2003 CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 3, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Jo Ann Sorensen, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 7, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 7, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Jo Ann Sorensen, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GAMING GRANT AWARD FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann attended the hearing. Ms. Krueger stated that this award was for the Clear Creek County Sheriff’s Department to fund personnel, vehicles and other improvements. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the gaming grant award for Clear Creek County Sheriff’s Department. Commissioner Watrous seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR CENTERLINE SURVEY ON SOUTH SPRING GULCH ROAD: Senior Planner Lisa Vogel presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann attended the hearing. Ms. Vogel made the following statements: • This contract was for professional services between Clear Creek County and Clear Creek Surveying to perform a centerline survey on approximately 5 miles of South Spring Gulch Road. • This survey would travel from Hwy 103 to the northern boundary of Section 6. • This centerline survey would provide the County Lands Department with a plat that they could record and call out any easements in the deeds that were granted. • Road and Bridge had called out a 60-ft easement for South Spring Gulch Road. • Mr. Greg Markle of Clear Creek Surveying had confirmed the 5-mile distance and a total of $11,880. He confirmed that this work could be completed in a month weather providing. • This survey would be helpful to have when the County Lands Department started

1 distributing lands in this area. • Additionally, the Clear Creek Fire Authority was looking for a site for a future fire station in this area. • This survey would also assist the GIS department in making their data more accurate.

The group discussed the parcels in this area with regard to a Forest Service exchange of lands for future affordable housing.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract for professional services for a centerline survey of South Spring Gulch Road between Clear Creek County and Clear Creek Surveying and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the document. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners convened as the Board of Health.

CONTINUED BOARD OF HEALTH HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION #02-154, FOR JUSTIN AND KIRSTY KNOBLAUCH, FALL RIVER AREA, TO ALLOW A PROPERTY WITH PROPOSED ISDS VARIANCE ON 56% SLOPE: Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson presented. In attendance were Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, applicant Justin Knoblauch, ISDS engineer Ron Barta, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann. Mr. Etcheson made the following comments: • Mr. Etcheson stated that this was a continued case. • This case was to request an ISDS variance on a slope above the ISDS regulations of 45%.

• This parcel had a slope of 56%. • The draft resolution proposed some additional engineering to address the steeper slope and to reduce the surfacing of effluent leaking downslope. • Additional engineering items included a longer liner of 8-ft, berming and seeding of disturbed areas, and blasting if bedrock was encountered in the 14-ft depth below the open hole pit. A pretreatment plant was also added to the list of additional engineering items. • The draft resolution addressed some of the Board’s concerns. • There had to be a balance between regulating the area with conditions and not creating a hardship for the landowner. • This parcel was zoned for residential and without a drainfield, the parcel could not be developed. • The additional engineering requirements in this resolution acted to protect the safety and welfare of nearby community. • Mr. Etcheson stated that granting this ISDS exception did not result in a substantial impairment of the regulations since the conditions in the resolution went beyond the code to protect the welfare of the community. • Mr. Etcheson’s recommendation was to approve this variance with the implementation of a pretreatment system. He added that these systems reduced the organic waste 80-90% and were very efficient. The wastewater would be treated to 90% before released into the drainfield. • Mr. Etcheson stated that this case could be approved without the pretreatment system but his recommendation was for more protection and safety through the use of the pretreatment system. • Mr. Etcheson addressed Commissioner Poirot’s concern to add repair conditions to the resolution. He stated that repairs could be added and that when drainfields failed, usually they had to be relocated.

Mr. Barta made the following statements: • Mr. Barta stated that based on his research, he could find nothing that stated that pretreatment plants were the last resort on steep slopes. • To add a pretreatment system to this parcel would create a financial hardship for Mr. Knoblauch. To add a pretreatment system arbitrarily was not a good idea. • Mr. Barta asked why the 14-ft below open hole pit depth was required. Additionally, he asked where the technical information existed to support this depth. • These requirements were difficult to meet on this parcel and there were issues of safety.

2 Excavating to this depth of approximately 20-ft caused safety issues like caving in. • Mr. Barta continued that this 14-ft depth below open hole pit was no where in the regulations.

Mr. Etcheson drew a diagram of the different layers of the drainfield for the Board. He explained each layer of the drainfield and the purpose for having them.

