of Commissioners approved these rezoning regulations in 2007. He asked to enter into the record the Conditions of Approval. The Board accepted this document as Exhibit 18 into the record.  He explained the first condition of approval was the Combination of Lots Agreement to be heard later tonight. Paragraph 2, however, discussed items A- E and these were not even discussed by the applicant. These were necessary for approval as the regulations provide.  He asked to enter into the record a vested rights document. The Board accepted this document as Exhibit 19 into the record.  He quoted from the Colorado Revised Statutes 24-68-103.1C: “And the purpose here is to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” This language was found in other regulations when considering the Eclipse Snow Park applications. There was nothing in the Eclipse Snow Park application that would protect his public health and safety.  He asked to submit another document entitled Eclipse Unsupportable Testimony. The Board accepted this document as Exhibit 20 into the record.  The Eclipse proposal did not comply with the county regulations. It was incompatible with the residential neighborhood. Putting a commercial development in the middle of a residential area with a dangerous road was not compatible.  Regarding snowmaking, Omer Humble stated that Coors had an option to purchase water from Coors Brewing Company. Had he left this option expire? Coors replied he had not. Omer Humble asked “why not?” Coors replied he may need it.  Regarding the Forest Service land exchange, Omer Humble stated the applicant had made an application with the Forest Service in January 2009, three months prior to the county application. The Forest Service application mentioned 300 acres of skiing and 491 parking spaces which was contradictory to this proposal.  This proposal was incompatible and he asked the Board to deny the application.

Tom Wilson, Georgetown Tom Wilson made the following statements:  He wanted to add a different perspective to this discussion as he didn’t live in this area of the county.  If the county continually waited for the perfect project when an application came forward, the county would end up nowhere fast. The county had the ability, capacity, knowledge, and insight to be problem solvers. A lot of times these problems were used so that nothing happened. This happened in the county all too often.  This subject property used to be a ski area. It allowed the applicant to use the existing infrastructure of current business support in the county.  Clear Creek County was a “plug-and-play” county for ski areas. It had hotels, motels, restaurants, ski rentals, etc. There was also an educated employee base.  The county had an educated public that was used to accommodating skiers, answering their questions, and making them feel welcome.  The applicant had listened to the public comment per his proposal in his application.  It was frustrating to listen to the concerns of the public, address them, and then the list just kept growing. This was very disheartening as an applicant. In review of the initial application, this revised proposal was a significant change and it needed to be acknowledged.  There were a lot of uses for this land in St. Mary’s. There were many things that never happened in this area. It was once a ski area and it would be nice to allow it as a ski area again.

Mark Kline, 89 Fall River Road Mark Kline made the following comments:  Some of the thing she would say would sound offensive but he didn’t mean it that way.  This proposal was a salvage operation, plain and simple. Coors bought before he thought. His success depended on getting enough customers down Fall River Road. If it didn’t’ stop him legally, it would stop him statistically. It didn’t matter whether a person was for or against this proposal.  Coors didn’t start this plan to be a good member of Clear Creek County but to create a business plan and make a profit.  Eclipse Snow Park had invested $3 million so far. The standard return on this size investment was 30% or $75,000 per month. Most companies had to wait some time before their cash flow improved. Grand Creek LLC would expect a return and if not, this was a large gift. He didn’t see the return happening with a 12 acre ski area.  Regarding the Forest Service land exchange, Eclipse Snow Park had over 200 acres and he believed they still wanted to build their original plan. It wasn’t a bad idea just a bad location.  Downsizing the business to fit the concerns of the community did not help the profits. A business could not make money by downsizing. How was Eclipse Snow Park going to pay back the investment of $3 million?  If one skipped the entire application and all the rules and regulations and approved it, how would Eclipse Snow Park get all the people up Fall River Road? There was still future development and homes for sale. If Eclipse Snow Park were to be successful, people would want to buy homes in St. Mary’s so they could be close to the ski area. How would the county get all these people up Fall River Road?  Eventually the county would have to condemn the homes along Fall River Road and widen the road. Eclipse Snow Park would not pay for this. The county would have to raise millions of dollars from the taxpayers to improve the road and condemn the property.  Mark Kline stated Coors knew it didn’t matter if he failed or succeeded because of the change in his business plan. Coors knew this all along.  Eclipse Snow Park spent $90,000 convincing Senator Udall to assist with the land exchange by creating a bill. No money investments were presented and a different viewpoint tabled the bill. Mark Kline stated Eclipse was building a private situation next to a wilderness area and using a public land exchange to do it. So, why did Coors change his mind?  Mark Kline noted a tipping point. He stated Eclipse bought the property before they did their homework and now they couldn’t extract themselves. They were caught in a paradox. They could not build what they initially wanted to build either. They were stuck which was why everyone was here.

Steve Schultz, 901 Fall River Road Steve Schultz made the following statements:  The county master plan and zoning regulations were to be used to guide land use decisions, not emotions. The master plan never encouraged this level of development.  One of the master plan proposals was that land use must be compatible with adjacent users. Eclipse Snow Park was surrounded by buffer, residential and NR-PC. It was not compatible.  Staff asserted the implementation strategies 6 and 7 in the master plan supported Eclipse Snow Park. He disagreed and could make an argument that of the eight implementation strategies, seven of them were negatively affected. He would present this document later.  The master plan had a tendency to prevent remote areas from excessive development and maintain remote character. He understood the master plan because he signed it as the Chair of the Planning Commission many years ago.  The county’s highest ranking safety officer testified consistently against this proposal. The county Sheriff was a 4th generation resident of Clear Creek County and he knows a little about this county.  Steve Schultz had led a group to bring $300 million project to Clear Creek County. He understood the need for economic growth and he was not against it.  The applicant claimed to bring 20-25 seasonable jobs which translated to 10-12 full time jobs. This was hardly an economic benefit to outweigh the public safety concerns, increased traffic, loss of character of the area, and going against the vision of the master plan.  Historically, no ski area or retail business ever succeeded at St. Mary’s for any length of time. The last ski area failed to survive in its limited role.  This was a nice idea and he wasn’t against it in principal; it was just a bad location.  Floyd Hill residents recently complained about a business model adjacent the interstate. The residents of Fall River were asking for the same consideration on a 9-mile dead end county road that was mostly residential.  The existing zoning, historic land uses, and the contract between the landowners and the Commissioners existed for a reason. He asked the Board to respect the master plan and the character of the area. Please respect the existing zoning, the local homeowners association, the low economic benefit, the county Sheriff and deny this application.

Randy Dorcey, 1184 Rainbow Road Randy Dorcey made the following statements:  He had thought about this proposal for a long time.  He had not been able to attend all the meetings but he tried to keep up via the website.  He bought his first piece of property in 1999 and envisioned something there. The original developers were 50 years too early. He did envision development in this area so he bought 17 pieces of property on Fall River Road. He bought them before there ever was an Eclipse Snow Park.  He was a businessman and had experience with development. Commercial development was needed in this area and he couldn’t think of a better location for it.  There was a ski area already at this location. There was a chance for a restaurant.  The developer had gathered a good team of experts and they were gathered to do the best they could. They try to present the best side of a one sided story. He believed they had done their jobs adequately and he encouraged the Board to approve this project.

Commissioner O'Malley asked the audience to help the Board decide how to proceed. They were only 2/3 the way through public comment and it was 10:00 p.m. He asked the audience if they wanted to continue the hearing or try to finish it around 11:30 p.m. There was much good information presented here and there would be more. The Board understood the emotion and passion the residents felt about this proposal and would be willing to stay if they so desired. The audience asked for continuance.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to continue the hearing to June 16, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. in this same location. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to continue the 1041 Case #SI-2010-0001, for Eclipse Snow Park to June 16, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. in this location. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to continue the Combination of Lots Agreement Case #CLA-2009-0002 for Eclipse Snow Park to June 16, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. in this location. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned. ______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 9, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 9, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTERS, JUNE 2ND AND JUNE 9TH, 2010: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 2010 ADOPT A ROAD AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE MILE HI JEEP CLUB: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF CONTRACT: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GAMING IMPACT GRANT AWARDS FOR THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE, THE MOUNT EVANS HOSPICE, THE ROCK HOUSE, THE CLEAR CREEK ADVOCATES, AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS FOR GAMING IMPACT AWARDS FOR THE MOUNT EVANS HOSPICE, THE ROCK HOUSE, THE CLEAR CREEK ADVOCATES AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-66, RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION #10-10, RESOLUTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE CERTAIN COUNTY POSITIONS: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR LAWSON WHITEWATER PARK BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK METROPOLITAN RECREATION DISTRICT: In attendance were Sheriff Don Krueger, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, County Assessor Diane Settle, Mr. & Mrs. Cox, Mr. & Mrs. Adams, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Engineer Craig Abrahamson. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 2010/11 LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY CONTRACT WITH COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COLORADO PREVENTION CENTER CONTRACT FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Health Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #10-58, Cox, Trail Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Wayne & Heidi Cox attended the hearing. Diane Settle explained this abatement was for two separate mining claims. For the Wright mining claim, Diane Settle recommended denial for 2008 as the comparable sales supported the value of $31,520. For 2009 she recommended an adjustment from $23,450 to $17,730.

Mr. Cox explained his protest as he had purchased an adjacent mining claim and the taxes were much lower than his taxes and this claim had seniority over his claims. The two claims had all the same views, topography, etc. Diane Settle replied they did bring the under-value of the Logan claim to the Assessor’s attention. Diane Settle corrected this error on the Logan claim.

Regarding the Teasdale claim, Diane Settle recommended denial for 2008 to leave the value at $31,510. For 2009, Diane Settle recommended an adjustment from $23,650 to $17,930. Mr. Cox discussed combining the two mining claims for a lower tax rate. Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation for Abatement #10-58 for both the Teasdale and the Wright mining claims for 2008 and 2009. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-59, Adams, Empire: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. & Mrs. Adams attended the hearing. Diane Settle had the property valued at $165,000 but with the commercial lots valuing at $4/square foot, she adjusted the value to $115,380 for 2009. The owners was protesting for 2010 because the Assessor’s office was assessing part of the structure as complete this year. Mr. Adams stated if the Board had the authority to tax a building as partially useable then why not use that authority to not tax it until it was fully finished. Mrs. Adams wanted to work with the county but needed some flexibility from the county while they were still under construction. They wanted to be a part of the community and provide jobs but could not until the building was complete. Mr. Adams added that the county had the option to help out businesses. He continued that if this problem was not fixed at the lower level it would never be fixed higher up. Commissioner O'Malley agreed but was limited by what the Board could do. Mrs. Adams stated that Empire really needed this building to happen. The Board agreed. Commissioner O'Malley asked the Adams’ to speak with Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation about receiving temporary funding to assist with finishing their project. The Board wanted the Adams’ to finish their building. Commissioner Drury expressed it was a tough time for businesses in this economy. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment in value. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-60, Theumer, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Theumer group. Diane Settle stated Theumer was upset as she had lost her senior exemption. After a site visit, Diane Settle recommended an adjustment from $240,800 to $218,800. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the assessor’s recommendation of $218,800. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-61, Maestas, Red Elephant: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Maestas group. Diane Settle recommended a value of $14,170 for 2009 and denial of this abatement. The comparables did support the value. This property did have access. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of $14,170. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-62, Bronson, Empire: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Bronson group. Diane Settle stated this was a vacant lot adjacent to a lot with a home and it was used residentially. Diane Settle recommended changing the classification to residential. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-63, Hadlock, Winterland: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Hadlock group. Diane Settle recommended denial and a value of $13,690 as the comparables supported the value. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT EXECUTION FOR ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY FOR COUNTY ROAD #314: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT EXECUTION WITH ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY FOR COTTONWOOD DRIVE/HILLSIDE ROAD: Public Works Division Director Tim Allen presented. In attendance were Paralegal Nanette Reimer, and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Tim Allen presented the contract for execution with Asphalt Specialties Company for County Road #314. Regarding the form of the contract, Tim Allen stated everything was included in the agreement so the Attorney’s office was marking out the sentence about deliverables regarding question of alternate bid #1. Tim Allen agreed.

Commissioner Dale asked if the timing of this project would interfere with July 4th festivities. Tim Allen had worked with John Rice of Clear Creek Rafting to stay away from critical dates. Tim Allen and Asphalt Specialties understood these dates. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the contract execution for Asphalt Specialties for County Road #314, with the change on exhibit A, scope of work, swapping “deliverables” with elimination. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Tim Allen presented the contract for execution for the Cottonwood – Hillside Drive paving project. The same wording amendment would be implemented removing “should the alternate #1 be accepted” and leaving the remainder of the sentence. Tim Allen stated both these projects would occur next month and there would be extra rock for possibly, Park Road. Commissioner Dale asked Road & Bridge to confirm this would be okay with the Park Road residents. Tim Allen also stated they would do some patchwork of potholes as the entrance to the King Murphy Elementary School. The Board agreed. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the contract execution with Asphalt Specialties for Cottonwood Drive and Hillside Road with the language amendment. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

JAIL INSPECTION: Commissioner Drury completed the jail inspection with the following findings:  There was a leak in the radiant heating in the floor and they were working on the repair.  There were 60 US Marshal holds and 32 county holds. Eight of the US Marshal holds were women.  The jail was found in satisfactory condition.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: This hearing was canceled.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 16, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 16, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLORADO WORKS AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CLIENT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SPECTRUM HUMAN RESOURCE SYSTEMS CORP: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-67, RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORITY TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TOM BRESLIN TO EXECUTE COST RECOVERY AGREEMENT, AND THE SMITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONTRACT FOR SQUAW PASS ROAD: In attendance were Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, Health & Human Services Office Manager Candy Morehouse, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Environmental Health Department Tech Annette Colle, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, and HR Director Cate Camp. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-65, ISDS SLOPE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 46% SLOPE IN WILDERNESS RIDGE, FOR DICKEY: In attendance were Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, Environmental Health Department Tech Annette Colle, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Annette Colle made the following presentation:  The new onsite wastewater system was proposed to be installed within 35 feet of a slope in excess of 40%. The actual slope was measured at 44% to 46%.  The Clear Creek County Board of Health could either approve or not approve the applicants request for a variance from the ISDS regulations.  Based on a site review conducted on May 27, 2010, the slope within 35 feet of the proposed field exceeded 40%. The property was 8.77 acres in size. The proposed drainfield was not located above a driveway or road cut. The engineer’s design submitted with the ISDS permit application stipulated the installation of a 20 mil PVC liner on the downhill side of the drainfield. The Environmental Health Department would also require construction of a surface runoff berm above the drainfield. The proposed well was staked and located approximately 160 feet from the drainfield location. Engineering for the ISDS system required a deep grouted well to meet the 200 foot well separation distance from the drainfield. Engineering for the ISDS system was provided by Kordziel Engineering Inc.  The Environmental Health Department recommended consideration of approval of the requested variance with the following conditions:  That no adjacent property owner objected to this request for a variance.  That the surface water runoff berm was constructed immediately upslope from the drainfield and an erosion control blanket be installed on the berm.  That the 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on ethe downslope side to a depth of 6 feet below the top layer of gravel.  That all disturbed areas be revegetated as per Clear Creek County’s Site Development regulations.  In the event of any suspicion of ISDS failure on the above referenced property, Clear Creek County was authorized by the applicant (by their reliance on this variance) and any successor owner of the described property, to investigate any source of contamination at the owner’s expense.  That a valid ISDS permit was obtained.  Darrell Funk, adjacent property owner, had called the Environmental Health Department office today and had no objections.  To clarify why the site plan displayed three leach fields, Annette Colle stated when the property was subdivided, proposed leach fields were located but this leachfield was for Lot 2 only. Tim Vogel stated it made sense to locate the leachfield in this location as the driveway culvert above it would divert water away from this field. He supported the proposal.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-65, resolution for ISDS slope variance for a 46% slope in Wilderness Ridge for Dickey. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: In attendance were Zoning Enforcement Specialist Tracy Bennetts, Planner II Holland Smith, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, and Building Inspector Debbie Kirkham. Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding the following matters: zoning enforcement issues, Towns of Silver Plume and Georgetown wastewater subsidiary, i70 purpose and need statement, amendments 60, 61, and proposition 101, and the Guanella Pass Road rockslide as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT CASE #CLA-2009-0002, FOR ECLIPSE SNOW PARK LLC: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-35, 1041 CASE #SI-2010-0001, ECLIPSE SNOW PARK LLC: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-36, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS CASE #DR-2009-0002, FOR ECLIPSE SNOW PARK LLC: This hearing was held at the Georgetown Community School in Georgetown.

In attendance were Planner II Trent Hyatt, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, residents Steve Zuneck, Ken Fredricks, Diane & Bob Smith, Linda Feidler, Jim & Kathy Hager, Ian Neligh, Healther Ulrich, Mary Lammy, Chuck Harmon, Peech Keller, Zee Schultz, Bill Arnold, Tim Wheeler, Tony Hebebreeder, Dan Keller, Kevin Zegan, Bruce Walker, Bryan Ferrer, Molly Ferrer, Anne Morgan, Steve Axtell, Michelle Beverly, Clyde Anderson, Marion Anderson, Angela Briddell, Ian Briddell, Marshall Ulrich, Larry Lammy, Roger Kaufold, Alora Knight, Graham Knight, Paul Johnson, Erin Johnson, Tom Wilson, Omer Humble, Donna Kline, John Wood, Dave Arnold, Melvin Opel, Paulette Crisman, Jim Schaitel, Betsy Berarducci, Conni McAlister, Jim McKenna, Mickee Amado, George Amado, Mari Matson, John Matson, Jacquie Zegan, Sarah Clark, Glen Clark, Sandra Goff, Bruce Blocker, and Mark Kline.

Commissioner O'Malley opened the public hearing and continued public comment for the Development Review Case for Eclipse Snow Park.

Marshall Ulrich, 515 Brook Drive Marshall Ulrich made the following statements:  He lived across from the proposed ski park across from the St. Mary’s Lake. This would be something he would see all the time.  He described a brief history of Eclipse Snow Park. There were warning signs up there installed on Fall River Road stating not to buy property without checking the zoning first. Following the signage, Grand Creek LLC purchased 292 acres of land even though it was not properly zoned for their intended use and never had been.  Eclipse Snow Park then applied for a rezoning and was granted it with conditions. During this rezoning hearing, a logical observation was made by the Commissioners that the road was an issue.  In 2006, Eclipse Snow Park tried to get a legislative land swap with the Forest Service but was unsuccessful. The county knew nothing of this.  On January 2, 2009, Eclipse Snow Park had a meeting with the Forest Service about a land exchange. Sometime after January 21, 2009, Eclipse Snow Park submitted maps with squared-off boundaries for land exchange showing 328.2 acres of Eclipse Snow Park owned land. A month later, Eclipse Snow Park hosted an open house, which he attended, and Eclipse Snow Park purported to open a 12-acre family friendly snow park. Nothing was mentioned about the land swap.  Marshall Ulrich considered the 12 acres at first and the decided the project would be much bigger.  On September 30, 2009, Eclipse Snow Park purchased 12 more additional mining claims outside of the proposed ski area but in the vicinity. Marshall Ulrich presumed this additional land was to sweeten the deal with the Forest Service as the Forest Service had turned down the Eclipse Snow Park land swap of 67.4 acres for a 103.1 Forest Service acres, specifically stating they would ask Eclipse Snow Park to purchase more land to exchange.  The county was now reviewing an incomplete application from Eclipse Snow Park that would allow them to operate a ski area by asking the county to look at only 12 acres and parking 65 cars. Marshall Ulrich stated Eclipse Snow Park was asking the county to keep any Forest Service land swap separate and discrete. The Forest Service information showed an over 300 acre facility and 130 parking spaces.  Marshall Ulrich concluded that the Eclipse Snow Park application was incomplete. Too many questions still remained. He wanted to know how Eclipse Snow Park would look at full build-out. How many average-daily-trips would there be at full build-out? Would Eclipse Snow Park eliminate the switchbacks or upgrade Fall River Road to the next service level in order to make it less treacherous?  How would parking control traffic? Would the taxpayers be adversely affected? Was there more potential for injury or death on Fall River Road?  He suggested the Board vote no on Eclipse Snow Park as it was the right thing for them to do to protect the citizens.

Roger Kaufhold, Winterland Subdivision Roger Kaufhold made the following statements:  He owned a home in the Winterland Subdivision for 12 years and he loved the area.  He lived in this area for the peace and quiet.  Just across the lake from him was proposed the Eclipse Snow Park.  He was concerned about the noise and commotion of this proposal and they didn’t want it.  The people in Alice wouldn’t hear it. It wouldn’t be in their backyard, it would be in his.  If this proposal was approved, it was only a matter of time before the county had to consider music and night skiing. There were already six light bar generators on the property.  Then, in the summer the county would have to contend with summer concerts, jeep rentals, snowmobile rentals, grooming machines and snow-making jets.  Fall River Road was the serious issue. Those who lived up in this area took their chances in order to live in peace, quiet and good summer weather.  To entice young and inexperienced drivers to this area in the winter was asking for trouble. Young drivers, ill equipped cars, skiing fatigue, alcohol, pot, and a winter storm was a recipe for big-time trouble.  The little benefit the county and locals may see from this development were not worth the carload of crippled young people.  Roger Kaufhold had been a county commissioner for many years and understood the pressure of the Board on this case. He asked them to take the Sheriff’s advice as he knew the serious nature of this road.  He asked the Board to vote no as they would feel better when there was a winter storm and black ice on Fall River Road. Heather Ulrich, 515 Brook Drive Heather Ulrich made the following statements:  She lived directly across from the Eclipse Snow Park proposed development.  She was in opposition to this proposal.  She stated Eclipse Snow Park was keeping “two sets of books.” One was presented to the county as a 12 acre family friendly learn to ski area and one was to the Forest Service for a 300 acres with at least 213 acres of skiable terrain and parking for 130 cars.  Under the Forest Service proposal, Eclipse Snow Park wanted to get rid of property associated with the Glacier Trail and would provide no services, toilets, trash, or parking for the trail or wilderness area.  She asked the Board to recall that Eclipse Snow Park proposed to provide these services at the rezoning hearing. Now, it wasn’t going to happen.  Regarding the 12-acre proposal, she asked the Board to recall the rezoning was conditional on approval of the Development Review Case. If the Board approved the 12 acre development then they would be validating the rezoning of almost 300 acres. Having a change to commercial zoning to 300 acres instead of the original 2 acres was a big change for a rural area. It was not appropriate. This area was the gateway to the James Peak Wilderness area. This was a dead end, local access road.  Regarding the traffic on Fall River Road, Eclipse Snow Park would add traffic to this road and has done nothing to control it.  The third party engineer hired by the county and the county Road & Bridge department emphasized that limiting parking was not a way to limit traffic. The rumble strips, guardrails, signage, etc were accident control not traffic mitigation.  Heather Ulrich reminded Commissioner Dale that when he voted yes to the rezoning, he stated if traffic issues were not mitigated he would not be favor of approving the Development Review Case.  The traffic had not been mitigated. The shuttle bus proposal was not practical.  The size of the Eclipse Snow Park proposal and that they would not assist with the parking, toilets or trash problems of the area, and with no traffic mitigation would not make a smart decision for approval.  She would ask the Board about the legal aspects of potentially approving the Development Review Case in combination with the 1041 regulations and state law.

Jim McKenna, 229 Nebraska Drive Jim McKenna made the following statements:  He lived in close proximity to the Eclipse Snow Park proposal.  He supported the proposal and was excited about cross-country skiing, ski in/out, and bringing his family to the area.  He recalled Geneva Basin Ski Area and the drive it took to access that ski area. It was a great family ski area.  Regarding additional acreage, he had hiked most of this area and it would provide for great ski terrain.  Eclipse Snow Park was not a massive development. As a father and grandfather, he heartily endorsed the project.

Jim White was filled in by Steve Axtell. Steve Axtell, SOLVE, Save Our Open Lands, Vistas and Environments Steve Axtell made the following statements:  SOLVE was a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of grassroots people composed of people from Clear Creek County.  Their purpose was not to advocate for/against Eclipse Snow Park but to look at development issues.  Was the development responsible? Reasonable? Fiscally sound?  SOLVE considered the costs of the development for Clear Creek County and they had strong concerns. SOLVE saw this as an upside down project for the county.  Eclipse Snow Park appeared as a $14-15,000 deficit over revenue to the county. It appeared as a drain on the county offers and a burden to the taxpayers.  SOLVE considered other costs to the county such as displacement revenues to Loveland Ski Area and Echo Mountain Park. DRCOG had studies stating the county’s ended up paying another 40% over and above in costs for factors not considered.  SOLVE believed the county would lose money on the Eclipse Snow Park proposal.  SOLVE asked the Commissioners to vote no on this project.

Bob Smith, 575 Fall River Road Bob Smith made the following statements:  He and his wife were full time residents for over 10 years.  Regarding the economic impacts Eclipse Snow Park would have on the county, Coors had agreed to pay 1% of his gross income the first year, which was estimated at $160,000. This would result in $800 to Emergency Services and $800 to Road & Bridge. The following year revenues were estimated at $200,000 or $1000 to Emergency Services and Road & Bridge.  On May 20, 2010, the Kennedy Group revealed new numbers stating the 1% was of ticket sales and not gross revenues. This greatly reduced the contributions to Road & Bridge and Emergency Services.  Public Works Division Director Tim Allen stated Eclipse Snow Park would result in $7000 in increased costs for road maintenance. Where does this funding come from? The homeowners of Clear Creek County would have to absorb this cost through a tax increase.  Eclipse Snow Park would have a negative effect on property values by increased taxes, traffic noise and accidents, lowering the values of homes and increasing property tax revenues to the county.  Coors still had not addressed the after-hour snow removal issue. Who would pay for this?  The future costs of a deceleration lane at the bottom of Fall River Road and widening of the switchbacks would be more costly.  Who would pay for additional law enforcement on Fall River Road?  There was already Echo Mountain Park in Clear Creek County. Why another one?  He presented a handout from the Kennedy Group concerning economic impacts.  He was opposed to the Eclipse Snow Park development.

The Board accepted Mr. Smith’s submittal as Exhibit 21 into the record.

Diane Smith, 575 Fall River Road Diane Smith stated she was in opposition to the proposed development.

Paulette Crisman, 75 Rivendale Way Paulette Crisman made the following statements:  She stated Julie Westland donated her time to her.  She presented a letter from Julie Westland noting a quote from a realtor who claimed the Sheriff’s office only responded half the time they were called to this area.  Paulette Crisman read a letter written by her husband.  He had been a homeowner on Fall River Road for over 16 years and a property taxpayer in Clear Creek County for longer.  He was a practicing cardiologist in Denver and Summit County.  He expressed concern of the negative impact Eclipse Snow Park would have on Emergency Services and their lack of planning for Emergency Services at this site.  Regarding Emergency Services, he asked the Board how much of the Emergency Services costs would be attributable to Eclipse Snow Park?  What measures was the Board taking to make sure residents didn’t suffer a decline in Emergency Services availability?  What was the cost to the taxpayers to meeting the need of increased Emergency Services at Eclipse Snow Park and the rest of the county?  He spoke to Loveland and Echo Mountain Park and Loveland had over 40 transports and Echo Mountain Park had 23.  Terrain parks had a higher use of Emergency Services than conventional ski areas.  The younger population/users of the Eclipse Snow Park were likely to be uninsured and underinsured.  Previous estimates of Emergency Services transfers for Eclipse Snow Park were 7-10 per season. Now the numbers were changed to be 20 per season.  Transfers from Eclipse Snow Park to Denver hospitals could take anywhere from 2 to several hours. He asked the Board to consider Sunday afternoon traffic, bad weather, and I-70. This was decreased availability for Emergency Services for Clear Creek County residents.  Regarding the moral and legal responsibility of the Commissioners, no citizen should have their care compromised by the Board failing to ensure Emergency Services was available. No taxpayer should shoulder the cost of reparations due to this negligence.  No proposal has been submitted to mitigate this issue.  He stated these services would require capital expenditures for ongoing maintenance and operation. He was concerned these costs would pass to the taxpayer.  With most terrain park users being uninsured or underinsured and with 20 Emergency Services transfers a season, this would be an expense to the county of $15,000. Was this included in the county budget? Would this drive the Emergency Services budget into the red?  Eclipse Snow Park stated they would not have an onsite clinic. Loveland had eleven beds and Echo Mountain Park had two. Both areas had EMT’s at all times. Both areas had advanced cardiac life support capabilities including medicines and defibrillators. Both areas could set up IV access and narcotics prior to ambulance arrival. Both areas operated under Denver metro protocol for Emergency Services. Both areas had a Medical Director. To date, none of these things had been planned at Eclipse Snow Park. This information should be provided to the Commissioners and the public at this time.  The taxpayers of Clear Creek County had entrusted their elected officials to make decisions in the health and well being of their citizens. He asked the Board not to fail the citizens at the time of a medical emergency.

The Board accepted Steve Crisman’s letter into the record as Exhibit 22 and Julie Westland’s letter into the record as Exhibit 23.

Jim Schaitel, 336 Crest Drive Jim Schaitel made the following statements:  He supported the Eclipse Snow Park proposal.  He thanked the county for the opportunity to provide input.  He was disappointed at the time process of this hearing as Eclipse Snow Park was losing their construction season.  Regarding the advertisement in the Clear Creek Courant placed by the Citizens for Responsible Development and Preservation of Community Character, he cautioned their claim that they spoke for all in the area. The addition of Eclipse Snow Park would dramatically improve the quality of life for those in St. Mary’s and Alice. It would add dollars, jobs and family recreation.  He had lived in St. Mary’s for less than two years and he was learning the history. It was originally planned for 1500 lots. Today there were less than 500 homes. The community was underdeveloped.  The resort golf course never happened.  Eclipse Snow Park would improve recreation in the area. He asked the Board to not vote no and allow Eclipse Snow Park to properly maintain and develop this parcel.  Eclipse Snow Park would bring many jobs to the area. He drove 75 miles to work each day and it was worth it to live in St. Mary’s. He could possibly work at Eclipse Snow Park.  Regarding tax dollars, he was one of the residents without water in the winter due to pipes freezing. The Water Department had no funds to repair the lines. He asked if those opposing this proposal were willing to live without water for 74 days. No one on Fall River Road had offered him shower facilities.  His neighbor Todd Wilderman offered his public speaking time to him so he could speak longer before the Board.  He understood the tax revenue from Eclipse Snow Park would vary depending on its success. The ski area would increase tax revenues over time. It would attract people to the area, building homes, creating jobs, etc.  Progress was inevitable anywhere. This proposal was the opportunity to guide this development.  He was excited about a restaurant for families and neighbors to meet. There were not 500 homes in this area and everyone should know each other. Eclipse Snow Park would give them the community gathering place.  Regarding a blizzard and how to take care of stranded skiers, Mr. Schaitel stated Coors responded he had a large ski lodge and a maintenance building. Mr. Schaitel submitted a list of residents who would be willing to take in and open their homes to stranded skiers for a day or two.  Regarding the comment that other ski areas failed at this location and Eclipse Snow Park would too, Mr. Schaitel stated if it did fail, the only person hurt would be Coors and his wallet. If it failed, the residents would be left with a cleaned up 300 acres with parking lots. He hoped Coors would open his lots to the summer recreationalists. He hoped the restaurant would stay open. He would consider sub-leasing the restaurant. The residents would also be left with much needed guardrails on the switchbacks.  Regarding the comment that residents would bear the burden of additional ambulance services, Mr. Schaitel consulted a doctor who confirmed those using ambulances were billed for this service.  Regarding the comment that residents would not see tax dollars from Eclipse Snow Park or that they would be minimal, Mr. Schaitel did not disagree at face value. Some tax dollars would go to the St. Mary’s area and some would not.  The addition of a ski area would create jobs, income and spending. This new business could reopen the small store or restaurant in the area. These buildings in their current state were an eyesore.  The residents of Fall River Road were less than 20% of the residents of the community of St. Mary’s. They enjoyed paved roads and were the first to be snowplowed. It would be nice if in the future the St. Mary’s roads were paved and they had better access. The Board accepted Mr. Schaietel’s list of homeowners offering their homes to stranded skiers as Exhibit 24 into the record.

Tim Wheeler, York Gulch  Tim Wheeler made the following comments: He was in favor of Eclipse Snow Park.  He had lived in the county for 17 years and the area was in need of a tourist draw. He had always been in favor of opportunities that attracted tourism to the county.  Currently, many people went to St. Mary’s and then went back to Denver. Clear Creek County saw little benefit from this. Most people came here used the bathroom, bought fuel, and a pizza and left.  Clear Creek County was located between 2-3 million people in the Front Range and the large tourist destination just west and they had little to show for it. All they did was collect fumes.  Fall River Road has for a long time needed upgrades. The switchbacks were very dangerous for residents. This would not go away.  Most of the opposition were from the Fall River residents and they didn’t live in this dangerous section of road or beyond there. They didn’t face the same safety hazards that the St. Mary’s residents did. This was a two-tier situation where the underclass was suffering badly. The switchbacks needed to be remedied and to have guardrails. Through one funding source or another, this would happen. Once that happened the road could handle Eclipse Snow Park.  There were construction jobs, real estate valuations, and taxation issues. There was a ripple effect to retailers in the area, hotels, restaurants, etc.  Clear Creek County badly needed economic development and investors from the outside. It was not our business to scare these people away.  Other opportunities to fix up included the Argo Mine, the Indian Springs Resort and St. Mary’s. It would be a blessing.  He asked the Board to consider approving the Eclipse Snow Park proposal.

Bill Arnold, 965 Fall River Road Bill Arnold made the following comments:  He thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak.  He stated other folks had covered the history of the area very well.  He expressed concern of the polarization of the community due to this development. The people in favor of the development speak from a point of personal gain or convenience. The people in opposition to the development desire to maintain their pleasant lifestyle. This proposal would alter that.  He thanked Commissioner Drury for her position against this development. He felt it came from her long residency and quality of life in Clear Creek County. He hoped she was still opposed.  Regarding Commissioner Dale, he spoke with him when he ran for Commissioner and he spoke about proper development and opposition to exploiting residential areas. Commissioner Dale had emphasized this in the recent Floyd Hill development case. He asked Commissioner Dale to consider this proposal similarly.  Mr. Arnold stated Commissioner O'Malley had been adamantly in favor of the project since the beginning and even explained why he didn’t need to recuse himself due to his real estate interests.  He submitted three packets of info showing the MLS listings for properties he found on Commissioner O'Malley’s ReMax Alliance website today. These properties were offered with Commissioner O'Malley’s photo on them. They described properties close to the proposed ski area. One ad stated the property was next to Colorado’s newest terrain park which presupposes it was in place. The third ad showed a map showing Eclipse Snow Park in place.  He requested an explanation from Commissioner O'Malley and found this as a conflict of interest.  Mr. Arnold stated this proved those in favor of Eclipse Snow Park had a personal gain involved and the people in opposition were for quality of life.

Commissioner O'Malley replied he had nothing to do with the three listing presented. Commissioner O'Malley had no listings in Clear Creek County and hadn’t for the last four years. A person could go on any realtor’s website and get the same property descriptions with their picture at the top of the listings. Commissioner O'Malley understood the idea there could be a potential conflict of interest which was why he moved his real estate business out of the county. He had not had a customer listing in Clear Creek County for almost five years. Commissioner O'Malley was insulted by Mr. Arnold’s accusation. He stated if someone wanted to accuse him of something that was their right. He would appreciate it if Mr. Arnold had a clue.

Jason Pavlovich – absent.

Melissa Mannix Sarah Clark asked to speak on behalf of her daughter Melissa Mannix. The Board granted the request. Sarah Clark made the following statements on behalf of her daughter Melissa Mannix:  Melissa lived in Idaho Springs.  Melissa was currently doing advocacy work for people with disabilities and was at a conference speaking on this topic.  Melissa had informed Michael Coors in 2006 that she wanted a job and she continued to pursue him every chance she got.  Melissa believed it would be good for her community to ski in her own backyard. Melissa stated the ski area would be a good idea and should be confirmed immediately.

Sarah Clark, 150 Hillside Road, Alice Sarah Clark made the following statements:  She expressed support for Eclipse Snow Park.  She had lived in this area since 2001 and had safely manipulated the road. It was not a killer road.  Coors had done everything to address the county concerns. The road would be safer and at Coors’ expense. The guardrails were needed on the lower switchback. A commercial business was needed to support the Water & Sanitation and Metro Districts of St. Mary’s.  She worked at the Safeway Deli and kept in tune with what was happening and Coors had a good idea.  She spoke with Chuck Fletcher on Fall River Road and he did not believe it would have much impact on the road. He felt the county should diversify in preparation for the mine closing.  She and her husband had built five homes in the area and have researched some vacant lots.  Many dreams were not realized because Iran Emeson closed the ski area.  She believed the ski area could be successful in St. Mary’s. The building window was short and construction should be happening now.  She appreciated her neighbors attending the hearing and she asked all those in support of Eclipse Snow Park to stand.  She thanked them and asked the Board to make the right decision for the county.

Glen Clark, 150 Hillside Road, Alice Glen Clark made the following statements:  He supported Eclipse Snow Park.  He stated the reasons to support the ski area:  It promoted growth. When the last ski area closed, the residents lost their property values.  Someone was now ready to work with the community and reactivate this major asset. The residents could look forward to higher property values and a position of possible growth.  The residents could look forward to safer road in the winter and guardrails.  The residents could look forward to positive growth and increase in property values.  Increasing property values provided a blanket of tax relief.  Not allowing growth was like paying for things on a credit card. Eventually, you have the same problem, only worse.  There was always going to be traffic on Fall River Road and that traffic paid nothing.  When there was positive growth, people were more apt to remodel. It improved the self-esteem of a community.  There were badly needed improvements in St. Mary’s, e.g., the water lines. The county could not replace their infrastructure.  This proposal promoted community involvement and socializing at the ski area. There would be a restaurant. Teaching the children to ski was something he expected to be able to do.  The proposal provided jobs for those that lived in the area. The county would benefit from the housing starts that would be realized. This included materials and workforce.  Coors should be allowed to open Eclipse Snow Park because he was young, had time and he was motivated. Coors had worked with the community to find common ground. He would provide leadership and find a solution for the area.

Melvin Opel, 8630 Fall River Road Melvin Opel made the following statements:  He was in favor of Eclipse Snow Park.  The county should be in favor of development. There was no way to continue to obtain more tax base without development.  The value of the lots in St. Mary’s didn’t even increase when inflation did. This was a shame. This deterred investment.  Just the hope of this development has increased property values in this area. This was important.  The St. Mary’s area was always a playground but the county gets no taxes from this.  Coors has stepped up to the plate and the county should allow him.  Problems will always arise and the county would just have to address them.