Mr. Etcheson explained that this 14-ft depth below the open hold pit had been used in recent cases as additional protection engineering and was approved by the Board. Recent applicants had found bedrock in this 14-ft region. This section, if bedrock was found, needed to be fractured for safety. Mr. Etcheson stated that the applicant had proposed an 8-ft liner in this project.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if other counties had much experience with ISDS exceptions and variances. Mr. Etcheson stated that the counties along the front range may have experience but he had not researched them. Commissioner Poirot stated that he was inclined to approve the resolution without the pretreatment system but with statements if failure occurred. Mr. Etcheson replied that if the system failed, the applicant would have to return to the Board of Health anyway to resolve the situation. County Attorney Bob Loeffler confirmed that this was correct and that if the system failed, Mr. Etcheson would have to issue a Cease and Desist order and the case would come back to the Board of Health.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that since the Board of Health was to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, she requested that an annual maintenance report be submitted to the Environmental Health Department showing that the system was working properly and to prevent future failure. Mr. Etcheson stated that failures can be caused by a variety of conditions, i.e., water, manner of use, etc. Usually the effluent would surface first and this would alert the Environmental Health Department.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Board of Health resolution #02-154, with the addition of condition #7 that the requirement of an annual report showing maintenance to the Environmental Health Department. This would provide for a regular review before it adversely affected the neighbors and residents. Mr. Etcheson stated that this annual testing would entail a measurement of sludge in the tank and the thickness of the layer on top. Septic tank companies could perform this test. Commissioner Sorensen suggested a biannual pumping certificate every two years and this would suffice. Mr. Etcheson agreed. Commissioner Sorensen amended her motion to require this biannual report from the septic pumping company to be submitted to the Environmental Health Department. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-04, AMENDING THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS SECTION ON VARIANCES: Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Zoning Enforcement Officer Staci Writer and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: • This item was to consider the proposal to amend the Section 13 of the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations, which dealt with variances and special exceptions. • In working with the currently adopted Section 13 of the zoning regulations, it became apparent to staff and the Board of Adjustment that there were some omissions, inconsistencies, impractical criteria, and areas that needed clarification. Staff had tried to address all of these issues in the draft presented, and had worked with the Board of Adjustment on these revisions. • In a public hearing on December 18, 2002, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this amendment. • Staff recommended approval of these revisions to Section 13. • In addition to minor corrections and clarifications, staff submitted the following for the Planning Commission consideration: • The requirement for submittal of a written narrative was included for all procedures.

3 • The requirement for a written statement from the County Environmental Health Department Director had been made more consistent throughout the section. • The ‘wetland, floodplain or unstable slope’ standard was deleted at the request of the Board of Adjustment, since this was determined at the building permit stage by the Site Development Inspector. • Section 13.A.5.d.iv was added, defining variance amendments. • The “Request to Rehear a Case” and “Rehearing on the Board’s Own Motion” explanations were moved from the Process section (13.A.7.l and m) to the Variances section (13.A.5.d.ix and x). • Section 13.B.3.c(i) regarding Landmark Signs was further clarified. • Section 13.B.4.d(i) was deleted, since this was stated more fully in 13.B.4.h.

The Board discussed rehearing of cases. Commissioner Sorensen stated that only if the applicant brought new evidence that was not available at the first case, could the case then be reheard. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the Board of Adjustment needed a standard by which to rehear a case. Ms. Writer stated that the rehearing of a case would cost an applicant $250.

The Board discussed refunding of fees for the rehearing of a case when an applicant was denied. Ms. Writer stated that if an applicant wanted a rehearing and was denied and later wanted a refund, they had to appeal to the Board of County Commissioners.

The Board discussed the ‘wetland, steep slope, and floodplain’ section. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that this came up due to an applicant wanting to build in a floodplain and the Board of Adjustment wanted to approve them. There was nothing that said an applicant could not build in a floodplain but they had to meet regulations. Mr. Loeffler agreed stating that it was local regulations and not federal agencies that regulated building in these areas. Commissioner Sorensen stated that she had been criticized as a Board member for allowing the building of a garage in a floodplain. Mr. Loeffler replied that there were certain mitigations in building to prevent blockages or problems in a floodplain. Commissioner Sorensen confirmed that with the Board of Adjustment not considering these issues, the building permit and codes would address the wetland, floodplain and steep slope issues. Mr. Rollenhagen agreed and stated that the Board of Adjustment felt this was better addressed at the building permit stage. This was a balancing act and comprehensively it was better when dealing with setbacks and floodplains. Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern about removing these items from consideration by the Board of Adjustment. She added that it could be viewed as a step backward.