Donna Kline, Clear Creek County OEM Donna Kline made the following statements:  Although a resident of Fall River Road, her appearance tonight was as a representation of the county OEM. OEM submitted a response to this application in November of 2009 and recommended a sheltering and evaluation plan for park patrons.  The presentation by the applicant on May 26, 2010 regarding this issue was less than adequate. The applicant planned to house the park patrons at the ski lodge and maintenance building. The OEM office was concerned the applicant did not understand the magnitude of this issue.  Clear Creek County had one Red Cross shelter, the middle school. Other shelter locations were used in emergencies.  In the snowstorm of March 2009, just fewer than 500 people were sheltered after skiing and two of the shelters did not have supplies, e.g. cots, blankets or food. There were enough cots/food for some at the middle school but there were many who went without. Law enforcement assisted with the shelter and keeping people off of I-70.  The average basketball court is 4200 square feet and this was where the sheltering took place at the middle school. This area was full as well as the adjacent hallways.  The applicant proposed a 4270 square foot ski lodge that would also hold food/beverage service, ski school offices, lockers and first aid services. Sheltering can be a stressful situation for both the people being sheltered and those doing the sheltering.  OEM was concerned there was not enough room in the ski lodge for the expected number of patrons. The maintenance building could not be used for sheltering as there were no restrooms. The Clear Creek Fire Authority would confirm how many people could stay in the ski lodge for sheltering.  What if there was a power failure? This occurred frequently on Fall River Road. If people could not get down Fall River Road, then law enforcement could not get up the road to assist Eclipse Snow Park.  Parents normally only packed enough supplies for the day and any extras go fast in a stressful situation. Eclipse Snow Park was proposing a family, learn to ski area and this could be a problem.  Stranded people used their cell phones to see if I-70 was open, however Fall River Road may be unsafe for travel. Fall River Road could take longer to clear than I-70.  If a liquor license were granted to the applicant, the problems increase exponentially. If the ski lodge were qualified as a Red Cross shelter then no alcohol or pets were allowed. The temperatures in St. Mary’s were much colder than Idaho Springs.  The subject property was in an isolated area. OEM had gone to great lengths to educate people on preparedness and 72 hours kits. OEM would be remiss if it did not require the following steps for the applicant to ensure patron safety.  First, Eclipse Snow Park needed to call the Red Cross and become a Red Cross shelter.  Second, the applicant and all employees would have to attend Red Cross shelter management classes, take the incident command classes 100a – Introduction to Incident Command Systems, 700a-Introduction to National Management Systems; 200 – Single Resource and Initial Action Incidents; 300-intermediate; and 400-advanced. Other advantageous classes would deal with hazardous weather and community risk.  OEM would require a vhf radio be used for contact with response resources.  At the November 10, 2009, the applicant stated summer activities were a possibility. OEM requested a fire evaluation plan. Where and how would the patrons be sheltered or evacuated?  In an April 9, 2009 letter from the Colorado State Forest Service asked that the applicant prepare a forest stewardship plan to address the property’s forest condition regarding impacts of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. The plan would have to address hazardous trees and trees that could fall in a public recreation area around the infrastructure of the development.  The forest stewardship plan should address wildfire hazard mitigation needs that address forest cover, the public, employees and the site infrastructure. The current wildfire hazard plan presented by the applicant did not address the long term needs of the property regarding forest health. The applicant’s plan only recommended removal of the pine beetle killed trees. The plan did not look at maintenance of defensible space. The Colorado State Forest Service October 2009 plan stated Eclipse Snow Park would maintain the defensible space. Fire danger would increase over time at this location due to changes in the forest.  The October 2009 plan referred to was the Wildfire Hazard Assessment document by the Rocky Mountain Ecological Services Inc.  The county OEM did not ask the Board to approve or deny the application but to delay a decision until these criteria were met to the satisfaction of the OEM department and the Colorado State Forest Service. This was a matter of life safety.

Sandra Goff, Silver Lake Condos, 9366 Fall River Road Sandra Goff made the following statements:  She was the president of the Silver Lake Condo Association.  She represented 31 units who had no opposition to the Eclipse Snow Park proposal.  Nine of the units were occupied full time and the remainder was second homes. Some owners rented to vacationers.  She offered the units that were available to the patrons of Eclipse Snow Park should they be needed as part of the sheltering plan in case of road closure. They could possibly house 100 people.  She had witnessed a steady increase to visitors to the area in the last few years. There was much illegal parking near the glacier access. The recent paid parking lot has helped but cannot accommodate all the visitors.  She had witnessed a problem with the availability of restrooms. Visitors asked the condo owners to use their restrooms for their children. Bags of human waste had been found in their parking lots.  There was growth already without the ski area and there were not facilities for the visitors. The benefits of Eclipse Snow Park would bring positive changes, e.g. increase property values, revenue for area businesses, improvements for Fall River Road, additional parking and possible bathrooms, trash receptacles, promotion of additional jobs and onsite medical services.  She expressed trust to the County Commissioners to protect and preserve the county through the legal process of permits and zoning and to promote county tourism by approving the Eclipse Snow Park.

The Board accepted Donna Kline’s speech as Exhibit 26 into the record.

Commissioner O'Malley asked if anyone else desired to speak as part of public comment.

Peech Keller asked to speak again even though she spoke at the last hearing during public comment. She asked to speak about a new resolution from the Planning Commission. Commissioner O'Malley denied her ability to comment again to be fair to all speakers.

Betsy Berrarducci asked to wait to speak.

Jim Hager, 816 Silver Creek Road, Alice  Jim Hager made the following statements: He had lived in Alice for three years and one reason for moving to the area was the potential of Eclipse Snow Park.  He had researched Summit and Grand Counties but they were too expensive.  The implementation of Eclipse Snow Park would help the property values in this county.  He had worked at the Henderson Mine for many years and the mine was now phasing out. New businesses had to be incorporated into the community.  He witnessed many skiers driving to Summit and Grand Counties and they didn’t stop here. The county should get something going here. It would be good economical growth for Clear Creek County to have Eclipse Snow Park be a part of the community.  He didn’t ski now but he would if Eclipse Snow Park was in his backyard. He would eat at the restaurant. He saw a positive effect to the community from Eclipse Snow Park.  He commended Coors on wanting to invest money in Clear Creek County. He could have gone to Summit or Grand counties. They would have welcomed him. He encouraged the Board to consider the possibilities that Eclipse Snow Park would provide to the St. Mary’s community.  It was only four months of traffic. There were accidents up at the lake in the summer now. Who paid for those Emergency Services? No one was chipping in on these costs now. Coors was proposing to chip in. Not all issues could be covered but he commended Coors.  He asked the Board to please vote in favor of Eclipse Snow Park as it would be good for the community.

Angela Briddell, 638 Mine Road, Winterland Angela Briddell made the following statements:  She and her husband have lived in Winterland for five years.  They had participated in the rezoning and the Development Review Case of Eclipse Snow Park. They had always supported Eclipse Snow Park and continue to do so.  It had been a long five years for the Eclipse Snow Park team. She had watched Kum & Go and Carl’s Jr be proposed, approved, built, and opened in a span of less than two years and she was still waiting on Eclipse Snow Park construction to start. This was surprising given it was aligned with the county master plan. Eclipse Snow Park fostered recreation, tourism, and preservation. This used to be a ski area.  She commended Eclipse Snow Park and their team for all their modifications to satisfy the St. Mary’s and Fall River residents.  She urged the Board to allow Eclipse Snow Park to proceed. This county would not be a great place without development and change. Please give Eclipse Snow Park a chance to add recreation to the county. Ian Briddell, 638 Mine Road, Winterland Ian Briddell made the following statements:  He was in support of the Eclipse Snow Park project.  His property was the highest property in Winterland Subdivision.  He was an avid outdoor enthusiast and been skiing/snowboarding in Colorado for almost 40 years.  He appreciated the work of the Eclipse Snow Park team for working with the community to address the issues.  The county master plan states St. Mary’s will expect a 60% growth rate and that north of Fall River Road, recreational uses would be encouraged. The master plan also discussed St. Mary’s as a tourist destination and the improvement of recreational opportunities.  The county did not see revenue from public use areas like the glacier. However, Eclipse Snow Park would generate revenues, jobs and provide for revitalization of the old ski area.  The old ski area operated in a similar fashion without the rezoning and this application didn’t propose a new use for this site.  Regarding the Sheriff’s office opposition, it was the public duty of law enforcement officials to respond to calls for service regardless of personal opinion or political agenda. He was a law enforcement officer and it was his responsibility to respond to any call in his jurisdiction without bias. He asked the Sheriff’s office opinion be withheld from any part of this decision making process.  Regarding calls for law enforcement and Emergency Services, if these were to be addressed in relation to tax revenue, then the entire area should be studied to ascertain the burden on county resources as there was no revenue from the public recreational access there now.  He asked the Board to approve the Development Review Process for Eclipse Snow Park so the county could offer more than convenience stores and fast food.  Eclipse Snow Park would be an economic boost to the community and was in line with the county’s vision for tourism and recreation. He wanted to get people off the interstate and seeing this county.

Graham Knight, Fall River Road Graham Knight made the following statements:  He wanted to keep an open mind about Eclipse Snow Park. He understood both sides of this proposal. There were good people on both sides of this issue.  Both sides just wanted to live in a beautiful place and he hoped they could continue to do that.  He found the idea of rumble strips as absurd. They would be a terrible noise nuisance 24/7. They were not a reasonable method to mitigate traffic issues. His house was 100 feet from the road and rumble strips would be very noisy.  Commissioner Dale stated he would not approve the Development Review Process without road mitigation. Rumble strips should not be considered a solution to the road mitigation.  Eclipse Snow Park was clearly a tax drain on the county. Those that found development good were misguided; hence, the low taxes in Clear Creek County. Denver had much higher taxes.  It was cheaper for him to have furniture delivered than to pay additional taxes downtown.  The 1% proposed on ticket sales was a joke. That was only $1800 per year. He paid more per year in taxes than that and this was just for a home.  He suggested he write a check for that amount now and the Board turn down the Eclipse Snow Park proposal.

Chuck Harmon, Idaho Springs Chuck Harmon made the following statements:  He was a resident of Idaho Springs and owned two adjacent parcels to the ski area.  He felt disproportionately impacted by Eclipse Snow Park.  He was dead set against this project a few years ago. A lot had changed since then.  Eclipse Snow Park had received a lot of public input and they had made major changes to their business plan.  So much had changed, that he now supported the proposal. He was excited to see it open and he was not even a skier. This was the best thing for the county.  He was happy the county was able to attract a new business that would provide much needed jobs for the residents.  He encouraged the Commissioners to vote in favor of Eclipse Snow Park. Eclipse Snow Park had worked hard on this plan and deserved a chance to try the business.

Zee Schultz, 901 Fall River Road Zee Schultz made the following statements:  She asked the Board to vote on fact versus speculation. The road was not designed for increased traffic. What if an ambulance got stuck because the Board voted against the advice of the Sheriff?  I-70 traffic was bumper to bumper every weekend and now traffic would back up on Fall River Road too because it could not merge. An ambulance would be stuck in this traffic too.  The Board would be liable for approving this ill conceived plan based on 10-20 more jobs in the county? How would they quantify economic benefit vs. public safety? A ski area has never succeeded at St. Mary’s.  The county spent $200,000 on a master plan. She read from the plan on pages 6-7, “Issues and Opportunities: to control growth and not exceed the capacity of Fall River Road.” “The intent would be to limit development in order to not exceed the capacity of Fall River Road.” She asked the Board to not ignore the work which went into creating the master plan and vote against this proposal.  Regarding increased property values, Zee Schultz stated this would also increase her property taxes and she didn’t want to pay for this proposal. She urged the Board to vote no based on their own master plan.

John Wood, 48 Overlook Court John Wood made the following statements:  He wanted not to be controversial but he gave up on that. He would never run for county commissioner as this process was unbelievable.  He now understood why businesses went out of country as this hearing was arguing about fiction, fantasy and air.  Regarding the Emergency Services concerns, his wife took an ambulance and he received the bill. Emergency Services was not a benevolent activity.  Regarding the Forest Service, he called them about this land swap deal. The Forest Service wanted land swaps because they wanted contiguous pieces of property for firefighting. Whenever they could, they tried to do land swaps. He didn’t know if one would happen with Eclipse Snow Park.  This debate appeared to be the senior citizens versus the younger generation. A school issue would never get through this debate. The seniors were concerned about the younger drivers on Fall River Road. Based on his research, the most dangerous drivers were senior citizens.  Regarding Fall River Road, if it was hazardous then work should be started now. He went kayaking and he thought that was dangerous. He didn’t realize that driving down Fall River Road was more dangerous.  He thanked county staff for all their hard work and OEM made some great points. It was nice to see government could work.

Betsy Berarducci, 5080 Fall River Road Betsy Berarducci made the following statements:  She asked if the Development Review Process was for 12 acres or for 300 acres. Commissioner O'Malley replied it was for 12 acres.  She asked what would happen if the development was changed to a 300 acre proposal? Commissioner O'Malley replied the applicant would have to complete this entire process again.  She had hiked, skied, up Anchor Gulch for the last 20 years. It was a great recreation area.  She had no problem with a 12 acre ski area as it would be hidden in the trees. She valued the tundra above the tree line. Most of the Eclipse Snow Park acreage went above the tree line. She did not want this area developed.  Regarding the statement that if the ski area failed only Coors would be hurt, she disagreed stating the alpine zone would be hurt and it was in direct line of sight with the James Peak Wilderness Area.  When this proposal first came, there was discussion of trailhead facilities, bathrooms, trash, etc and now this was all dropped. The parking lot at St. Mary’s could not handle all the traffic. She asked the applicant to re-include a solution for the parking issue.  Peech Keller stated the Resolution still includes rumble strips as a requirement of development. She requested these be clarified and hopefully, removed from the proposal.  Betsy Berarducci’s husband was a hunter and he could be above tree line and could still hear the rumble strips below on I-70. Graham Knight was right that they would be heard 24/7. She thought the rumble strips were a terrible idea.  She believed the proposal for the additional guard rails was a great idea.  She submitted a “No Rumble Strips” sign into the record. The Board accepted this sign as Exhibit 27 into the record.

Bruce Blocker, 2879 Fall River Road Bruce Blocker made the following statements:  His family had owned property on Fall River Road since the 1970’s.  He had lived on Fall River on/off for the last 20 years.  He used to be a construction worker and built roads all over Colorado as a union cement finisher. He understood roads.  He lived here when Fall River Road was built. It was a big deal every spring when the road graders came in to blade out the ruts from winter. Fall River Road was 5-8” of road grade which included clay, dirt, gravel, etc to make a solid road. On top of this was 3-5” of asphalt. There were no shoulders on Fall River Road. This worked for most cars and trucks.  He asked the county to look at the edge of the road next time they were up there. Some parts of it were undermined and you could see where people had run off the road. This was not a big deal.  He had seen what construction vehicles do to roads like this one. It was not pretty. The large construction trucks could take out chunks of 8-10”. This could be dangerous on the switchbacks. This will affect the roads up by the glacier more because they had further to travel. Hitting these divots would not be good for peoples’ cars. He asked the Board to imagine a young person hitting these divots after drinking at about 50 mph.  Regarding the proposed construction jobs the applicant was presenting, he had experience in this industry and they would not be hiring anyone from this area. They would hire from Denver from the unions. The applicant would not get the quality workers for $25/hour.

Molly Ferrer, 451 Harris Drive Molly Ferrer made the following statements:  Her family owned three lots in the Alice area.  Her family was in favor of Eclipse Snow Park.  She had two small boys and the nearest family-friendly ski area was Ski Cooper outside of Leadville. This was a 2 hour drive from her home.  She believed Eclipse Snow Park would increase their property values and be an asset to the community.  Many people had spoken of the snowball effect, e.g. 300 acres vs. 12 acres, having a liquor license, etc. She encouraged the audience to consider the actual proposal which was a modest family friendly ski area that many people in the community would enjoy.

Brian Ferrer, 451 Harris Drive Brian Ferrer made the following statements:  He was in favor of Eclipse Snow Park, was fully insured, 36 years old, a careful driver, and liked to ski and snowboard.  There was not a lot the county could offer that was affordable and close by.  This proposal was 12 acres and not 300 acres. He had not heard of any application of a liquor license.  The developer had cash to spend five years on this negotiation and seemed ready to lose it.  He suggested the county let him try it out. Let someone else try a ski area here and succeed. It was the American way. Michelle Beverly, 135 Beaver Circle Michelle Beverly made the following statements:  She bought her house at this address over three years ago with the knowledge that this area included outdoor recreation.  She looked forward to Eclipse Snow Park.  Outdoor recreation included camping on Forest Service lands which the local government had no control over. She had seen campfires 15 feet in the air. This scared her more than anything that could happen in the winter. She had called the Sheriff but they claimed it was Forest Service and there was nothing they could do. This was a forest fire waiting to happen.  Coors had shown his actions to be a good neighbor. He had made concessions to his original plan to fit well with the surroundings. This was a win/win for the county, Coors and local businesses.  She agreed with the opposition to the rumble strips. Eclipse Snow Park had agreed not to install them but to leave the option open for us to decide in the next 10 years. Most businessmen would not allow such an option. She doubted Coors would fight for the rumble strips if the community didn’t want them.  Change was difficult for people. However, change that was controlled and planned was good. The community needed Eclipse Snow Park. The county was lucky to have a developer who listened and compromised versus a giant ski corporation.  If the Board voted no, Coors may give up his dream and sell out to a major ski conglomerate or other business not conducive to the area. They will try to railroad ideas the community didn’t want.  The right developer was here now asking for our support. She thanked Coors and the Board for trying to do something great for the community.

Terry Laudick, St. Mary’s Terry Laudick made the following statements:  He asked how many people had moved to this area after the old ski area closed besides him. From the show of hands it was evident that people didn’t move here because of the ski area. He was not clear that having a ski area would attract positive development.  Eclipse Snow Park had not met the development review standards. The proposed structures would not impose an undue burden on public services and infrastructure. Public services included road maintenance, fire protection, law enforcement, Emergency Services, electric, phone, gas, school, etc.  Also in the development review standards, the change in traffic pattern and trip generation would not result in excessive congestion or traffic hazards as determined by review of the Road & Bridge department. Road & Bridge had identified significant hazards from this proposed development. These hazards were not being mitigated. Per the Road & Bridge report, he quoted “it is true that the development will cause a significant increase in daily traffic, but more importantly, it will significantly change traffic pattern that local users have grown accustomed to.”  Other concerns in the development review standards identified were wildlife, road and weather conditions, curves and narrow sections, slope failures, no shoulders, tight curves, limited site distance, hidden driveways, drifting snow, etc. These were all concerns of the Road & Bridge department. Each of these was a function of the physical condition of the road, weather, etc.  The Road & Bridge report stated the applicant’s mitigation efforts would help but they now appeared to fall short. The proposal fell short in addressing after-hours snow removal. It fell short in a plan to reduce the traffic volume on Fall River Road. It fell short in the revenue share the applicant would provide to Road & Bridge.  The Sheriff also identified significant traffic hazards as an argument against the project. This argument included the switchbacks hidden driveways, one way in/out for 489 houses, and the threat of winter storms stranding patrons.  The conditions of the road and on the road could not support this development.  In addition to undue burden on infrastructure, the development would impose undue burdens on public services which were paid for by taxpayers.  He urged the Board to recognize these shortfalls as measured against the development review standards and oppose the development.

Commissioner O'Malley stated this was the end of the public comment list. Omer Humble stated at the May 26th hearing, there were copies of the staff report presented but the public had not had time to review the staff report until after the meeting was completed. He had read this staff report and found many insufficiencies. He asked the Board to accept a rebuttal report to the staff report as prepared by Marion Anderson, Clyde Anderson, and Omer Humble. The Board accepted Omer Humble’s submittal as Exhibit 28 into the record. Andy Spielman had no objection to this submittal; however, he disagreed that the staff report was not available until the meeting. He explained the staff report was available on the internet prior to the May 26th meeting.

Commissioner O'Malley closed public comment. Andy Spielman asked that the applicant have time for a brief rebuttal before the close of the hearing. Commissioner O'Malley agreed.

The Board accepted the sign in sheets from May 26t and June 16th as Exhibit 29 and 30, respectively.

Commissioner O'Malley closed public comment and offered the applicant a chance to address some things said during public comment. Staff would also have the opportunity to address public comment as well. Commissioner O'Malley suggested a 10 minute break.

The hearing reconvened and Commissioner O'Malley offered Andy Spielman the opportunity to speak. Andy Spielman made the following comments:  He thanked the Board and the audience for their patience and professionalism at the hearings.  He thanked County staff for their efforts on this case. It was noticed and recognized.  There was much emotion in the room and rightly so. Everyone at the hearing loved their community and their home. He was a guest and privileged to be so.  Michael Coors was not. He was privileged to be here but he was not a guest in the community. He was not just a landowner but an active member of the community and had been so for years. He listened and worked hard to address the concerns of the community. A vast majority of attendees before the Planning Commission wanted to see this project happen.  The question of whether the old ski area should reopen or whether it was appropriate at this location was not before the Board tonight. That decision was made by this Board when the rezoning to Commercial-Outdoor Recreation occurred. The Board conditioned the rezoning on review and compliance with the development review standards. This was appropriate.  His statement was about correcting some things stated this evening and that were placed into the record. The record was important as this was a legal proceeding.  Seventy percent of the 300+ acres that Coors’ owned was zoned M-1, not open space. M-1 has as a use by right, uses that don’t require development review. A fraction of those allowed uses were: railroad tracks, conveyors, hoisting plants, mills, waste dumps, smelters, core drill stations, power generation facilities, crushers, leach pads, sluices, rockers, dredges, amalgamators, roasters, and explosive magazines.  The rezoning provided a new opportunity for the community and the county. The landowner was submitting and application for review to make use of his private property in compliance with county code. This proposal was not the old one which was not well received.  Commissioner Dale gave the applicant a challenge and it’s been recognized. The applicant would not waste the county’s time without meeting the challenge head on and squarely.  Instead of trying to figure how to fit a large project into this community, the project was tremendously downsized. The proposal was 50 skiers on an average weekday and 100 skiers on an average weekend. There was more than that number of people in attendance at this hearing.  Speculation about future land plans was an inappropriate distraction from the application before the Board tonight. He understood the concern but this was a different proceeding. If future development were proposed, there was a county process for that which triggered reviews, public hearings, etc.  In land use cases, the first question was zoning. This property was rezoned by this Board conditionally as commercial-outdoor recreation. This zoning was more restrictive and protective than the zonings for the other ski areas in the county.  The Colorado law required that general conformity with the county’s master plan. The applicant did not contend this as they believed the proposal absolutely conformed to this county master plan. Per chapter 4, he quoted from the county’s master plan: “north of Fall River Road and within the St. Mary’s Glacier area residential and recreation uses will be encouraged. Presently these areas are experiencing substantial residential development.” Even with residential growth, the plan acknowledged growth in this area. More people were coming in. Even with this growth, the county’s vision for St. Mary’s was to encourage recreational development.  A ski area near a residential area wasn’t just tolerated but anticipated. It was encouraged by the Planning Commission and this was enacted by the Commissioners.  In a later section of this chapter in the master plan, Accommodating Growth, he quoted the plan to read: “support continued cooperative interaction between public and private entities and numerous commercial properties to develop winter recreation and visitor use facilities.”  Regarding chapter 6 of the plan as quoted by Zee Schultz, Significant Areas, he quoted this section: “areas that are strategic to the overall master plan vision and goals.” Six issues and opportunities that the plan calls for:  “Actively promote St. Mary’s Glacier as a tourist designation. Actively promote the glacier as a tourist destination.  Protect the natural resources and beauty of the area.” With accepting this down- zoning, the applicant was leaving the possible industrial uses behind and having outdoor recreation.  “Improve recreation opportunities.  Control growth.” The same page defines growth as residential growth. The applicant was consistent with this.  “Protect the Fall River watershed basin and its surrounding ecosystem.” The applicant was not proposing leach pits, impoundments, mines or adits on their properties above the glacier if the rezoning was enacted.  “Do not exceed the capacity of Fall River Road.” The proposal before the Board at this hearing did not exceed the capacity of Fall River Road.  They were not the only ones to agree that this applicant conformed to the county standards. The county staff and Planning Commission had overwhelmingly recommended approval.  He wanted to clarify several unsupported or inaccurate statements made during public comment. They looked forward to more interaction with the community regardless of the outcome of this hearing.  Regarding the economics of the ski industry, the 2009/2010 ski season was the second best in the USA history just shy of 60 million skier visits. The Rocky Mountain region continued dominance over all positions. Colorado held 7% of the nation’s ski areas and accounted for 20% of the skier visits. Vail Resorts was a public traded company and they reported a 4% increase this past season. The Denver Post just reported that Colorado skier visits increased last year to 11.8 million. There was demand for more skiing in Colorado. There was demand for more skiing in Clear Creek County. Ski areas in this county could bring a positive economy.  Second, was traffic – the elephant in the room. The county design criteria for Fall River Road were not exceeded with this proposal. There was no scenario in this proposal where the design capacity was exceeded. Design capacity for the road was 2000 vehicle trips per day. The independent analysis done by the county’s traffic engineer showed a 2030 vehicle trips per day in 2030. The applicant proposed 1620 vehicle trips per day on a March weekend, 20% below capacity. The applicant was thankful for the addition of the Fair & Pierce analysis. These folks were experts in their industry and they found no design criteria capacity issues.  The worst case projection was in 2030 at a 1750 vehicle trips per day which was Eclipse Snow Park at 300 skiers, full capacity on a March weekday. This was still 15-16% below design capacity in 20 years.  Regarding the Road & Bridge referral letter read into the record, it did not take into account the mitigation measures. The staff report responded to Road & Bridge department’s submittal stating Eclipse Snow Park proposed 300 vehicle trips per day on ten peak season days. The mitigation measures proposed by the applicant would help with the safety as the traffic increased. County staff also recommended mitigation measures to alleviate traffic hazards. With the incorporation of these mitigations, staff believed the applicant met the development review standards.  Regarding net revenue to the county, comments had been made at these hearings that were not substantiated. The record before the Commissioners reflected a net positive impact to the county in every year of operation.  There was no burden to the county services and the record reflected this.  The 1% ticket contribution was voluntary and hardly the standard in the industry. The industry standard did not matter. What mattered was what worked for the county. The net revenue to the county included sales tax, lodging tax, 1% ticket contribution, and property taxes to both the new and current landowner.  The landowner’s current property taxes were just under $10,000 a year. If the rezoning were approved via the development review approval, and construction began, the county would reassess the property taxes at $20,200, thereby doubling the tax revenue to the county. This number would double in year five and continue to grow. The net county impact would be nearly $20,000 to the positive in the first year and nearly $30,000 by years 5 and 6.  Regarding public safety, this was extraordinarily important to Eclipse Snow Park. Loveland reported 40 ambulatory calls. In their season of 313,564, this resulted in one ambulance for every 7800 skiers. Eclipse Snow Park at full buildout did not get this many skiers. The Eclipse Snow Park application stated seven ambulance trips to be conservative. This number was estimated by former Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson. The comments of the public and the public safety officials have been satisfied.  Guardrails would be installed. They did not exist now but they were needed.  Sheltering would happen at Eclipse Snow Park. There was currently no sheltering for backcountry skiers and other recreationalists. Both of the snow park facilities, the lodge and the maintenance building did have restrooms and the neighbors, this evening, attested to another 160 additional beds in the immediate vicinity of the ski area. This was an incredibly generous offer by the residents and he thanked them.  Regarding off-street parking, none existed except one private commercial lot. Additional off-street parking would be offered to keep cars off the road.  There would be a helicopter landing zone which did not exist now. There would be first responders servicing Eclipse Snow Park ski patrol. There would be dedicated long term percentage revenue dedicated to the needs of county Emergency Services and Road & Bridge.  Regarding other benefits to the county, he wanted to clarify some mistakes made. Regarding jobs, there would be 25 full time jobs, not 25 jobs. If these were half time positions, there would be 50 jobs. The cumulative FTE impact in the first 5-6 years would be 116 FTE or 230 half time jobs.  Many of the road improvements were needed regardless of Eclipse Snow Park. If their application was approved, these improvements would happen.  In summary, the public safety improvements included the sheltering, landing zones, off-street parking, Road & Bridge, Emergency Services facilities and new sanitation facilities.  Regarding the community connection, the applicant was restoring the ski heritage to the area and diversifying the economy. He was transforming the industrial zoned properties to recreation. He was avoiding the environmental threats to the watershed.  He stated the applicant had met its burden and demonstrated compliance with the county development review standards. This application was appropriate for approval. The applicant awaited the Board’s decision.

Commissioner O'Malley asked for staff comment. Trent Hyatt entered into the record the notice of publication for the continuance of this meeting from May 26, 2010. The Board accepted this publication as Exhibit 31. Trent Hyatt entered into the record some additional comments he had received since the May 26, 2010 hearing which included comments from Marion Anderson- her speech from the May 26th hearing; Mary Madison—stating her favor of the project, Melissa Mannix—giving permission for her mother to speak for her, Orlando Lara—stating his favor of the project, one from Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation—stating the implant model used by the applicant was an excellent and reliable model and they welcomed the application. The Board accepted these comments together as Exhibit 32 into the record.

Trent Hyatt clarified the acreages associated with the project. The total project site owned by the applicant was 290.33 acres. The development review parcels included 100.44 acres however, the development review application was only associated with 12 of those 100 acres.

Trent Hyatt also noted that the link on the county website for the staff report for this hearing was actually the link for the Planning Commission staff report and that correction was made online to correct that problem last week.

Commissioner Drury asked of Trent Hyatt received any further response from the Sheriff. Trent Hyatt replied that he had not.

Commissioner O'Malley asked if there were further comments from staff. Chris Sheffer of Fair & Pierce Consultants for the County made the following statements:  He wanted to provide a clarification on the traffic counts.  One resident claimed the counts were not conducted accurately.  He had received information from the applicant referring to the existing counts taken back in 2007. These counts were averaged over four weekdays which Fair & Pierce found as adequate according to industry standards.  The count that was averaged resulted in 990 trips per day. This was the existing 2007 count collected by All Traffic Data.

An audience member asked if the Board should consider the Combination of Lots Agreement and the 1041 case first before the Development Review Process. Commissioner O'Malley replied there were three processes before the Board. The Development Review Process and vested rights were considered first. Depending on that decision, the applicant may decide to withdraw or proceed with the other two applications. There would be public comment on these other two cases. The audience member questioned the appropriateness of considering Development Review Process without first considering the 1041 hearing. The more restrictive regulation should be the ruling regulation. Commissioner O'Malley stated the process had already been laid out and they were following this process. The Board was now in deliberations between the three of them. Following this Development Review Process hearing, the Board would open the Combination of Lots Agreement and 1041 hearings.

Commissioner Dale made the following statements:  He appreciated there was never anything controversial in the county.  He was struggling with two requirements for development review, standards for approval #11 (ambulance/law enforcement/fire) and #12 (traffic generation).  The ski area was generating counter flow traffic. He was concerned about this. He understood the county had counter flow traffic in the summer for recreationalists but he was worried about it during the winter on Fall River Road.  There were issues with site distance as pointed out by the Sheriff and Road & Bridge. This proposal was creating a traffic hazard which was not mitigated. He had not seen effective mitigation proposed for this situation. He struggled with this issue.  He was also not convinced that this proposal didn’t place an undue burden on the public service, e.g. Road & Bridge, fire protection, ambulance and sheriff services. He was not convinced the additional revenue would cover the additional costs.  He was really struggling with standards #11 and #12.

Commissioner Drury made the following statements:  She, too, was struggling with standards #11 and #12.  She was concerned about the offers of the homeowners. She understood their generosity to help others but it was difficult to do. Did these homeowners have diapers, water, food supplies, and medications? Could they handle the stress involved with stressed out stranded people? These were the issues encountered when the county had sheltered folks in the past. There were only a handful of folks that volunteered for such a position with the CERT team.  Commissioner Drury understood for sheltering purposes, the volunteers could only work for 12 hours at a time. Getting the volunteers to the St. Mary’s area would be difficult. Would there be cots, blankets, etc at the ski area?  Commissioner Drury did not believe the new fire house at St. Mary’s was set up with these supplies yet.  There were many life safety issues which concerned her.  Commissioner Drury was concerned also about ambulance service. The county currently subsidized the ambulance department. It did not pay its own way. If there was one ambulance at Loveland, one at Echo Mountain Park, and one at Eclipse Snow Park, this consumed all the ambulances the county had. The rest of the county would be without coverage. This was a serious concern.  Clear Creek was a large county and there were many miles of roads. A lot of people would need assistance with access. This, too, was a concern.  Regarding the Sheriff’s office, Don Krueger was adamantly opposed to this proposal. She hoped that the Sheriff and the applicant could have made some progress toward the Sheriff’s issues. She had not seen where the Sheriff had come across so adamantly opposed in the past. This was a concern.  She had been in this county for a long time and quality of life issues were important. She could not even imagine rumble strips on Fall River Road!  Additional traffic was going to happen. There were many lots in the St. Mary’s area that were undeveloped. It was going to happen. However, to have even more traffic with skiers and those trying to access I-70 from Fall River Road was a big deal.

Commissioner O'Malley made the following statements:  Per the last two hearings, there was definitely a lot of support and a lot of opposition to this proposal.  On the opposition side were the Sheriff and the Road & Bridge department, although any improvements to Fall River Road they would appreciate. There were homeowners adamantly opposed. The OEM department had concerns. Finally, the county master plan had been quoted in opposition.  Alternatively, the Planning Commission overwhelmingly approved this proposal in a 6-1 vote. The Planning department and staff recommended approval. There were homeowners which were equally adamantly in favor of this proposal. And, the county master plan had been quoted extensively in favor of the proposal.  Rumble strips were an effective and passive traffic control device but it’s not something this Board would choose to approve. He was not in favor of these rumble strips. The idea that they would be 24/7 was too much for this canyon.  Regarding property values, if anyone had a crystal ball to predict what would happen, they were smarter than him. The assumption could be made that if the ski area was successful then the property values may increase. Even if the ski area did end up being 300 acres, this was such a miniscule size that it didn’t even compare to Vail or even Loveland. It was difficult to reasonably predict whether the impact would positive or negative. No one would know this answer for at least 10 years. The effect on real estate values was really not a part of the equation.  Regarding construction damage to the road, this was a good point. If this project was approved, this was an issue that would have to be managed e.g. repairing any damage to the road caused by construction trucks.  If there was any expansion of any kind for this development, the rules in place demanded that this kind of process happen again. The applicant had agreed to this in his comments.  The real issue was that of the road. There would be impacts to the road if this was approved. Even at this reduced proposal, there would be increased traffic. However, it wouldn’t take traffic on the road beyond what it was designed for. Improvements would be made like guardrails.  He was glad the sheltering request was brought up. One thing to keep in mind was this sheltering requirement was not made of Loveland or Echo Mountain Park. The county had to be careful about treating everyone the same. He didn’t disagree there should be a plan in place at Eclipse Snow Park but the applicant was receptive to developing one.  There were people close to the development that were opposed to this proposal. The reality of this county was that it was dying. The county had a population, which was the most dynamic population – ages 25-50 years old, which had fewer people than the State average. The School District continued to lose kids and this was one of the reasons.  This was a great place to live for those who had been here for five to 20 years but what were they leaving behind? If the people stood in the way of every development idea that came up, what did this leave for the next generation? What was the county doing to attract this next generation?  His believe was pro-development. People thought it was so he could make money but he was pro-development because he wanted the county to thrive and survive.  If a motion was made to approve this Resolution with additional conditions, he would support it. If there was a motion to deny this application, he would vote against it.

Commissioner Dale made the following statements:  He knew the Board had multiple discussions about development in the county and he had been on one side of that debate. He would be on that same side tonight.  The rural and remote areas of the county were not the first choice for development because of the cost of supporting that development in terms of providing public service.  This was a one way in/out road and that had substantial life safety issues which were not addressed by this proposal. This made it difficult for him to support this proposal.  Loveland and Echo Mountain Park had much better access. Loveland was not on a county road.  There was a conflict between residential and commercial development and it was difficult to find commercial development in residential neighborhoods that was well accepted.  This case was unique in that a part of the community wanted this ski area in their backyard. There were other folks along the road which were opposed.  In reflection, he was concerned about the life safety issues on that road. Had it been his decision, he would not have approved half of the residential lots in this area because the road could not support it.  He could not in good conscience approve a development that would add to the life safety issues with counter flow traffic every day. He would be opposing this proposal.

Commissioner O'Malley asked Commissioner Dale why he went through the process of creating and approving a commercial-outdoor recreation zoning district if he wouldn’t contemplate allowing that type of development. Commissioner Dale replied it was a fair question but if the hearing happened again today, he would not make the same decision. Commissioner O'Malley clarified it was not about the rezoning of this property he referred but the actual creation of the zoning called Commercial-Outdoor Recreation. Commissioner Dale replied it was a fair zoning category. Commissioner O'Malley asked where in the county was a road which accessed recreation for this zoning. Commissioner Dale replied Berthoud Pass and other areas that were not one way in/out or in a residential community.

Commissioner Drury made the following statements:  Much time had been spent in discussion and reviewing all of the paperwork and applications.  It didn’t matter that she had lived in Clear Creek County for a long time.  At night, she had to go home and look in the mirror and live with herself.  The life safety issues of this road and what could happen there were too much. She didn’t want people’s lives on her hands or that she had chosen development over life safety issues.  The one way in/out was too big of a concern.  She did agree with Commissioner O'Malley that this county needed development.  She had been concerned about Fall River Road for a long time. Rocks could fall and block that road for awhile. It was hard to take the back roads out of there to Gilpin County.  The possibility of forest fires also greatly concerned her.  Her decision would be that should not support this proposal based on these items.

Commissioner Dale motioned to deny the Development Review Process proposal from Eclipse Snow Park and direct staff to prepare such a Resolution. Commissioner Drury seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Drury thanked the Coors’ group for the time and effort they invested in their applications, the Planning staff, Road & Bridge, the Sheriff’s office, etc. Everyone approached this as objectively as possible and people made their decisions about this proposal based on certain things.

The motion passed with Commissioner Drury and Commissioner Dale in favor and Commissioner O'Malley opposed.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to continue this hearing to review the Resolution for denial to July 7, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner O'Malley asked the applicant about the remaining two hearings, the Combination of Lots Agreement and the 1041 application. Andy Spielman replied they would not withdraw either application. Mr. Loeffler directed the Board to open and hear the Combination of Lots Agreement and 1041 cases.

Commissioner O'Malley opened the Combination of Lots Agreement case #CLA-2009- 0002. Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to continue this hearing to July 7, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley opened the 1041 Case #SI-2010-0001 for Eclipse Snow Park. The audience suggested this hearing be continued to July 7th as well. Andy Spielman replied the applicant was ready to present their application if it pleased the Board. Commissioner Dale made the motion to continue the 1041 hearing to July 7th, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 23, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 23, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-68, RESOLUTION TO NAME AN UNNAMED ROAD OFF OF WEST CHICAGO CREEK ROAD TO ROCKY ROAD: In attendance were Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault. Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel and Land Use Secretary Jan Patterson presented the following information:  Site Development was proposing to name a previously unnamed road to Rocky Road.  The aforementioned road was a private road serving as an access for three residences therefore mandating that it be named under the Clear Creek County Addressing policy.  The Site Development Department sent notices on November 23, 2009, and January 12, 2010 to the three property owners with residences on this road, notifying them of the need to name the road, and asking for road name suggestions.  The three suggestions received represent 100% of the homeowners immediately adjacent the road.  Site Development had reviewed the name Rocky Road and found that it was acceptable according to the Clear Creek County policy.  Staff recommended approval of the name Rocky Road pursuant to draft resolution #10-68.  On June 16, 2010, letters were sent to the homeowners, informing them of the public hearing for the approval of the road name, and inviting them to attend with their comments. There was no public in attendance.