Commissioner Sorensen asked about rehearing a case when the Board of Adjustment felt they were the victims of fraud. Mr. Loeffler stated that this section was added in order for the Board of Adjustment to rehear a case and vacate an approval if they had been lied to or misrepresented. When this situation occurred, the Board of Adjustment would use current law.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if a Deed of Trust was decent evidence of ownership. Mr. Loeffler replied that a Deed of Trust was indirect proof of ownership. A person could give a deed but there could be subsequent owners with the current deed and a hearing Board may not know it. Title insurance was the only thing that showed true ownership. He did not think the County should accept a deed of trust as proof of ownership.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-04, amending Section 13 of the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Mr. Loeffler asked if this motion addressed the issues of floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes. Commissioner Sorensen asked if leaving this section in the regulations and not taking it out as proposed in this draft was a substantial change requiring return of the case to the Planning Commission. Mr. Loeffler replied that this was a substantial change. If the applicant was in a floodplain, the Board of Adjustment could not consider the case at all. From a zoning perspective and setbacks, he suggested that this issue be addressed somewhere else. The building permit stage could determine if engineering could be done to mitigate. Mr. Rollenhagen agreed. Commissioner Watrous stated that this was not being eliminated, only moved to another stage. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that even if one were not allowed to build in a floodplain, the County would still have to address the building, which has already occurred here. Mr. Rollenhagen suggested a working session just to discuss building in floodplains as a whole.

4 Commissioner Sorensen agreed. Ms. Writer stated that the Board of Adjustment did not feel they had enough guidance to make decisions on wetlands, floodplains, and steep slopes. It was always an indecisive area. The motion was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-14, APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND RESOLUTION #03-15, APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COUNTY HOLIDAY SCHEDULE FOR 2003 AND RESOLUTION #03-10, COMMISSIONERS’ MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2003; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND OTHER APPOINTMENTS; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-09, AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITORIES FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY 2003; OPENING OF SEALED BIDS AND APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL NEWSPAPER FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY 2003; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-12, APPROVING THE 2003 BUDGET FOR THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-22, GRANTING TEMPORARY AUTHORITY TO APPROVE CERTAIN LAND USE APPLICATIONS: In attendance were Clear Creek Courant owner Craig McMulllin, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Human Resources Director Gail Buckley, and Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen.

Regarding the appointments to the Board of Adjustment, County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this should be an appointment to the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Review as the members sat as both boards. Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve Resolution #03-15, appointment of the following members to the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Review: Larry Knaff and Gilbert Schoonveld as Full members and Gary Burns as an Associate member. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding Resolution #03-14, appointments to the Planning Commission, Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve this resolution and the following members: Mark Levin, Lynn Miller, and Gail Gilszmer as Full members and Mike Stewart as an Associate member. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding Resolution #03-10 and the County holiday schedule, Ms. Buckley stated that the employees wanted to re-approach the Board to consider a floating holiday for the day after Christmas to allow for a four-day weekend. This had been requested in the past and the Board had put a decision on hold. Additionally, the employees used to receive more holidays per year than currently. In lieu of moving and observing holidays on different days and to improve employee morale, the employees and the PRB requested to have this additional day for the day after Christmas. Commissioner Sorensen asked if the group had considered the impact to the budget of closing on this additional day. She continued that the estimate from the Chief Accountant was a $22,000-$24,000 impact per day. Mr. Black of the PRB stated that since the Board did not want to move holidays from the federally observed dates, this floating holiday would allow the County to maintain the holiday dates and have the four-day weekend at Christmas. Ms. Settle of the PRB stated that there used to be two-President day holidays, Colorado Day, and Election Day. Commissioner Poirot stated that the day after Christmas would most likely not be a busy day anyway. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the current 2003 holiday schedule and allow for an extra day after Christmas providing for a four-day weekend. Commissioner Watrous seconded. Commissioner Watrous and Commissioner Poirot approved and Commissioner Sorensen voted no.

Regarding Resolution #03-26 and appointment and acknowledgment of certain County positions, Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve this resolution. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding Resolution #03-09 and amendment to the designation of depositories for Clear Creek County, Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve this resolution. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

5 Regarding Resolution #03-10 and the Commissioner’s meeting schedule, Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve this resolution. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Watrous made the motion to approve Commissioner Sorensen as the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and Commissioner Poirot as the Vice Chair for the year 2003. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the opening of sealed bids for the legal newspaper for 2003, Clear Creek Publishing LLC submitted the following bid for Clear Creek County in the Clear Creek Courant for 2003. The Courant had continuously published for 30 years and serving residents and property owners living in and out of state locations. The paper was published every Wednesday and met all requirements per the CRS to qualify as the legal newspaper. The bid included paid subscription totals by zip codes and the same rates for advertising legals as the prior year. The County would receive a 30% discount on all non-publicly supported advertising and all digital ready media would be discounted 10%.

Mr. Loeffler asked if the Courant was meeting the statutes in the maximum amount they could charge for legal ads. Mr. McMullin replied that they were and presented a chart showing the legal sizes and forms allowable. Mr. Loeffler reviewed the chart. Commissioner Poirot stated that the Treasurer’s department had complained they were charged too high of a rate as compared to other counties. Mr. McMullin replied that the Treasurer did not have the correct rates for her comparison and she was not accounting for the discounts. Comparatively, the Courant was comparable to papers in Gilpin and Jefferson County. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Clear Creek Courant as the legal newspaper for Clear Creek County for 2003. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding Resolution #03-12 and approving the 2003 budget for the District Attorney, Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve this resolution. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding Resolution #03-22 and the temporary authority to approve land use applications, Mr. Loeffler stated that there were certain administrative processes and subdivision regulations that provide for an approval by the Planning Department. Either administrative resolution or the signing of a plat signified this approval. With no Planning Director at this time, a Planning staff member would have to be authorized to fulfill these processes. Based on discussions with the Board of County Commissioners, it was determined to appoint Ruth Kastens to do this. In the case that Ms. Kastens was too busy, Service Unit Manager of Land Use Deb Kirkham would oversee approvals. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-22. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-06, TDR CASE #02-TDR-05, TO TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FROM A M-1 ZONED MINING CLAIM TO A M-2 ZONED PROPERTY, FALL RIVER AREA, TIM WHEELER; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WAIVER OF TDR CASE FEES FOR TIM WHEELER: Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann, and Planning Commission member Donna Moody attended. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that Mr. Wheeler was requesting a continuance of this public hearing to the following week due to out of state medical reasons. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that it was the Board’s discretion as to whether continue. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to January 14, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-07, PLAT AMENDMENT CASE #02-PA-03, TO AMEND THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ON LOT E, PINE VALLEY ESTATES, KIRBY LLOYD: Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann, applicant Joren Peterson, and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: • Kirby Lloyd was no longer the owner of the property. The owner was now Joren Peterson.