No public comment was received. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve resolution #10-68, resolution to name an unnamed road off of West Chicago Creek Road to Rocky Road. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 2010 COMPENSATION AND PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-71, RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE REAL ESTATE DOCUMENTS: Regarding the warrant register, Commissioner O'Malley asked about the fees for Allen Technology, the Sheriff’s office IT service. Carl Small stated it was mostly service calls, upgrades, and changing out computer parts. Commissioner O'Malley asked for a better understanding of these expenses. Commissioner Drury noted the performance appraisal was for all employees except those of the Sheriff’s office. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FROM THE GEORGETOWN COMMUNITY SCHOOL: Principal Rick Winter presented. Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, and PBS&J Engineer Mark Jahnke attended. Rick Winter presented the following information:  Each day the students began their day with an assembly to grow strong bodies, minds and hearts. He encouraged the Board to attend an assembly.  Cindy Neely had been mentoring Rick Winter to derive a focused plan for grants and fundraising. She had coached him to focus on two main goals and seek funding for these goals.  The two main goals between the teachers and the Board were an art/music program and a response to intervention program.  One option for the Board of County Commissioners would be to support the program via an annual $2000 donation or the Board could jump start the program with a onetime $10,000 donation.  The music/arts program assisted with childhood development. Studies showed that students needed a balanced curriculum to enhance their basic skills of math and reading.  The Georgetown Community School wanted to bring in a music teacher one day a week for preschool through 6th grade.  The school wanted to sustain this music/arts program for 5 years.  The second project proposal was a response to intervention program. This program provided additional tutoring and mentoring for certain students who weren’t getting it in the classroom. They were either too far behind or needed a more intensive instruction. This had worked well in the reading program. They now needed it in the math and writing programs.

Commissioner O'Malley made the following statements:  There were complications between the Clear Creek School District and the county government. He was unsure of what the Board’s options were.  The county would research the request to see if it could be done.  The Board was in support of what the school was doing but the question was, could they legally financially support it. The second question was should the Board support the program.

Commissioner Drury understood the financial challenges as she and Commissioner O'Malley had both been on the Board of the Clear Creek School District. They understood the importance of these two programs and the well rounded student.

Rick Winter wanted to create a sustainable source of revenue that was outside the per pupil program and obtain champions from the community at a pledge per year. They were researching different government sources as a strong school system created jobs and more residents. The school had seen an increase in students but they wanted to see more. He wanted this as a destination area for families. They just needed the seed money to start these programs.

Commissioner O'Malley replied the Board would discuss what they could do and would let Rick Winter know.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: This hearing was canceled. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-22, RESOLUTION TO REVISE THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS FOR UTILITY SCALE WIND AND SOLAR FACILITIES: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-23, RESOLUTION TO REVISE THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY 1041 REGULATIONS FOR UTILITY SCALE WIND AND SOLAR FACILITIES: In attendance were Clear Creek Watershed Foundation representatives Diane Kielty and Chris Crouse, Idaho Springs Councilwoman Kate Collier, residents Tom Wilson, Jerry Fabyanic, Dan Ebert, Dr. George and Jane Yamasaki, Phil wick, Jonathan Warner, Dick Woods, Historic District Public Lands Commission representative Matt Skeen, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Planner I Adam Springer, Engineering Dynamics representative Howard McGregor, Kent Sterett, James Thomas, Randy Owens, Otto Van Geet, Chip Bair, Tim Olson, Julie Shepherd, Frank Young, and Sarah Russell.

Commissioner O'Malley made the following opening statements:  A lot of conversations about this topic had been occurring.  The Planning Commission did a great job in leading those conversations.  The Planning Staff had done a good job of getting the county to this point.  The Board of County Commissioners did recall a lot of the past conversations so it was not necessary to restate the entire presentation.

Frederick Rollenhagen presented the following information via a PowerPoint presentation: STAFF REPORT FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Regarding an agenda item on June 23, 2010

AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing: Consideration of approval of Resolution #10-22, Resolution to revise the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations for utility scale wind and solar facilities, and Consideration of approval of Resolution #10-23, Resolution to revise the Clear Creek County 1041 Regulations for utility scale wind and solar facilities

STAFF: Frederick Rollenhagen, Planning Director

PURPOSE: The Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution #08-034 that sets a goal for the creation of 1,000 megawatts (1 gigawatt) of energy through local solar, wind, hydro, biomass, and geothermal projects, including demand side management energy savings initiatives, by 2018. The purpose of this effort is to review the Clear Creek County land use regulations as they may apply to utility-scale renewable energy power systems as described above, in order to further the Commissioners’ 1 gigawatt goal.

There are also certain land characteristics in the County that make development of renewable energy power facilities desirable. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has released wind and solar resource maps that show favorable wind and solar readings in Clear Creek County (see Exhibits 6 and 8). Specifically, Class 6 and 7 wind profiles have been identified along some of the County’s ridgelines that are considered “Outstanding” and “Superb” for wind power development which appears to be somewhat rare even in a state like Colorado where there is sufficient wind resources in other areas. For solar, there is a general solar benefit that encompasses the entire southwest portion of the United States including the state of Colorado. For geothermal resources, there are several known areas of specific geothermal activity in Clear Creek County such as the Idaho Hot Springs, and the area underneath the Henderson Mine. The feasibility of these or other resources to be used for power generation is not as advanced as our knowledge of generating power from wind and solar. In general, however, the mountainous areas of Colorado are known to have geothermal resources (see Exhibit 9).

The other primary characteristic that makes Clear Creek County important for power generation potential are existing available electric transmission lines. The County is crossed by two existing 230 KVA transmission lines and one 115 KVA line which have excess capacity (see Exhibit 7 and 15).

Revisiting the County’s regulations is necessary in order for the County to respond to these internal and external forces that will have an effect on land development in the County. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSIONS In order to understand the issues, challenges, potential impacts, and benefits of utility-scale renewable energy power generation, the Planning Commission held a series of four (4) Working Sessions between the months of August – December, 2009. All working sessions were open to the public and the Planning Commission invited public participation and comment during all 4 working sessions. The Planning Commission invited representatives from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to speak and to answer questions that they had on regulatory issues surrounding renewable energy development. They also heard from interested parties that identified a variety of potential impacts and benefits that the County might see with the approval of utility-scale renewable energy facilities.

SO, WHAT IS A UTILTIY-SCALE RENEWABLE ENERGY POWER FACILITY? Although, there is not a specific definition for “utility-scale” power facilities, whether renewable or not, there are other definitions in the County’s Zoning and 1041 Regulations that help us understand the scope of this consideration. Local communities who have adopted similar regulations will identify a specific definition for “utility-scale facilities” depending on local issues. At this time, Clear Creek County has defined major public utility facilities to include power plants that produce, generate, transmit, deliver, or furnish 1 megawatt or more of electricity for the production of power:

Power Plant: Any plant facility(ies) and equipment for the purposes of producing, generating, transmitting, delivering, or furnishing 1 megawatt or more of electricity for the production of power Public Utility: A public utility as defined by state law, with the exception of utilities owned and operated by a municipality located within Clear Creek County. Major Facilities of a Public Utility: Means the following (This definition includes all electrical utilities’ facilities, regardless of whether they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, which primarily generate and/or transmit electrical power to entities off- site): (1) Any transmission lines, power plants, and substations of electrical utilities (2) Any pipelines and storage areas of utilities providing natural gas or other petroleum derivatives to power plants and substations of electrical utilities (3) Any appurtenant facilities of a public utility which in the opinion of the Board (of County Commissioners) either by itself or in conjunction with other major facilities of a public utility are likely to cause a major impact upon the health, welfare, or safety of the citizens of the County, or upon the physical, social, or economic environment of the County or this region

PRIOR ACTION On May 6, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution #09-014 that revised the Zoning Regulations to accommodate for small wind and solar energy systems after a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Under this revision, a small-scale system was defined as one that produces no more than 100 kilowatts of power, and is accessory in nature to existing primary uses onsite such as a residence, business, mining operation, or similar.

Because small wind and solar energy systems produce no more than 100 kilowatts, the Planning Commission initially recommended that utility-scale wind and solar energy facilities be defined as those that produce more than 100 kilowatts of energy. However, the current recommendation from Staff and the Planning Commission is that the threshold remain at 1 mw.

WHAT DOES “RENEWABLE ENERGY” INCLUDE? Although neither the County’s Zoning Regulations nor 1041 Regulations have a definition of “renewable energy”, the Colorado Governor’s Energy Office (GEO) includes the following items as “renewable energy”. The information in this section of the Staff Report was taken from the web page of the GEO: (http://www.colorado.gov/energy/index.php?/renewable/) A. Biomass B. Biofuels C. Hydropower D. Solar E. Wind F. Geothermal With the exception of biofuels, all of these sources are identified in BOCC Resolution #08-034.

A. Biomass Biomass is organic matter that can be processed into energy for heat, liquid fuels, or power generation. Sources of biomass include wood, plants, agricultural residues, animal waste, and the organic components of municipal and industrial wastes. Biomass power can be generated at stand-alone power plants, cogeneration power plants or in microgeneration applications. A biomass power or cogeneration system typically consists of a combustor or a gasifier and a prime mover that uses steam from a boiler or combustible gas from a gasifier to produce heat and/or power. Installations range in size from less than 0.75 megawatt (MW) electric capacity to over 50 MW.

B. Hydropower Hydropower is created by running water from a reservoir through a hydraulic turbine that spins and drives a generator shaft to create electricity. The distance between the water’s sources to its outflow (called the “head”) is a major factor when determining a site’s potential for hydroelectric generation. The greater the elevation change, the greater the potential for power generation. Hydropower facilities are very useful for managing peak load and for power regulation purposes (keeping supply and demand in balance), as well as restoring the grid after a blackout.

According to a 2005 inventory done by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, there are sixty-two operating hydropower facilities in Colorado. These have a combined installed capacity of approximately 1,162 MW and produce about 1,036 gigawatt (GW) hours of electricity annually. These plants range in size from 5 kilowatts (KW) to 300 MW and include three pumped storage facilities.

Similar to hydropower, “pumped hydro storage” uses off-peak power to pump water uphill into a reservoir, thus making it available for generation during peak hours. This is one of the few forms of electricity storage available to utilities. Clear Creek County’s own Cabin Creek Hydropower Plant is pumped hydro storage.

C. Solar It is estimated that Colorado – one of the sunniest states in the country – could produce as much as 83 million megawatt-hours per year of its electricity from solar technologies. Solar energy can be used to generate electricity and to provide heat for buildings and water. Aside from passive solar heat, the GEO has identified two (2) types of solar power usage:

Photovoltaics The word photovoltaic (PV) means “converting light to electricity.” PV panels, seen more and more often on Colorado roof tops, are composed of cells that contain a semi- conducting material, usually silicon. The semi-conducting material absorbs light energy from the sun and converts it into electricity. Solar arrays, a system of PV panels, are designed specific to the needs of the site at which they are installed and can be used to meet most electricity needs depending on a few factors: the site’s exposure to the sun, the angle of the panels, and whether the system is connected to the utility grid. PV arrays are typically either mounted directly on a rooftop or on a pole on the ground.

Solar Thermal Solar thermal systems function relatively simply; heat from the sun is collected in sealed tubes that contain a liquid. The liquid acts as a heat transfer. The heat from the sun warms up the liquid and the liquid is carried from the collector through a heat exchanger into a storage tank. The storage tank holds the water until it is needed for domestic use (showers, laundry, etc.) or for space heating.

D Wind The U.S. Department of Energy states that “Wind energy is the fastest growing type of energy generation in the United States and around the world. This growth can be attributed to a greatly reduced cost of production, customer demand for clean, diverse sources of electricity, and state and federal incentives to stimulate the markets also contributed to wind energy’s growth.

In Colorado, the popularity of wind energy is reflected by the success of Windsource®, Xcel Energy’s voluntary green-pricing program, which has one of the highest participation levels of any such utility program in the nation and is currently experiencing another period in which consumers are on waiting lists.

Colorado has vaulted into sixth place nationally in wind capacity, trailing only Texas, California, Iowa, Washington and Minnesota. Colorado’s strong showing was made possible by the installation in 2007 of 775 MW of new wind capacity (400 MW at Peetz Table in Logan County, 300 MW at Cedar Creek in Weld County, and 75 MW at Twin Buttes in Bent County). E. Geothermal Geothermal power is energy generated from the heat stored beneath the Earth's surface. Geothermal energy has the potential to meet a large portion of the nation’s energy and power needs.

There are three different methods to convert geothermal heat into energy: dry steam systems, flash steam, and binary cycle.

Dry Steam Dry steam systems pump steam directly from underground sources to a power generation unit. Because there are only two known major U.S. sources of underground steam (Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming and the Geysers in Northern California) this method of electricity production is fairly uncommon. Currently there is only one dry steam plant, located at the Geysers in Northern California.

Flash Steam Flash steam power plants use reservoirs of hot water (>360°F) located beneath the earth’s surface. Wells are drilled to bring the hot water to the earth’s surface. The water is brought to the surface under pressure to keep it in liquid form. As the superheated water is released into the turbine area, it “flashes” to steam and expands, driving the turbine to generate power. Excess water is pumped back into the reservoir. This is the most popular method of geothermal power generation.

Binary Cycle Binary Cycle power plants use two independent cycles or loops. One loop contains thermal water from a geothermal well. The other contains a working fluid with a lower boiling point than water. The thermal water heats the working fluid through a heat exchanger, causing it to convert to a vapor and driving the turbine. These plants can utilize thermal water in the 200-360°F range. Some applications have been successful with temperatures as low as 165°F.

Additional to note, the US Department of Energy (DOE) developed the GeoPowering the West program. The program seeks to address barriers to geothermal utilization and identify opportunities for project development. Several western states are receiving support from DOE to operate working groups to tackle relevant issues and educate a broad audience about geothermal energy applications. The working groups focus on all categories of geothermal energy: electricity production; direct use and district heating; and geothermal heat pumps (geoexchange).

CLEAR CREEK COUNTY MASTER PLAN 2030 Below are those goals found in the Master Plan 2030 that appear to have relevancy to this effort. A. Goal 2-1 Balance the County’s personal, cultural, and environmental values with those values necessary for economic vitality. Encourage and promote the principles of environmental sustainability where growth is fostered. B. Goal 2-6: Pride in County’s Appearance Foster a sense of community pride, embodied in the community’s overall appearance, friendliness, environment, and historic uniqueness. C. 2-7: Preserve Mineral Resources Preserve the County’s mineral and natural resources for future generations. D. 2-8 Ensure adequate community resources (for whatever growth/development occurs) Ensure the provision of adequate community resources in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Economic Diversity and Vitality Additionally, Chapter 5: Economic Diversity and Vitality, describes the Master Plan 2030’s economic goals and objectives as it begins with the following statements: Clear Creek County will focus on economic diversification to reduce the dependency on the tax base generated by the Henderson Mine. A stable and diverse economy, supporting good wages, plays a significant role in maintaining the vitality and quality of life in a community. From an economic perspective, the most significant challenge that the County will likely face in the next several years is the gradual, or potentially complete, elimination of property taxes paid by the Henderson Mine. In conclusion, it offers the following: As we consider diversification, it is paramount that this diversification not necessarily be consistent with lower wages. Clear Creek County should analyze diversification in industry employment and tie that to annual average wages expressed in real dollars. An employment mix appears to be the goal in a diversified economy. As the County considers strengthening the tax base, a new replacement employment sector with like or higher wages is a necessary part of the calculation. Chapter 5 contains a number of goals such as conversion of the Henderson Mine, increase a broad mix of employment opportunities, seek increased economic activity, ensure adequate infrastructure, recognize the County’s cultural resources as valuable, support a positive business climate, municipal vitality, and the following: “Develop the County’s natural resources, including water, power, mining and other alternative sources of power as an economic base and potential for revenue as a community-owned asset”.

As a clarification to this last goal, Chapter 5 identifies the following Natural Resource Strategy: EDS36: Recognize Clear Creek County’s natural resources as a current and future income base and revenue source for the County. This focus should include, but not be limited to, minerals, water, and energy generation (known as alternative sources).

Prior to the current hype of terms such as “renewable energy” in the last few years, sources of energy from renewable sources were commonly known as “alternative energy sources” meaning that they are alternative to the standard oil, gas, and coal sources typically used today.

Cultural Resources With respect to the County’s cultural resources and their compatibility with large-scale power generation facilities that may cause an impact on them, there are a number of Historic Districts and Special Study Areas that the Master Plan 2030 identifies under its Community Culture section in Chapter 3. As a reference, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners took these areas into consideration when preparing and approving the small- scale wind and solar energy regulations. Beginning on page 3-27, I. Community Culture, the master plan indicates that cultural resources are important to many in the community and are reflected in the preservation of an assortment of historic structures and places. It is the goal of the Clear Creek County Master Plan to recognize the cultural resources and to maintain their preservation. The following is a list of these special areas:

Historic Districts 1. Georgetown/Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District 2. Idaho Springs Historic District 3. Dodge Ranch Historic District 4. Echo Lake Historic District 5. Summit Lake Historic District

Study Areas 1. Saxon Mountain Study Area 2. Upper Mountain Basin Study Area 3. Geneva Basin Study Area

Scenic and Historic Byways 1. Guanella Pass Road 2. Mt. Evans (Hwy. 103) By-Way

Heritage Areas 1. Silver Heritage Area 2. Geneva Basin Natural Heritage Area

EXISTING REGULATIONS A. Zoning Regulations Based on the existing definitions of a power plant and public utility, the County’s Zoning Regulations currently regulate all utility-scale power generation, including renewable utility-scale power generation, as follows: 1. Central Station Power Plant is permitted in the Industrial (I) zoning district. 2. A power plant request could also take advantage of the County’s Planned Development (PD) zoning and request approval of such zoning with a site specific Official Development Plan. A PD rezoning request would need to meet certain criteria relating to: 1. Natural hazard avoidance or mitigation for wildlife, wetlands, slope, geologic hazards, wildfire hazards, flood; 2. Verification of adequate utilities and infrastructure for access, water, sewage disposal, etc; 3. Certain design elements relating to fencing, landscaping, signage, lighting, junk and visual obstructions, if applicable

B. 1041 Regulations A utility-scale power generation facility must also apply and receive approval of a 1041 Permit for major facilities of a public utility which is an activity of state interest as authorized by Colorado Revised Statutes CRS 24-65.1-101. In 1974, the Colorado General assembly enacted House Bill 1041 which created a system to (a) identify specific types of development projects that may impact the state beyond their immediate scope, and (b) establish a set of criteria to be used by local governments in planning for and regulating such projects. In spite of their stated statewide purpose, these powers are generally intended to allow local governments to retain and increase their control over development projects even where the project has statewide impacts. Once prepared, the guidelines were to be reviewed by the Colorado Land Use Commission. However, despite the intent to involve the state with such land use issues through the Colorado Land Use Commission review, the legislature has recently disbanded the body.

Since 1974, the general intent and constitutionality of House Bill 1041 has been discussed and upheld in several cases. The most visible and controversial use of 1041 Regulations has been the regulation by several mountain communities of trans-mountain diversions. Many communities, including Clear Creek, have designated major water development projects as activities of statewide interest and require water developers, such as the City of Golden, or Coors Brewing Company, to obtain permits. Many communities also use 1041 Regulations to regulate major facilities of a public utility, including renewable energy facilities. Counties such as Alamosa and Weld Counties require 1041 Permits for utility scale wind and solar power generation facilities.

A 1041 Permit request would need to meet criteria relating to: 1. Demonstration of obtainment of all entitlements, 2. Applicant demonstrating necessary expertise and financial capability, technical and financial feasibility of the project 3. No undue financial burden or significant adverse effect on the County, its natural amenities, or economy 4. Conforms with master planning goals/objectives/vision 5. Natural hazard avoidance or mitigation 6. No degradation of air, water, wildlife, cultural resources 7. Design/landscaping standards/nuisance requirements 8. No determent to mineral resources 9. All alternatives to the proposed action have been assessed. 10. Location of the facility is not subject to weather/climate patterns that would interfere with operations. 11. Adequate infrastructure (water, access, gas, telephone, sewage, etc) is available. 12. No unreasonable risk of exposure to toxic/hazardous materials. 13. No duplication of services 14. There should be a demonstrated need if the purpose of the project is to meet needs in the County.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS REVISIONS A. Zoning Regulations Utilizing zoning in order to identify specific locations where renewable energy power facilities are most suitable or appropriate has been done by many communities. Some communities will “zone out” facilities in order to restrict them from being located in certain parts of the community where the impact is not feasible. Or in some cases, communities will zone facilities to areas only where the wind or solar resource is ideal. Both of these types of areas can be identified in Clear Creek County, however, a zoning district does not currently exist that would adequately accommodate for these types of characteristics. Wind and solar resources have been found in nearly all the County’s zoning districts during preliminary analysis of resource location (see attached ‘Target Areas for Wind and Southerly-Facing Slopes Map’, Exhibit 7). Therefore, rather than attempting to identify a new zoning district that would attempt to capture all of the suitable areas, it is recommended that renewable energy power facilities be permitted in most zoning districts that would be most likely to contain very large tracts of land as follows:

Mountain Residential – Single Family Units (MR-1) Mountain Residential – Large Lot Single Family (MR-5) Mountain Residential – Large Tract Single Family (MR-LT) Agricultural (AG) Commercial – Tourism/Recreation (C-TR) Commercial – Outdoor Recreation (C-OR) Industrial (I) Mining One (M-1) Mining Two (M-2) Natural Resource – Preservation/Conservation (NR-PC)

The County’s denser districts such as R-1, R-2, R-3,C-1, and C-N where more intensive residential and commercial scale development is permitted would not allow utility scale renewable energy facilities. Additionally, it is recommended that the Buffer Zoning District (B) not be included as a district where such uses are permitted. There are some areas within the B zoning district that are identified as containing wind and solar energy resources. This overlap can be reviewed in the “Renewable Energy Potential on “Buffer” Zoning Designations map” (Exhibit 12). However, because of the intent of this district as expressly providing for the long term conservation and preservation of lands, to protect natural resources, wildlife, significant views, and open space, not permitting these uses in the B Zoning District would appear to reflect the zoning district’s purpose. By allowing facilities in the majority of zoning districts, the 1041 Regulations would be able to address and regulate the relevant site impacts of the facilities, and ultimately, determine the most appropriate location of the facilities through criteria evaluation.

B. 1041 Regulations During the Planning Commission Working Sessions, the following issues related to utility-scale wind and solar energy facilities were identified that should be addressed in a regulation: 1. Access 2. Visual Impact 3. Environmental Impact 4. Historical/Cultural Resources Impact 2. Appearance/Color/Finish 5. Substation Capacity and Equipment 7. Lighting 8. Noise 9. Other Permits required 10. Restoration/Reclamation Requirements 11. Setbacks 12. Shadow Flicker 13. Signage 14. Signal/Electromagnetic Interference 15. Spacing and Density 16. Adverse Affect on desired Community Land Use Patterns (such as unintended changes of land use patterns and characteristics in “Remote” areas)

Working drafts of regulations revisions presented to the Planning Commission during their Working Sessions were used to address these issues by listing them and then identifying submittal requirements and approval criteria to either avoid or mitigate associated impacts. What was discovered was that many of these issues are currently addressed in the existing 1041 Regulations and we found that it is not necessary to put together a new chapter specifically for RE Regulations, rather Staff found that a nominal amount of revision is all that is required to add some of these issues to the regulation.

The attached draft 1041 Regulation revisions (Exhibit 5) identify revisions in red. It is the objective of these revisions that they assure the 1041 Regulations will adequately address the above listed issues specific to wind and solar facilities. Criteria being added address the issues below that appear to be lacking in the existing regulations. 1. Roads/Access 2. Community Noise 3. Shadow Flicker 4. Electromagnetic Interference 5. Complaint Resolution When reviewing these revisions, be sure to consider the 1041 Regulations in their entirety, including the Appendix. The Appendix will be a useful tool for the County and applicants in order to understand the types of things that the County Commissioners may consider on balance in determining whether a project complies with the Criteria for Approval.

The Criteria for Approval, when taken into context with the information that is listed in the Appendix, allows the County to take a comprehensive look at the site specifics of a certain application to understand the specific impacts that are created by the application. This can be more effective in mitigating or avoiding adverse impacts of a project rather than listing boiler- plate standards that would apply to any application.

C. 1 MW or 100kW? During the Planning Commission’s first working session on August 5th, it was discussed whether or not the threshold for the 1041 Permit to apply to utility-scale wind and solar projects should remain at the existing 1 megawatt generation capacity, or if it should be lowered to include those projects generating more than 100 kilowatts of power. Some Planning Commission members thought that requiring all projects over 100kw to go through the same process would simplify the process in general. However, Staff found that there would be some inequity among power generation projects if the threshold would be lowered only for wind and solar projects. Therefore, Staff recommends to maintain the 1mw threshold and then consider a mid-level allowance for those projects that would fall between 100kw and 1mw, such as a special use permit process, for example. Therefore, at this time, Staff and the Planning Commission are not recommending that the 1mw threshold for a 1041 Permit requirement be lowered to 100kw for wind and solar projects.

As a point of reference, small wind and solar energy systems no larger than 100kw of power generation capacity are allowed as an accessory use in most zoning districts. Therefore, at this time, there is not a process or allowance for power generation facilities that fall in between 100kw and 1mw of generated power.

As a further point of reference on the upper end, there are some communities in Colorado that do not require a 1041 Permit until the proposed power plant has a generating capacity of more than 5 or 10 megawatts. Clear Creek County, however, has had the 1 mw threshold since it began regulating power plants by 1041 Permits in 1998.

D. Community Noise During the Working Sessions conducted at the Planning Commission, it was identified that community noise is an issue that needs to be specifically considered when considering the location and siting of wind power generation facilities. As more information was discovered, it became apparent that Staff needed outside professional help in evaluating the available information on noise, and to prepare a noise standard and criteria adequate to address applicable noise concerns. Therefore, the County hired Engineering Dynamics, Inc. (EDI), Howard McGregor, President, to advise the County on technical issues surrounding community noise and existing/ proposed regulations.

Colorado Revised Statutes requires that, if in a residential zone, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of twenty-five feet or more therefrom be no more than 50 dBA. Depending on the time of day and zone district, requirements range from 50 to 80 dBA. Therefore, a regulation was presented to the Planning Commission during their first working session on August 5, 2009 that very closely met Colorado law with a requirement of wind farm sound pressure level not to exceed 55 dBA, or if the ambient sound pressure level exceeds 55 dBA, then the standard shall be ambient dBA plus 5 dBA.

However, what has been found in studying existing wind farms is that many of these noise levels do not necessarily take into consideration the dramatic change that would occur when a wind turbine is producing this amount of noise constantly for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Even though a wind turbine may produce as much noise as someone talking outside a person’s bedroom window (ie; 50 or 55 dBA), this does not consider whether or not a person wants to hear talking outside their bedroom window all night long.

Even though Colorado Revised Statutes require a minimum decibel level of 50dBA at night in residential zones radiating from a property line at a distance of 25 feet or more, the World Health Organization (WHO) in their documents on Community Noise recommend that sound levels during nighttime and late evening hours should be less than 30 dB(A) during sleeping periods to protect children’s health. For sounds that contain a strong low frequency component such as sounds coming from wind turbines, WHO indicates that the limits may need to be lower than 30dBA to avoid health risks. It also recommends that criteria use dB(C) frequency weighting in addition to dB(A) for sources with low frequency content of which wind farms produce. dB(C) weighting is not currently used in Colorado law.

Low frequency sound is sound that is not audible by the naked ear, rather it is felt, in most cases, inside of buildings when a sound emitted by something reverberates within an enclosed building. When low frequency sound is present outside homes and other occupied structures, it is often more likely to be an indoor problem than an outdoor one. Low level sound is perceived as a constant low rumble which would be present inside a structure proximate to a wind farm whenever a wind turbine is operating. Recently, considerable research has been conducted noting the inadequacy of wind turbine noise regulations to addressing low level noise.

EDI has provided a report and a draft regulation that addresses community noise (Exhibit 2).

In brief, the proposed regulations impose objective noise emission limits, including low level noise (dBC weighted) limits, on wind generation development. Those limits are adapted from regulations adopted in other communities of the U.S. and from reports such as “A Proposed Metric for Assessing the Potential of Community Annoyance from Wind Turbine Low-frequency Noise Emissions” by N.D. Kelley. These noise emission limits would apply at the project boundaries and beyond. Therefore, these limits apply regardless where a receptor is located relative to the development.

The regulations authorize the Planning Department to require ambient noise level testing at certain locations as a part of the application process.

We expect that an applicant will provide expert analysis of the noise emissions expected from its facility, given the meteorological conditions of the project site (which will affect the noise emissions). This will be a matter of calculations based on meteorological data collected for the project site and the characteristics of the equipment to be installed.

Ambient noise level testing is primarily to provide “before” data which can be used to determine the actual effect of the development “after” it is put into operation. If at the time a proposed application is presented and specific “receptor” sites likely to be affected by the noise of the development cannot be identified, ambient noise level testing at the project boundaries will be required.

The ambient noise limits may directly affect the evaluation of a proposed development if the calculated noise emissions, when considered in light of the observed ambient noise level environment, would exceed the objective noise level limits. (Please note, however, that the resulting noise level is not an arithmetic addition of the wind generation facility to the ambient noise levels.)

TRANSMISSION CAPCITY INFORMATION At the March Planning Commission hearing, it was asked what the existing transmission capacity was for the transmission lines that go through the County currently, in addition to other related information. Representatives from Xcel Energy have indicated to us that they are unable to provide such information and that they are not allowed to provide such information.

One representative did tell me that understanding the capacity of one line or one specific area such as Clear Creek County would be very difficult to calculate because all transmission lines are connected to the whole western (United States) grid and that capacity is constantly changing depending on supply and demand at any given time. She suggested that we hire a consultant that might be able to estimate this information (see more in Exhibit 15).

FERC PERMITTING INFORMATION At the March Planning Commission hearing it was asked whether an applicant under the proposed regulations was regulated also by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “FERC” is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of natural gas, oil, and electricity. FERC also regulates natural gas and hydropower projects. FERC does not regulate approvals to construct electric generation, transmission, or distribution facilities, other than hydropower facilities. Hydropower facilities would be subject to these 1041 Regulations, but are not a particular focus of them, as are solar and wind facilities. FERC also regulates interstate transmission lines. (We question, but do not know, whether interstate transmission lines reasonably could be expected to be constructed to accommodate electric generation facility installations in the County.) Additional information can be found at their website at http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/about-ferc.asp REFERENCES 1. An Overview of Existing Wind Energy Ordinances; National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy 2. The “How To” Guide to Criteria for Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks from Sound; George W. Kamperman, P.E. and Richard R. James, INCE 3. Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute Sustainable Community Development Code; Sturm College of Law, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado 4. Planning and Zoning for Renewable Energy PAS Info Packet; Planning Advisory Service, American Planning Association 5. Wind Energy Guide for County Commissioners; U.S. Department of Energy 6. American Wind Energy Association Wind Energy Siting Handbook; Tetra Tech EC, Inc., & Nixon Peabody LLP 7. Guidance for Preparing and Processing environmental and section 4(f) Documents, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 8. A Model Ordinance for Energy Projects; Oregon Department of Energy, Oregon 9. Commercial Wind Energy Conversion Systems Permits; Riverside County, California 10. Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance, draft – 5/16/05; Shawano County, Wisconsin 11. Regulations and Areas and Activities of State Interest; Weld County, Colorado 12. Guidelines and Regulations for Areas and Activities of State Interest, Prowers County, Colorado 12. Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest; Clear Creek County, Colorado 13. Clear Creek County Master Plan 2030, Clear Creek County, Colorado

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED AT DESIGNATION HEARING (OR AMENDMENT OF DESIGNATION OF MATTERS OF STATE INTEREST) At the designation hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider such evidence as may appear appropriate, including, at a minimum, but not limited to:

1. The intensity of current and foreseeable development pressures 2. Model regulations issued by the former Colorado Land Use Commission 3. The matter and considerations set forth in any applicable guidelines for identification and designation of matters of state interest 4. Recommendations from state agencies and other referral agencies, if appropriate 5. The boundaries of the proposed area of state interest 6. Reasons why the particular area or activity is of state interest, the dangers that would result from uncontrolled development of any such area or uncontrolled conduct of such activity, and the advantages of development of such area or conduct of such activity in a coordinated manner 7. Any master plan or comprehensive plan pertaining to or affected by the area or activity under consideration

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 17, 2010, continued to April 7th, then continued to May 5th. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the revisions to the Zoning Regulations and to the 1041 Regulations as presented to the County Commissioners. Additionally, the Planning Commission, in its Resolution for approval, indicated that it is important for the County to weigh the benefits accruing from any 1041 Permit application project, whether economic, environmental, or social, on balance with the losses of any kind of resources in the County, whether economic, environmental, or social.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached revisions to the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations and the Clear Creek County 1041 Regulations as provided. This includes the draft criteria and standards for community noise as recommended by EDI.

 The Planning Commission held several meetings regarding these proposed resolutions. They held four working sessions in 2009 to discuss issues associated with these facilities and they received a lot of written information. They held a public hearing on March 17th, April 7th, and finally May 5, 2010.  The Board adopted a resolution in 2008, #08-34, which set a goal for 1 gigawatt of energy via local solar, wind, geothermal, etc to have a demand side management savings by 2018.  There were geographic characteristics which were pull factors for renewable energy. One was favorable wind and solar per NREL.  He presented a map from NREL showing wind power and wind classifications for the county.  Most of the wind power was in the northeast and southeast of the county. There was also favorable wind along the Continental Divide.  NREL also did maps regarding solar energy possibility. He displayed maps of the county showing favorable solar resources in the western USA as well as Colorado.  Another reason Clear Creek County was amendable to renewable energy was due to the electric transmission lines through the county. Additionally, there was increased demand for electric power along I-70 and I-25 in the future.  Geographic and human factors would require the county to effectively respond to the identified impacts and benefits of these renewable energy uses. The regulations must be up to the task to address these impacts.  The Governor’s Office of Energy defined renewable energy as biomass, hydropower, solar, wind and geothermal.  There was not a renewable energy element in the county master plan 2030. The master plan was written before renewable energy was so prevalent nationwide. Goal 2.1 of the master plan stated to balance the county’s personal, cultural, and environmental values for economic vitality and encourage environmental sustainability. Goal 2.6 stated to foster a sense of community pride. Goal 2.7 stated to preserve the county’s mineral and natural resources for future generations. The master plan had a chapter on economic diversity and vitality which identified the development of county resources including water, power, mining, and other alternative sources of power as an economic base.  Within the 2030 master plan, the cultural resources identified included the Georgetown/Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District, the Idaho Springs Historic District, the Dodge Ranch, Echo Lake, Summit Lake, Saxon Mountain Study Area, Upper Mountain Basin Study Area, Geneva Basin, Guanella Pass, Mount Evans Wilderness, and the Silver Heritage Area.  Frederick Rollenhagen presented a map of the open space plan for Clear Creek County. This map identified the cultural areas of the county.  Within the existing zoning regulations, utility scale wind and solar were allowed as a permitted use in the Industrial zoning and could probably rezone to Planned Development. This use would also require a 1041 permit approval. Power plans were allowed in Industrial zoned districts and could be rezoned to Planned Development with an Official Development Plan. A power plan would also require a 1041 permit approval.  Under the proposed revisions, it would allow utility scale wind and solar as a permitted use under the following zoning districts including MR-1, MR-5, MR-LT, Agricultural, Commercial-Tourism/Recreation, Commercial-Outdoor Recreation, Industrial, the two mining districts and NR-PC. The requirement for needing a 1041 permit was to be maintained.  The proposed setbacks were equal to the total extended height of the units and shall be measured from the base of the structure to the closest property line of adjacent property owner. The 1041 area was established by the applicant.  Frederick Rollenhagen presented a map of the county zoning. Three townships were in progress of being zoned which included Silver Plume and the Loveland Ski Area regions.  Frederick Rollenhagen presented a map of the targeted wind areas in Clear Creek County as prepared by the Mapping Department.  The electric transmission lines traveled from Floyd Hill to Idaho Springs and into Georgetown. They then followed Guanella Pass up to Cabin Creek, up Leavenworth Creek and over the divide. Another line traveled from Georgetown to Empire and up to the Henderson Mine.  Frederick Rollenhagen presented the zoning map with an overlay of the renewable energy map to show how they did and did not match up. There were some areas like the Beaver Brook Watershed where the areas did not align.  With regard to the proposed 1041 regulations, the proposal would cover items such as entitlements, demonstration of expertise and financial capability, no undue financial burden or affect on the county, conformity with the 2030 master plan, avoidance of natural hazard areas, no degradation of air, water, wildlife, or cultural resources, adhere to design and landscaping standards, no determent of mineral resources, assessment of alternatives, location not subject to weather or climate patterns that interfere with operations, contain adequate infrastructure, poses no unreasonable risk to hazardous materials, has no duplication of services, and the demonstrated need must meet standards within the county.  The proposed additions to the 1041 regulations included requirements for road access, avoidance or mitigation of community noise, avoidance or mitigation of shadow flicker, avoidance or mitigation of electromagnetic interferences, and a complaint resolution process.  Regarding the noise element, items to be evaluated included ambient noise level measurements, wind facility noise emission limits, pure ton limits, low frequency and infrasound noise, impulsivity, and vibration.  Regarding roads and access, the proposed regulations required the applicant to provide a map of the access route through the county and an inventory of road conditions.  Adequate legal and physical access had to be demonstrated. The county would not know the accessibility requirements necessary until the applicant reveals it in their application.  Frederick Rollenhagen introduced Howard McGregor of Engineering Dynamics. Howard McGregor was a registered engineer in Colorado studying noise.

Howard McGregor made the following statements:  He had three parts to his presentation: brief discussion on noise, review of what other communities had approved/disapproved and finally an overview of noise regulations.  Noise entered the ear and vibrated the bones which became an electrochemical signal which traveled to the brain so people perceived noise.  Acoustical environmental included all factors interior and exterior.  Airborne sound included sounds transmitted through the air.  Ambient noise was defined as all encompassing noise associated in a given environment.  Attenuation was defined as how much noise was reduced.  A-weighting was defined as the response of the human ear to sound. People could not hear low frequencies and sometimes they could not hear high frequencies. The science of noise was very complicated.  Background noise was defined as noise produced by all sources of interferences used for production.  The decibel was a logarithm expression for the pressure that sound was producing.  Noise was any unwanted sound that could produce undesirable effects on humans.  Noise level was defined as the sound pressure level categorized as noise.  Noise reduction was defined at the attenuation of unwanted sound.  Sound was defined as the pressure fluctuation transmitted as a way.  Sound level weighting was defined as a frequency for measuring sound.  Sound level meters were defined as instruments to measure the sound we have now.  Sound pressure levels were defined as the logarithm of the pressure ratio to the square of a reference pressure.  Sound was measured in two ways first via sound power levels in wattages. Second was via sound pressure levels which were the pressure that occurred in the environment and reached the eardrums.  Howard McGregor showed different sound levels in decibels for different machines/motors. Almost all noise laws and codes started out using dba as a way of rating sound. The dba was important in hearing loss and OSHA requirements. Dba was the accepted standard in the sound business. A sound level meter was created to have a weighted noise response.  The sound level meter weighted responses in curves, pressure in decibels and frequencies in Hz.  Noise was perceived as how it affected social and environmental factors.  Noise laws were specific to db levels.  As a person traveled away from a noise source, if one traveled twice as far away from the source, the sound decreased by 6 db; four times as far away the sound decreased 12 db, etc.  When more than one noise source was found, they were added logarithmically.  The noises associated with city noise were not high enough to cause hearing loss. The perception of noise was subjective. Noise annoyance would cause lack of sleep, anger and frustration. Emotional effects would lead people to think the noise was affecting them.  Noise annoyance started with the noises around airports. The perception of noise depended on the quality of the noise. Some people liked loud music and some did not.  High frequencies were more objectionable, whereas low frequencies were not.  Periodic noises were more annoying and noticeable.  Two noises could have the same db levels but have a different character and frequency.  Regarding noise laws, Howard McGregor presented wind farm acoustics data from NREL. His company and NREL had worked on some wind farm sites measuring sound.  The noise laws for wind farms were numerous. Some states/counties established maximum noise levels, or night restrictions, or by zoning district.  Setbacks were another topic. With wind turbines, it was the gear noise from the transmission inside the turbine. Setbacks were a way to control the noise levels as well.  Some states had ordinances on the setback distance for towers, e.g. 100-ft from any residence, structure, public building or subdivision.  NREL had completed leading work in wind turbine noise dating back to 1982.  Some research had been done on infrasound or low frequencies that were impossible to hear. The low frequencies could shake the walls and the high frequencies were filtered out.  Per a Canadian study with the American Wind Association, their conclusions found that sound from wind turbines did not pose a risk of hearing loss or adverse effects in humans. Low frequency sound did not present a risk to human health.  Some people may be annoyed by the presence of the sound of turbines. The reaction depended on the personal characteristics as opposed to the intensity.  Some jurisdictions enforced the db’s by day and by night.  In Colorado, the limit for noise levels was 55 db in the daytime in residential areas and 50 db at night. There were also restrictions for mobile equipment when on a roadway.  Regarding vibration, there were standards for blasting. The US Bureau of Mines had a ½”/second in velocity. The blasting engineering firm could do sample shots and predict the vibration.  Regarding noise measurement methods, there were strict standards for sound measuring equipment. There was traceability in all sound meters. Sound meters had to be calibrated.  Regarding ambient noise levels, these were considered on a case by case basis. They were also very complicated. Measured levels should be in dba or dbc formats with low frequencies and statistical variation in the noises. The EPA published a levels document in 1972.  Most wind farm levels were measured at the project boundary or beyond.  Some jurisdictions allowed noises to exceed the db limits but only if it were for 1% of the time.  Pure tones with respect to wind turbines were considered gearbox noise. The criteria showed how to measure in tonal conformance.  With the oil and gas industry, their equipment had gas compressor stations with engines and cooling towers which produced low frequency noises and transmitted great distances.  Regarding impulsivity, this was the noise coming into the house. NREL developed a procedure to measure this noise. There were two methods to measure this noise and it was per the EPA regulations. Anyone following the procedure would result in the same numbers.  Regarding site development and construction hosting heavy equipment on site, the statutes allowed for industrial noise standards during development rather than the residential standards for a reasonable length of time.  A permit authority was sometimes developed for noise to protect public health.

Regarding Commissioner O'Malley’s question about the difference between what was proposed tonight and the State standards, Howard McGregor stated the State regulations were like speed limits. If you exceeded the State limit, you were in violation. The proposal tonight allowed for flexibility and for noise to go over the limits for certain periods of time.

Regarding Commissioner Dale’s question about ambient noise, Howard McGregor replied that in their studies, they did an average of the ambient noise for over one hour intervals. This was how highway noise was measured. This would average out the jake brake noise. This was how CDOT compiled their noise studies.

Regarding Commissioner O'Malley’s question about noise at the maximum level for 50% of the time, Howard McGregor stated the State nighttime maximum was 50 db and the county was proposing 45 db. The current EPA standard was 50-55 db.

Regarding Commissioner O'Malley’s question about needing permanent measuring devices to get an average, Howard McGregor replied, no, averages could be done on a minute basis. Cripple Creek had done them based on one hour increments. Some projects ran the measurements for two weeks to get the percentage distribution.

Regarding Commissioner Dale’s question about measuring exceedance, Howard McGregor replied that measurements had to be taken over time so it was more accurate. He recommended taking ambient noise measurements for a year so it could be justified.

Frederick Rollenhagen noted the additional information presented to the Board:  He submitted additional comments which were presented after the Board packets went out.  Section 21 of the Board packet included public comment from the Planning Commission hearings. Some of these comments were used to prepare the draft Resolution before the Board tonight.  Section 22 of the Board packet included staff responses to the public comment given to the Planning Commission.  Formal comments for this hearing were presented as Sections 23 and 24 which included letters from Clear Creek Watershed Foundation and Clear Creek Power.  Two more comments were submitted; one from PL Wick of the Bard Creek Valley Homeowners Association and the other was from Timothy Reider of the EPA.  Frederick Rollenhagen presented the staff report as Exhibit A. The Board accepted Exhibit A into the record.  Frederick Rollenhagen presented the staff PowerPoint presentation as Exhibit B. The Board accepted Exhibit B into the record.  Frederick Rollenhagen presented Howard McGregor’s PowerPoint presentation as Exhibit C for the record. The Board accepted Exhibit C into the record.  Frederick Rollenhagen presented the June 21, 2010 letter from the Bard Creek Homeowners Association as Exhibit D for the record. The Board accepted Exhibit D into the record.  Frederick Rollenhagen presented a June 23, 2010 memo including the comments from Timothy Reider of the EPA for the record as Exhibit E. The Board accepted Exhibit E into the record.

Commissioner O'Malley stated there had been a lot of discussion about this topic since the first working sessions. These proposed regulations had come a long way. He wanted to obtain a sense about what most concerned people in these regulations. Commissioner O'Malley stated some public comment was included in the Staff reports. He asked folks from the audience to speak up about their concerns.

Jonathan Warner, South Spring Gulch Jonathan Warner made the following statements:  He owned property within a half mile of one of the wind farm proposed developments.  He appreciated the work the Planning Commission, the Planning Staff and the Board of County Commissioners were investing.  He had concerns that some of the regulations were subjective and blocked development from coming into the county. It was the statement regarding adverse effects on community land use patterns.  The more objective the regulations could be written the better it would serve the county.  With regard to noise impact, he stated the wind blew very hard and long in this area and it sounded like a train. He suggested that the county take ambient noise levels and add whatever acceptable levels on top of this. It would not be feasible for a developer to install a $2 million wind tower only to have noise levels set too strenuously. The letter from the EPA on sound seemed reasonable.  As an Adjacent Property Owner to one of these possible wind farms, laws for neighbors were a big deal for him.  The proposed setback requirement would negate a lot of sites for the developer. He suggested an easement or agreement with the Adjacent Property Owner to make it work. Noise and distance would have to be taken into consideration.  The setbacks were a difficult task as many of these mining claims for wind development were owned by families and a hodgepodge of owners who were difficult to find. He suggested a Boundary Line Adjustment or a Combination of Lots Agreement to assist the developer with the claims.  Additionally, if the land was owned by the Forest Service, a developer could not get a setback agreement with the Forest Service.  Regarding visual impacts and the proposed regulations, an old mine tailing may be a visual impact to some people and to others solar or wind equipment would be a visual impact. This needed to be defined so it was not a block to renewable energy development.

Commissioner O'Malley asked how many mining claims in these wind development areas were zoned M-1 versus M-2. Frederick Rollenhagen replied that 800-900 claims were M-2 and the rest were M-1. Some claims were MR-1. Per the wind development map, most of the target areas were M-1 with some M-2 interspersed. Kent Sterett stated the mining claims were not aligned and there were holes in between them owned by the Forest Service. There were also senior mining claims over or under other claims which could trump development. When a developer tried to contact the owners of these claims, it was difficult because most of them were inherited and no one knows how to find the beneficiaries. If the setback was equal to the height of the turbines, then it would be more difficult to install the turbines.

Phil Wick, Bard Creek Homeowners Association Phil Wick made the following statements:  In the headlong rush to establish a “green” efficient energy basis; the prevailing mindset was to disregard or ignore those conditions which were not seen or heard, and to focus on the advertised, so called benefits of non-fossil fuel energy alternatives: If it uses unwanted refuse, if it doesn’t smoke or smell, if it doesn’t chew up or suck down fossil reserves – it must be a good thing. Not necessarily.  Wind turbine produced electricity had been around in prodigious, commercial abundance for well over thirty years—and it was becoming more and more evident, the only proponents for this visual, noise, and health invasive process for producing inefficient energy, were those who hoped to profit from the ignorance and apathy of others. By the time those who have not educated themselves were overcome by this progress imposed upon them by unscrupulous manufacturers and developers who have convinced overwhelmed governmental concerns – it is too late.  Mr. McGregor presented a very in depth program for the physics of sound, yet conspicuously neglected to address the severe infrasound health issues that were available in credible, overpowering force by studies in recent years. Studies that diametrically oppose the testimony given here by McGregor, studies developed and presented by leading doctors and acoustic specialists such as Dr. Alec Salt of Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory, Dr. Amana Harry PhD, E.N.T. and W.T. Research Specialist, Dr. Nina Pierpont of John Hopkins University.  The primary issue: Wind turbines produce low frequency noise, which categorically cause vestibular dysfunction (inner ear/balance upset): Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTD). This issue was not addressed in the EDI report being utilized by the Clear Creek County Board of County Commissioners. WTD was observable by lingering or residing anywhere in the vicinity of operational turbines – and was obviously eliminated by removing one’s self from the vicinity of the operational turbines. This syndrome was produced not only from the constant vibrations and audible noise produced from these towering machines (vibrations between 70 Hz and 2 Hz), but even more so by the infrasound vibrations which were consciously unrecognized yet still discernable by the human inner- ear (down to – 40db below the non audible threshold of 2hz). For animals, domestic and wild, all of whom have far more acute hearing than humans, the infrasound disruption was severe and could be deadly.  Wind Turbine Syndrome produced documented, clinical symptoms that were consistent from patient to patient. Sleep disturbance (WTS becomes more severe at night due to air density), sleep deprivation, headache, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo (vertical disorientation), nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia (increased heart rate), concentration and memory issues, panic episodes associated with unintended body motion and internal vibration, migraine, inner-ear disorder, even heart health depreciation. These symptoms were not limited to near residents, those within the high-impact zone of 2km (1.5 mi.), but were applicable to those living as far away as 10km (6 mi.), and applicable to those visiting even on a short time (mere hours) basis within the critical zone. Depending upon the wind and terrain, soft and absorptive-to- rocky with parabolic profiles), the unrelenting noise from these devices can be heard ten or more miles away.  The engineering data supporting this information and the symptoms of Wind Turbine Syndrome were fully documented across a wide spectrum of astute associative audio and wave frequency engineers, audiologists, and health care professionals.  Wind turbines had a limited and inefficient power to cost ratio and were only operational under ideal wind conditions allowing only intermittent feedback potential, and only have a life expectancy of 20-30 years. This would require replacement and additional infrastructure strain before any appreciable level of earning potential could be achieved. The health and lifestyle down-side evidence was overwhelming.  The only recognized, sure solution to ameliorate the detrimental and crippling health issues produced by wind turbines, was to sell or abandon one’s home or near business and relocate. This was not the “green” energy solution for Georgetown and Clear Creek County. The Board accepted this presentation into the record as Exhibit F.

Randy Owens, Georgetown Randy Owens made the following statements:  He was the pastor of the Rocky Mountain Community Church which met every Sunday morning.  He had lived in this area for 12 years along with his children and grandchildren.  He had 25 years experience in the utility industry. He was not here to represent the company he had worked for. He was here on a personal note.  He was speaking for the people of Georgetown and representing their values.  Anyone who had been in Georgetown for five minutes knew that a little noise went a long way. It reverberated through the canyon and was sometimes intolerable.  Aside from the noise and looking at aesthetics, wind turbines were unsightly. There was a value to this community and its historical value. The reason people lived here wasn’t to generate electricity.  When people came to Georgetown, he doubted it was to show their kids wind turbines.  There was much available non-residential land which could be used for wind generation energy so he didn’t see the reason to import this power source into the area he lived. It would bring too many problems.

Matt Skeen, Historic District Public Lands Commission Matt Skeen made the following statements:  He submitted the Historic District Public Lands Commission’s comments in favor of the proposed regulations.  The Historic District Public Lands Commission supported the revisions to the regulations submitted for approval. The county staff had listened and reflected suggestions from a variety of entities and people.  The commission believed the draft before the Board represented a fair effort for a balance for successful development of alternative energy sources.  The Historic District Public Lands Commission noted that all environmental analysis including cultural resources should be conducted by a third party expert. Implementation of the review process in the draft regulations provided for detailed consideration of environmental elements. The ecology of the pine mountain basins was of concern to the Historic District Public Lands Commission. The commission believed the balance of competing interests would be an important discussion.  The draft regulations had stimulated and guided the discussion.  One of the comments and difficulties was there was always a difficulty between subjective and objective standards and trying to find a balance. There were the people planning these developments that knew the standards and there was the protection of the community in advance when they didn’t know what the project would be.  The regulations had to be guidelines which were applied to specific instances and applications as they arose. It was difficult to protect public interest when there were objective guidelines.  The Historic District Public Lands Commission believed the Planning Commission and staff had done a good job of putting together and balancing those competing interests and problems. The Board accepted this presentation as Exhibit G into the record.

Otto Van Geet, NREL employee and resident of Clear Creek County Otto Van Geet made the following statements:  He acknowledged the good work of Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen on this proposal.  He was a county resident, was raising children here, worked for NREL and had a strong knowledge on renewable energy.  There were some great resources in this presentation and the maps were accurate.  The guidelines were good but slightly burdensome in some areas.  He agreed with the suggestions by Timothy Reider of the EPA.  He suggested if the noise regulations do go forth that they be for occupied claims and not at the property boundaries. He suggested the same thing for the section on setbacks.  Setbacks were going to be very difficult. The size of the turbines was known and the proposed regulations wouldn’t work for 400-ft turbines. He suggested modifying the regulations on the setback requirements to occupied claims.  He was an advocate for these proposed regulations.  He found the turbines a subjective thing. He found wind turbines beautiful and they were an education to the school kids in the county. Kids were fascinated by turbines.  He cautioned the Board on using subjective wording like significant or adverse. Who would define these terms?  Regarding visual impacts, it needed to be clarified where the impact was taking place. From the top of Mount Evans, one could see everything. He cautioned staff on their language regarding visual impacts.  Renewable energy would be developed. A 30% requirement by 2030 was suggested and it was up to the county to decide if the people would benefit from that.

Chip Bair, Idaho Springs Chip Bair made the following statements:  He concurred with Otto Van Geet.  The county was founded on mining and taking advantage of natural resources.  The wind and the sun were a part of the county’s natural resources and they needed to take advantage of those.  Society could not continue the route it was going.  The county had to encourage these renewable energy developments.  Wind turbines were gorgeous.  There was a lot of NIMBY-ism but he would allow the turbines in his backyard to help the planet.

Diane Kielty, Clear Creek Watershed Foundation Diane Kielty made the following statements:  The Clear Creek Watershed Foundation had submitted their comments to staff.  The foundation believed the revisions would not allow for renewable energy and the regulations should be improved upon to bring development here for wind and solar projects.  She agreed with the last two speakers.  Earlier today, the Colorado Geologic Survey presented natural resource extraction update, from a world view, about the planet. It was a world view on how to revise how people approached energy.  There was a resource in this county. It was pumped hydropower. With that 300 megawatts, Clear Creek County was unique to the State.  Wind energy could be brought on and attached to this facility and make it a more accessible resource for storage. Please don’t overlook this.

Tom Wilson, Georgetown Tom Wilson made the following statements:  He lived in Georgetown.  He had a few questions for the wind expert. Experience with wind issues gave us a bit more insight than some might have regarding wind and sound. He asked if Howard McGregor was considering wind information in terms of background sound. Some of that info would be offered on the plains and not on areas with large pine trees that exceed the noise of the turbines. When Tom Wilson did his check on wind turbines, they checked many variables to measure against. The wind in the trees blew so hard it was over 100 db when measured. The county needed to make sure they considered a wind baseline that was relevant to this area, e.g. the noise of the trees and I-70.  Second, it appeared the county went backwards in this one year requirement for ambient sound measurement. This appeared excessive and arbitrary. The measurement may not get the variables needed in one year in terms of baseline sound or wind turbine sound. If there was no good wind for a year, then a year was wasted.  There were ways to recreate sound effects like a wind turbine noise and identify if that sound level would exceed the capacity that a person heard below.  If the background noise was greater than the documented turbine noise, then why was the one year of ambient noise measurement needed.  If we knew the background noise was grater than the turbines then it was a waste of one year. These should be identifiable. The one year of measurement was not serving the purpose it was intended.  He suggested the county follow the suggestions of Tim Reider from the EPA. Reider knew the standards in the field and how turbines were processed through counties.  Regarding new projects to the county, he had a concern that there was always the one certain group that wanted nothing in the area. It would be helpful for him to understand the logic of that and if this group could identify ways to pay for this county if we continually pushed projects away. We would not find a perfect project so we had to find something that worked.  The loud sound in our county now was the screaming sound and we should pay attention to it.

Kent Sterett, Clear Creek Power Kent Sterett made the following statements:  He agreed with some of the comments made this evening.  He wanted to focus on some of the issues critical to renewable energy.  Regarding visual impacts, would someone buy something if they couldn’t see it? Would they buy something if they couldn’t hear it?  Regarding the I-70 info on noise, the db was 50-55 right now. If the county set a limit in the regulations of 45 db maximum, then there would be a problem. The county could set a limit that was 5 db above the ambient sound. This would be reasonable.  The wind turbines would not reduce the noise off the highway.  Regarding access, this was a critical issue. One advantage of the property was the mining history and the roads were already in place. The road grades were set by the limits of an ore wagon. This was accessible with their equipment as they only needed a one lane road. This gave the county concern to opening the back country. Clear Creek Power only needed a four-wheel-drive truck to access their subject area.  Regarding the wind turbine equipment, wind turbines lasted 20 years. There were some in California that were 40 years old.  The wind turbine noise sounded similar to the noise made by the Energy Museum in Georgetown. People could hold normal conversation at the bottom of the towers. The turbines were proposed to be 1000-ft apart.  Frederick Rollenhagen did a good job of summarizing the proposed regulations.  Per the map on wind energy in the county, there were not many places to put wind turbines. They could not be put in front of the ridge in Georgetown. The wind was not blowing the right way. The turbines had to be off the ridgeline but there was a limit as to where you could move them.  Regarding setbacks, Clear Creek Power could probably tolerate the setback of the wingspan but anything beyond this was the complexity of the ownership of the mining claims.  There were four issues for renewable energy developers in Clear Creek County: 1) access- there was a need for the roads. 2) noise- this could not be set below the ambient. NREL had this data and it was well done. 3) visibility- the models Clear Creek Power were proposing were the same as the ones in Boulder. 4) Historic districts and visibility- things could be worked out in a reasonable way. Proof of this was found in the town of Cape Wind off the coast of Massachusetts. The historic groups got interested and they finally approved it.

Chip Bair asked how much noise came from the wind turbine generators. Was it louder than the wind traveling through the pine trees? Kent Sterett used the Energy Museum in Georgetown example to explain the noise of the turbines.

Tim Olson, Wind Energy Consultant for 25 years Tom Olson made the following statements:  His first job had been doing noise assessments in 1986 for Howard McGregor.  He commended the county for digging so deep into this complex subject.  A lot of renewable energy projects were started in the USA in garages and then the Europeans took these ideas and ran with them. The USA had ever since been trying to catch up. Europe was out of fossil fuels and importing gas from Russia. The USA was blessed with fossil fuels but yet out of balance. The state of Colorado sent $10 billion out of Colorado to buy energy.  He worked designing wind turbines and helping wind farm developers wade through difficulties such as financing. The banks won’t finance unless they know it’s a safe investment. In order to do this, they require a multi-tiered level of certification and evaluation of the machines. There were 100 different turbines available and only 5-7 of them met the standards.  Europeans had driven the standards because they led the industry. It would cost $500,000 to pay a third party reviewer to review a developer’s proposal and approve it.  Regarding noise, Europe was building wind farms throughout Europe. Great Britain had resisted for a long time and now they were in trouble and starting to build wind turbines. They had tough restrictions on noise and safety.  The results were turbines, over the past 25 years, had become much quieter.  Developers tried to design the turbine with blades turned downwind which made the blade blow through the wind shadow. This was a problem and the vibration had a deep thump. This sound propagated for miles. Since then, the industry has turned the blades upwind. There was some noise but it got rid of the thump.  Several different tones from the gearbox to the power converter with a high frequency existed. The industry was addressing these components of the noise and some were installing sound insulation to try and meet the European standard.  The blades passing through the air was a white noise. It could be problematic.  Developers would love to run the turbines faster but they cannot because they were limited by noise restrictions. The slower spin was more expensive but society lived with it.  The European standard was extreme.  There were two wind manufacturers that had met the standards: GE and Clipper Wind.  As wind developers had to get their projects financed, they had to use mainstream turbines and be careful on how they did projects.  Regarding the tough choice the county had to make for the community, he could not predict which communities said yes and which said no. Some communities came together to say yes for economic development. Some communities said no even though their community suffered economically. It was this county’s choice to work out.

Julie Shepherd, South Spring Gulch Julie Shepherd made the following statements:  She lived a half mile from where the turbines were being proposed.  She agreed with the concerns of Chip Bair and Otto Van Geet.  She was glad Kent Sterett brought up the issue of ambient noise in Georgetown.  She was curious about the highway noise versus the wind noise.  She had a concrete house and the wind blew all the time and bowed her windows.  She could not imagine the wind turbine would be louder than that.  She supported these proposed regulations and she hoped the county could find a way to work this out so the concerns of the people were met as well as those that wanted to develop renewable energy.  Renewable energy was the wave of the future.  Watching the news told people they needed to move away from the system they were currently using.  Renewable energy would have impacts, visual and sound, but look at the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico and which was better?

George Yamasaki, Bard Creek Homeowners Association George Yamasaki made the following statements:  He had heard about this public hearing a week ago and consulted his attorney. His attorney suggested the following letter:  To the Commissioners of the Board of Clear Creek County:  Regarding: Clear Creek County Resolutions #10-22 and #10-23 of the County Commissioners Planned Passage of Commercial Wind Utility Service  With a government grant for this planned project, you have been subsidized by our taxes; and we, the people as taxpayers, should not have to pay for what we believe to be extremely harmful and detrimental to the people who live in the surrounding areas. We ask for postponement of this final hearing so that the commissioners can hear or read from expert witnesses who can present numerous reasons concerning health issues and devaluations of properties along with the public nuisances of noise pollution and visual pollution in this beautiful corridor of Colorado.  We are assuming that the county commissioners had posted this proposed information legally, yet most of us knew nothing about this plan. That is not right, and that is not fair as there should have been more dissemination of information prior to this hearing. The very serious nature of this plan should be put to a vote for the people of this county whom the commissioners serve. All information should be revealed with nothing concealed.  At this time, health issues gathered from other communities in the USA with wind utility services surrounding them are being submitted to the board for review as public record. This letter is also submitted as public record.  We have spoken to our attorney, Brian Goral, of Golden, Colorado. He was outraged to hear of this situation. He said, “All officials will be subject to subpoenas and will be deposed prior to trial.” He also stated that it would be prudent and wise for the board to obtain input for the people of this county who will be affected before any action is taken.  Respectfully, Charles & Victoria Basani, Bob & Roberta Bolton, Judie Feinberg, Jim & Treece Ferguson, Chris Gilmore, Leo Gschwend Trust: Suzie Orr, Tony & Donna Piscopo, Maria Walliman, Phillip & Tammy Wick, and George Yamasaki MD and Jane Yamasaki.

Sarah Russell, Empire Sarah Russell made the following statements:  She could reiterate what others had spoken.  She wanted to address something not addressed: the concept of change and adaptation.  It was difficult to embrace and unpleasant.  However, based on the economy, this was a necessity.  Change and adaptation could be a good thing and friendly regulations could facilitate this.

Frank Young, Silver Plume resident Frank Young made the following statements:  He was a resident of Silver Plume and had 25-30 years of government experience with regulation writing, enforcement and administration.  The main comments after reviewing the products of the Planning Commission were recommended to the Board.  These proposed regulations were a balanced and excellent decision by the Planning Commission in their recommendation.  It laid out a way that proposed projects could be fully explained in their application and the various components of these projects could be analyzed.  Regarding subjectivity of the regulations, the regulations were made for decision makers to make decisions. Usually, this was the Board of County Commissioners. Subjectivity in the regulations was needed to allow considerations of various aspects on any project.  If the application were simple, a computer could answer the question. Subjectivity gave us as people the chance to analyze what was proposed. It allowed the Board to decide what reflected the desires of the community involved.  Someone making money on a renewable energy project should not override the population concerns. There were ways to meld these things.  Alternative power was not a bugaboo. In the news today, Venezuela was stated as having an energy deficit. How did this happen as they were a major oil producer? It was mismanagement by their government. They had rolling blackouts with energy being transferred to the cities and not the rural areas.  Alternative energy sources were not bad.  Community values and economic values that come from what was already happening in the county should not be out to destroy each other.  What the Planning Commission had done was a good job of finding the middle ground and making a good recommendation.

Kate Collier, City of Idaho Springs Kate Collier made the following statements:  She thanked the Board for going through this process with the people.  She thanked the people in the community for bringing forth renewable energy projects.  She was in favor of the Board approving these regulations and she asked them to consider tweaking the language. It would make the language fair.

Commissioner O'Malley closed public comment. Commissioner Dale asked how long the county had noise regulations and if the Planning Commission recommended any adjustments at their May hearing. He also asked if Frederick Rollenhagen or Howard McGregor had comments on Timothy Reider’s (EPA) comments. Howard McGregor had read Reider’s comments and much of the suggested regulations were from the EPA recommended noise levels. He disagreed with Reider’s approach as his company used industry standards.

Commissioner O'Malley stated Reider’s comments suggested the county’s proposed regulations were too complicated. He would like to hear a conversation between McGregor and Reider on their theories.

Commissioner O'Malley stated there appeared to be too much information to make a decision tonight. There were items which made this decision difficult such as the definition of significant, the definition of visual impact, etc. It was unfortunate that all these items were subjective but certain language had to be used to set the regulations. It would never happen where they pleased everyone. Some people saw wind farms as ugly and some saw them as beautiful. No one person’s opinion was more valid than the other.

Commissioner O'Malley stated there was some objective items in the regulations which he requested more information. One was the setbacks. He didn’t want to approve a regulation for a setback that prevented development. However, he didn’t want regulations which were too weak. The regulations as they were now written, were not acceptable to him. Commissioner Drury agreed and asked about the setbacks as well. Should it be based on blade length or tower height? There was also much controversy surrounding the medical issues with wind towers. She didn’t want to approve something that was not going to be conducive to the county having renewable energy projects. She wanted renewable energy in the county and it was important for the county and the country. She, too, had seen wind farms and found them to be “poetry in motion.”

Commissioner Dale commended staff on their work on these regulations and they should not consider it a discredit that the Board needed more information. Regarding setbacks, Commissioner Dale stated if the neighbor to the wind farm was the Forest Service, this could result in different setbacks, as opposed to private lands. He did not want to make these regulations punitive but to pursue renewable energy. The impacts to the Adjacent Property Owners had to be mitigated. The challenge was how to do that. Commissioner Dale and Commissioner O'Malley asked if the regulations could be more lenient on adjacent lands which didn’t have development rights. If a home were next door to a wind farm, they could see how it may devalue a home but if the wind farm were adjacent a mine site, it would not devalue it.

Commissioner Dale and Commissioner O'Malley asked staff to look at the legal ramifications of setbacks. They also asked about setbacks from existing structures as opposed to boundary lines. They also questioned the value of having a full year of ambient noise measurements.

Commissioner O'Malley stated McGregor’s report shared some industry standards. He asked what the standards for the eastern plains were as they would be different from the topography of Clear Creek County. Commissioner Drury noted the snow absorbed more sound as well.

Regarding access and roads, Commissioner O'Malley stated some of these roads were within county jurisdiction but some of the roads were in the Forest Service lands and in some ways could also qualify as RS 2477 roads. As for the roads in the Forest Service, he was unsure what the county was allowed to do.

Regarding setbacks, Kent Sterett stated the consultant recommended 1000-ft from any homes. This was a common way to deal with this issue. Regarding roads, Kent Sterett stated the Forest Service had an application process and guidelines which they could handle. He asked that the roads which predated the Forest Service be clarified as historic. Mr. Loeffler stated the proposed regulations only required adequate legal and physical access and did not discuss RS 2477 or Forest Service roads.

Regarding Reider’s suggestions, Frederick Rollenhagen stated his offer was to take readings of an existing wind farm in Colorado to understand the noise emitted. He said to take the results with a grain of salt because the wind farms on the plains were a lower elevation and wind pattern. There was a difference in wind pressure and sound. Commissioner O'Malley wanted to engage Reider in this conversation. It concerned him that someone from the EPA found proposed regulations too complicated.

Regarding the ambient noise and the year of recorded data standard, Commissioner O'Malley stated this area had significant ambient noise. To proposed regulations allowing noise 5 db over the ambient could be realistic. Mr. Loeffler added the proposed regulations did have a fallback provision to not exceed 5 db over the ambient level.

Phil Wick asked why the ambient sound had to be the minimum. Why not set a new minimum and have that noise not exceed the ambient. Why not have the wind turbines meet the ambient noise levels. Commissioner O'Malley understood Mr. Wick’s point and added it would depend on what the ambient noise was and where a subject was located.

Regarding the Bard Creek Homeowners request to have their experts speak at this hearing, Mr. Loeffler stated the Board had closed public comment. He asked the Board if they would extend public comment to allow these experts to speak. Commissioner O'Malley stated if these people were experts in their field and they wanted to submit comment either written or in person, the Board was open to hearing them. Commissioner Dale agreed.

Commissioner Dale clarified that the Board was considering new regulations and not a particular development in the county. The experts should be prepared to comment on these proposed regulations and not a development. Mr. Loeffler asked that the experts submit their comments in writing a week before the hearing to the Planning Department. Commissioner O'Malley stated the Board wanted to continue this hearing to July 14th which gave them three weeks to bring their expert testimony. This renewable energy discussion had been ongoing for 1.5 years and it was time for a decision. Mr. Yamasaki replied that he had never heard of this hearing. Frederick Rollenhagen replied this hearing was posted in the newspaper, on the website, and all the prior Planning Commission hearings were posted on the website. The Planning Commission public hearings were also in the Clear Creek Courant. All submittals for the meetings were on the county website. Phil Wick stated the information from Engineering Dynamics did not match the information in the Staff report tonight. Frederick Rollenhagen replied that Engineering Dynamics had not submitted anything new.

Commissioner O'Malley asked staff for additional info on setbacks, noise regulations being too complicated or burdensome, ambient noise being measured for one year, and the health issues associated with wind farms, which were brought up.

Dr. Yamasaki asked if there were other wind farms which were located in the mountains. Some folks from the audience replied there were. Mr. Yamasaki stated most wind farms were on the plains with no people around.

Commissioner Dale motioned to continue the hearing to July 14, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the Georgetown Community Center. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 7, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 7, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER AND RATIFICATION OF THE JUNE 30, 2010 WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-72, RESOLUTION TO COMBINE PRECINCTS AND DESIGNATING POLLING PERMITS FOR 2010 PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RATIFICATION OF GAMING IMPACT GRANT APPLICATIONS: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WATER LEASING AGREEMENT WITH MARY COLL: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APRIL 14TH, MAY 12TH, MAY 19TH, APRIL 21ST, APRIL 28TH, APRIL 7TH, AND March 31st, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE STATE OF COLORADO FOR THE UPPER MOUNTAIN COUNTIES WATER NEEDS ASSESSMENT: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-73, RESOLUTION FOR THE SUPPORT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION OF COLORADO’S HUMAN SERVICES SYSTEM AND A COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE: In attendance were Secretary III Donna Gee, Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, Clear Creek Courant Editor Ian Neligh, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Planner II Trent Hyatt, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, and Public Health Educator Linda Trenbeath. Mr. Loeffler stated that Consent Agenda item #6 did not have Exhibit A but it would be attached prior to delivery. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented noting Exhibit A would be added to item #6. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Drury noted that precincts 2 and 3 will now vote at the new fire station in Dumont. The vote passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matters.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL REQUEST FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CONTRACT, AMENDMENT FOR TASK ORDER #2: In attendance were Secretary III Donna Gee, Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, Clear Creek Courant Editor Ian Neligh, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Planner II Trent Hyatt, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, and Public Health Educator Linda Trenbeath. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Health Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-36, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS CASE #DR-2009-0002, FOR ECLIPSE SNOW PARK LLC: In attendance were Brian and LuAn Beall, Bruce Butler, Clear Creek Courant Editor Ian Neligh, June Jones Paulding, Dan Ebert, Scott Paulding, Paul Johnson, Omer Humble, Marion Anderson, Linda Trenbeath, Paul Ryan, Cindy Dady, Heather Ulrich, Peech Keller, Mark Kline, Marshall Ulrich, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Clyde Anderson, Linda Feidler, Jan Ziman, Betsy Berarducci, Attorney Andy Spielman, Attorney Tony Ryan, SE Group representative Travis Becker, and Planner II Trent Hyatt. 070710mobile

Commissioner O'Malley opened the continued consideration of approval of Resolution #10-36, Development Review Case, Case #DR-2009-0002, for Eclipse Snow Park LLC. Mr. Loeffler presented a letter to the Board regarding their concern about ex parte communication and the request that it be disclosed. Mr. Loeffler had accumulated as much communications as he could and if there were more, they were either lost or never existed. He presented the ex parte communications as follows:  Mark Kline, July 5th  Jan Ziman, July 1st  Heather Ulrich, July 1st  Jan Ziman, June 22nd,  Jan Ziman, June 22nd,  Christopher Borny, June 18th  Jan Ziman, June 23rd  J. Zegan, June 17th  Ian Briddell, June 20th  James McKenna, June 21st  Orland Lara, July 6th Mr. Loeffler asked that these items be accepted into the record as Exhibit 33. The Board accepted these communications as Exhibit 33.

Mr. Loeffler presented a second set of communications listed as follows:  Jan Ziman, June 16th  Mark KIine, June 16th  Marion Anderson, June 16th  Graham Knight, June 17th  Marshall Ulrich, June 17th  Jacquie Zegan, June 18th  Mark Kline June 17th  Angela Briddell, June 18th  Steve Axtell, June 21st  Jim McKenna, June 21st  Jan Ziman, June 23rd  Orlando Lara, July 1st Mr. Loeffler asked that these communications be accepted into the record as Exhibit 34. The Board accepted these communications as Exhibit 34 into the record.

For clarification, Commissioner Drury noted, regarding Bill Arnold’s statement about her voting in opposition to the Eclipse Snow Park presentation, Mr. Arnold was referring to the rezoning case as the Board had not voted on any other portion of the Eclipse Snow Park proposal. Mr. Loeffler asked if it would be correct that the ex parte communications have played no role in her decision making on this matter. Commissioner Drury replied this was correct. Commissioner Dale replied this was correct.

Mr. Loeffler summarized a letter from the applicant contending the receipt of the OEM comment letter at the last hearing. They stated it constituted a violation of the county regulations and was new matter. The principles of procedural due process would require that the applicant have the opportunity to gather their thoughts and respond in the same manner they did to public comment. The applicant was requesting to have the opportunity to now respond to this OEM comment letter. Mr. Loeffler presented the applicant’s letter and Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to that letter. Mr. Loeffler suggested this document be received into the record as Exhibit 35. The Board accepted this document as Exhibit 35 into the record.

Commissioner O'Malley did not believe the letter presented by OEM at the last hearing constituted new information but in all fairness it made sense to give the applicant time to respond. Commissioner Drury and Commissioner Dale agreed to allow the applicant to respond.

Tony Ryan responded with the following statements:  He was here with the law firm Hogan & Lovells on behalf of the applicant.  He thanked the Board for the opportunity to respond to Exhibit 26 from the prior hearing.  A referral response from OEM was submitted to the Planning Department on June 10, 2009 where Director Kathleen Krebs asked the applicant to formulate a sheltering plan for park patrons. Her comment did not specifically request a sheltering plan be immediately prepared or any specific standards.  Exhibit 26 presented at the last Eclipse Snow Park hearing with Clear Creek County which stated the OEM specifications were a matter of life and safety.  The exhibit required that the emergency planning be done for the highest number of patrons possible. The county’s own Emergency Operations Plan for care and sheltering stated “in the event of a disaster it is a planning assumption that some victims will find shelter with friends and relatives and that they would not be part of a mass victim shelter.”  Also regarding the county’s own emergency operations plan, which stated the lead agencies for care and sheltering were the Clear Creek County Department of Human Services as well as the county OEM Department. The applicant had received no information from the Clear Creek County Human Services Department with regard to sheltering for the Eclipse Snow Park planned proposal.  Regarding OEM’s comment that they were involved in sheltering events, they were not the only organization in Clear Creek County who was involved in these sheltering events, yet they were the only agency raising specific sheltering concerns.  Regarding the location of past shelters, the emergency operations plan for the county stated these locations were the Clear Creek Middle School, Carlson Elementary and the Georgetown Depot building. In the past, the Kings Derby Restaurant also housed 25 people in April of 2009 blizzard. This was an example of a sheltering plan at a non government owned facility.  Regarding the shelter requirements for food, cots and blankets, the applicant was more than prepared to work with the OEM to ensure adequate food, cots and blankets were available at the school in Alice.  Regarding the size of the average high school gym being 6000 square feet, and another discussion of needing 4200 square feet, he hoped the county was not arbitrarily applying a square footage size to the Eclipse Snow Park proposal but to use the same standards used all the time. This related directly to statement #1 in the OEM letter stating there was not enough room to shelter the expected number of patrons in the 4270 square foot proposed Eclipse Snow Park lodge. As stated before, Eclipse Snow Park planned for 50 guests per day on average. This resulted in 20-30 car rides up/down Fall River Road. Currently, there were no sheltering plans in place for the Eclipse Snow Park area. There was also no plan in place for Alice or St. Mary’s. The applicant’s proposal would greatly enhance this sheltering plan for the St. Mary’s area.  There were more people in the St. Mary’s area in the summer and there was no sheltering plan in place. The applicant had gone to great lengths to ensure there is safe and adequate sheltering in the St. Mary’s area.  Regarding item #2 in the OEM letter discussing the Clear Creek Fire Authority would determine the maximum person capacity for the Eclipse Snow Park lodge, and that they may not allow 300 people, the Clear Creek Fire Authority had not rejected denial or otherwise with regard to this application.  Regarding item #3 in the OEM letter discussing power failures on Fall River Road, this currently happened all the time along this road. There was no information to state how much this varied from the standard in Clear Creek County or whether this was an arbitrary standard applied to Eclipse Snow Park.  Regarding the statement in the OEM letter that the applicant would not have the luxury of law enforcement stating if people could not get down the road then law enforcement could not get up, the applicant would do everything possible to work with law enforcement. They wanted to work with law enforcement to address this issue. The applicant had tried to contact the Sheriff after the May 26th and the June 16th hearings and received no response.  Regarding the statements in the OEM letter about children skiers being fatigued and stressful situations, the applicant was more than willing to address the specific concerns and include a conditional approval on satisfying the OEM concerns #1-7.  Regarding the statement in the OEM letter about the road being safe for travel, the applicant has offered to pay for snow removal to make sure the road was safe for travel.  Regarding the statement in the OEM letter regarding liquor licensing, the applicant would be more than willing to work with the Red Cross to ensure there was adequate sheltering at Eclipse Snow Park.  Regarding the statement in the OEM letter regarding this being an isolated area, this was not a unique situation in Colorado for ski resorts. Some of the examples were Eldora, Powderhorn, Silverton, Beaver Creek, Crested Butte, and even Copper Mountain Ski area was a one way in/out. There were also examples at the national level which included Taos, Grand Targhee, Santa Fe, Dodge Ride, etc. Each of these ski areas had significantly more daily visitation than was proposed by Eclipse Snow Park.  Regarding the OEM statement about educating the public on 72-hour kits in isolated areas, the applicant was willing to work with OEM to be prepared.  Tony Ryan reviewed the list of concerns submitted by OEM and addressed them as follows:  OEM asked the applicant to become a Red Cross Shelter. The applicant had reached out to the Red Cross to become a shelter. Subject to reasonableness, they would become a shelter and send all current and new employees to the management classes.  OEM asked that the applicant take the incident command system courses. The applicant was more than willing to take these courses.  OEM asked the applicant to have a vhf radio to communicate with response resources. The applicant would do this.  Regarding the statement in the OEM letter about the distance Eclipse Snow Park was from emergency resources, he noted in comparison that Echo Mountain Park was 19.8 miles away from Idaho Springs Fire Department and 12.32 miles away from Evergreen Fire Protection Department. The City of Idaho Springs Police Department was 19.8 miles away from Echo Mountain Park. The Jefferson County Sheriff, Mountain Precinct was 17.03 miles from Echo Mountain Park. Clear Creek County Emergency Services was 18.95 miles away from Echo Mountain Park and Evergreen Fire Protection District Ambulance was 16.59 miles away. Regarding Loveland Ski Area, the Clear Creek Fire Authority Silver Plume fire station and the Sheriff’s office were 10 miles away. Emergency Services station #4 was 12 miles away.  Eclipse Snow Park was no farther away than the other ski areas in the county. To focus on Eclipse Snow Park’s isolated nature was to treat the applicant in an arbitrary nature.  The Clear Creek Fire Authority Idaho Springs station was 10.5 miles away. The Sheriff’s office was 19.2 miles away. The City of Idaho Springs Police was 10.5 miles away and the Emergency Services station #2a was 10.97 miles away. In the context of the other ski areas, applying the isolated nature standard to Eclipse Snow Park was arbitrary and capricious.  Regarding the wildfire hazard plan, OEM claimed the Eclipse Snow Park plan did not address the long term forest needs of the property regarding forest health. He noted the Colorado State Forest Service did not object to the Eclipse Snow Park application. The applicant had worked with all referral agencies to make sure their concerns were addressed prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearings.  He added the applicant would be happy to address the specific concerns addressed by the Colorado State Forest Service and the OEM department. He suggested that an approval be conditioned on satisfying these specific standards.  The applicant wanted to be an active partner and cooperate with all agencies to the betterment of Clear Creek County. Working with OEM was a way to do this.  The May 26, 2010 letter from OEM did not request the Eclipse Snow Park application be approved or denied but that it be postponed until criterion were met. He suggested the applicant be able to work with the OEM and Colorado State Forest Service to have an approval conditional on satisfying their concerns.