6 • This case was to request a plat amendment to revise the boundaries of a building envelope for Lot E for the location of an outbuilding. • The property was located at 27705 CO Hwy 103 just south of the intersection of CO Hwy 103 and the west outlet of Old Squaw Pass Road. • The Board of County Commissioners approved Pine Valley Ranch Estates as a Subdivision Exemption in 1981. Lot E was platted as 12.5 acres. Lots E and F access their residences from a common access drive that intersects with CO Hwy 103 on Lot E. • Additionally, Lot E was approved with two separate building envelopes to permit more flexibility as to where the residence and accessory uses could go on the property. As of now, only one of the building envelopes had been utilized. • The applicant was requesting that the building envelope be expanded to the northwest in order to accommodate an existing barn, or accessory building, that was built in 1999. Staff found records in the Building Department indicating that the then property owner applied and was issued a building permit for the accessory building. The building permit indicated approval from the Planning Department; that all planning and zoning regulations had been complied with. In reality, they had not been complied with. The barn, as shown on the site plan, was located just to the north of the building envelope. • A survey was done that revealed the entire barn outside the envelope so the request was to revise the envelope for this. • In the past, this had been an administrative process but the County Attorney had corrected this to be a process before the Board of County Commissioners. An amendment to a subdivision must have Board approval. • Essentially, the amendment would swap land to correct the building envelopes. Instead of making the building envelope smaller, they were moving it around. • Adjacent Property Owners had no comment. • The Evergreen Fire Protection District had no comment. • The Natural Resources Conservation Service requested that silt fencing put up when excavation was being conducted on the site in order to prevent soil erosion. Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel agreed that a condition be added requiring silt fences on downhill slopes during excavation. • The proposed building site was measured on a 30-40% slope. • Mr. Rollenhagen confirmed that there would be no visual impact to Adjacent Property Owners.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #03-07, Plat Amendment Case #02-PA-03 for Lot E in Pine Valley Ranch Estates. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF IMMUNIZATION SERVICE DELIVERY CONTRACT FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta submitted a summary of the contract stating the following: • The contract was based on the number of births per year. • The contract decreased by $374 from last year. • The funds were sent monthly to the Nursing Department. • The funds were used to supplement the Nursing Contract for services related to immunizations.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Immunization Service Delivery Contract for the Nursing Department. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then convened as the Board of Social Services.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF THE CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL: Service Unit Manager of Human Services Cindy Dicken presented. Ms. Dicken made the following statements: • In 1997, the CRS required that the Board of Social Services to appoint people that would fill a dispute resolution or a citizen review panel. • The Board had originally appointed Don Welton, Laurie Beckel, and Dana Levad. • The panel has not had to convene since 1997.

7 • This panel would convene if a citizen had an issue with a caseworker. • Ms. Dicken asked that the Board appoint Don Welton, Laurie Beckel and Jason Dewar as the new Citizen Review Panel. • Mr. Dewar had been heading up the Restorative Justice group in Clear Creek County. • These members, if approved, would be submitted to the State as the Clear Creek County Citizen Review Panel. • As County Attorney Bob Loeffler asked if a resolution was needed, Ms. Dicken agreed to bring one forth to the Board of Social Services if one was required.

Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve the Citizen Review Panel members of Laurie Beckel, Don Welton, and Jason Dewar for 2003. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board then reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-24, IN APPRECIATION OF PLANNING DIRECTOR CAROL WISE FOR OVER 9 YEARS OF MERITORIOUS SERVICE TO CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann and Commissioner-Elect Harry Dale attended the hearing. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-24. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Fabyan Watrous called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Jo Ann Sorensen, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Watrous made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following issues: • the Henderson Mine Reclamation Permit; • the Zoning Enforcement cases; • the Guanella Pass Intergovernmental Agreement; • the Tech Center land dedication; • the Wohlborg vs. Clear Creek County case; • the Personnel Review Board; • the HDPLC and Clear Creek County Ordinance #4; • the disposition of land with regard to St. Mary’s Lot 787, Unit 5; • rafting regulations; • the Central City Planning and Highway Access Agreement; • and wrestling; as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Watrous stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______

8 Deputy Clerk & Recorder Fabyan Watrous, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 9, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 14, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 14, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

The Board of County Commissioners convened as the Emergency Services District Board.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD MEETING: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT RESOLUTION #03-01, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRANSFER OF THE AMBULANCE DEPARTMENT FROM THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO THE COUNTY: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that upon learning that the Ambulance Department was formed as a part of the County, research did not confirm if this department had ever been transferred to the Emergency Services District. Due to the confusion this created, Mr. Loeffler recommended that a formal Emergency Services District resolution be prepared to transfer the Ambulance Department back to the County. Likewise, a Board of County Commissioners resolution was prepared to recognize this act as well. In case this transfer had occurred in the past, these resolutions would ratify that act. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Emergency Services District Resolution #03-01, to acknowledge the transfer of the Ambulance Department from the Clear Creek County Emergency Services General Improvement District to the County. Commissioner Dale seconded and the vote passed unanimously.

Mr. Abrahamson presented the following other information: < Mr. Abrahamson asked about the status of the Tech Park land dedication. This affected the Ambulance Department planning process in regards to a need for a facility in this area. The Clear Creek Fire Authority also had a desire for a facility in this area. The Clear Creek Fire Authority Fire Chief Kelly Babeon and the Evergreen Fire Protection District Chief Tom Hayden were to have a meeting to discuss this. Commissioner Dale stated that the Saddleback area was petitioning to join the Evergreen Fire Protection District. Commissioner Poirot stated that if Evergreen Fire Protection District took Saddleback, they would also have to take the section north of I-70 along Hwy 40.