James Lyman, Attorney for Eclipse Snow Park James Lyman made the following statements:  He asked to enter into the record a blanket objection to referral to or admission of any of the ex parte communications. A letter was submitted from his firm, Hogan & Lovells, the prior day and he asked this letter to be included into the record. Yesterday, the applicant was unaware of any ex parte communications, even though it was clear that many were made. This was a due process concern for the applicant.  Additionally, the applicant sent a letter last week noting there was no final decision in this matter at the June 16, 2010 hearing.  He believed the applicant had adequately addressed the issues raised during the June 16th hearing as well as the issues from the Planning Commission hearing.  He asked the Board to revote on the Development Review Case in light of the fact that the applicant had admitted some information which was excluded from the prior record.

Tony Ryan asked that a copy of the county emergency operations plan be admitted into the record. The Board accepted this document as Exhibit 36. Mr. Loeffler clarified the letter from the applicant/Hogan & Lovells, dated July 6, 2010, was proposed as exhibit 37. The Board accepted this as exhibit 37.

Mr. Loeffler stated at the last hearing, a resolution was not prepared for the Board’s approval and the Board continued the hearing to review this resolution. The Planning Department was prepared to present such a resolution. This resolution addressed James Lyman’s point about considering final action on the Development Review Case. This hearing was not over until the Board signed a resolution.

Trent Hyatt presented a copy of the publication of this hearing being continued from the June 16, 2010 hearing to tonight. Trent Hyatt presented the draft resolution of denial into the record. The Board accepted these documents as exhibits 38 and 39 respectively.

Trent Hyatt made the following statements:  Trent Hyatt stated on June 16th, the Board outlined two standards of approval not being met by the applicant. Those included 20-g of the zoning regulations and section 11 being the location of existing or proposed structures and uses would impose an undue burden on public services and infrastructure.  Second, section #12, regarding the changing of traffic patterns and potential increase in trip generation would result in excessive congestion or traffic hazards. Page 3 listed how these standards were not being met.  One issue not being addressed was the undue burden being caused by Fall River Road not being maintained for snow removal after 4:00 p.m. daily by Road & Bridge and that an adequate plan for road maintenance after hours was not provided by the applicant.  Second, the development was located in a remote area which made it difficult for response by law enforcement, Emergency Services, and fire. These services could not be relied upon during inclement weather.  Regarding standard for approval #12, Fall River Road, there were many deficiencies in the road with it being narrow, no shoulders and sharp switchbacks. Also, opposing traffic was sometimes required to travel in the opposing lane when driving the road.  Eclipse Snow Park did propose the rumble strips in the center line however, this was determined as inappropriate.  Eclipse Snow Park did propose some guardrail additions however these were deemed as unsafe by the county Road & Bridge department.  Fall River Road was already a dangerous road and adding increased traffic with drivers not familiar with the road increased this danger.  Also, regarding condition of approval #12, the movement of wildlife was given as another issue not being met under this standard.

Commissioner O'Malley asked if the Board had any additional questions regarding the comments submitted by OEM. Commissioner Drury replied, no, not regarding OEM comments. Her main issue which was also related to the rezoning, was the road. The road was the hindrance to this project. There was no way to mitigate the issue of the road. She could not support this development due to the road.

Commissioner Dale appreciated the applicant addressing the OEM issues. He believed the standards of approval #11 and #12 were still not met by this application. Staff did a good job capturing the Board’s concerns with this proposal. He supported the resolution of denial.

Commissioner O'Malley was very disappointed and disturbing that the Sheriff’s office did not respond to the applicant’s request to discuss the issues the Sheriff had. His views on the proposal had not changed. Outdoor recreation tended to occur in places which were isolated in terms of access. This was not a unique situation at all. It was not even unique to Clear Creek County.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-36, resolution to deny the Development Review Process case for Eclipse Snow Park LLC. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Drury stated the communications she received in no way had any bearing on her decision in this hearing. Nothing was being hidden. Commissioner Dale agreed as well. He made his decision at the time of the hearing based on the information presented. Some of the emails he received were in support and some were in opposition. Commissioner Drury and Commissioner Dale voted in approval. Commissioner O'Malley voted in opposition. The motion passed 2-1.

Commissioner O'Malley noted that since the Development Review Case was denied, there were no vested rights to vest. The Combination of Lots Agreement and the 1041 case would be considered later tonight at 6:30 p.m.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WATER RATE FEE SCHEDULE: Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel and Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate attended the hearing. Bert Weaver and Lisa Vogel presented the following information:  The former water rate fee schedule was from 2003.  They proposed an increase from $2200 to $2500 per one acre foot.  There were no comparable sales to the Upper Clear Creek Basin augmentation as the water was fully consumable.  Black Hawk had water for approximately $4000 per acre foot.  The county had 83 acre feet annually they could sell.  Echo Mountain Park contracted for 30 acre feet a year but they never used this much.

Commissioner O'Malley stated since there were no comparable rates structures, the market was based on supply and demand. It appeared that Clear Creek County had more supply than demand. Mr. Loeffler disagreed stating there may not be demand now but the county expected there would be demand. These prices had to support the water fee structure for 25 years. If someone wanted a truckload of water, they called Black Hawk. If they wanted more than a truckload, Clear Creek County was the only game in town. Commissioner O'Malley understood but why raise rates when the county wasn’t selling what it had. Commissioner O'Malley understood the complicated issue of water but it did no good when 40-50 acre feet went floating downstream. Mr. Loeffler replied staff was spending a lot of time on the administration of water agreements and leases. Under the current water regime, there were not many short term water users. Until the long term users show up, water would flow downstream. Commissioner Dale stated the county used to be reluctant to sell out of county but at this point, why not? Commissioner O'Malley did not want to tie up water on long term leases out of county. The purpose was to supply Clear Creek County users. Commissioner Dale suggested considering the remaining percentage and sell it out of county.

Bert Weaver stated Echo Mountain Park used their water and made snow so 50% of it evaporated. Their return flow was gradual and required them to contract for 30 acre feet. Echo Mountain Park had an inflationary clause in their water contract so they were currently paying $2500 per acre foot. Bert Weaver wanted to charge new water customers $2500/acre foot or reduce the price for Echo Mountain Park.

Starbucks may need accommodation by the Clear Creek County Water Bank in the future. Currently, 95% of what they used from the ground was returned to the stream.

Bert Weaver stated they were charging 50% for reserve water as customers paid the county to hold water in reserve for them.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the water rate fee schedule with an effective date of July 7, 2010. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LEASE WITH CLEAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC (STARBUCKS): Mr. Loeffler stated this was a new water lease for a half acre foot of water. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the water lease with Clear Creek Development Company (Starbucks). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding CRS 24- 6-402(4)(a), the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; regarding CRS 24-6-402(4)(e), determining negotiating strategies and positions and instructing negotiators; and regarding legislation and contracts as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT CASE #CLA-2009-0002, FOR ECLIPSE SNOW PARK LLC: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-35, 1041 CASE #SI-2010-0001, FOR ECLIPSE SNOW PARK LLC: In attendance were Heather Ulrich, Marshall Ulrich, Peech Keller, Paul Johnson, Betsy Berarducci, Jan Ziman, Linda Feidler, Mark Kline, Clyde Anderson, Omer Humble, Marion Anderson, Graham Knight, Ken Fredricks, Planner II Trent Hyatt, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, SE Group representative Travis Becker, Attorney Andy Spielman, and Attorney Tony Ryan.

Commissioner O'Malley opened the public hearing to consider two items for Eclipse Snow Park: the Combination of Lots Agreement case and the 1041 case. Commissioner O'Malley introduced the Combination of Lots Agreement case first. Andy Spielman stated with regard to the Combination of Lots Agreement case only, the applicant respectfully withdrew this application given the fact the Development Review Case was not approved, which was a condition of the rezoning. Mr. Loeffler clarified the rezoning was approved conditional on the Combination of Lots Agreement. The Development Review Case was required by the county regulations. The rezoning resolution provided that the ski area development would require Development Review Case even if other triggers didn’t apply. The Board accepted the applicant’s withdrawal of the Combination of Lots Agreement case.

Commissioner O'Malley introduced the 1041 case #SI-2010-0001 for Eclipse Snow Park. An audience asked why the Board was considering the 1041 case when the Development Review Case was denied. Commissioner O'Malley replied it was up to the applicant. Andy Spielman replied the applicant wished to pursue the 1041 case.

Commissioner O'Malley wanted to clarify the 1041 process. He stated the minimum standards for approval were that the proposed development would meet two areas of the regulations: avoidance of or mitigation to cultural resources as determined by the State Historic Preservation Officer and the avoidance of or mitigation to flood hazard, geological hazard, and wildfire hazard. These were the criteria the Board would consider for approval of denial of the applicant’s 1041 application. Commissioner O'Malley was curious why the applicant was proceeding with this application. Andy Spielman agreed to address this in his presentation for the applicant.

An audience member asked to comment. Commissioner O'Malley replied there would be a public comment period.

Planner II Trent Hyatt made the following statements:  He entered into the record four proofs of publication for the public notice of this hearing. He began with the meeting of May 26th and the subsequent continuations. Mr. Loeffler noted these would be exhibits 1041-1, 1041-2, 1041- 3, and 1041-4. The Board accepted these exhibits into the record.  Trent Hyatt presented the staff report as Exhibit 1041-5 for the record. The Board accepted the staff report as Exhibit 1041-5 into the record.  Trent Hyatt presented the door signs reflecting the location of the meeting as exhibits 1041-6. The Board accepted this exhibit into the record.

Andy Spielman made the following presentation:  He thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak this evening.  He appreciated the emotion and the professionalism in the room this evening.  He found the heckling from the crowd to be unfortunate.  He spoke of a July 6, 2010 letter from the applicant requesting inclusion of the Development Review Case file into the record of the 1041 proceeding this morning, for the hearing this evening. The Board accepted this Development Review Case file as exhibit 1041-7 into the record.  He stated the Development Review Case file would become a part of the record of this 1041 case. Many of the issues addressed in the 1041 case were already addressed in the Development Review Case in terms of content. Mr. Loeffler asked for clarification of this entry into the record. Andy Spielman replied it was in the interest of economy and the busy Planning staff. The documents submitted in support of the Development Review Case were also in support of the 1041 case. He clarified he meant the applicant’s application, their PowerPoint presentation, the memo on economics, the traffic study, and the Fair & Pierce report. Mr. Loeffler clarified this was Exhibit 11 in the Development Review Case. Mr. Loeffler suggested just accepting the record of the Development Review Case insofar as it had bearing on the criteria in the 1041 permit. The Board agreed and accepted this into the record as the 1041-7.  Andy Spielman stated the applicant objected to the inclusion into the record of Heather Ulrich’s July 1, 2010 letter to the Board of County Commissioners as an improper ex parte communication outside the hearing. They made the same blanket objection to any other ex parte communications being included into the record regardless of from whom they were sent. Mr. Loeffler clarified these were exhibits 33 and 34 as a part of the disclosure of their existence. These communications were disclosed. He accepted those objections as a purpose of separating them from evaluating the 1041 application. Commissioner Dale stated these ex parte communications may be repeated as a part of the public hearing tonight. Mr. Loeffler agreed. Mr. Loeffler stated exhibits 33 and 34 would not be considered in the evaluation or the merits of this 1041 application. The Board agreed.  Andy Spielman stated the so-called 1041 permit arose from legislative action and HB 1041. It was a law of the state. He read from the Colorado Revised Statues a list of the activities of state interest as defined by the Colorado legislature: major domestic water and sewage treatment centers, solid waste disposal sites, site selection of airports and rapid/mass transit facilities, site selection of arterial highways and interchanges and collector highways, site selection and construction of major facilities of a public utility, site selection and development of new communities, efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects and conduct of nuclear detonations. The County had adopted identical language in their 1041 regulations. The Colorado courts stated the counties could not change this language unless there was expressed statutory or constitutional grant. The applicant was not proposing any activities of state interest.  There were also areas of state interest. State statute spoke of areas of state interest to include mineral resource areas, natural hazard areas, significant impact on historical, natural or archaeological resources of statewide importance as determined by the State Historical Society. The fourth category was areas around key facilities. The State’s list of key facilities was the same as the county’s 1041 regulations. Key facilities included airports, major facilities of public utility, interchanges involving arterial highways, rapid or mass transit terminals, stations and fixed guideways. Omer Humble had requested the applicant complete the 1041 process.  From the May 26, 2010 staff report, page 29, Andy Spielman read that the following areas of state interest should be reviewed with regard to this proposal: floodplain hazard, geologic hazard, rockfall and cultural resources. These were the areas the applicant had addressed in their 1041 application. It was the applicant’s understanding that these were the only issues on the table this evening.  The county’s 1041 regulations had separate chapters that governed separate processes. Chapter 3 governed the requirements and review criteria to meet activities of statewide interest. Per the applicant’s proposal and staff’s agreement, this application did not include any activities of statewide interest. Therefore, the county’s regulation at chapter 11 governing areas of statewide interest would govern the process this evening. Chapter 11 had only four standards of approval. They were avoidance of or mitigation to cultural resources, avoidance of or mitigation to flood hazard, avoidance of or mitigation to geologic hazards, and avoidance of or mitigation to wildfire hazards.  Andy Spielman introduced Travis Beck, a planning consultant with the SC Group, to present the applicant’s compliance with these four standards.

Travis Beck of the SC Group made the following presentation:  The applicant was in compliance with the submittal requirements included in Chapter 11 of the 1041 regulations including the appropriate application forms, proof of ownership, vicinity maps, location maps, and a detailed site plan.  The 1041 permit application demonstrated how the areas of State interest were avoided and potential impacts had been mitigated.  Regarding the cultural resources, a certified archaeologist surveyed the property including areas of disturbance and determined there were no cultural or historic properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The county staff had consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officer as well to confirm these conclusions. Therefore, no impacts to cultural resources or historic resources resulted from this proposal.  Regarding the flood hazard, the project area and surrounding parcels were not located within a flood plain area per the FEMA map which was included in the application.  Regarding the geologic hazards, Dr. James McCalpin of GeoHaz Consultants had studied the site and submitted a report with the application. He determined that landslide and rockfall areas were well beyond the project area. The slope angle and distance would protect against rockfall encroaching into the area. This was avoidance of the geologic hazards.  Regarding the wildfire hazards, a review was prepared by the Rocky Mountain ecological Services which included the Colorado State Forest Service defensible space guidelines and recommendations. This report documented that by complying with the Colorado State Forest Service guidelines; wildfire hazard would be mitigated within the project area and would extend safety benefits to surrounding communities. Correspondence between the Colorado State Forest Service and the applicant in 2006 noted the creation of a ski area would minimize or reduce wildfire hazard in the area by the clearing of the vegetation.  Based on materials provided in the permit application and the findings of these consultants, the applicant had satisfied all requirements of the 1041 application, including the standards of approval.

Commissioner O'Malley asked if planning staff concurred with the conclusions drawn by the applicant’s consultants. Trent Hyatt replied, in part. He had included conditions of approval to meet criteria. He asked to admit Heather Ulrich’s comments into the record. The Board accepted these comments as Exhibit 8. He asked to admit his Development Review Case staff report into the record along with Attachment E and F which contained comments staff had received. Commissioner O'Malley stated those were already admitted.

Trent Hyatt made the following statements:  Trent Hyatt stated staff had identified the areas of state interest to include the floodplain hazards, wildfire hazards, geologic hazards, and cultural resources, and the standards of approval to avoid or mitigate those.  Regarding the cultural resources, there was one area that was located in the area of proposed the proposed maintenance shed which was proposed for demolition. The State Historic Preservation office determined this was not significant since the resource was not eligible for the National Register.  Regarding the flood hazard, the property was not located in the 100-year floodplain  Regarding the geologic hazards, some did have the potential to affect areas within the project boundary and staff recommended certain measures as conditions of approval.  Regarding the wildfire hazard, he recommended the same. There were some additional features that the Colorado State Forest Service desired in the wildfire management plan. Trent Hyatt recommended these be included.  Regarding the geologic hazards, the applicant’s geologist stated that an avalanche analysis be performed prior to operation of the ski area. Staff recommended this be performed as well as the incorporation of any measures identified by this analysis.  There was also a steep slope located near the center parking lot. Staff asked this be monitored and that ski cutting be performed to reduce the risk of avalanche.  Regarding the wildfire hazards, Colorado Geologic Survey identified that a fire event could create a rockfall potential. Following any such event, staff recommended that a subsurface geotechnical analysis be performed. They also recommended the fencing of any open steep prospecting pits within the area boundary.  Regarding wildfire hazard, staff recommended the presence of current or future tree hazards in recreation and around infrastructure be identified. Mitigation needs for summer uses should also be identified.  Staff requested the wildfire management plan address long term forest health needs as well as long term maintenance of defensible space.  Staff agreed that the standards of approval were being met with those recommended mitigation measures as conditions of approval.  Trent Hyatt offered his presentation as an exhibit for the record. The Board accepted the staff report as Exhibit 1041-9 into the record.

Andy Spielman requested that the applicant’s PowerPoint presentation be entered into the record. The Board accepted this presentation as Exhibit 1041-10. Commissioner O'Malley introduced the public comment period and asked speakers to address only those items relating to the 1041 process and the areas of state interest.

Jan Ziman, Fall River Road Jan Ziman made the following statements:  She asked for clarification on the submittal of the Development Review Case record into this 1041 case record. Commissioner O'Malley replied only as it related to the 1041 issues. Commissioner Dale agreed stating only the 1041 issues in the Development Review Case which were valid for this case: cultural resources, and mitigation of flood, geologic and wildfire hazard.  Jan Ziman gave the rest of her time to Heather Ulrich.

Heather Ulrich, Brook Drive Heather Ulrich made the following statements:  She submitted a “Vote No on the 1041 application” document.  She was speaking on behalf of a group of citizens in opposition to the Eclipse Snow Park 1041 case.  Based on a thorough review of what is required in the 1041 process for items of state interest, she did understand that this did not include activities of state interest.  It was clear that Eclipse Snow Park did not meet the requirements of the 1041 process and the Board should vote no.  She disagreed with the Board that only archaeology, wildfire, geology and flood hazards be considered.  To maintain the Board’s no vote on the Development Review Case, the Board had to vote no on the 1041 case. The development was not approved. So, how could the Board approve a permit to develop? This made no sense.  Chapter 2 of the 1041 regulations stated that issues considered in 1041 had to include at a minimum the foreseeable development pressures. The Board then had to consider evidence into the record of Eclipse Snow Park‘s plan to develop a 300 acre facility with parking for 130 cars. This was on the record in the Development Review Case.  She asked that not only the applicant’s submittal but also the referral agency comments and public comment be entered into the 1041 hearing record. It was not acceptable to receive only one side of the argument.  Regarding Chapter 11, Section D, item #1 of the 1041 regulations, she read that any person proposing to engage in a development, the Development Review Case application, in an area of state interest must file an application. The application for the development was the same as that in the Development Review Case.  The Board could make a finding that this proposal was a key facility. She disagreed with Andy Spielman of only four items for key facilities.  She asked the Board to review chapter 11, Section H, #1, regarding approval or denial of the 1041 permit which stated the burden of proof was on the applicant in showing compliance with the 1041 regulations. Eclipse Snow Park had not done this.  She read from the Colorado Revised Statutes that a local government must deny a permit for development in an area of state interest if the project did not comply with the guidelines or regulations. This included compliance with all requirements of state interest and not just the minimum requirements.  She read from CRS 24-65.1-202, criteria for administration of areas of state interest did include criteria for protection of cultural resources as well as geologic, wildfire, and flood hazards as addressed in the Eclipse Snow Park application. What was not included in the Eclipse Snow Park application was the criteria applicable to areas surrounding the key facility. Even if Eclipse Snow Park was not a key facility, the Board could still consider traffic hazards as required by the Development Review Case, especially since it was entered into this 1041 record.  If this was a key facility, then issues such as danger to public health, safety, and property should be designated and administered to minimize such dangers. She added areas around key facilities should be developed to minimize traffic congestion, incompatible uses, an expansion of government services.  She also stated compatibility with non-motorized traffic should be encouraged. A development that imposed burdens on a community could not be justified on the basis of a local benefit alone.  The Board could find in the Development Review Case that Eclipse Snow Park was a key facility and that the Development Review Case requirements were applicable.  Eclipse Snow Park must comply with all portions of the 1041 regulations. As a key facility, the county cannot state that the four items were sufficient – archaeological resources, flooding, wildfire, and geologic hazards. The proposal must comply with the entire statute. This was validated by case law Colorado Springs vs. Eagle County Board of County Commissioners where it found if a project didn’t meet just one criteria of approval then it had to be denied.  The Board should consider if Eclipse Snow Park didn’t comply with just one of the criteria including dangers to public health and safety; discouraging traffic congestion; discouraging incompatible uses; discouraging expansion of the demand for government services beyond reasonable capacity or if the development imposed burdens which could not be justified by the basis of local benefit alone.  The county regulations and State law on 1041 were clear. The local government had to deny a proposal that did not comply with the regulations.  If the Board was accepting the Development Review Case into the 1041 record then the requirements of the Development Review Case must be met as well.  As Eclipse Snow Park had not met the 1041 requirements as defined, this application could not be granted.  She again asked the Board to vote no regarding the Eclipse Snow Park proposal. The development was not approved so they could not approve the 1041.

Mr. Loeffler asked the Board to accept Heather Ulrich’s “vote no” submittal as Exhibit 11 into the record. The second document which was Heather Ulrich’s testimony would be Exhibit 12. The Board accepted Exhibits 11 and 12 into the record.

Ken Fredricks, absent.

Marion Anderson, Fall River Road Marion Anderson made the following statements:  It was apparent the applicant was seeking groundwork using the 1041 case for a future application for a new ski area.  The applicant was thinking that maybe the future requirements may be stricter and could be applied to this project.  The resolution for this application, under the conditions of approval, called for a development plan. The development plan had been rejected and should not be a part of this resolution.  She suggested everyone wait for a new development plan to be submitted.  Until this was known, the county could not make reasonable assumptions about what the conditions of approval should be.  She urged the Board to deny this application to be consistent with the Development Review Case.

Clyde Anderson, Fall River Road  Clyde Anderson made the following statements: The 1041 regulations required the cost to the county for the consideration of the proposal to be reimbursed to the county by the applicant.  Since the 1041 was not activated until the July 7th date, all the expenses prior to this date were paid from the county fund and claims for reimbursement could not be made.  The applicant and the Board jointly agreed to consider the 1041 last.  The Development Review Case and the Combination of Lots Agreement required the attention of the Planning and Attorney staff. They were very lengthy.  The budgets for these two departments were $500,000. If only half of their time was devoted to this case, then $250,000 was directed from this proposal. This could not be reimbursed by the applicant. The expense was detrimental to the county taxpayers and allowed the applicant to save that money.  Because the cart was before the horse, the taxpayer incurred this expense as a necessity to defend their own property rights and quality of life issues.

Peech Keller. She deferred her time to Omer Humble.

Mark Kline, Fall River Road Mark Kline made the following statements:  Mark Kline asked the group to imagine the room without the opinions of attorneys.  He used an analogy to explain the components of a plan. He believed it was important to know the entire plan rather than pieces of it. He believed the applicant was piece-mealing this proposal.  The community did not have all the components to this project. Some of the components were not approved. Some components were disapproved.  He was seeing pieces of an overall plan and no one knew what was being approved or disapproved.  There was no urgency to this.  He stated the entire thing should be applied and either approved or denied as a whole thing and not as pieces. This would not remove any of the applicant’s rights.

Omer Humble, Fall River Road Omer Humble made the following statements:  If Mark Kline was confused, then Omer Humble was flabbergasted.  Why was everyone here? The only way the 1041 applied was via matters of state interest. There were no activities and there were not areas. Why was everyone here?  He endorsed what Heather Ulrich stated about admitting into the record all of the Development Review Case including the referral agency and public comment. This could not be a one sided presentation.  He asked that the rebuttal information be included as well. Commissioner O'Malley stated this was all received. Commissioner O'Malley added that no one in this room would be deciding what was relevant.  Omer Humble printed his comments for everyone. Mr. Loeffler stated this would be Exhibit 1041-13. The Board accepted it into the record.  If there was no property then there was nothing to consider. This included areas or activities.  Per the permit application approval criteria, the project had to prove it was technically and financially feasible. This had not be shown of record. This proof had yet to come forward.  The evidence of record showed this was not a winner. There was an attachment which discussed financials.  Regarding Chapter 4, A-4, the project could not impair the property rights held by others. They could not prove that this proposal would not negatively impact the homeowners of Fall River Road.  Regarding Chapter 4, A-5, the project could not have significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments. This was what the Board said in conditions 11 and 12 of the Development Review Case when they rejected it. This was the same requirement and the Board had already acted on it.  Regarding Chapter 4, A-6, the project could not create an undue financial burden on existing and future residents; the record reflected there was adverse impact on the present residents.  Regarding Chapter 11, the burden of proof was on the applicant.  Regarding page 3 that if the applicant failed to comply with all provisions of the regulations, then the permit authority shall reject the permit.  Omer Humble did not see any question here. It surprised him that someone would try to pull this shenanigan on responsible Commissioners. Andy Spielman objected to this statement stating the language was uncalled for. Commissioner O'Malley stated the objection was noted.  Omer Humble stated during this process no one received any more preferential treatment than the applicant. Yet, during this process. The applicant’s lawyers accused the Board of being arbitrary and capricious. He took this as an insult. The Board had not been arbitrary or capricious. They had spent more than $2 million in trying to satisfy the applicant’s childhood dream of owning a ski resort. The taxpayers had been putting up with this for five years. How could the Board be arbitrary if it spent tax money on behalf of the applicant?

The Board received Omer Humble’s speech as exhibit 1041-13 into the record. Andy Spielman objected to exhibit 13 as irrelevant. He explained that Mr. Humble’s speech spoke of the business plan and other items which the Board declared were not on the table tonight. Commissioner O'Malley noted the objection.

Betsy Berarducci, Fall River Road Betsy Berarducci made the following statements:  Why was the applicant pursuing this process when the Development Review Case was denied?

Andy Spielman stated things like people’s homes became very personal and he understood that. Michael Coors was not in attendance and he did take offense at name calling. He was his friend and the name calling was not appropriate in this venue. However he did understand how emotional this topic was. Regardless of what occurred this evening, the Coors team remained committed to being available to this community and the officials of the county. He had four reasons why Coors was proceeding with the 1041 application:  No one knew county code better than Mr. Loeffler and Andy Spielman could find no where in the county code that said they could not proceed with this application. The staff had an application and it had been noticed publicly so it was appropriate for the Board to hear the application.  There was no bar to approval. He was entitled to have this application as any other considered on the merits.  There was no risk to the county to hear this application. He had heard other opinions but he disagreed.  Regarding Chapter 11, I-3, this permit was valid only for the construction operation of the project together with conditions of approval, if any, imposed by the permit authority.  If no project was approved then the permit would not remain valid. There was no risk to the community, or undercover operation.  It was a permit and it was a privilege. It could be exercised if the conditions were met.  Finally, the final point in the land use approval, for better or for worse, was judicial review. The final word on the underlying development may or may not been determined this morning. Commissioner O'Malley agreed by his own comment on whether the final question had been answered.  Regarding Heather Ulrich’s comments on key facilities, he stated a lot of thought went into her comments. The applicant respectfully disagreed with her legal analysis. Key facility was a defined term in the statute. The only case on key facilities was that of State Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Oborn vs. the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County. The court found the county’s authority to designate areas and activities of state interest and to regulate such areas or activity in conjunction with other levels of government was not applicable to the dispute over whether the Board had authority to impose. He also listed the case of Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County v. Catrell. The point being, key facility, was defined by state statute and county regulations.  Regarding Humble’s recitation of the submission requirements for activities of state interest, the applicant did not believe it applied. This case was areas of activity and not activities of state interest. The submittal requirements Humble read were for activities of state interest under the county and state codes.  He asked how someone could say $2 million of the taxpayer’s money was spent on processing these applications. He found this hard to believe. The applicant continued to try to make economic contributions to the community.

Mr. Loeffler made the following statements:  Chapter 11 of the county’s 1041 regulations was applicable to the consideration of this application. The criteria the Board should be addressing were mentioned in Paragraph L of Chapter 11.  If the Board found that the criteria in Chapter 11 had been satisfied and the Board approved the permit, the resolution should approve expressly that it did not approve the Development Review Case which they rejected.  This could be appropriately addressed in the resolution which in this context was referred to as a permit.

Commissioner O'Malley asked if the regulations addressed the situation they were in now. The regulations didn’t address whether the application had been heard on the development piece. Mr. Loeffler stated the 1041 process was not set up to be the first or last process in a development. It allows it to be first in a process of a multiple approval permit procedure. Second, the applicant had identified those areas that the 1041 regulations applied to. It was not inconceivable that the applicant would come back with a project that wasn’t at all like the Development Review Case but included these elements. This could be the first permit in a chain of permits.

Commissioner Dale noted the dilemma. He stated the regulations state the applicant has proven the project complied with all applicable regulations and yet the project was denied. On the merits of the project, it was denied. However, specific to the avoidance and mitigation of cultural resources, flood hazards, geological hazards, and wildfire hazards, the project met the regulations. Mr. Loeffler agreed stating there was nothing that barred issuance of the permit.

Commissioner Dale asked about the key facility language. Was this public comment as it related to Fall River Road valid? Mr. Loeffler replied it was not valid. Key facilities were defined in the state statutes. The county regulations mimicked the state statute language. The county regulations defined key facilities as a public utility, interchanges involving arterial highways, rapid or mass transit terminals, stations and guideways.

Commissioner O'Malley understood that if the permit was to be valid for implementation, there would have to be an approved project. However, per Mr. Loeffler the 1041 permit could be approved on its own. Nothing could happen on this property until a project was approved. Commissioner Dale stated it almost made sense to continue this hearing until another development proposal was brought forth. Mr. Loeffler stated this was not an option.

Mr. Loeffler made the following statements:  Regarding Exhibit M, the draft resolution to approve the 1041 permit, he spoke about the conditions of approval.  Regarding condition #1, he was not sure it made sense. Condition #1 defined the project. A new definition would have to be provided. He suggested the language read that the project defined by the application must receive all government approvals and permits in accordance with applicable law.  This permit did not imply approval of the project by Clear Creek County except as to the extent expressly provided here. This permit was limited to these specific items of the ski area proposal.  Condition #3 provided that to mitigate fire risk, the ski area operator must implement a forest mitigation plan approved by Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel and the Colorado State Forest Service. This condition should have a statement that these plans should be in place prior to a certain date.  Mr. Loeffler clarified the language in item #1 to read that the project defined by the application must receive all government approvals and permits in accordance with the applicable law. The permit did not imply approval of the project by Clear Creek County except to the extent provided in the 1041 permit.  Regarding Commissioner O'Malley’s question about all of this information becoming recorded, Mr. Loeffler stated the resolution would be recorded.  Mr. Loeffler wanted item #1 to include an exhibit that detailed in terms of what was governed by the 1041 process. Staff would have to assemble a combination of maps to define the areas. The exhibit to the resolution would define in detailed terms what the project was and where it would be built. Trent Hyatt stated there would be four maps to define the actual location of the geologic hazards. Commissioner O'Malley stated these maps were relevant and should be included with the resolution. Mr. Loeffler would assemble a package of exhibits to accompany the resolution.

Commissioner O'Malley asked if a motion could be made. Commissioner Dale asked to see the resolution in its final form with the exhibits. He offered staff time to break and assemble this final document or to continue the hearing. Commissioner O'Malley called for a break in the hearing to see if the document could be finalized.

Following a 12 minute break, Commissioner O'Malley called the meeting back to order. Mr. Loeffler noted the following amendments:  Mr. Loeffler suggested referencing the 1041 maps adopted by the Board as part of the exhibits to the resolution.  As for the description of the project, he proposed to use the same description that was exhibit A to both the staff report and the denial of the Development Review Case. The project was that portion of the plans attached hereto as exhibit A that fall within the county’s mapped areas of flood hazards, geologic hazards, wildfire hazards, and cultural resources adopted as the date hereof. The second sentence would read that the project must receive all government approvals and permits in accordance with applicable laws.

The group discussed what other conditions of approval would be included and the reference to the development of a ski area throughout the document. Commissioner O'Malley stated that if there was a future hearing for this area they would have to change it from a ski area proposal. Mr. Loeffler agreed even though this proposal was denied a few hours ago.

Commissioner Dale asked if the Board was defining the project in condition #1 as the Development Review Case application which the Board had denied. And, the rest of the language in the resolution referenced the project as a ski area. Mr. Loeffler confirmed this was correct. He explained if another application came forth for something else, this permit would have no more utility. The applicant understood this.

Heather Ulrich requested the hearing be continued to allow the public to review the final language. The Commissioners also needed to review the final language and the public should be allowed to comment. There were significant ramifications to this resolution. Commissioner O'Malley disagreed that the approval of this permit had any effect on the approval of the overall project. Like the hearing this morning, the Board reviewed the language and did not reopen public comment. That would happen if this hearing was continued for review of the final resolution language. Commissioner Dale suggested continuing the hearing to allow everyone time to review the final language. Commissioner Drury agreed. Commissioner Dale stated any approval of the 1041 did not approve the Development Review Case. Commissioner Drury agreed.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to continue the hearing to July 28, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 21, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 21, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MARCH 3RD AND MARCH 31ST, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: In attendance were Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, Paralegal Nanette Reimer, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Planner II Trent Hyatt, Chief Accountant Carl Small and Planner II Holland Smith. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Liquor Licensing Authority to consider the following matter.

LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF HOTEL/RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR ECHO LAKE LODGE CONCESSIONS LLC, D.B.A. ECHO LAKE LODGE: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. She stated there were no objections to the renewal application and all submittals were made. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the renewal of the hotel/restaurant liquor license for Echo Lake Lodge Concessions LLC d.b.a Echo Lake Lodge. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Liquor Licensing Authority then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SWEEP AGREEMENT WITH CDOT: Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen presented. Planner II Trent Hyatt and Planner II Holland Smith attended the hearing. Jo Ann Sorensen made the following statements:  There were no changes in the recent draft of the SWEEP Agreement.  With all permits in Clear Creek County, the Land Use Division cooperated with many referral agencies, i.e. Clear Creek Watershed Foundation, the EPA, private contractors, etc.  The SWEEP agreement included five items which Clear Creek County agreed to cooperate with:  Support the concepts and activities identified in this Memorandum of Understanding.  Through adoptions and implementation of the BMP, protect water quality and riparian areas.  Through partnerships, act to enhance stream and wetland ecology.  Through our budgetary process, strive to continue to support the acquisition of data relating to Clear Creek.  Through outreach efforts, raise public awareness of and support for actions that protect and enhance stream and wetland health.  Jo Ann Sorensen believed these commitments would not cause undue burden on the county.  Appendix A was an accomplishment. This appendix was being used as a model for the ALIVE agreement with CDOT.  Jo Ann Sorensen asked for the Board’s approval of this SWEEP Agreement.  This agreement would run with all the activities in the I-70 corridor. She anticipated they would learn through construction what worked and what didn’t. There could be modifications. Unless someone terminated the agreement, it would be used as a guide through construction.  Page 10 of the agreement reflected contacts from each jurisdiction and Jo Ann Sorensen was listed as the Clear Creek County contact. The Board agreed and asked that this contact travel with a position so if someone leaves employment with the county, this role was not forgotten. Commissioner O'Malley stated it was in the best interest of the county to stay on top of these issues during the I-70 PEIS and Record of Decision.  Jo Ann Sorensen asked the Board to designate a signer for this agreement. The Board suggested the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the CDOT agreement with CDOT. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Equalization. The Board of Equalization minutes are kept separate from the Board of County Commissioners minutes.