9 < Mr. Abrahamson stated that the idea of Evergreen Fire Protection District taking over this area was more than a facility issue. It was also a revenue issue for the Ambulance Department. The department would be losing a section of the tax base which supported them. If the people in the Saddleback area chose to be with Evergreen Fire Protection District, Clear Creek County may not have an ability to stop it. The County could submit a formal opinion and discourage it. Commissioner Poirot agreed and stated that at a meeting with Evergreen Fire Protection District, the district had stated they did not want the Saddleback area. < Mr. Abrahamson stated that if it did come to a petition, that the County should issue a formal opinion to the Saddleback residents so they could make an informed decision. Commissioner Dale stated that Saddleback may be persuaded not to petition if a station could be obtained on Floyd Hill. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that research would have to be done on this subject to see if the County could allow certain areas to opt out and join another district. Ordinarily, districts cannot overlap each other. This would be discussed in Executive Session. The County position at this time was that this land was dedicated for emergency services. Further discussions would be held in executive session. < Commissioner Poirot suggested meeting with Evergreen Fire Protection District and sharing the County’s ideas on not wanting Saddleback to join Evergreen Fire Protection District and the revenue impacts to the Ambulance Department. Mr. Abrahamson stated that this petition to join the Evergreen Fire Protection District by Saddleback would also impact the financially the Clear Creek Fire Authority too. Mr. Loeffler stated that he was unsure if certain areas moving from one district to another would impact the dedication of the property. Commissioner Dale stated that the people in Saddleback were looking for whichever option helped them out the most. The County should meet with Evergreen Fire Protection District and determine what could be done.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler discussed his research of the Ambulance Association. This group was similar to an employee organization. This organization was recognized by resolution and by the Emergency Services District. Contributions were still made to the Ambulance Association but Mr. Loeffler was unsure if the County wanted to continue to recognize it. Mr. Abrahamson stated that this organization assisted with volunteer pension issues. This organization had more visibility when it had a Board of Directors however, when the Ambulance Department became a department of the County, it made this Board of directors moot. The contributions were still received as donations from the High School Half Marathon and the Rodeo for ambulance standbys. There was no function to this group and Karen Clark was still the acting treasurer. Mr. Abrahamson stated that maybe this association should be kept for employee activities. Mr. Loeffler stated that there could be issues with whether it was a legally recognized association and whether it was nonprofit. Mr. Loeffler stated that this group could possibly be dissolved slowly and letting Ms. Clark out so she had no commitment. This could be done through a resolution. Mr. Abrahamson agreed to contact Ms. Clark and then contact Mr. Loeffler.

The Board of Emergency Services District then reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-28, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRANSFER OF THE AMBULANCE DEPARTMENT FROM THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO THE COUNTY: County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this resolution matched the prior Emergency Services District resolution. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-28. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern for severing the relationship of the ambulance to the Emergency Services District and what happened if the Clear Creek Fire Authority did not become a Title 32 district. If the Ambulance Department needed supplemental funding, wouldn’t that funding be provided by the Emergency Services District. Mr. Loeffler replied that it would have to go to the voters as the Emergency Services District had used all its funds. Didn’t all funding coming into the Emergency Services District go directly to the Clear Creek Fire Authority? What would happen if the Ambulance Department needed funding? Mr. Loeffler replied that if the Emergency Services District chose not to fund the Clear Creek Fire Authority due to their Title 32 status, it could then assist the Ambulance Department. Even thought the Ambulance was made an

10 Enterprise Fund, it could still receive support from the Emergency Services District. The Board asked if it were better or worse to separate fire and ambulance from the Emergency Services District. Mr. Abrahamson stated that there were pros and cons to keeping both in the Emergency Services District and pros and cons to taking them out as seen in the differences between Clear Creek County’s Emergency Services District and the Evergreen Fire Protection District. The Emergency Services District Master Plan allowed for the ambulance service to be drawn back into it if needed. This would be a point of discussion each year. Mr. Loeffler confirmed that by taking action on these two resolutions today was not precluding any options for the future operation of the Ambulance Department. The motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH JEFFERSON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: Sheriff Don Krueger presented. Mr. Krueger stated that this contract was for a purchase of services from Jefferson Center for Mental Health for mental health services for detainees in the County jail. This contract would also bill the U.S. Marshal’s office for their individual clients which reduced paperwork for the Sheriff’s Department. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen asked if this contract did assist in management of prisoners in the County jail. Mr. Krueger replied that there had not been any problems. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-25, IN RECOGNITION OF MERITORIOUS SERVICE PERFORMED BY COMMISSIONER FABYAN WATROUS: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-25. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-29, TO RESCIND RESOLUTION #85-46: County Attorney Bob Loeffler presented. Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen attended. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended. Mr. Loeffler stated that this was an old resolution to appoint County officials. The County followed a new format of appointing officials and the former resolution needed to be rescinded. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-29. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Mr. Rollenhagen asked if there was a new appointment resolution. Mr. Loeffler replied that there was nothing to replace as some of the former appointments were not required by statute. For example, the Planning Director and the Assistant to the Board of County Commissioners were members of staff and not appointments. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SEARCH AND RESCUE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK SKIING CORP. AND THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: Sheriff Don Krueger presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Mr. Krueger stated that this agreement demonstrated how Loveland employees, if asked to assist the Sheriff in a search and rescue mission outside of the Loveland Ski Area boundaries, would be covered under workmen’s compensation. Mr. Loeffler had confirmed this agreement with CTSI and the cost would be $300 per person per year for anyone that participated in the search and rescue. Mr. Loeffler had discussed this agreement with Ken Abrahamson of Loveland Ski Area and they agreed to keep the use of Loveland employees to a minimum. The agreement was a one time pay per person at the end of the year.

Commissioner Poirot expressed concern regarding this agreement and past litigation with the Henderson Mine in a similar situation. He asked if this agreement was really protecting Loveland. Mr. Loeffler replied that this was the same situation as Henderson Mine and if someone wanted to sue Loveland, they could. This agreement merely regulated the arrangement between Clear Creek County and Loveland Ski Area. This agreement stated that when Loveland was sued, the County would cover it. The circumstances here were that when the Loveland employees came on the search and rescue team, they were considered volunteers and not employees of Loveland. CTSI stated that if these employees assisted in the search and rescue team, they had to be properly trained and would be under the responsibility of the Sheriff. The Sheriff would be insistent on supervision. The cost was $300 per person once a year. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the search and rescue agreement with Loveland Ski Area. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

11 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-01, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #02-EX-09, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LANDS IN SECTION 36, T3SR73W; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-02, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #02-EX-10, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LANDS IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-03, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #02-EX-11, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LANDS IN SECTION 6, T4SR73W; OPENING OF SEALED BIDS FOR TWO COUNTY LAND PARCELS IN SECTION 6, T4SR73W; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SIGNING OF DEED RESTRICTION BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND JAN AND SUE HOWELL: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Planner I Sarah Kaminski and Jan and Sue Howell attended the hearing. Regarding Resolution #03-01, Mr. Smith stated that this exemption would divide privately owned land parcel #1835-36-4-00--25, otherwise known as a portion of the Doherty Placer combined with former County land #1835-36-4-00-956 a 15.87 acre tract of land into a .88 acre parcel and a 14.99 acre parcel. To satisfy the terms and conditions of a contract between Clear Creek County, Robert and Sandra Durcholz, and Jan and Sue Howell. Approval of this division will specifically satisfy that condition in the contract where by the County will bear the burden of processing this division on behalf of the Durcholz party. However, the Board was not contractually bound to approve the division of land. The larger parcel would stay with the Durcholz party and the smaller parcel would be conveyed to the Howells. The land, as it was now, had a split zoning and would not create any further buildable lots. Due to the contract, this property being transferred to Howells would carry a deed restriction that would show future buyers that this was one parcel and the zoning shall remain as that of M-2 and have the uses of M-2. This division was subject to the recording of the deed restriction and the combination of this smaller lot to the Howell’s other lot in Montane Park. These two parcels would have to be treated as one unified parcel. This was a unique combination as one lot was in City of Idaho Springs and the other was not. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-01, Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-01, to divide County lands in Section 36, T3SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding Resolution #03-02, Mr. Smith stated that this exemption would divide County lands parcel #1961-05-4-00-963, a .5 acre tract into a .24 acre tract and a .26 acre tract. These new parcels would be combined with contiguous lands and would create no additional building lots. One parcel would be combined with the Billie & St. Paul lodes and one would be combined with the Howard lode. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-02, Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-10, to divide County land in Section 5, T4SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding Resolution #03-03, Mr. Smith stated that this exemption would divide County land parcel #1961-06-3-00-980, a 31.26 acre parcel of County land into a 29.17 acre tract, a 2.07 acre tract, and a .02 acre tract. The parcel had split zoning at present and the larger parcel was unzoned. The two smaller parcels were zoned M-2 . Contiguous owners would buy the smaller parcels and the larger parcel would remain in the County inventory until it was zoned. The overlaying mining claims were claims that the County owned and were abandoned. Mr. Smith stated that he had landowners interested in the larger parcel. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-03, Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-11, to divide County land in Section 6, T4SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the opening of sealed bids, Ms. Kaminski presented two parcels for sealed bidding: #1961-06-1-00-954 and parcel #1961-06-2-00-965. Commissioner Sorensen opened the sealed bids. For parcel #1961-06-1-00-954, one bid was received from the Buda group for $3300. The second bid for this parcel was received from Breaker Investments for $11,157. The minimum bid was $1944.00. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Breaker Investments bid. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding parcel #1961-06-2-00-965, no bids were received.