Commissioner Dale attended the hearing.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding real estate matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); regarding retirement plans, service agreements with Mount Evans Hospice and the Senior’s Center, and Guanella Pass Road as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); and regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 28, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 28, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QUARTERLY PUBLIC TRUSTEE REPORT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SEMI ANNUAL TREASURER’S REPORT: Treasurer and Public Trustee Irene Kincade presented. In attendance were Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate and Chief Accountant Carl Small. Regarding the Public Trustee report, Irene Kincade stated the county had a lull in foreclosures but it was picking up again. The county was currently at 50+ foreclosures to date. Irene Kincade stated the county was in the same position as this time last year. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the quarterly Public Trustee report. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the semiannual Treasurer’s report. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATE PRIVACY AND SECURITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND JEFFERSON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND GILPIN COUNTY: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-77, RESOLUTION TO APPOINT HEATHER HUNTOON AS AN ASSOCIATE MEMBER TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/BOARD OF REVIEW: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF STATE OF COLORADO, COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD AGREEMENT WITH CLEAR CREEK COUNTY CONTRACT #C150740: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND MOUNT EVANS HOSPICE: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-78, RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND STATE BOARD OF GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO FOR THE OXBOW PLANNING GRANT: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ACOMATECH LLC YEARLY TELECOMMUNICATION MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND ACOMATECH LLC: 9. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF JULY 20, 2010, PROPOSAL FOR TRAKIT USER LICENSE: In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small, resident Dan Ebert, Carrie Arnold, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Mark Kline, Clyde & Marion Anderson, Marshall & Heather Ulrich, Andy Spielman, Tony Ryan, Omer Humble, Michael Kane, Travis Beckman, Candy Morehouse, Open Space Commission Coordinator Martha Tableman, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Planner II Trent Hyatt, Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline, Jan Ziman, and Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen. Mr. Loeffler asked the Board to continue item #5 until Bert Weaver was avaialbel to answer questions, preferably 3:45 p.m.

Commissioner Dale attended the hearing.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to continue Consent Agenda item #5 to 3:45 p.m. today. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Consent Agenda items #1-4 and #6-9 as presented. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Social Services to consider the following matter. BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COLORADO WORKS POLICIES REGARDING TANF: In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small, resident Dan Ebert, Carrie Arnold, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Mark Kline, Clyde & Marion Anderson, Marshall & Heather Ulrich, Andy Spielman, Tony Ryan, Omer Humble, Michael Kane, Travis Beckman, Candy Morehouse, Open Space Commission Coordinator Martha Tableman, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Planner II Trent Hyatt, Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline, Jan Ziman, and Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen. Mr. Loeffler stated this document was acceptable and the policies were dictated by the State. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Social Services Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Social Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-35, 1041 CASE #SI-2010-0001, FOR ECLIPSE SNOW PARK LLC: In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small, resident Dan Ebert, Carrie Arnold, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Mark Kline, Clyde & Marion Anderson, Marshall & Heather Ulrich, Andy Spielman, Tony Ryan, Omer Humble, Michael Kane, Travis Beckman, Candy Morehouse, Open Space Commission Coordinator Martha Tableman, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Planner II Trent Hyatt, Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline, Jan Ziman, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, and Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen.

Michael Kane represented residents along Fall River Road and wanted to speak on the issue of reopening public comment for this case. Commissioner O'Malley replied when they arrived at that point of the hearing the Board would consider it.

Commissioner O'Malley reminded the audience that at the last hearing, the Board directed staff to compose a resolution toward acceptance or approval of the 1041 application for Eclipse Snow Park. Planner II Trent Hyatt made the following presentation:  He presented the proof of publication for this meeting and continuance from the July 7, 2010 hearing.  He presented the revised draft resolution of approval into the record. The Board accepted the revised resolution as Exhibit 1041-15 into the record; and the proof of publication as Exhibit 1041-14 into the record.  Regarding the revised draft resolution, Trent Hyatt stated the first page described the specific property being that which was rezoned, the 293.3 acres from the 2007 hearing. Attachment A was the title commitment policy which identified the entire property.  Exhibit B was the description and narrative of the project along with what was associated with the project e.g. structures, ski trails, etc. This was identical to what was presented in the Development Review Case.  Exhibit C was similar to the Development Review Case and was the site plans associated with the project which showed the locations of the buildings, parking, ski trails, etc.  Also on page 1, the 7th “whereas”, described the project boundary as 100.44 acres.  Page 2, third “whereas,” concerned that this permit was only associated with those criterion identified in the 1041 permit and explained that the Development Review Case was denied by the Board of County Commissioners.  The seventh “whereas” discussed that issuing the 1041 permit had no force or effect to develop the project.  Page 3 discussed the findings of fact. The third finding stated there was effort to describe this project and that the project was denied the Development Review Case.  The conditions of approval also stated that issuance of this 1041 permit did not imply approval as to the extent expressed in this permit. Only the standards of the 1041 were approved.  Some of the conditions of approval in the resolution still required items needed from the applicant. The geologic hazards required three items: one was the avalanche analysis submitted at the expense of the applicant and implemented with any mitigation measures; second was the monitoring and ski cutting of the steep slope adjacent the center parking lot. Third was that the Colorado Geologic Survey identified any future wildlife in the area could potentially be at an increased risk of future rockfall hazards so they had requested a geotechnical analysis and implemented mitigations if needed. Lastly, there was a request that the fencing of any open prospecting pits of the project boundary so fall hazards could be prevented.  The Colorado State Forest Service had identified additional items to be addressed in their wildfire assessment which included identifying the presence of hazard areas around infrastructure, mitigation needs for summer uses, long term forest health needs, and maintenance of the defensible space areas.  A time limit was added to the approval of this 1041 permit which would be three years from today. This was the standard vesting period. Even though the county did not do vesting in 1041 permits, they did a three year time limit for this one. This approval would end in 2013. Mr. Loeffler stated the 1041 regulations expressly allowed for this.  Regarding Commissioner Drury’s question if any project going forth at this site having to complete a Development Review Case, Trent Hyatt replied that, yes, a project going forth on this site would still have to complete the Development Review Case since the proposed one was denied. He identified that this 1041 permit would only be approving those standards for approval of the 1041 and any other approvals would still be necessary prior to construction. Frederick Rollenhagen added that any project applicable to the Development Review section would have to apply for a Development Review Case and receive approval. If someone was proposing something that did not meet criteria or the thresholds identified in the Development Review Case then they would have to apply for whatever permits were necessary. Trent Hyatt explained because the resolution for the rezoning was approved, any use of the property as a ski area would require a Development Review Case. Other uses would fall under normal thresholds. Frederick Rollenhagen explained the three triggers for the Development Review Case were square footage, average-daily-trips, and site disturbance.

Commissioner O'Malley stated it was the habit of the Board to allow the public to speak. Hence, he would reopen public comment. Commissioner Dale asked the public to speak about the changes in the resolution mentioned in an effort to save time and finish the case today.

Michael Kane, Attorney for residents along Fall River Road Michael Kane made the following statements:  The 1041 regulations allowed the Board to deny the permit if it was inconsistent with an action already taken.  He heard two of the Commissioners identify that the 1041 permit would be a duplicate in project scope of a project that was already denied in the Development Review Case. This was inconsistent if the Board approved the 1041 permit.  Therefore, the Board had the right to deny the 1041 application at this time.  Second, the resolution stated the applicant had a right to the 1041 permit now in anticipate of development approvals in the future. This was not true. There was no law in the State or county that provided that.  Third, the Board had a situation where there was going to be confusion over an area called vested rights. There was no developer agreement that was provided for in the 1041 permit. So, with no agreement, the applicant was yielding or waiving his vested rights.  There was confusion between the 1041 and they denial of the Development Review Case.  This approval, granted the permit for the site plan in the 1041 case which didn’t make sense as it wasn’t consistent with the Development Review Case denial.  With vested rights, his view was that the county had an inconsistency giving them the power to deny the 1041.  The conditions of approval included an enforcement paragraph, not actually authorized by the section of the 1041 which authorized conditions designed to ensure compliance with standards as approved by the Board of County Commissioners.  It was mentioned by Trent Hyatt that there were four areas that Colorado State Forest Service wanted to have included in the resolution. The method was supposed to be that the conditions were presented to the Board and the Board decided the pros and cons and whether to adopt them as standards to enforce. If the Board granted the permit, and the applicant did not comply with the mitigations, the Board could revoke the permit. There was no power under this section of the resolution to re-create enforcement under the vested rights. The county could not impede development. If the county granted this permit, the applicant could move forward.  The 1041 regulations did not allow the Board to create a new enforcement mechanism. The county would be stuck with the enforcement mechanisms in the 1041, the vested rights, and the restrictions to enforce development once they granted the 1041 or the Development Review Case.  Michael Kane submitted his report into the record. The Board accepted this document into the record as Exhibit 1041-16.

Regarding Michael Kane’s question if the Board could deny this application, Commissioner O'Malley had no doubt the Board could deny this application. If this application was approved it was not in any way because the Board was forced to approve it. The Board was human and would make mistakes from time to time but currently, the Board had the right to say yes or no. Mr. Loeffler had reviewed Mr. Kane’s comments yesterday and disagreed with his conclusions. The county did not have to be concerned about the vesting or the consequence of vesting if the Board approved this permit. He agreed the Board was not creating a vested right with this permit approval only creating a date on which the permit expired. Mr. Loeffler replied this was correct. It had no impact on the granting of the permit, no impact on the issues that would have to be considered were this to come before the Board in the context of a Development Review Case or other land use approval process.

Regarding Commissioner O'Malley’s question about the resolution addressing vested rights, Mr. Loeffler stated the resolution did not address vested rights. They had no application in a 1041 permit. There was no reason to address it in the resolution. Statutory vested rights were not a part of this proposed resolution.

Omer Humble, Fall River Road Omer Humble made the following statements:  Regarding the basics of the 1041 process, the applicant had the authority to make this application. This proposed application was invalid.  Coors, as manager of Eclipse Snow Park, signed this application on December 8, 2009, covering properties owned by Grand Creek LLC. He had no authority to do it. It was an invalid application because attached to the front page was the authorization dated some two months later on February 1, 2010.  What would the approval of this 1041 application do for the applicant? Would he come in as many times or as often as they choose without limitation and piecemeal apply for this development – staying under Section 20 of the regulations which is the No-Review category? There were three sections under section 20: no review, design review, and Development Review Case. The only one of these the Board reviewed was the Development Review Case.  The applicant could come in time and time again with developments outside the Development Review Case and do whatever he wanted on his 390 acres without any authority to say no.  The county was vulnerable because of the lack of control and lack of decision making. If cumulatively, the smaller bits were taken, they could trigger liability and expense to the county.  With increased road maintenance, Emergency Services District, police protection, the county could lose complete control with no say so at all on what could happen under this 1041 if approved.  This was not what the Board of County Commissioners had in mind when they approved the rezoning. The Board had made sure that whatever level the application came in, they would have the decision making authority. Commissioner O'Malley replied that none of what was approved in the rezoning was changed by this 1041 application. The zoning application had restrictive language included. It was Commissioner O'Malley’s believe that the 1041 permit did not change anything in terms of what was affected by the zoning approval and the Development Review Case denial on this property. He understood that Mr. Humble disagreed with his interpretation but the world was based on having reasonable opportunities to have people review those disagreements and have the ability to say which side was correct. Omer Humble did not like this vulnerability and sustained his argument that this 1041 application was invalid. Commissioner Dale noted that any ski area application would require a Development Review Case. The ski area could not be built incrementally or through an administrative process. It was the intention of the Board when approving the rezoning that they understood the impacts and wanted the Development Review Case so the applicant could come back and explain the details. The applicant could not build a ski area without a Development Review Case. Omer Humble disagreed stating it would be different if the Board approved the 1041 permit application.

Regarding the 1041, Commissioner O'Malley’s understanding was that it addressed the areas, in this case, of state interest which were wildfire, geologic hazard, and cultural resources. So the permit stated the applicant had addressed these or would address them but it had nothing to do with the specific use of the property. The specific use of the property was determined through zoning and a Development Review Case. This applicant had applied to build a ski area. This zoning, which was Commercial-Outdoor Recreation, wouldn’t formally take place unless the applicant combined lots. Currently, the land was zoned a combination of residential, mining, and commercial. The owners had the right to do whatever use by right in those zoning categories. This application didn’t affect any rights they currently had with the property but they did have to follow the same regulations anyone else did with similar zoning. In many ways, the Commercial-Outdoor Recreation zoning was more restrictive and more permissive in other ways than their current zoning. If the applicant wanted to build what used to be a ski area on this property or some other recreational use, the current zoning did not allow it without the Development Review Case. Omer Humble disagreed stating that was the language for the rezoning application but it would not withstand legal peculiarities under the 1041 permit. Why would the county expose itself to that vulnerability? Commissioner O'Malley did not believe this existed. The Board received Omer Humble’s presentation as Exhibit 1041-17 into the record. The Board received Omer Humble’s analysis as Exhibit 1041-18 into the record.

Heather Ulrich, Brook Drive Heather Ulrich made the following statements:  Heather Ulrich presented her statements in writing. The Board received this document as Exhibit 1041-19 into the record.  She thanked the Board for accepting her public comment, both oral and written, into the record for these proceedings. Her statements were as follows:  “Commissioners, the proposed resolution to approve a 1041 permit for Eclipse supposedly had ‘no force or effect.’  If that were the case, which is far from the reality of what will actually happen if you actually approve this resolution, why approve it at all? Why even entertain the idea of a resolution for a permit that had ‘no force or effect?’ At best, it defies all logic. You must vote no on this resolution.  But, what if the reality of the case was that, if you approve this resolution, your no vote on the development review for Eclipse was overturned, and you gave away all your future rights to review and vote on any development at this site? And, you gave away the rights of citizens to comment on that development (I’ll explain that more late.) Even the risk of that – for something that you have been advised has ‘no force or effect’ – should be enough to make you wary of what has been put before you. More than that, it should convince you that you must vote no on this resolution.  Applicant Has a ‘Right’ to a Permit?  Oh, but wait, the resolution states that Eclipse has a ‘right’ to a permit under county 1041 regulations. What? Eclipse does not have a ‘right’ to a permit. This ‘right’ does not appear anywhere in the law of the State of Colorado or of Clear Creek County. You, the Board of County Commissioners, however, do have the right to vote NO on this resolution. You have the right, and responsibility, to conclude that the applicant has not entitled itself to a 1041 permit by employing the presumption that land use approvals for the same or similar project will be obtained from a future Board of County Commissioners. Because, that’s what Eclipse wants you to do: to assume that a future Board will approve a Lot Combination, and approve the development of Eclipse.  In fact, they *have* to obtain approval of a Lot Combination in order for the property to actually be rezoned to Commercial-Outdoor Recreation. Right now, Eclipse owns a mish-mash of mining claims, some residential lots, and a small commercial parcel. You are being asked to approve a permit for a project that 1. Has been denied approval by you and 2. Is proposed to be developed on land that is not even zoned for this type of development.  Can you see how absurd this is? There is no project. And, the land is not zoned appropriately for the project they propose. Why on earth would you approve a resolution, granting a permit, for a project that you rejected? You must vote no on this resolution.  Your Right to Deny a Permit  Your rights and responsibility under the laws of the State of Colorado and County 1041 regulations state that if you ‘determine that the applicant has failed to prove that the Project complies with any applicable provision of these regulations, (you) shall (or must) deny the Permit.’  Does Not Comply With Wildfire and Geologic (Avalanche) Requirements  And, contrary to the findings of fact (paragraph 5) of the resolution, you CAN find that Eclipse has failed to prove that the project complies with the regulations regarding mitigation of geologic, flood, and wildfire hazards. The County may base this finding on the material stated in the section identified as conditions of approval paragraphs 3 and 4. Those paragraphs require that the wildfire hazard assessment recommendations shall be amended to address four additional mitigation requirements and that under the geologic hazards section, the avalanche analysis requires review by a qualified professional. These findings support the conclusion that applicant has NOT proven that the project complies with applicable wildfire and geologic hazard standards. Therefore you can deny the permit because, again YOU have the right to determine that if the applicant has failed to prove the Project complies with ANY applicable provision of these Regulations, you shall (or must) deny the Permit. You must vote no on this resolution.  More Non-Compliance with Wildfire Requirements  In addition, the conditions of approval paragraph 3, delegates to the Site Development Department and to the State Forest Service the duty to approve the amendments to the wildfire hazard assessment. This requirement is also in conflict with the 1041 regulations that states that the project shall meet all applicable standards as determined by the board. Therefore you can deny the permit because, again YOU have the right to determine that if the applicant has failed to prove that the Project complies ANY applicable provision of these Regulations, you shall (or must) deny the Permit. You must vote no on this resolution.  You Will Not Be Able to Prevent Construction  Your 1041 regulations state that, if you approve a 1041 permit, the permit is valid for the construction and operation of the project described in the application. That means that Eclipse would be able to develop their snow park. Further, while there is verbiage in the permit resolution that SOUNDS like enforceable conditions of approval, the resolution does NOT protect the County, or the public, in any way. The conditions of approval will not give the County any powers to alter or delay or impair or enjoin or prevent the construction of the project.  In other words, as I mentioned earlier, the reality is that, if you approve this resolution, your no vote on the development review for Eclipse will be negated. Further, you will give away future rights of the County, and the public, to review or vote on any development at the site. Why? Because if you grant his 1041 permit, Eclipse will legally be able to argue that they are automatically granted vested rights. So, despite how you may have been advised, this resolution will have legal force and effect! A very negative force and effect.  Under your own zoning regulations, vested rights are automatically created when the Board approves a site specific development plan. That development plan can be defined as the plan in the record for these 1041 proceedings. Not only did Eclipse get the entire development review application into the record for these proceedings, but just look at all of the attachments to your draft resolution: detailed descriptions of the property and even more detailed maps and drawings of what Eclipse intends to construct: a lodge, a maintenance facility, ski runs, parking lots etc. Eclipse will be able to argue that all of this *is* an approved ‘Final Development Review site plan’ because it is attached to the 1041 permit. And, they *will* be able to legally argue for the automatic granting of vested rights.  Once a vested property right is established, the right precludes any zoning or land use action by a county that would alter, impair or prevent development of the project other than the enforcement of ordinances or regulations that are general in nature and applicable to all property owners. In other words, the only oversight or control the County would have would be limited to things like building codes for plumbing and electrical. Is that your intention for the Eclipse site? To allow them to develop – right now – with no oversight or control by the Board? If not, then you must vote no on this resolution.  If Eclipse is not successful in getting automatic vested rights now, with this 1041 permit, they will definitely be able to get vested rights when they do go ahead with the lot combo. And, with the lot combo, they will be granted the Commercial-Outdoor Recreation zoning, and development will definitely begin – with no oversight by the Board. Once again, is that your intention for the Eclipse site? To allow them to develop – right now- with no oversight or control by the Board? If not, then you must vote no on this resolution. “ Mark Kline, Fall River Road Mark Kline made the following statements:  Coors was trying to develop.  This was his right. There was a process to it. There was an order to it.  If the Board wanted to see which attorney was correct in their interpretation, approve the 1041 application and the group would find out.  If the Board denied the 1041 application, it would not remove any rights of Coors. What the Board would do is what they should be doing.  There was about to be a change in the composition of the Board and it would be nice for that person to have a fresh start.  Coors could start over and maybe change but he will start at the beginning again.  The Board would not harm him by saying no to the 1041 application. It just made Coors start over.

Commissioner O'Malley closed public comment.

Andy Spielman, attorney for Eclipse Snow Park Andy Spielman made the following comments:  He thanked everyone for their comments.  The impassioned pleas of several residents of the county was matched today only by the mischaracterization of the law.  The applicant had spent much valuable time at the last hearing, hearing statement after statement that the Board should not approve the 1041 application because it did not comply with county code.  The group had a long discussion about which chapter governed areas and activities of state interest.  Mr. Loeffler had advised and counseled on more 1041 applications than anyone he had known. He agreed that Chapter 11 was the standard of review because it was the areas of statewide interest and not the activities of statewide interest. Now, 2-3 people were back with a different legal theory. One concerned vested rights.  Regarding vested rights, the law which the Board of County Commissioners applies, and the state statute said that to give landowners certainty in the development process, upon completion of certain activity or certain parts of the land use process, rights vest for that project. The landowner would go through a process and get approval per their rights. Those rights were very specific provided in only specific cases. This was upon approval of site specific plans. The legislature leaves that definition to the counties. The county code was clear. Reading from it…a site specific plan, a plat, or other document described below, or incorporated by reference, showing the type and intensity of a use permitted, e.g. a final subdivision plat, final exemption plat, Official Development Plan, final design review, etc. That issue could never be for a ski area, or to build a ski area. It had to be zoned properly. It could only be zoned if the conditions of approval were met. The Development Review Case before the Board of County Commissioners must take place.  The applicant did not have a final development review site plan or development agreement. There never had been. This was the stage when vested rights occurred. A 1041 was never mentioned here.  It was interesting there was a strong contention of people who were opposed to the 1041 application the county had to go through to get to the 1041 process.  The Board of County Commissioners could give themselves comfort by adding a sentence to the resolution that stated “no rights vest.”  He understood why someone would think the applicant’s 1041 application was invalid; however, it wasn’t. The applications were complete when they were complete via a public hearing notice and public comment. The application wasn’t complete until after the application date. This was very common. By the time this application was noticed for public hearing, all conditions of the application requirements were deemed approved by staff.  It was unfortunate the people were suspicious in their comments. He understood this. People were not shy about how they felt. The primary residents and second homeowners were concerned. Regarding the lack of control, the law was that for the property to obtain a property zoning for a ski area required two things: Development Review Case – which was denied and he wasn’t sure if there would be a second application. In any case, the applicant could not have a ski area until the Development Review Case was approved and the applicant understood this. The public should understand that too.  Regarding Ulrich’s comment on vested rights for Eclipse Snow Park, the applicant accepted there were no vested rights to development by virtue of the 1041 approval.  Mr. Loeffler had stated it perfectly at the last portion of this hearing which was the 1041 permit, if required, could be the first in a series of steps in a complex project. The applicant agreed with Mr. Loeffler. Whether the Board believed the standards had been met or not, he didn’t know. If so, then it would be appropriate to approve the permit.  Permits were sequenced all the time and it was appropriate to do that here too.  The applicant reiterates his testimony as in prior hearings. The standards of approval, the state statutes, and the County code were clear. The avoidance and mitigation of flood, geologic, wildfire and cultural hazards would be complied with.  The applicant had met the standards and appreciated the Board’s consideration.

Commissioner Dale suggested adding the language mentioned by Andy Spielman to the resolution. Mr. Loeffler would make it condition of approval #7. Michael Kane suggested adding “as per CRS 24-68-101 to 105, chapter 15 of the zoning regulations.” Mr. Loeffler agreed.

Commissioner Dale noted the approval of the specific resolution for the 1041 permit was not approving a site specific development for a ski area. This resolution did not grant vested rights. A ski area in the future at this location would be subject to a site specific development approval by the Board of County Commissioners which would give the Board at the time, oversight of that ski area. He was not convinced by the evidence and testimony today that anything was to the contrary. The Board would still have oversight of the ski area by lieu of hearing a specific development plan and making an approval or denial. Commissioner O'Malley agreed with Commissioner Dale’s interpretation.

Commissioner O'Malley stated the last comments on the record by the applicant stated that if by some obscure legal machination to work around this stuff, the applicant gave up the right to do that. It now came down to whether the applicant had a right to a 1041 permit. He believed the applicant did. Did this Board have the authority to approve or deny that permit? Yes it did. The question now was did the applicant meet the conditions and criteria of this process. There had been argument in favor and in opposition. Commissioner O'Malley believed the applicant had met the conditions of approval. The applicant had met the three areas of state interest which were a part of this process. Why the applicant wanted this permit, he didn’t know. The county would find out. It could be as simple as the applicant returning with a similar proposal to save themselves time. This Board had the ability to completely combine the hearings so there was one public comment period. A future Board may have three applications or 12. A future Board could do what they did currently or draw it out longer. It didn’t make any difference. The applicant could not finagle a way around the county. It wasn’t possible.

Commissioner Drury found it mind boggling to have so many attorneys in one room. She would lean toward opposition of this as she interpreted risk for the county. Commissioner Dale was perplexed by the timing of this case. The Board could continue this until another Development Review Case was presented from this applicant. It was a difficult situation to disassociate the 1041 with the Development Review Case. The Board had denied the Development Review Case. Commissioner Dale saw this application as disconnected from the Development Review Case. He understood it was complicated by the fact that all Development Review Case info was included in this resolution. That was bizarre and a struggle. He believed the legal evidence saw a complete separation between the 1041 permit and Development Review Case. On the merits of the geologic hazards, wildfire hazards, etc, the application was sound. It had no bearing on the Development Review Case. Would this case be used to influence the Development Review Case? No it could not. The Development Review Case was completely separate and the ski area would have to go through that process. This resolution had assembled the Board’s thoughts and he could support this language with the modified language and the addition of condition of approval #7. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #10-35, 1041 Case #SI-2010-0001, for Eclipse Snow Park LLC with the modified language and the addition of condition of approval #7. Commissioner O'Malley seconded. Commissioner Dale and Commissioner O'Malley voted in approval and Commissioner Drury voted in opposition. The motion passed 2-1.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-74, TEMPORARY SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE #SUP-2010-0003, TO ALLOW A 192-SQ.FT. CONSTRUCTION WORKSHOP ON SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHOUT PRIMARY PRINCIPAL USE FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THREE YEARS FOR SPAMPINATO, BROOK FOREST ESTATES: Planner I Adam Springer presented. In attendance were Dan Ebert, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Zoning Specialist Tracy Bennetts, and Mr. & Mrs. Spampinato. Adam Springer made the following presentation: He presented the construction schedule for the project. CLEAR CREEK COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Regarding an agenda item for Public Hearing on July 28, 2010

CASE: Temporary Special Use Permit Case No. SUP 2010-0003

CASE MANAGER: Adam Springer, Planner I

OWNER/ APPLICANT: Matthew and Jennifer Spampinato

REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Temporary Special Use Permit to allow a 192 sq. ft storage/workshop building on the subject property without a primary principal use for a period not to exceed 3 years.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION/ LOCATION: 101 Sioux Trail, Brook Forest Estates Filing 2, Lot 18-G, Section 36, Township 5, Range 72, Clear Creek County, Colorado.

PARCEL #: 208536202023

ACRES: 1 Acre

ZONING: Mountain Residential – Single – Family Units (MR-1)

PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting a Special Use Permit for a 192 sq. ft storage/workshop building, prior to the construction of a single family residence, that will be used for the storage of construction tools and materials, a construction workshop, and a test project using cordwood construction techniques, for a period not to exceed three years. During this three year period the applicants intend on constructing a primary residence using cordwood construction techniques that will allow them to convert their special use into an accessory use.

SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES All surrounding properties are privately owned MR-1 zoned properties consisting of approximately 1 acre lots in Brook Forest Estates.

ACCESS Access to the parcel is served by Sioux Trail; which is a County maintained road.

REFERRAL RESPONSES Referral agencies were notified of the request on June 30, 2010 and notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on July 14, 2010.

The following agencies responded with no comment or concern: Clear Creek County EMS Clear Creek County Road and Bridge IREA

The following agencies responded with comments as follows: Evergreen Fire and Rescue Frank Dearborn, Fire Marshal, responded on July 9, 2010 requiring a 5lb. Fire Extinguisher (ABC Dry Chemical Type) be placed in the requested Workshop/Storage Building.

Clear Creek County Site Development Dept. Tim Vogel, Site Development Inspector, responded on July 1, 2010, stating that the applicants have a current driveway permit and have constructed the driveway as per County standards.

Adjacent Property Owner Responses Adjacent property owners were notified of the request on June 30, 2010, and the following property owners responded:

Michael R. Carter Mr. Carter responded by stating that: “our community will appreciate Mr. and Mrs. Spampinato’s diligence in organizing, containing and keeping all construction tools and materials stored inside the proposed construction/storage workshop. Please remind the applicants of the Clear Creek County regulations that prohibit visible junk, trash, refuge, and stored construction material.”

SPECIAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Temporary Special Use Permit Special Use Permits will be allowed only if the proposed use meets the following criteria for approval.

1. Except as otherwise noted the proposed use will comply with the zoning requirements of the district in which the use is to be established and will also comply with all applicable requirements. If approved by the Special Use Permit, the requested use will be in compliance with the zoning requirements of the district in which the use is established in.

2. The use is in harmony with the character of the neighborhood and compatible with the surrounding area. The intended use of the requested storage/workshop building is to facilitate the construction of a single family residence on the property. Section 2-F-1 of the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations lists a workshop and a storage building without an existing dwelling unit, as uses requiring Special Use Permits for residential zoning districts. Staff feels that the use is in harmony with the character of the neighborhood and compatible with the surrounding area. 3. The use will not have an undue burden on available infrastructure. No undue burden on available infrastructure is anticipated with this request.

4. The use will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards. The use will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards.

5. The use will not cause significant air, odor, water, noise, or light pollution. Significant air, odor, water, noise, or light pollution is not expected with this use.

6. All sanitation requirements will be met. The applicants will have a portable toilet and bottled water on site.

7. Parking is adequately provided. Parking will be provided on the applicant’s property. The applicants currently have a Driveway Permit #SDR2009-0025 that will provide parking.

8. Adequate buffering and screening is provided, when appropriate. The Special Use will be buffered somewhat from the vegetation on the property, which Staff feels should be adequate for the intended use.

9. The use shall demonstrate compliance with the County’s Best Management Practices (BMP’s) The use shall be in compliance with the County’s BMP’s. Driveway permit #SDR2009- 0025 has been issued and constructed to County standards.

10. 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. The requested use should not be detrimental to the health safety or welfare of the present or future inhabitants of Clear Creek County.

DISCUSSION/ CONDIDERATIONS/ISSUES

Site Characteristics Analysis

Wildlife The Division of Wildlife maps depict the following wildlife species as being prevalent on the subject property.

 Black Bear . Overall range (bbov)

 Elk . Overall range (ekov) . Summer range (eksr)

 Lynx . Overall range (lxov) . Potential habitat (lxph)

 Mountain Lion . Overall range (mlov)

 Mule Deer . Overall range (mdov) . Summer range (mdsr)

 Wild Turkey . Overall range (wtov)

Slope:

100% of area is between 0 to 8% slope Aspect:

50% East facing slope. 50% South East facing slope.

Performance Guarantee A condition of any special use permit is a financial guarantee to insure removal of the special use.

Based on the Planning Department’s standard formula for estimating removal costs for structures, Staff identified the following cost estimate:

Demolition Cost per square foot = $ 4.50 x 192sq ft. = $864.00 Removal Cost = $567 (for mobilization of equipment) = $567.00 Revegetation = $.113 x 192 sq ft. = $21.70 Total = $1,452.70

Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Approval of Temporary Special Use Permit SUP2010-0003, with the following Conditions of Approval

1) The property shall be kept in compliance with all applicable State and County Regulations.

2) The property shall be kept in a clean and orderly condition at all times.

3) No gray or black water shall be discharged to the ground.

4) The Planning Department shall be notified of any changes in ownership and the owner’s successor’s-in-interest shall be notified of the stipulations herein contained by making reference to the Book and Page number of this document upon the deed or instrument of conveyance.

5) The building permit for the single family residence must be issued no later than July, 28 2011.

6) This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 28, 2013, or upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the residence whichever occurs first.

7) Within fourteen (14) days after the expiration or other termination of the Special Use Permit before the Certificate of Occupancy has been obtained, the 192’ storage/workshop building must be removed from the property.

8) All of the representations by applicant made in the application for this Temporary Special Use Permit are incorporated herein by this reference and are conditions of approval.

9) A financial guarantee in the amount of $1,452.70 shall be filed with the County, prior to the permit taking effect, insuring termination of the Special use.

10) The permit is not transferable.

11) The permit may be terminated by the Board of County Commissioners upon the finding of any violation of any condition, safeguard, or commitment of record, following a 10 – day written notice sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the applicant and public hearing.

12) A 5lb fire extinguisher shall be placed in the requested storage/workshop building prior to receiving a building permit final for this structure. Commissioner O'Malley and Commissioner Dale found the application standard in nature without much concern for risk. Commissioner O'Malley stated the adjacent property owners concern of the construction table was a concern for all developments. Mr. Spampinato replied it was their intent to complete the home construction as quickly as possible. They were vested in making this project look nice. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-74, temporary special use permit case #SUP- 2010-0003, to allow a 192-sq.ft construction workshop on subject property without primary principal use for a period not to exceed three years for Spampinato, Brook Forest Estates. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FROM THE CLEAR CREEK WATERSHED FOUNDATION: In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, and Clear Creek Watershed Foundation representative Chris Crouse. Chris Crouse made the following presentation:  The Clear Creek Watershed Foundation was requesting $3000 in funding for the Clear Creek Watershed Foundation Festival.  They were planning the festival details at this moment.  They hoped to have the same participants as last year. Lisa Vogel expressed support for the sponsorship and the county’s Energy Coordinator would be in attendance at the festival.  They did shorten the event by one hour due to afternoon rains.

Carl Small stated this funding would come from the Community Projects line item and a services agreement would be needed. Commissioner Drury made the motion to direct staff to compose a $3000 services agreement between Clear Creek County and Clear Creek Watershed Foundation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Dale left the meeting.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Equalization to consider the following matter.

The Board of Equalization then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matters.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF STATE OF COLORADO, COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD AGREEMENT WITH CLEAR CREEK COUNTY CONTRACT #C150470: In attendance were Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, and Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver. Bert Weaver explained this was for the Upper Mountain Counties Water Study. This contract was to extend the term of the contract which changed Exhibit A. Martin Plate suggested the Board authorize County Administrator Tom Breslin to sign the contract when it was approved by County Attorney Robert Loeffler to save time. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Colorado Water Conservation Board Agreement Contract #C150470 and authorized County Administrator Tom Breslin to sign the contract when approved by County Attorney Robert Loeffler. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 4, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 4, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale was absent.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-79, RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLEAR CREEK COUNTY CANCELLING THE H1N1 FLU LEAVE PROGRAM: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RATIFICATION OF PERMIT FEE WAIVER FOR THE CITY OF IDAHO SPRINGS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FIRE HYDRANT: 4. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLARENCE PADILLA & TFC BANK, FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY CLARENCE PADILLA, RELATED TO ALVARADO ROAD AND THE LAWSON BRIDGE PROJECT: 5. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT OF EASEMENT BETWEEN CLARENCE PADILLA AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FOR A PORTION OF ALVARADO ROAD AND LAWSON BRIDGE PROJECT: In attendance were Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, County Assessor Diane Settle, Sheriff Krueger, Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Dan Ebert, and Chief Accountant Carl Small. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matters.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 35 FUNDS FOR IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT FOR WIC TASK ORDER #3 BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Health Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Equalization to consider the following matters. The Board of Equalization then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matters.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FINAL SETTLEMENT WITH ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY FOR CLEAR CREEK ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT, COTTONWOOD DRIVE/HILLSIDE ROAD, AND IDAHO SPRINGS EAST ROAD ASPHALT PAVEMENT PROJECTS: Public Works Division Director Tim Allen presented. In attendance were Dan Ebert, and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Tim Allen reported the work was completed successfully and within the standards of the Road & Bridge department. The final settlement was the remaining 10% of the contract. Both projects were advertised for the final settlement in the last two issues of the Clear Creek Courant. No claims against either project were received. Total cost for the three projects was approximately $310,000. Both projects came in under budget. There was no public comment. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the final settlement with Asphalt Specialties Company for Clear Creek Road and Bridge Department, Cottonwood Drive/Hillside Road, and Idaho Springs East Road Asphalt Pavement Projects for $31,000. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: This hearing was canceled.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 11, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Vice Chairman Joan Drury called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner O'Malley attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK WATERSHED FOUNDATION: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO HARRISON FOR ONE PARCEL OF COUNTY LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 28, 29, 32, AND 33, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 73 WEST: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MAY 5TH, JULY 21ST, AND JUNE 9TH, 2010, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE 2010 CLEAR CREEK COUNTY ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND ESRE PROPERTIES II INC: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GOCO PLANNING GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND GOCO FOR THE OXBOW PROPERTY: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR COORDINATED ELECTION BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE CLEAR CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT: 9. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR COORDINATED ELECTION BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE CITY OF IDAHO SPRINGS: 10. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-81, RESOLUTION CONCERNING MILEAGE FEES CHARGED BY CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE FOR SERVING PROCESS IN NON-CRIMINAL ACTIONS: 11. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-82, A RESOLUTION OF THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTING THE DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS COMPREHENSIVE JOINT APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT’S SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES REGIONAL PLANNING GRANT PROGRAM: 12. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, AS FISCAL AGENT FOR THE SOUTHERN ROCKIES CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STAFF POSITION: In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, Environmental Health Department Tech Annette Colle, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate and Paralegal Nanette Reimer. Mr. Loeffler stated item #11 was just received this morning. Commissioner Dale stated DRCOG asked all its jurisdictions to write a supporting resolution for their grant application. This grant was for transportation, planning and water. This grant would not affect Clear Creek County but it was a positive for the entire region. Carl Small noted on item #10 was per a statutory change. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Equalization to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JULY 21, 2010 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES: In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, Environmental Health Department Tech Annette Colle, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate and Paralegal Nanette Reimer. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the July 21, 2010 Board of Equalization meeting minutes. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Equalization then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT DATA FORM BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND RED ROCKS COMMUNITY COLLEGE: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WIC AMENDMENT FOR TASK ORDER #1 BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: In attendance were Chief Accountant Carl Small, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, Environmental Health Department Tech Annette Colle, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate and Paralegal Nanette Reimer. Aaron Kissler stated item #2 was for additional breast feeding funding for Gilpin, Jefferson and Clear Creek counties. Mr. Loeffler asked the Board to remove item #1 until an acceptable format was received. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Board of Health Consent Agenda item #2 and exclude #1. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10- 76, RESOLUTION TO REQUEST A SLOPE VARIANCE OF 44% IN SADDLEBACK RIDGE ESTATES FOR WILLIAMS/UTTER: In attendance were adjacent property owner Ms. Cage, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, Environmental Health Department Tech Annette Colle, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate and Public Health Director Aaron Kissler. Annette Colle presented the following information: RE: Board of Health Public Hearing – Variance Request Rick and Debra Williamson – Owners / Mike Utter - Applicant Saddleback Ridge Estates, Block 1, Lot 3, Filing 3, Evergreen, CO

ISSUE: The new onsite wastewater system is proposed to be installed within 35 feet of a slope in excess of 40%. The actual slope was measured at 44% to 46% by Annette Colle, Environmental Health Technician.

OPTIONS: The Clear Creek County Board of Health may either approve or not approve the applicants’ request for a variance from the ISDS Regulations.

ANALYSIS: Based on a site review conducted on July 21st, 2010, the slope within 35 feet of the proposed field exceeds 40%. The property is 3.7 acres in size. The engineer’s design submitted with the ISDS Permit application stipulates the installation of a 20 mil PVC liner on the downhill side of the drainfield and a surface runoff berm above the drainfield. The proposed well was staked and located approximately 150 feet from the drainfield location. Engineering for the ISDS system requires a deep grouted well to meet the 200 foot well separation distance from the drainfield. Engineering for the ISDS system was provided by Barta and Associates, Inc..

RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Health Department recommends consideration of approval of the requested variance with the following conditions: 1. That no adjacent property owner objects to this request for a variance. 2. That the surface water runoff berm is constructed immediately upslope from the drainfield and an erosion control blanket be installed on the berm. 3. That the 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on the downslope side to a depth of 6 feet below the top layer of gravel. 4. That all disturbed areas be revegetated as per Clear Creek County’s Site Development Regulations. 5. In the event of any suspicion of Individual Sewage Disposal System failure on the above referenced property, Clear Creek County is authorized by the applicant (by their reliance on this variance) and any successor owner of the described property, to investigate any source of contamination at the owner’s expense. 6. That a valid Individual Sewage Disposal System permit is obtained.

Commissioner Dale stated this was all the standard mitigations for a typical application. Annette Colle stated Mike Utter was the contractor. He lived in the area and understood the slopes.

Commissioner O'Malley attended the hearing.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #10-76, Board of Health slope variance request for a slope of 44% in Saddleback Ridge Estates for Williams/Utter. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

Commissioner Dale left the meeting.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAMP SCHWAYDER SEP COMMENT LETTER: Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen presented. In attendance were Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Clear Creek Watershed Foundation President Ed Rapp, Idaho Springs Mayor Jack Morgan and Idaho Springs City Administrator Cindy Condon. Jo Ann Sorensen made the following comments:  Camp Schwayder had suffered an environmental impact penalty and were required to pay forward a penalty fee toward an environmental reclamation project. Their penalty was $20,000.  Jo Ann Sorensen stated some projects were submitted for use of this $20,000: 1) rehabilitation of drainage along Ute Creek Road; 2) contribution to the Clear Creek County household hazardous waste recycle day; and 3) Virginia Canyon sedimentation cleanup.

Jack Morgan stated the Ute Creek water really caused a problem for the City of Idaho Springs as it dumped sediment into their water reservoir and caused their water system to shut down the plant. Every time the plant shut down, it cost the City $800. The road maintenance on Ute Creek Road also increased the sediment in the drainage ditches and then it ran downstream. Commissioner O'Malley stated that increased sedimentation was caused by CDOT digging the ditch close to the junction of Ute Creek and Hwy 103. Ed Rapp stated the Ute Creek issue was not a county problem. It was from years of the road moving. This project would cost more like $40,000 or $20,000 in donated rock and $20,000 in cash.

Regarding Virginia Canyon road, Commissioner O'Malley was concerned as if there was a flood, the upper part of the road was prepared with properly sized culverts but the culverts adjacent the City were too small to handle the water load coming downhill. This could cause the City some problems. Commissioner O'Malley suggested funding the household hazardous waste recycle day or the Ute Creek project per Ed Rapp’s recommendation. Commissioner Drury agreed with the Ute Creek project. Tim Vogel supported the Board stating that the SEP was due to a wastewater violation and this would fit perfectly with the Idaho Springs Water Plant. Mayor Morgan agreed stating Virginia Canyon was not a priority for the City. The Board approved the letter to Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment requesting the SEP funds be diverted to the Ute Creek project.

ABATEMENT HEARING FOR REPUBLIC SERVICES/BFI: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Republic Service/BFI group. Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate attended the hearing. Diane Settle recommended denial as she had asked the company for their list of personal property and they submitted nothing. Diane Settle claimed them at $8000-9000 in depreciation. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

JAIL INSPECTION: Commissioner O'Malley performed the jail inspection with the following findings:  New kiosks for bail payments were installed.  The intake area was operational.  The sally port and the office area had new storage areas for breathing apparatus. It included 8 breathing sets/tanks/masks.  The recreation yard had a new basketball hoop.  The cell pods would be receiving new doors.  The chain gangs were doing work at the animal shelter, the courthouse remodel, and a Georgetown park cleanup day.  The control room had repositioned equipment to make it more ergonomic.  There were a total of 90 prisoners of which 59 were US Marshal holds.  There were seven women in the jail and some were US Marshal holds.  The jail was found in satisfactory condition.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding budgets, energy, and Guanella Pass as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) and regarding negotiating strategies as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O’Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 18, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale was absent.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AND NOTICE TO PROCEED FOR THE MILL CREEK ROAD ASPHALT PAVING PROJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AND NOTICE TO PROCEED FOR THE OLD SQUAW PASS REMEDIATION PROJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF BID FOR LAWSON BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND NOTICE TO PROCEED FOR THE LAWSON BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT: In attendance were Public Works Engineer Jenny Riley, Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline. Jenny Riley reported the Mill Creek Road project contracts were signed and submitted with performance and payment bonds. They were the only bidder for the project and came in under the budget amount. She asked the Board to approve the contract subject to adding the price to the contract. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the contract subject to adding the price to it for Mill Creek Road project with Asphalt Specialties. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the contract for services and notice to proceed for the Old Squaw Pass Remediation project, Jenny Riley presented the two contracts with ESCO Construction for $345,577.93. She was still waiting for the performance and payment bonds. ESCO was the low bidder and had good references in Jefferson County and the foothills areas. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Contract for Services and the notice to proceed upon receipt of the bonds and insurance. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Regarding the award of bid for the Lawson Bridge Replacement Project, Jenny Riley presented two contracts signed by Paramount Construction along with performance and payment bonds. They were the low bidder and four bids were received for this project. Tim Allen, Jenny Riley and CDOT had evaluated the bidders. References were checked and CDOT concurred with offering the award to Paramount. Commissioner Drury made the emotion to award the bid for the Lawson Bridge Replacement Project to Paramount Construction at a cost of $653,900+. The engineer’s estimate was $920,000. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the construction contract and notice to proceed for the Lawson Bridge Replacement Project, Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the construction contract and notice to proceed with Paramount Construction. Commissioner O'Malley seconded. During discussion, Jenny Riley stated Paramount would begin work in five days and they should be finished by November 1, 2010. There was a $1500/day penalty if not complete by that date. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JUNE 16, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REVOCABLE FILMING LOCATION LICENSE FOR THE CODE PRODUCTIONS LLC: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE: In attendance were Public Works Engineer Jenny Riley, Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline. Martin Plate asked the Board to remove item #3 until it was fully prepared. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda excluding item #3. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF COUNTY ROAD AND MAINTENANCE AND EXCEPTION FROM THE COUNTY ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OURAY ROAD, BROOK FOREST ESTATES: In attendance were Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Public Works Engineer Jenny Riley, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Tim Vogel stated this was a continuation from a prior hearing. Since the last hearing a memo had been received from Tim Allen with his assessment of the road. Tim Allen made the following statements:  He took an average cost of the Brook Forest Estates roads for the last three years. They had a per mile cost of $28,946. This project was .12 mile and came down to $3474 for the cost of 1/10 of a mile.  The actual property taxes to Road & Bridge from this area were approximately $457 which left them at a 7/6:1 ratio.  Road & Bridge liked to keep the roads they adopted at a 3:1 ratio.  The overall 12-ft width was not adequate for the road equipment.  The area around the culvert at point #257 makes a left turn and Darrell Funk did not believe the grader could negotiate the turn while plowing.  Without an improvement being made in there, it would require a front end loader to plow the road.  A portion of the road was the drainage path and it would take a foot of fill to profile it right to make it drain correctly.  Tim Vogel called for road base to be added to the road because there was a lot of bedrock on there.  The other big issue was the side slopes along the road.  There was not a downhill side slope to push snow from. Hence, snow would have to be pushed out onto Piute Road to keep it open. This would also cause problems.  Regarding Commissioner O'Malley’s question about the residents plowing the road, Tim Allen estimated this was what the residents did with the snow was push it onto Piute Road.  There was also a driveway on lot 1G which was part of the drainage path and it did not have a culvert.

One resident in attendance stated he had seen a grader travel the road at least three times. Former Road & Bridge employee Chris Baumgartner used to plow the road all the time with no problem. The bottom of Ouray Road had gotten worse because Piute Road had become lower and lower. The culvert at the bottom of Ouray Road was not above the road level. Once a year a tractor used to plow out the road and make it smooth but it hadn’t been done this year. He presented photos of Ouray Road entrance. The landowners along the road were willing to sacrifice land to better the road and make it wide enough for Road & Bridge equipment. They just needed to know when and if the county would assume maintenance along the road. This resident plowed the road himself and it became a liability if he was out of town. Elderly people lived along this road and the residents were concerned about Emergency Services access.

Commissioner O'Malley asked what it would take to make this road minimally acceptable. They were willing to dedicate land for the purpose. Tim Allen stated the wells for the properties were exposed and they would need to be cut down and have manholes installed so Road & Bridge could grade over it. A place needed to be found to push snow off the side of the road. They needed enough fill to profile the road and establish a good drainage ditch with culvert repairs.

Regarding Commissioner Drury’s question about the number of homes on this road, Tim Vogel stated there were four homes now with the potential for three more. Tom Breslin stated if the county accepted this road and it was not to standard, the county would be setting precedent. Tim Vogel stated it would take so much money to try and improve this road. There was no way to bring it to standard so the residents would have to request a deviation from the county road design standards. The Board could decide if they would accept that deviation. The last road to complete this process was Sawmill Creek Road.

Regarding Commissioner O'Malley’s question about how many miles of road the county had that was unmaintained or private, Tim Allen replied approximately 50 miles. Commissioner O'Malley replied to the public this appeared a simple request – to plow another 1/10 of a mile. However if the county did this 1/10 of a mile then the other residents along the other 48.5 miles would want the same treatment. Commissioner O'Malley understood the residents wanted a sense of the county taking on maintenance before they made the investment to bring the road close to county standards. The county did allow deviations. Commissioner O'Malley didn’t know what deviations would be needed here. The county had to be careful about what deviations they approved for one road and would they approve them for another? Tim Vogel stated the biggest issue with this road was the grade. The first forty feet was 22% grade. That did not meet county standards. There was no way to eliminate the grade issue. Once you started decreasing the road grade in one area, it only increased in another area. Regarding Commissioner O'Malley’s question about rehabilitating Piute Road, Tim Vogel stated if Piute Road was raised 2-ft, it would lower the grade of Ouray Road to 18-19%. Commissioner O'Malley noted if the county accepted a road that was 18-19% grade, there were roads across the county they would have to accept.

One resident stated the landowners along Ouray Road had spent $2000+ on the road improvements and never asked the county for anything. That was also good precedence. These same landowners were willing to give up land to widen the road. Mr. Loeffler noted that the county’s ability to maintain a road today may not mean it can maintain the road in the future. This could also affect the willingness of the landowners to upgrade the road.

Commissioner Drury was concerned about setting precedent with this road. If the county granted this deviation, they would be inundated by other landowners. Commissioner O'Malley added it would depend on what amount of upgrade was needed by the landowners. Commissioner O'Malley also agreed with Mr. Loeffler that if the county went into financial decline, they may not be able to maintain the road any longer. There was a risk involved in entering this four year process to be considered for county maintenance.

Commissioner Drury asked if the landowners were aware of the cost of investment to bring this road close to standard. One resident replied they had planned to do most of the work themselves. Tim Vogel presented some minimum standards the landowners would have to complete and Tim Allen had some additional items.

Commissioner Drury requested some engineering. She asked the homeowners to work with Tim Allen, Jenny Riley and their own engineer to formulate the costs to bring this road close to standard. Then, the landowners would know if they could afford the investment. There was exposure that the landowners would do this work to the road and then the county still would not accept it into the maintenance schedule. She was uncomfortable making a decision about this road without knowing more information from the engineer. Commissioner O'Malley stated the question was did the county want to consider codifying acceptable deviations. Commissioner O'Malley did not want the county public works engineer to do this engineering but he did note the county road maintenance acceptance process was somewhat onerous and the residents backed out of it almost every time. Tim Vogel had some recommendations he wanted to submit in the future for this process.

Tim Allen reported there were many roads in Brook Forest Estates which were in this condition and some were even worse. If the county made an exception for this road, it would open the door to more of them in this subdivision.

Commissioner O'Malley stated at this point, given this current situation, this road was too steep and it would be a precedent more than the county could set. The road manual limited road grades at 10% and this may not be reasonable. There were roads all over the county that did not meet that standard and the county did maintain them. The county should reconsider the road grade standard again. Mr. Loeffler understood the Board was asking Road & Bridge to look at this again as a part of the process of updated the road design manual. There were other inconsistencies in this manual which needed to be fixed.

Commissioner O'Malley asked the landowners to wait a few months to see if the road design manual was modified. Based on the current standards, Ouray Road would not be approved into road maintenance. This road could be an example of what the county would consider for deviations in standards and what could be acceptable. Commissioner Drury asked the applicants to consult an engineer and get an idea of what it would take to bring Ouray Road close to standard. There were drainage and snow storage issues.

The landowners did not want to spend money for nothing so they asked if they could meet with Tim Allen to see exactly what he would be seeking in road upgrades. They wanted to discuss ideas. This could be a good precedence and a nice subdivision. They wanted to work with the county. They were the only other applicant in 15 years of having this process. The Board asked the landowners to meet with Tim Allen and Jenny Riley about Ouray Road to try and find something acceptable. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-75, REPLAT CASE #PA-2010-0001, FOR SADDLEBACK MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION – PHASE 2: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR SADDLEBACK MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION: In attendance were Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Engineer Glenn Douglas, Contractor Les Gross, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, and Alec Gardini. Frederick Rollenhagen presented the following information regarding the Replat Case:  Frederick Rollenhagen stated these two items were intermingled.  The replat case was a formal process in the subdivision regulations which required a public hearing, public notice and the Subdivision Improvement Agreement just required action by the Board of County Commissioners.  For the replat case, there were four requests. One was to relocate a fire cistern to the corner of Bridle Trail and Poma Lane. One cistern existed there already and Fire Chief Kelly Babeon had already approved it. Second, was an Emergency Services access easement at the end of Poma Lane. This had been granted by Saddleback Mountain Development Corporation as an emergency access only. This would grant emergency access over to the Beaver Brook Watershed area. Third was to adjust a platted location of a cull de sac at the end of Poma Lane due to the topographical features. Fourth was to delete a school bus turnaround in Phase 2 of the development.  Regarding the relocation of the fire cistern, it was supposed to be located at Packsaddle and Bridle Trail but the applicant found too much bedrock there and relocated it to Bridle and Poma Lane.  Regarding the Emergency Services access easement, the developer had granted this easement to Clear Creek County in 2007. The location would descend off Beaver Brook Canyon road as it wrapped up the backside of the mountain. Although this easement was not maintained, it did allow emergency access to the south. The plat noted the location of the gated easement.  Regarding the adjusted plat location of the cull de sac at the end of Poma Lane, Exhibit 7 showed this new location. Les Gross noted this did meet county standards.  Regarding the deletion of the school bus turnaround, the Subdivision Improvement Agreement required seven bus turnarounds during the approval of this case in 2000. This was at the Clear Creek School District request. Since the approval of the subdivision, one turnaround was constructed the Packsaddle and Outpost intersections. One was also vacated in phase 1 at the Halter and Steeldust intersection. Over the course of time, Clear Creek School District had changed their mind about sending school buses up to this subdivision and they had no objection to Clear Creek County removing the requirement for this turnaround in phase 2. Les Gross stated there were still two turnarounds proposed in phase 3 of the subdivision. Then, if the Board wanted to change the requirements in phase 3, they could do so at that time. Mr. Loeffler stated they were not likely to have any in phase 3 if there weren’t any in phase 2.  Regarding the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, Frederick Rollenhagen stated the amendment reflected the turnaround removals which were related to the technical requirement identified in Exhibit A. That exhibit described the work to be done on the roads and what was to be finished. Exhibit A described Packsaddle Trail as it would be built to county standards that existed in 2000. The standard was a wider surface than the standard that existed today. Tim Vogel added the standard then was 32-ft which consisted of two lanes and shoulders on both sides the current standards were 30-ft wide with 2-ft ditches. Decreasing the width by 6-ft also decreased the cut/fill. It made construction through rock outcroppings more feasible with less disturbance. It would also reduce the stormwater drainage and erosion. The shoulders and road would be 26-ft. Tim Vogel had consulted Kelly Babeon and he was in agreement this was sufficient. This was a low volume road. It was originally designed as a collector classification road but it was at the top of a hill so not a collector road. Packsaddle Trail was designed to connect with Santa Fe Mountain Road in phases 1 and 2 of the subdivision. Glenn Douglas added that only two homes were accessed by Packsaddle Trail so it was not high volume. Les Gross noted the school bus stops were at Saddleback Drive and Santa Fe Mountain Road.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-75, replat case #PA- 2010-0001, Saddleback Mountain Subdivision. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the fifth amendment to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Saddleback Mountain Development Corporation. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE PROPOSAL FOR LOWER LEVEL RENOVATION FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY JAIL: In attendance were Engineer Craig Abrahamson and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Tom Breslin made the following presentation:  The guaranteed maximum price was $1.85 million. The original cost without kitchen equipment was $1.7 million. The $1.85 million included the kitchen equipment.  Tom Breslin would be managing the project and FCI was the construction manager being present every day.  Weekly meetings were held to see the construction progress and dollars spent. Craig Abrahamson was assisting in project oversight.  DLR was assisting via Dan Kessler for the project design management. FCI had already caught one item during bidding which saved the county time. It was a transformer replacement which had to be special ordered via Xcel Energy. Either DLR or FCI would have to consult the electrical contractor to prevent this situation from happening again.  Tom Breslin and Craig Abrahamson had obtained as much work with local contractors as they could but this was a large job and overwhelming for local contractors. MC Welding got the steel work. They had made an effort to draw in the local contractors. Commissioner O'Malley asked them to know a number for what was given to local contractors.  Tom Breslin and Craig Abrahamson were comfortable with the guaranteed maximum price for the jail renovation. Work would begin on September 1, 2010 and be finished in seven months.  There were no cash flow problems with this project as it was phased over two years.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the guaranteed maximum price proposal for the lower level jail renovation at $1.85 million. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: This hearing was canceled.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 25, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Joan Drury, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COST OF EDUCATION PAYBACK AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CATHERINE C. CAMP: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REVOCABLE FILMING LICENSE FOR THE CODE PRODUCTIONS LLC: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT OPTION LETTER #3 WITH CDOT FOR BAKERVILLE LOVELAND PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE FACILITY: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE SF424 EPA GRANT: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-95, RESOLUTION CONCERNING MILEAGE FEES CHARGED BY THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE FOR SERVING PROCESS IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS: In attendance were Marshall Ulrich, Marion Anderson, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Omer Humble, Dan Ebert, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, and Zoning Specialist Tracy Bennetts. Commissioner Drury asked if item #4 would still allow horseback riding on the trail. Mr. Loeffler replied that it would. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10- 83, RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER ISDS SLOPE VARIANCE OF 44% FOR TOLLESON, EVERGREEN WEST: In attendance were Mr. Tolleson, Land Use Secretary Cyndie Ruschmyer, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Aaron Kissler made the following presentation: RE: Board of Health Public Hearing – Variance Request Thomas P. Tolleson – Owner/Applicant Evergreen West Highlands, Lot 18, Evergreen, CO

ISSUE: The new onsite wastewater system is proposed to be installed within 35 feet of a slope in excess of 40%. The actual slope was measured at 44% to 45% by Annette Colle, Environmental Health Technician.

OPTIONS: The Clear Creek County Board of Health may either approve or not approve the applicants request for a variance from the ISDS Regulations.

ANALYSIS: Based on a site review conducted on August 6th, 2010, the slope within 35 feet of the proposed field exceeds 40%. The property is 2.9 acres in size. The proposed drainfield is not located above a driveway or road cut. The engineer’s design submitted with the ISDS Permit application stipulates the installation of a 20 mil PVC liner on the downhill side of the drainfield. The Environmental Health Department would also require construction of a surface runoff berm above the drainfield. The proposed well was staked and located approximately 130 feet from the drainfield location. Engineering for the ISDS system requires a deep grouted well to meet the 200 foot well separation distance from the drainfield. Engineering for the ISDS system was provided by Barta and Associates, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Health Department recommends consideration of approval of the requested variance with the following conditions: 7. That no adjacent property owner objects to this request for a variance. 8. That the surface water runoff berm is constructed immediately upslope from the drainfield and an erosion control blanket be installed on the berm. 9. That the 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on the downslope side to a depth of 6 feet below the top layer of gravel. 10.That all disturbed areas be revegetated as per Clear Creek County’s Site Development Regulations. 11.In the event of any suspicion of Individual Sewage Disposal System failure on the above referenced property, Clear Creek County is authorized by the applicant (by their reliance on this variance) and any successor owner of the described property, to investigate any source of contamination at the owner’s expense. 12.That a valid Individual Sewage Disposal System permit is obtained.

Mr. Loeffler asked if a deep grouted well would have to be installed. Aaron Kissler replied that it would as it was a condition of approval. Cyndie Ruschmyer added the well permit was issued for a deep grouting well and it was included in the engineering and septic permit. There was no public comment. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve resolution #10-83, resolution to allow an ISDS slope variance of 44% for Tolleson in Evergreen West Highlands. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and the Board of County Commissioners convened to consider the following matter.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #10-84, Burns, North Spring Gulch: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate attended. There was no representation from the Burns group. Diane Settle recommended an adjustment for these two mining claims, the Little Laura and the Buffalo Boy, given their location, from $25,090 to $15,390. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-85, Jostes, Bard Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle recommended continuance of this hearing to accommodate the property owner’s attendance. Commissioner Drury made the motion to continue the hearing to September 8, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-86, Hunt, Hillside Road: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Hunt group. Diane Settle recommended denial as the owner had already protested in 2010 and the prior owner had protested in 2009. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-87, Ross, Ponderosa Drive: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Ross group. Diane Settle recommended denial for both years 2008 and 2009 as comparable sales supported the value. The owner protested in 2010 so he could not abate for that year. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner O'Malley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Consideration of approval of county abstract: Diane Settle presented a value of $541,812,890 for the value of the county. Last year, the county value was approximately $525 million. The Board accepted the county value for 2010.

Commissioner Dale attended the hearing.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session regarding the following matters real estate issues as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); regarding taxes, mineral impact grants, and building inspectors as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 1, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 1, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Tim Mauck, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

SWEARING-IN CEREMONY FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER TIM MAUCK: In attendance were Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, Clerk & Recorder Pam Phipps, Open Space Commission Coordinator Martha Tableman, Administrative Assistant Donna Gee, Paralegal Nanette Reimer, Receptionist Abigail Keating, Idaho Springs Police Chief Dave Wohlers, Randy Wheelock, Public Health Educator Linda Trenbeath, Dan Ebert, Treasurer Irene Kincade, Deputy Appraiser Deb Chapman, Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline, and Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver. Mr. Loeffler stated the Board should receive and enter into the minutes the appointment of Tim Mauck as County Commissioner. Once Tim Mauck accepted the appointment, the Clerk would swear him in. Commissioner O'Malley opened the swearing-in ceremony. Mr. Loeffler noted the Board received the appointment documentation for Tim Mauck to fill the vacancy of County Commissioner pursuant to CRS 112-210. The Board received these documents into the record. Tim Mauck accepted the appointment of County Commissioner. Pam Phipps performed the oath of office and Tim Mauck accepted. Tim Mauck became the County Commissioner.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND PROJECT SUPPORT: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CHIPPER FEE WAIVER FOR THE TOWN OF GEORGETOWN PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PLAN SERVICE CENTER AUTHORIZATION WITH GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DELTA DENTAL WEBSITE AND E- BILLING AUTHORIZATION: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CANCELLATION OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF CLEAR CREEK AND THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE/LAW ENFORCEMENT, DATED JUN 9, 2010, CONCERNING GAMING IMPACT GRANT: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MAY 26, 2010, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CDOT FOR THE LAWSON BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT: In attendance were Bookkeeper Diane Wickham, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, and HR Director Cate Camp. Mr. Loeffler stated item #8 was only partly ready to sign as the final document had not been delivered to the Board yet. Mr. Loeffler asked the Board to authorize the Chair or Vice Chair to sign the document once it appeared. The document would be changing the amount of federal dollars from $438,111 to $498,111. The match increased from $124,027.75 to $124,527.75. Commissioner O'Malley suggested adding County Administrator Tom Breslin as an authorized signer as well.

Regarding item #3, Commissioner Drury asked if this was precedent setting. Jo Ann Sorensen replied it was agreeable to the Land Use Division as this was another government entity. Mr. Loeffler stated this was the Parks & Recreation Committee for the Town of Georgetown and the county did assist in buying this parcel. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the amendment to item #8 reflecting the Chair, the Vice Chair, or the County Administrator to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement for Lawson Bridge with CDOT once it arrived and reflecting the new contract and match dollar amounts. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding the regulation of commissioners as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 8, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Vice Chairman Joan Drury called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Tim Mauck, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner O'Malley attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF US GEOLOGIC SURVEY JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REGARDING STAFF GAGE ON WEST CLEAR CREEK NEAR BERTHOUD: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ANTHEM LARGE GROUP EMPLOYER APPLICATION/CHANGE FORM: In attendance were Bookkeeper Diane Wickham, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, County Assessor Diane Settle, Environmental Health Department Director Mitch Brown and HR Director Cate Camp. Commissioner Mauck made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #10-88, House of Radio, Squaw Pass area: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the House of Radio group. Diane Settle recommended a refund to House of Radio given the property was not theirs. Commissioner Mauck made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-89, Nazzaro, Idaho Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Nazzaro group. Diane Settle recommended an adjustment from $284,060 to $204,7600 based on comparable sales.

Commissioner O'Malley attended the hearing.

Commissioner Mauck made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-90, Collier, Alice: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Collier group. Diane Settle recommended denial based on comparables. She had it valued at $7410 and the owner bought the land for $8500. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-91, Hoffman, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Hoffman group. Diane Settle recommended an adjustment from $448,800 to $275,000 for 2008 and 2009 based on the income approach. Mr. Hoffman agreed with this value via telephone. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-92, Mintz, Fox Ridge: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Mintz group. Diane Settle recommended denial based on comparable sales for the past five years, as it was difficult to find comparables for homes/properties this size. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-93, Cooper, Fall River Reservoir: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Cooper group. Diane Settle presented two parcels for the Cooper group. Regarding Lot C, Diane Settle recommended denial given the comparable sales. It was difficult to have land here given the access but comparable sales supported the value. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding lot L, Diane Settle recommended the same, denial, with a value of $41,900. The parcel was right on the creek and gorgeous. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-94, Johnson, Saddleback Ridge: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Johnson group. Diane Settle recommended denial because upon inspection of an appraisal presented by the homeowner, they discovered a finished basement which raised his value. However with comparable sales, she did recommend an adjustment from $387,770 to $353,550. Commissioner Mauck made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARING FOR JOSTES: #10-85, Jostes, Bard Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mary Jostes, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, and Public Works Engineer Jenny Riley attended the hearing. Mary Jostes felt her value was too high based on an incorrect number of bedrooms and the number of upgrades needed for the home. Diane Settle recommended a value of $375,000 for 2009 which was the sales price. Diane Settle recommended denial for 2008 based on comparable sales. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation for 2008 and 2009. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ROAD AND BRIDGE PURCHASE OF FRONT END LOADER: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER CONTRACT WITH ASPHALT SPECIALTIES FOR MILL CREEK ROAD PAVING PROJECT: Public Works Division Director Tim Allen and Public Works Engineer Jenny Riley presented. Tim Allen stated the company had the front end loader in stock and they wanted to purchase it outright. It was budgeted. Commissioner Drury made the emotion to approve the Road & Bridge purchase of a front end loader. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the change order contract with Asphalt Specialties, Jenny Riley requested this approval to add a concrete pan at the bottom of the road and improve the drainage. Rather than a straight overlay, the contractor would be doing a 4” full depth reclamation, leveling and paving. This was a $55,000 increase over the original contract. They would also be installing guardrails and flashing speed limit signs. This change order was in the budget as they have saved money on this project. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the change order contract with Asphalt Specialties for Mill Creek Road. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

JAIL INSPECTION: Commissioner Drury and Commissioner Mauck completed the jail inspection with the following findings:  The intake area and visitation area in the lobby now had easy money machines where inmates could make deposits.  The jail population was 79 inmates with 52 US Marshal holds and 27 county holds.  There were 4 women in the jail.  The chain gangs were not undertaking any projects.  The jail was found in satisfactory condition.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding proposed legislation as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); and regarding negotiating strategies as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session. The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 15, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 15, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Tim Mauck, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Social Services to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CORE SERVICES PLAN WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES: Health & Human Services Office Manager Candy Morehouse presented. This contract was renewed each year with no major changes in the guidelines. It provided a little over $100,000 each year. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Social Services Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Social Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT PREVENTION SERVICERS DIVISION CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL HEALTH CARE NEEDS UNIT AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Public Health Director Aaron Kissler presented. This was an annual contract that provided healthcare services for children with special needs. There were currently six kids in this program. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Health Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY RESOLUTION #10-104, RESOLUTION OF DECLARING A BAN ON OPEN FIRES IN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Sheriff Krueger presented. Sheriff Krueger stated Clear Creek County was on the edge of where the neighboring county fires were occurring and this was reason enough to declare the fire ban. This ban declaration was a little later in the year than normal. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-104, a resolution declaring a ban on open fires in Clear Creek County. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: This hearing was canceled.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 22, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 22, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Tim Mauck, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: In attendance were resident Jim Pals, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Jodie Snyder, Paralegal Nanette Reimer, Cindy Neely, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, and Georgetown Administrator Tom Hale. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Liquor Licensing Authority to consider the following matter.

LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF HOTEL/RESTAURANT OPTIONAL PREMISES LIQUOR LICENSE FOR CLEAR CREEK SKIING CORPORATION D.B.A. LOVELAND SKI AREA; In attendance were resident Jim Pals, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Jodie Snyder, Paralegal Nanette Reimer, Cindy Neely, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, and Georgetown Administrator Tom Hale. Nanette Reimer reported the application was submitted, all fees were paid, and no violations were reported. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the renewal of hotel/restaurant optional premises liquor license for Clear Creek Skiing Corporation d.b.a. Loveland Ski Area. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The Liquor Licensing Authority then adjourned and reconvened as the Emergency Services District Board of Directors to consider the following matter.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 2010 APPLICATION FOR STATE CONTRIBUTION TO VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER PENSION FUNDS: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. In attendance were resident Jim Pals, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Jodie Snyder, Paralegal Nanette Reimer, Cindy Neely, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, and Georgetown Administrator Tom Hale. Carl Small stated this application was prepared by the Clear Creek Fire Authority annually to obtain matching funds from the state. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the 2010 application for state contribution to volunteer firefighter pension funds. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Emergency Services District Board of Directors then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matters.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QWEST CLAIM FOR DAMAGE TO UTILITY LINE: In attendance were resident Jim Pals, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Health & Human Services Division Director Cindy Dicken, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Open Space Commission Coordinator Martha Tableman, Planner II Holland Smith, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Jodie Snyder, Paralegal Nanette Reimer, Cindy Neely, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, and Georgetown Administrator Tom Hale. Mr. Loeffler stated the county freely admitted they cut the Qwest line with a backhoe however, the Qwest line was not within the correct locates. The county work was more than 18” away from the locates and the Qwest line was outside the locate area. Commissioner Mauck made the motion to deny the Qwest claim for the damaged line. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding real estate matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); regarding negotiating strategies as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e); regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6- 402(4)(f); and regarding litigation as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 29, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 29, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Vice Chairman Joan Drury called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Tim Mauck, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner O'Malley attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JUNE 23, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING MINUTES: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE CLEARSPAN SAND STORAGE COVER: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-109, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FULL RELEASE OF LETTER OF CREDIT FOR THE BENEFIT OF SADDLEBACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR LOTS 13-20, SADDLEBACK MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: In attendance were Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Bryan and Mrs. Blackwell, Mary Thompson, Marie Claude Williams, Paul Clem and Sharon Reeve, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, and County Assessor Diane Settle. Mr. Loeffler recommended the changing the title of item #3 to approve a purchase and authorize County Administrator Tom Breslin to sign the contract subject to the attorneys approving the contract form. Regarding item #4, Mr. Loeffler stated the document was changed to reflect that this was the fifth amendment to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Commissioner Mauck made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the change to item #3 allowing County Administrator Tom Breslin to sign the contract and recognizing this as a purchase and with the clarification to item #5 as the fifth amendment to the Saddleback Mountain Development Corporation Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Liquor Licensing Authority to consider the following matter.

LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT FOR THE CLEAR CREEK ADVOCATES FOR THE ANNUAL FOLLIES: In attendance were Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Bryan and Mrs. Blackwell, Mary Thompson, Marie Claude Williams, Paul Clem and Sharon Reeve, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, and County Assessor Diane Settle. This hearing was not needed per the county Liquor Licensing Authority regulations, resolution #04-110. There was no public comment.

The Liquor Licensing Authority adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT AND RED ROCKS COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR ORAL HEALTH SERVICES: In attendance were Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Bryan and Mrs. Blackwell, Mary Thompson, Marie Claude Williams, Paul Clem and Sharon Reeve, Public Health Director Aaron Kissler, and County Assessor Diane Settle.

Commissioner O'Malley attended the hearing. Commissioner Drury asked where the dental work would be done. Aaron Kissler replied the nurses would do this work at the Community Resource Center. It was offered to any child in Clear Creek County between the ages of zero and five. No income guidelines existed and Public Health would bill Medicaid. This was related to the “Cavity Free at Age 3” program. These dollars were for one year and this was contract year 2 of 3. Mr. Loeffler noted the contract period ended on April 30, 2011. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Health consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #10-99, THOMPSON, CHICAGO CREEK: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mary Thompson attended the hearing. Diane Settle adjusted this property value as it had a guesthouse and used to be assessed as commercial. Per the recent Board of Assessment Appeals hearing, she now had to adjust these as residential. She recommended an adjustment from $423,000 to $302,730 for 2010 and 2009. Mary Thompson agreed with the adjustment. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-100, Blackwell, Chicago Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Bryan and Mrs. Blackwell attended the hearing. Diane Settle recommended a downward adjustment as the CDOT right of way took a big chunk of this property and made it unusable. She recommended adjustment from $87,950 to 25,310 for 2008- 2009. The year 2010 was already adjusted. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-98, Clem/Reeve, St. Mary’s: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Paul Clem and Sharon Reeve attended the hearing. Diane Settle recommended a classification adjustment for this vacant lot adjacent to their home lot as it was used residentially for 2009. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-97, Williams, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Marie Claude Williams attended. Diane Settle stated the assessment for 2009 could not be the same for 2010 because Williams protested in 2009 and did not follow through with the process. Mr. Loeffler agreed stating the statutes were explicit in how Diane Settle could adjust values. These steps had time frames and if they were not followed through, then there was no appeal. Diane Settle recommended denial. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-101, Capron, Snyder Mountain: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Phyllis Capron attended the hearing. Diane Settle recommended an adjustment for 2009 from $366,000 to $312,930 and 2010 was adjusted via the protest process. Phyllis Capron agreed. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-102, Gauldoni, Mill Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Gauldoni group. Diane Settle recommended an adjustment to correct the square footage of the home. She recommended adjusting the value from $298,160 to $272,770 for 2008 and 2009. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously. #10-103, Norris, Silver Plume: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Norris group. Diane Settle recommended and adjustment from $190,150 to $153,180 for 2009 and 2010 based on comparable sales. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

NOTICE OF FINAL SETTLEMENT WITH STAN MILLER INC. FOR THE BAKERVILLE TO LOVELAND BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITY: In attendance were resident Kathy Vaughn, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and PBS&J representative Mark Jahnke. Mr. Loeffler stated the final settlement was advertised on September 8th and September 15th and the project was complete. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the final settlement with Stan Miller Inc., for the Bakerville to Loveland Bicycle/Pedestrian facility. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Carl Small noted the State would turn around the reimbursement in two weeks.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-96, EASEMENT VACATION CASE #RD-2010-0001 FOR SMITH, EVERGREEN WEST HIGHLANDS: Planner II Trent Hyatt presented. In attendance were Mr. & Mrs. Smith and Kathy Vaughn. Trent Hyatt made the following presentation:  He presented a copy of the survey of the property.  He demonstrated the original easement granted to the county in 1984 with the subdivision.  He demonstrated the proposed easement.  The request was to vacate and relocate a portion of the drainage easement on lot 14 of the Evergreen West Highlands Subdivision.  Section 1101 of the subdivision regulations indicated that intent of road easement vacation was to transfer a portion of the road or to vacate an easement that was not vacated in a Combination of Lots Agreement or Boundary Line Adjustment .  Adjacent property owners were notified on September 8, 2010 and notice was in the Clear Creek Courant on September 15, 2010.  No public referral agencies had conflicts.  This easement, at the time of construction of the home, wasn’t considered in the sighting of the structure as the easement traveled through the home.  In 1998, there was an improvement location certificate that showed the easement. The Smiths noticed the problem so they made this application.  Section 1104 of the subdivision regulations outlined the vacation easement criteria and the Smiths met that criterion.  No work had been done on the land to increase water flow.  To protect the county’s interest, the county asked for an additional easement for the drainage to replace the one they were vacating. The Smiths agreed.  Per Site Development department, a 10-ft easement would be adequate.  Staff recommended approval of this easement vacation case.

Mr. Loeffler noted the survey called out a 20-ft easement but Trent Hyatt was requesting a 10-ft easement. Trent Hyatt replied this was correct and the survey would have to be corrected. He would ask the Smiths for a new survey and easement document reflecting only a 10-ft easement. Mr. Smith agreed stating he wanted all the property documents correct. The Smiths also agreed to grant the county the 10-ft easement.

There was no public comment. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the resolution subject to preparation of a grant of easement, corrected survey, legal description, and execution of the easement by the Smiths. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Smith noted that Trent Hyatt and Jan Patterson were great to work with and they completed almost the entire process via email. It was very efficient. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-108, RESOLUTION DECLARING OCTOBER 2010 AS CONFLICT RESOLUTION MONTH IN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY, COLORADO: In attendance were County Judge Rachel Fresquez, District Court Judge Tom Morehead, and mediators Rita Hyland and Billy Harris. Commissioner O'Malley read the resolution into the record. Commissioner Drury supported this process and the idea of mediation instead of court and attorney fees. Judge Fresquez stated court was very emotionally charged and mediation helped to resolve the small claims cases and preventing people from facing judges. Judge Morehead understood the quality of work done by law enforcement and the judges ordered mediation in every civil case as well as domestic relations cases. The judges recognized the importance of mediation statewide. People could not afford to come and litigate cases. The costs for attorneys and expert witnesses were very expensive. The fourth judicial district had started using mediation in criminal cases. As states could not afford to continue to incarcerate at the current rate, conflict resolution would become more important.

Commissioner Drury asked about the cost for mediators. Billy Harris replied a mediator, if ordered by the state, had no cost. Paid mediators could be as much as $200- 250/hour. Mediators didn’t settle cases just facilitated the communication. Court could be very stressful and mediation gave people a choice to make a decision. Mediators were used in family law, divorce, probate and other civil cases.

Billy Harris explained mediation was an unregulated profession. There were various certifications to be obtained but that was it. In terms of mediators, there were many types like attorneys, and people had to find a style they were comfortable with. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-108, resolution to declare October 2010 as conflict resolution month in Clear Creek County, Colorado. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Sheriff Krueger attended the hearing. Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding intergovernmental relationships, grants, zoning, and energy as allowed by CRS 24-6- 402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 6, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 6, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Vice Chairman Joan Drury called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Tim Mauck, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner O'Malley attended later in the day.

NOTICE OF FINAL SETTLEMENT WITH SEMA CONSTRUCTION INC., FOR THE ALVARADO ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT: In attendance were Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Mr. Loeffler stated the final settlement was published in the Clear Creek Courant on September 22nd and September 29th, 2010. Tim Allen was satisfied with the completion of the work and engineering had reviewed and completed the punch list with the contractor. Tim Allen would be working to mend the trail access to the Silver Creek Trail off Alvarado Road. Commissioner Mauck made the motion to approve the final settlement with SEMA Construction Inc., for the Alvarado Road Reconstruction Project. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATION OF INDIRECT COSTS FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY DECEMBER 31, 2009: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK TECHNICAL SERVICES INC.: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-112, RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AUTHORIZED OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO COUNTY CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES FOR THE USE OF SUCH ACCOUNT: In attendance were Engineer Craig Abrahamson, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Carl Small explained the Indirect Cost Certification was a reimbursement from the feds for the Health & Human Services budget. Regarding the credit card policy, Carl Small stated the Chairman had to sign off on this policy. Commissioner Mauck made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Equalization to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF July 14, 2010 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES: Commissioner Mauck made the motion to approve the Board of Equalization Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Equalization then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FUNDING REQUEST FROM CLEAR CREEK RADIO: In attendance were Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Craig Abrahamson, and Clear Creek Radio President Greg Markle. Greg Markle made the following presentation:  Per the 1999 Intergovernmental Agreement with the county, the municipalities, and the Clear Creek School District, these groups agreed to help fund the community radio station.  They began as a cable system and with faithful donations they received a license in 2002.  Each year, Clear Creek Radio asked the Intergovernmental Agreement participants to contribute their portions to keep the community radio station going.  Each jurisdiction’s amount was based on their population.  Greg Markle requested $6500 from the county for 2010 and to include this amount in the 2011 budget.  Clear Creek Radio could not exceed 100 watts in radio frequency or they would interfere with other stations.  He applied for the 88.7 frequency in 2007 and they were waiting to hear if they would receive it. This would allow them to reach the Fall River and Floyd Hill areas.

Mr. Loeffler stated the county needed a Services Agreement with Clear Creek Radio should the Board approve the contribution. The Board directed staff to draw up the Services Agreement for the agenda next week.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FOR THE TRANSFER STATION AND CONTRACT FOR SERVICES FOR THE PROJECT: In attendance were Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Engineer Craig Abrahamson, and Transfer Station Manager Tim Vogel. Tim Vogel made the following statements:  Originally, they had planned for a retaining wall design due to the failure of the current wall.  After reviewing the project, the bids and proposal amounts were too exorbitant.  Tim Vogel asked Craig Abrahamson to re-evaluate the problem and suggest some new solutions.  Craig Abrahamson engineered a different idea consisting of a pad around the structure extending out to where the compactor was stationed. They would have to resolve the icing problem on this concrete in the winter as it could be a safety issue.  The project also included another ramp area on the Transfer Station property where the slash was located. The ramp would have two bins behind it with a concrete pad and then a retaining wall to backfill and give more ability to move material.  The project was put out to bid and two bids were received.  The two bidders were not local. One was from Black Hawk (D&J Excavating) and one from Keansburg (NORA).  Tim Vogel recommended the company from Keansburg and he researched their company with the Secretary of State. Their certifications were up to date.  The Keansburg bidder also had an itemized bid with quantity unit and price breakdowns.

Craig Abrahamson stated there was some question about the Secretary of State certifications for D&J Excavating. NORA was a reputable company specializing in concrete. This project was advertised in the Clear Creek Courant and also on the county website. A pre-bid meeting was held and three contractors attended. Only two contractors bid the project. Craig Abrahamson did the design work for this project and that cost would come from the capital budget as well. His bill was $2500.

Craig Abrahamson stated they would leave the gabion wall on the left side and where the concrete wall started, they would add a smaller cantilever wall as a footing and tieback for the wall. This area was built on fill and there was always a chance it could settle. They wanted to start the work as soon as possible and be finished by October 31, 2010. No delays or closures were expected.

The NORA bid totaled $58,117.58. Commissioner Mauck motioned to award the bid to NORA for the Transfer Station work for $58,117.58. This was the most responsive proposal and NORA had current certifications with the Secretary of State. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Mauck made the motion to approve the Unified Form Contract for Services with NORA for the Transfer Station work and authorized County Administrator Tom Breslin to sign the contract contingent on its form approval by County Attorney Robert Loeffler. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner O'Malley attended the meeting.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-107, RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE CLEAR CREEK AND GILPIN COUNTIES STRATEGIC SUSTAINABILITY PLAN PREPARED BY THE CLEAR CREEK AND GILPIN COUNTIES ENERGY ACTION GROUP: In attendance were Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, Laura Davis and Community Energy Coordinator Rebecca Cantwell. Rebecca Cantwell made the following presentation:  She had a productive and successful summer working with the Energy Action Group.  They had created a strategic sustainability plan for the area as their first charge.  As Clear Creek and Gilpin Counties were working together, they had a louder voice when it came to funding and grants.  The plan developed a road map starting with a basic plan and identifying specific strategies, projects and deliverables for the area.  It included a community solar garden that would hopefully serve both counties.  She was trying to encourage more energy efficiency and she wanted to apply for a grant for downtown Idaho Springs to help them with energy improvements.  The point of this plan was to lay out basic goals over time.  She presented background information on the group and a list of the members.  The plan included a list of goals and deliverables for each goal.  Gilpin County and Central City unanimously approved this plan for the region.  She was working to see where the big energy use was around the county and Lisa Vogel had provided energy usage for the county buildings.  She was also working with United Power who serviced the Gilpin County area.  She was considering the housing stock in Clear Creek County and the most cost effective things people could do with their homes. Randy Wheelock was heading up this effort.  At the Clear Creek Watershed Foundation Festival, she had a booth with information on what folks could do to cut home energy usage. She was also hoping to partner with the school district.  Regarding Commissioner O'Malley’s question on whether there would be measurable numbers, Rebecca Cantwell replied some of the measuring had been done already. She had met with the weatherization group, the community energy coordinators, and NWCOG. Once this plan was approved, each area would be measured on a spreadsheet showing timelines and deliverables. She had different people championing different portions of the plan as she was part time serving both counties. Some folks were working on the solar garden project and some were working on the November 13th event. This would not just be a set of goals but action items to complete.  Regarding Commissioner O'Malley’s concern that this may be a plan that looks good on paper but not produce results, Rebecca Cantwell replied the energy action group was just that, action oriented and doers. They wanted to get things done and this was the first stage. They would be happy to report back to the Commissioners in 2-3 months with an update of their progress.  The funding for her position was through October 2011. She was hoping to get some projects underway which would allow her to continue working. She would have to find some additional funding. She did not think the ARRA funding would continue.  Regarding Commissioner Drury’s question about speaking on KGOAT, Rebecca Cantwell replied she had done an interview and planned to do more. She could be reached via a county phone line if folks needed to reach her.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-107, Resolution to adopt the Clear Creek and Gilpin Counties Strategic Sustainability Plan prepared by the Clear Creek and Gilpin Counties Energy Action Group. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a), the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 402(4)(f); and regarding elections and planning as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 13, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 13, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Tim Mauck, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF IVANTAGE SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES AGREEMENT: ADDENDUM TO EXHIBIT A: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LAND USE FEE WAIVER FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE FOR SAND SHED IN DUMONT AND AUTHORITY TO SIGN PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE, FOREST ROAD SPECIAL USE PERMIT AUTHORITY; FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT, AS AMENDED OCTOBER 21, 1976: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK RADIO: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO ROAD AND BRIDGE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT WORK COMPLETED IN 2010: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JULY 7, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ MEETING MINUTES: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF OUT OF STATE CONFERENCE FOR COUNTY ENGINEER: In attendance were Public Works Engineer Jenny riley, HR Director Cate Camp, Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Ambulance Director Nicolena Johnson, Paralegal Nanette Reimer, Don Krueger, Senior Accountant Lisa Scibelli, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Bookkeeper Diane Wickham, and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Carl Small confirmed there would be a balance remaining in the Road & Bridge budget after the transfer. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

JAIL INSPECTION: Commissioner Drury completed the jail inspection with the following findings:  The trustees were now held in the Centennial pod.  There was no commissary any longer.  The water fountain was broken in the cell pod.  There were 76 total inmates with 54 of them being US Marshals.  There were 7 females in the jail.  The chain gangs were not working.  There were four new SCBA units in the hallway to be used by the deputies if needed.  There were three new monitors in the control room which were more efficient and took up less space.  The jail was found in satisfactory condition.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-111, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR PHASE 2A, SADDLEBACK MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. In attendance was resident Kathy Vaughn. Frederick Rollenhagen made the following statements:  This agreement outlined the road and public improvements to be completed before the sale of any lots in phase 2A.  This certificate allowed Saddleback Mountain Development Corporation to market and sell these lots.  Phase 2 had been split into two phases.  Phase 2B included Packsaddle Road which would connect the subdivision to Santa Fe Mountain Drive which was not complete yet.  Saddleback Mountain Development Corporation was ready to proceed with phase 2A.  Per staff review, the improvements required by the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for phase 2A were complete.  Three letters were attached to the staff report in support of this amendment. First was from the Site Development department stating Saddleback Mountain Development Corporation had met the county regulations with respect to the compaction tests, revegetation, road construction and defensible space. The second letter was from Rich Cassens certifying that a 30,000 gallon water cistern had been installed. Fire Chief Kelly Babeon had chosen the location of this cistern installation. Third was a letter from the Saddleback Metropolitan District certifying that the necessary well permits would be issued to the lots.  Saddleback Mountain Development Corporation was ready for this Subdivision Improvement Agreement at the beginning of the year but they had not completed the school bus turnarounds so they had to amend the Subdivision Improvement Agreement to remove those.  Per the school district, the buses were now not traveling as far up as planned into this subdivision so the turnarounds could be removed.  Regarding Commissioner O'Malley’s question about the wells being individual or community wells, Frederick Rollenhagen replied the wells were individual for each home as Saddleback Mountain Development Corporation had them approved through a plan of augmentation.

Mr. Loeffler stated the Resolution language needed to be amended so it could be understood this amendment was for a certificate of compliance for those certain lots constituting phase 2A. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-111, Certificate of Compliance for Phase 2A, Saddleback Mountain Subdivision, with the language amended per County Attorney Robert Loeffler. Commissioner Mauck seconded. There was no public comment. The motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-113, RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLEAR CREEK COUNTY OPPOSING PROPOSED AMENDMENT #60, REGARDING LOCAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-114, RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLEAR CREEK COUNTY OPPOSING PROPOSED AMENDMENT #61, REGARDING PUBLIC BORROWING: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-115, RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLEAR CREEK COUNTY OPPOSING PROPOSED PROPOSITION #101, REGARDING MOTOR VEHICLE FEES, SPECIFIC OWNERSHIP TAXES, AND OTHER FEES AND CHARGES: Mr. Loeffler presented the three resolutions to the Board. Commissioner O'Malley stated that all three of these propositions were ill conceived and the Board agreed. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-13, a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Clear Creek County opposing proposed Amendment #60, regarding local property tax revenue. Commissioner Mauck seconded and asked that these resolutions be sent out via press release and on the webpage. The vote was unanimous.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-114, a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Clear Creek County to oppose proposed amendment #61, regarding public borrowing. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-115, a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Clear Creek County to oppose proposed proposition #101, regarding motor vehicle fees, specific ownership taxes and other fees and charges. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding CRS 24- 6-402(4)(a), the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; regarding zoning, building compliance and communications as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); and regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 20, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 20, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Tim Mauck, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

FINAL DECISION ON THE COUNTY EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN: This hearing was delayed until later in the day.

CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE QUARTERLY PUBLIC TRUSTEE REPORT: Public Trustee Irene Kincade presented the following information:  The foreclosures were not getting any better.  There were 68 active open foreclosures and the county had 117 last year.  Half of the foreclosures actually went to sale.  Park County reported more foreclosures than Clear Creek County. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the quarterly Public Trustee report. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-118, RESOLUTION TO DRAW ON SADDLEBACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LETTER OF CREDIT: Carl Small attended. Mr. Loeffler stated the Board received a replacement letter of credit instead of drawing on this one. Regarding the warrant register, Commissioner Drury asked about the Central Clear Creek Sanitation District fee in Silver Lakes. Carl Small replied this was for the Open Space Commission owned lands. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Health to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF HEALTH CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BAA HIPPA AGREEMENT FOR THE MORE GRANT: Public Health Director Aaron Kissler presented. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Health Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-105, ROAD VACATION CASE #RD-2010-0002, FOR BEN’S ROAD, CIRCLE K RANCH, FOR NEELY: Marlon & Maurene Neely attended the hearing. Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented the following information: CASE: Road and Easement Vacation Case # RD2010-0002

REQUEST: Application to vacate the right of way of Ben’s Road that was dedicated to Clear Creek County by the Circle-K Ranch Homesites subdivision plat

APPLICANT: Marlon and Maurene Neely

LOCATION: Neely residence located at 468 Mary Beth Road

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The right of way proposed for vacation is known as Ben’s Road as described on the Circle-K Ranch Homesites Subdivision plat, recorded in the Office of the Clear Creek County Clerk and Recorder

CASE MGR: Frederick Rollenhagen, Planning Director

PROPOSAL

The Neely’s, owning property located at 468 Mary Beth Road, have requested this road vacation in order to obtain the r/w in question because their existing driveway that accesses their home currently lies within Ben’s Road r/w, and they would like to make improvements to it. Specifically, the Neely’s explain in their application that they would like to chip and seal their driveway.

As per Section 1101 of the Clear Creek County Subdivision Regulations, the intent of a road and easement vacation is “…to transfer a roadway, or a portion thereof, to the abutting parcel owners and/or to vacate easements that cannot be vacated through the Lot Combination process or vacated/realigned through the Boundary Line Adjustment process.” According to Section 1104 Clear Creek County Subdivision Regulations, a road and easement vacation application must meet the following criteria:

“1104.01 Vacation of a roadway shall be in compliance with Part 3 of Article 2 of Title 43 C.R.S., as amended and will not result in any adjoining land without an established public road or private access easement connecting said land with another established public road.

1104.02 Vacation of an easement shall be demonstrated to be in the general interest of the public’s health, safety and welfare.

1104.03 In granting a vacation, the County may reserve easements for the installation or maintenance of utilities, ditches, ingress/egress ways and other similar improvements.”

SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE

All of the land use in the area is single-family-residential which is correspondent to the underlying zoning of the property (MR-1). The parcels of land range from a few tenths of an acre to several acres in size.

REFERRAL RESPONSES

Adjacent property owners and referral agencies were sent letters dated September 29, 2010. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Clear Creek Courant on September 29, 2010.

Adjacent Property Owners No responses were received as of the preparation of this Staff Report.

Public Referral Agencies Clear Creek County Road and Bridge: Response received dated October 1, 2010 with no conflicts.

DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES

Road and Easement Vacation Criteria According to Section 1104 Clear Creek County Subdivision Regulations, a road and easement vacation application must meet the following criteria: (Specific language taken from the regulations is listed in bold):

1104.01 Vacation of a roadway shall be in compliance with Part 3 of Article 2 of Title 43 C.R.S., as amended and will not result in any adjoining land without an established public road or private access easement connecting said land with another established public road.

Currently, all adjoining land has adjoining access off of other roads. Lot 29 to the north of the rw and Lot 28 to the south of the r/w have direct access to Mary Beth Road. Lot 28A will be combined with Lot 19 which has access to Carolyn Drive.

However, as explained in the proposal, soon-to-be combined Lots 28A and 19, owned by the applicants, access Mary Beth Road by a driveway that crosses across Ben’s Road. This access will remain, and as the Ben’s Road right of way will be under private ownership, it is intended to be improved by the new property owner(s). At this time, the right of way is proposed to be divided three ways and dedicated to the three adjacent proerties; lot 29, lot 28, and soon-to-be combined lot 19/28A. Subsequently, access easements will be dedicated to assure access along the former ben’s road right of way for the applicants, and for the owners of Lot 29 who wish to use the old right of way for access to a new garage that they wish to construct. The Owners of lot 28 do not wish to have access across the old right of way as they currently have road frontage along Mary Beth Road.

Lot 29 and soon-to-be combined Lots 19/28A are currently improved. Lot 28 is vacant and is part owned by the Neely’s (half interest) and part owned by an absentee landowner. 1104.02 Vacation of an easement shall be demonstrated to be in the general interest of the public’s health, safety and welfare.

No impacts have been identified that would affect the general public. This right of way is not used by the public, nor is it maintained by any public agency. The only current use it serves is to access the Neely’s residence and accommodate their driveway.

1104.03 In granting a vacation, the County may reserve easements for the installation or maintenance of utilities, ditches, ingress/egress ways and other similar improvements.

There is an existing a sewer line that traverses the right of way as evidences by the existing easement on the adjacent private property. Planning Staff recommends that the new survey plat that is recorded identify any existing or new easements to be dedicated to the Upper Bear Creek Water and Sanitation District 9for their sewer line), or for any other utilities that cross the right of way.

Staff Recommendation Although it is in the County’s interest to retain its rights of way, there appear to be more reasons to vacate it. 1. Road and Bridge Department do not maintain it and do not want to maintain it. 2. The right of way currently does not access any lots that do not currently have direct access to other County-maintained roads so there is essentially no purpose for Ben’s Road as a County right of way. 3. The only property that Ben’s Road currently benefits is Lot 19 and the Neely’s residence. 4. The property owners could not make improvements to their driveway because it is not on their property. They would need to obtain permission from the County to make improvements.

Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the road vacation request with the following Conditions of Approval;

1. A Land Survey Plat shall be prepared and recorded in conformance with Colorado Revised Statutes 38-50-101, and in conformance with Article 16 of the Clear Creek County Subdivision Regulations; General Surveyor Requirements 2. Utility easements shall be established for any applicable utilities that exist in the Ben’s Road right of way 3. Access easements shall be established across the right of way to allow access for property owners of Lot 29, and combined Lots 19/28A 4. The right of way shall be split three ways between Lot 29, Lot 28, and Combined Lots 19/28A

Regarding Commissioner O'Malley’s question about splitting up the land between the three landowners and later it being challenged, Frederick Rollenhagen stated the county had the ability to reserve access easements to all three property owners via the vacant road. This would ensure the county’s intent. Regarding Mr. Loeffler’s question about the location of the sewer line, Mr. Neely replied it traveled out to Mary Beth Road.

Mr. Neely noted their original intent was just to plant trees and it ended up being a road vacation. Mr. Loeffler explained the right of way would have to be divided up and then described in an easement. Mr. Loeffler stated there could be an easier way to just plant trees. However, if they wanted to change the land boundaries, it would take longer. Mr. Loeffler stated a dedication to the sanitation district would be needed. Frederick Rollenhagen added a plat amendment to Circle K Subdivision would be needed as well. There was no public comment.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-105, Road Vacation Case #RD-2010-0002, for Ben’s Road, Circle K Ranch, for Neely, creation of access and utility easements, and approval of the amended final plat to be effective when all conditions were met. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously. FINAL DECISION ON THE COUNTY EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN: Commissioner Mauck suggested to approve Rocky Mountain Health Plan’s option #2 for the Clear Creek County employees 2011 health insurance plan. Commissioner Drury agreed. Carl Small stated the direction to Denman & Company would alert Rocky Mountain Health Plan and the 2011 county budget would reflect this option. The Board agreed.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: This session was canceled.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-119, RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE REAL ESTATE DOCUMENTS: Mr. Loeffler explained this document was for the Depot building. The buyer wanted to continue discussions. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve Resolution #10-119, Resolution granting authority to execute real estate documents. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 27, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Tim Mauck, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ENGAGEMENT LETTER WITH SWANHORST & CO. LLC FOR DECEMBER 31, 2010 YEAR END AUDIT: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CDOT FOR AMBULANCE FACILITY ON HWY 103: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM PETE BOLDRIN: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QWEST AGREEMENT FOR PRI LINE: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL REQUEST FOR SOLID WASTE FOR GEHL SKID STEER: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FOOTHILLS REGIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND TRAUMA ADVISORY COUNCIL COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES FUNDING REQUEST: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH SADDLEBACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: 9. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-122, RESOLUTION TO LIFT THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FIRE BAN: 10. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-120, RESOLUTION DESIGNATING “BUSINESS OWNER” WITH RESPECT TO COUNTY CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES FOR THE USE OF SUCH ACCOUNT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION #10-112: In attendance were Geoff & Lynn Miller, Dave Reid, David Elmgreen, Dan Ebert, Jack Hruska, Diane Kielty, Tim Vogel, Craig Abrahamson, Peggy Stokstad, Gayle Johnson, Fred Lyssy, Cindy Dicken, Jerry Fabyanic, Cate Camp, Mary Pat Young, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Frederick Rollenhagen, Nicolena Johnson, Marie Claude Williams, Holland Smith, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Ed Rapp, Sheriff Krueger, and Mary Jane Loevlie. Mr. Loeffler requested to remove Consent Agenda item #10 to amend the language. Regarding item #6, Tom Breslin stated this was being purchased with remaining dollars from the retaining wall project at the Transfer Station. Regarding item #5, Mr. Loeffler noted this property was on Alps Mountain. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items #1-9 and excluding item #10. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Equalization to consider the following matter.

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JULY 28TH AND AUGUST 4TH, 2010 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES: In attendance were Geoff & Lynn Miller, Dave Reid, David Elmgreen, Dan Ebert, Jack Hruska, Diane Kielty, Tim Vogel, Craig Abrahamson, Peggy Stokstad, Gayle Johnson, Fred Lyssy, Cindy Dicken, Jerry Fabyanic, Cate Camp, Mary Pat Young, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Frederick Rollenhagen, Nicolena Johnson, Marie Claude Williams, Holland Smith, Land Use Division Director Jo Ann Sorensen, Ed Rapp, Sheriff Krueger, and Mary Jane Loevlie. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Board of Equalization Consent Agenda. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Equalization then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding real estate matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a) and regarding litigation and nonprofit support as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 3, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 3, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Vice Chairman Joan Drury called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Tim Mauck, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner O'Malley attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COPIER/PRINTER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH PEAK PERFORMANCE IMAGING SOLUTIONS: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUGUST 4TH, SEPTEMBER 1ST, JULY 28TH, SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CDOT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR THE GEORGETOWN ROCKFALL MITIGATION PROJECT: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #10-120, RESOLUTION DESIGNATING “BUSINESS OWNER” WITH RESPECT TO COUNTY CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES FOR THE USE OF SUCH ACCOUNT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION #10-112: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CENTRAL: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF GEORGETOWN: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BLACK HAWK: 9. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF DELTA DENTAL CONTRACT WITH CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: 10. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FROM MARY BRADFORD ROVETTA: In attendance were resident Joe Sysel, Paralegal Nanette Reimer, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Regarding Commissioner Mauck’s question about the location of the properties for Consent Agenda item #10, Lisa Vogel replied they were located in Silver Plume and Red Elephant areas. They were considered sheep-keep areas. Open Space Commission would hold these lands and include them in their sheep-keep management. Regarding item #4, Mr. Loeffler asked if the Board was donating or selling the property. Commissioner Drury and Commissioner Mauck agreed they were donating the land. Regarding the animal shelter Intergovernmental Agreements, Mr. Loeffler stated this would make the agreements all the same for the municipalities. Idaho Springs, Empire, and Silver Plume were expected to sign soon. Commissioner Mauck made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented with the clarification for item #4 that the county was donating the land. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Liquor Licensing Authority to consider the following matter.

LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF TAVERN LICENSE FOR JOE SYSEL D.B.A. SHADOW’S RANCH: In attendance were resident Joe Sysel, Paralegal Nanette Reimer, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Nanette Reimer presented the following information:

 All reporting departments had signed off on the renewal application.  The property had been posted and all fees were paid.  The application was complete and appeared satisfactory.

There was no public comment. Commissioner Mauck made the motion to approve the renewal of the tavern license for Joe Sysel d.b.a. as Shadow’s Ranch. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The Liquor Licensing Authority then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Drury made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding Road & Bridge regulations, water court, employment contracts, and litigation as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); and regarding personnel matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Drury stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

Commissioner O'Malley attended the meeting.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT TO BUY/SELL REAL ESTATE: Mr. Loeffler presented the following information:  This contract was for the purchase of the Depot building which was owned by the county.  The sale price was $250,000 and set for a closing on June 1, 2011 with a possible extension of 30 days.  This extension was to cover any delays in the courthouse remodel project.  The county had agreed on a temporary revocable license agreement which allows the buyer to use the parking area on the east side of the creek without differentiating or numbering spots.  The buyer asked that the county signage reflect the joint usage of the parking area.  The buying broker and engineer are comfortable with this agreement.  The only way to process this agreement was via a land sale contract. It was the only legal way to do this transaction. If the agreement went south, the county would have to evict the buyer. The county knew this family which helped the situation.  A deed of trust could not be completed because the county could not loan money.

Commissioner Mauck made the motion to approve the contract to buy/sell real estate. Commissioner Drury seconded. During discussion, Commissioner O'Malley noted if parking became an issue, it was because the buyer was successful and the county would work with them. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 10, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Tim Mauck, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF CLEAR CREEK AMBULANCE, AMBULANCE LICENSE: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF EVERGREEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AMBULANCE LICENSE: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JULY 14TH, AUGUST 18TH, AUGUST 25TH, AUGUST 11TH, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY TELEPHONE CHARGE FOR CALENDAR 2010 AT THE RATE OF $1.25 PER MONTH ON EACH TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ACCESS FACILITY, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ACCESS AND INTERCONNECTED VOICE-OVER- INTERNET-PROTOCOL SERVICE: In attendance of Chief Accountant Carl Small, Ambulance Director Nicolena Johnson, County Assessor Diane Settle, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Special Projects Division Director Lisa Vogel, and Planner II Holland Smith. Mr. Loeffler noted that Consent Agenda item #5 needed to be recorded in the minutes as the $1.25 amount. This rate had been in effect for two years and had not changed. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #10-123, Paragon Financial, Tech Park: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Paragon Financial group. Paragon had purchased this parcel in foreclosure and paid the back taxes. Based on the sale of property at Floyd Hill, Diane Settle recommended an adjustment in value from $581,000+ to $244,900. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-124, Seymour, Idaho Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Seymour group. Diane Settle recommended adjustment of this parcel as half of it was unusable or in Clear Creek. She recommended a decrease from $40,920 to $10,230. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-125, Fuentes, Indian Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Fuentes group. Fuentes bought this property and removed a cabin from it and then built a new home. This abatement was for the year the property was vacant. Diane Settle recommended an adjustment in value from $163,010 to $119,210 and comparable sales supported this value. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-126, Beheshti, Brook Forest Estates: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Beheshti group. Diane Settle stated this house was bought from foreclosure outside the base year. Diane Settle had the property valued at $228,710 and comparable sales supported this value. Diane Settle recommended denial for this year of abatement. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-127, Mino, Idaho Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Mino group. Diane Settle recommended denial on this abatement as she had it valued at $144,470 and comparable sales supported the value. The owner was comparing herself to some foreclosed townhomes nearby. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-128, Brink, Yankee Creek area: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Brink group. Diane Settle was correcting an error in her records and recommended this adjustment to correct the mistake. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#10-129, Adams, Empire: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Adams group. Diane Settle recommended denial as the Assessor’s already had the value lowered while the property was under construction and they could not adjust it further. Commissioner Drury made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST OF EASEMENT FROM THE FOREST SERVICE FOR MACKINAW LANE: Public Works Division Director Tim Allen presented. Resident Chris Tomkins attended. Tim Allen made the following statements:  Chris Tomkins contacted Tim Allen on March 11, 2010 to request the use of a road off of Rainbow Road to access his land.  This road had been in existence since the 1950’s.  Chris Tomkins had spoken with the Forest Service which was here there became a problem.  Tim Allen wrote to the Forest Service requesting this access and had also met with Patty Turcek and Dan Lovato. They informed him that Mackinaw Lane had been closed to motorized traffic.  For the Forest Service to reopen this road, they required the county obtain an easement for the road and this road would become county jurisdiction. With this came a requirement for an environmental assessment. The Forest Service thought this could be a categorical exclusion. Chris Tomkins noted this Mackinaw Lane was a county road. A county easement was performed when the Loch Lomond Highlands Subdivision was created. Mackinaw Lane was the road which traveled through the subdivision. This historic road which traveled through this area was not an easement and was 36-feet away on Forest Service lands. This was unfortunate. Tim Allen stated that to cut the road into the actual described easement, would cost quite a bit of money. There were streams and a ravine which would make road construction difficult.  Tim Allen explained that Patti Turcek of the Forest Service estimated the recovery cost to be $1600 and then additional costs for the consultant to do the environmental assessment. Recovery costs were what the county paid for Forest Service to analyze the environmental analysis. This fee had to be paid in advance.  Tim Allen asked if the Board wanted to pursue the easement from the Forest Service.

Chris Tomkins made the following statements:  He began this process when applying for a driveway permit and Tim Vogel noted he did not have legal access to his land. The county maps showed the access being about eight feet off.  When Loch Lomond Subdivision was subdivided, there were two residences on Mackinaw Lane, then the road would turn into easement and then into private lands. The address of 51 Mackinaw Lane had been in existence since the early 1970’s.  His first plan was to move the road to its legal location and the county give him an easement. However, this was not practical as it would be very expensive.  Per the Forest Service, all the landowners would have to form a road association and apply for the easement. Chris Tomkins talked to the landowners and some were interested and some were not. The only viable option was to have the county apply for the easement and convey access to the landowners.  Chris Tomkins offered to pay up to $5000 of the environmental assessment just to get it done.  The Forest Service could not block off this road as it was access to private lands and the beginning of the road was on county lands. The problem was the road and the county road did not agree by 36-feet. The county easement was there but the road didn’t match.  Lots 1-9 used Mackinaw Lane as their access.  Where the county road left the legal location, he would need a Forest Service easement to cross Forest Service lands. If the road remained where it was and the county obtained the easement, it would work and save folks a lot of money.  He just wanted to build a small cabin, have access and pay taxes.  If he wanted to maintain the road, he would come to the county for a road construction permit but for now, the road worked. This was just a summer access road. He had no expectation the county would pave this road. He was realistic. He would also be willing to provide the county with a reciprocal easement across lots 11 and 10. Mr. Loeffler agreed the county would need this reciprocal easement if the county assumed the easement of the entire road from the Forest Service.  When he asked the Forest Service how they could close a road that provided access for some 30+ people, they claimed it was because no one provided any feedback to their proposal to close it.  Regarding the sliver of land landlocked by private parcels, the Forest Service stated they would most likely sell this parcel as it was of no use to them.  Regarding the cost of the process with the Forest Service, Chris Tomkins stated if the cost was under $5000, it would cost the county nothing as he agreed to pay the first $5000.

Tim Allen was in favor of Chris Tomkins’ proposal as it would be better to use this road than trying to find another location for the road. Commissioner Mauck asked if the county took easement for the road, would it be for the entire road or only portions of it? Mr. Loeffler stated the county did not want responsibility for the road, nor obligation to maintain or build anything. Tim Allen stated Mackinaw Lane was an unmaintained road. Mr. Loeffler stated if the road remained the Forest Service ownership, the county would need a maintenance agreement with the Forest Service. Commissioner O'Malley wanted to understand what it meant to obtain this easement from the Forest Service. What all would it include?

Commissioner O'Malley stated the application for the easement from the Forest Service should include access across all the affected parcels. Mr. Loeffler did not think the county could assign an easement they received from the Forest Service. The Forest Service recently gave the county a 30-year easement on the road through Beaver Brook Canyon.

Commissioner Mauck asked if the Forest Service would sell any of these lands for a road. Chris Tomkins replied they would but it was a very lengthy process. Commissioner Mauck was concerned that this access to homes and private lands be an easement which the Forest Service could rescind. He was interested in the future purchase of this road and then sell it back to the landowners.

Regarding the cost to the county to obtain this road via easement, Tim Allen stated there would need to be a maintenance plan, drainage, and maintenance schedule. Commissioner O'Malley asked if the county could request a permanent easement. He wanted to play whatever role the county needed to play to obtain the road permanently. He wanted this road access clear on title transfers. Commissioner O'Malley stated unless there was a reason not to move forward on this, he wanted to work on a permanent solution with Chris Tomkins and the Forest Service. Mr. Loeffler needed to complete another project with Patti Turcek so he would add this into the discussion. He wanted to avoid a maintenance obligation if possible. Mr. Loeffler would inform Chris Tomkins of any costs and progress made on the easement. Commissioner O'Malley stated if the price was more than $5000, the county would allow Chris Tomkins to consider it and discuss it again.

JAIL INSPECTION: Commissioner O'Malley performed the jail inspection with the following findings:  The trustee facilities were moved during the jail renovation.  The commissary was also temporarily relocated.  The population was 82 inmates with 52 US Marshal holds and six females.  The jail was found in satisfactory condition. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding CRS 24- 6-402(4)(a), the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; regarding water leases, fuel sales and Castle Rock as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

PUBLIC HEARING TO PRESENT THE 2011 CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BUDGET: Resident Craig Abrahamson and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate attended the hearing. Chief Accountant Carl Small presented the following information:  The Clear Creek County was prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. More description was provided in the budget introduction.  The proposed 2011 budget was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on October 13, 2010. Revisions to the proposed budget had been made as requested by officials and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners.  On adoption, the budget becomes the legal constraint and a management planning tool.  The preparation and presentation of the county budget was governed by the Colorado State Constitution and Statute. Among requirements was that the budget be in compliance with tax and spending limitations; was balanced, i.e. without deficit spending; and had adequate reserves for emergency.  The budget was also prepared with the guidance of the Board of County Commissioners, and prudent fiscal management. The county maintained adequate resources to remain fiscally sound.  The notice of public hearing was published October 27, 2010 in the Clear Creek  Courant.  Public Comments: One resident came to the budget office and was concerned about the solvency of the county because of the State budgetary publicity. He was relieved to know the county was solvent.  Budget Schedule:  Wednesday, October 13 – Proposed budget was presented to the Board of County Commissioners.  Wednesday, November 10 – Public hearing on the proposed county budget.  Wednesday, December 8 – Adoption of the budget, appropriation of funds and approval of mill levy for county funds.  Wednesday, December 22 – Certification of mill levies to the County Assessor.  The county net property tax mill levy remained the same at 38.056 mils, with an assessment of 41.056 minus a temporary mil reduction of 3.000 mils.  The county proposed a 2011 ending fund balance expected to be at $9,291,283.  Property tax was expected to increase $707,704 in direct proportion to increased assessed valuation.  Total appropriations were expected to increase $4,709,809. This included an appropriation of contingency and reserve of $3,659,938, and an increase in capital and project expenditures of $2,212,645.  The county was proposing to consolidate several funds into the general operating fund of the county. This eliminated redundancy in transferring resources, duplication of accounts and clarified operating functions.  The Golden Willow LID fund would last another five years.  Reserves in the General Fund were expected to remain at $1.6 million.  The building capital construction and jail renovation funds would remain separate in the budget.  There was discussion of moving more funding into the Road & Bridge budget and the repercussions of doing so.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to continue this hearing until 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO PRESENT THE 2011 CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BUDGET: Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate attended the hearing. Commissioner O'Malley reopened the public hearing. Carl Small presented the same information from the 3:30 p.m. hearing. No public comment was received. Commissioner Mauck made the motion to adjourn. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 2010

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 17, 2010 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Kevin O’Malley called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Joan Drury and Tim Mauck, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, County Administrator Tom Breslin, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LAND USE FEE WAIVERS FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DUMONT ROAD AND BRIDGE OFFICES: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 13TH, SEPTEMBER 29TH, AND SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF SILVER PLUME: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND TOWN OF SILVER PLUME FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 6, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING MINUTES: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH MOUNTAIN DESIGN GROUP FOR THE PHILADELPHIA MILLSITE: In attendance were Bookkeeper Diane Wickham, Public Works Division Director Tim Allen, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline, Deputy Appraiser Deb Chapman, and Open Space Commission Coordinator Martha Tableman. Regarding the Philadelphia Millsite, Commissioner Mauck asked if the area had been fenced off. Martha Tableman stated a portion of the property had always been fenced since before they bought it and the Adjacent Property Owner also fenced off his property as well. Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned and reconvened as the Slacker Races Board of Directors to consider the following matter.

SLACKER RACES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING: Chief Financial Officer Deb Chapman presented. In attendance were Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate and Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline. Deb Chapman made the following presentation:  She presented the final operating statement displaying the disbursements to the recipients.  The Slacker Race 2010 was the largest number of participants to date.  This impacted revenues via the purchase of more food, buses, shirts, etc. Commissioner O'Malley cautioned cutting back expenses too much. He suggested reviewing expenses each year to see what reductions could safely be made.  Deb Chapman discussed reducing some of the advertising options. Commissioner O'Malley requested the race continue to advertise with the local papers and suggested writing a guest article about the new beneficiaries.  Deb Chapman stated the race would raise the entry fee by $5 in 2011 to help offset race expenses.  The new beneficiaries for 2011 would be the Mount Evans Hospice, the Clear Creek-Gilpin Animal Shelter in the form of a new line item for spaying/neutering/vaccines for animals, and athletic program fees for any county youth at the Clear Creek Metropolitan Recreation District per a special fund.  Deb Chapman requested the Board authorize the distribution of funds to the three beneficiaries.  The Slacker Races had raised over $250,000 in 9 years.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to distribute the Slacker Race funds to the three charities. Commissioner Mauck seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Slacker Races Board of Directors then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners to consider the following matter.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FROM THE HOLIDAY PROJECT: Holiday Project representatives Sharon Blum and Joni Hargitt presented. Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Kline, Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate, and Victims Advocate Kathryn Johnson attended. Joni Hargitt and Sharon Blum made the following presentation:  The Holiday Project had been in operation providing holiday gifts for needy families for many years now.  They hosted a Santa Shop for parents to come and pick out gifts for their children for the holidays.  This year, the shop would be held at the Georgetown Fire Station.  This year, they were underfunded and with the increase in families, they were requesting the county’s support in the amount of $2000.  A great number of the clients who utilized the Santa Shop were Health & Human Services, Advocates, Senior’s Center, or Food Bank clients.

Mr. Loeffler suggested the Board authorize the Health & Human Services department to fund this and the Board could backfill them later. The Board approved.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACTOR SELECTION FOR PHASE V OF THE COURTHOUSE REMODEL: In attendance were Engineer Craig Abrahamson, and Assistant County Attorney Martin Plate. Craig Abrahamson made the following statements:  Five proposals were received for the Phase V portion of the courthouse remodel.  The proposals were from MR Construction, GH Phipps, FCI, Wheelock Construction, and Hider Construction.  Interviews were conducted with the short list of applicants.  The local firms were qualified.  Craig Abrahamson and County Administrator Tom Breslin recommended MR Construction as they consisted of local subcontractors and had an excellent project team which included SP Construction and Martha Hamilton, an engineering based accountant.  MR Construction agreed to the 3.5 month construction schedule and incentives could be thrown in for an early finish.  Craig Abrahamson and County Administrator Tom Breslin would have project oversight for Phase V.  MR Construction understood the importance of double shifting this project in order to finish on time.

Commissioner Drury made the motion to approve MR Construction as the construction manager/general contractor for the Phase V courthouse remodel project. Commissioner Mauck seconded. During discussion, the Board expressed their pleasure at hiring good local contractors. The motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner O'Malley made the motion to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding roads and the Veterans Service Officer as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); and regarding CRS 24-6-402(4)(a), the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest. Commissioner Drury seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner O'Malley stated no written minutes would be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Kevin O’Malley, Chairman