Regarding the deed restriction, Mr. Smith presented. Now that the division of land was approved under Resolution #03-01, the deed restriction needed to be approved. On November 19, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved the contract between the Howells and

12 the Durcholz’s to sell the land and submit the deed restriction. The Board of County Commissioners must approve the deed restriction and authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign the document. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the deed restriction for the Howell portion of the parcel. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EVACUATION PLAN FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY OFFICES, GEORGETOWN: Administrative Intern Tim Mauck presented. Employees Joan Drury and Diane Settle attended the hearing. Mr. Mauck made the following comments: < This evacuation plan was to include the District Attorney offices along with the County building in Georgetown. < This was the evacuation plan in the case of an emergency, i.e., fires, bomb threats, etc. < The general idea was to take the shortest route to safety. < The plan demonstrated evacuation routes for each office. < Each level of the building had a floor warden that certain employees had to report to when they evacuated the building. < Each individual office would know who was absent that day. < The public would have to be escorted out with the employees. < This plan would exclude the Sheriff’s office as they had their own plan and detainees to deal with. < The bomb threat information came from the Jefferson County offices. < There was still concern for the Mapping Department and their escape route. < The solution would be expensive for this area. < The Sheriff’s department had been consulted with regard to this area as they could tell where in the building fire alarms were going off.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Evacuation Plan for the Clear Creek County offices in Georgetown. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PHASE II PARSONS ENGINEERING CONTRACT FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE GAMING PROJECT: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following presentation: • Mr. Allen had been trying to catch up on this contract since he assumed his position. • This contract was part of a combined effort of Project Impact funds and Gaming Impact funds. • This contract had three phases and Mr. Allen had not budgeted for all portions of this grant. • This year Mr. Allen had budgeted for engineering and this could be moved over to this Parsons contract if needed. • Mr. Small stated that he could match engineering funds out of the grant with other grant funds. • With the Special Projects Fund, there was funding that had not been utilized and this could be used for this project however it would remove funding used for matching in future grants. • Mr. Small stated that the funds were received from Gaming and Project Impact so this project needed to be completed. • Mr. Small stated that if he transferred in additional direct gaming funds, the County could do a supplemental appropriation and finish the project. • Mr. Allen stated that the amount for the phase II of the Parsons project was approximately $55,000. Phase III would be the construction phase. • Some of the culverts to be replaced on this project had already been done by Road and Bridge. • Mr. Allen had $38,000 of the $55,000 and Mr. Small stated that he could assist with the difference.

Commissioner Dale asked if Mr. Allen would be able to replenish the fund in the coming year. Mr. Allen stated that by using these funds, he would be delaying the Mill Creek project by a

13 year. Commissioner Sorensen asked where the funding would come from to pay for the Phase III portion of the Parson’s contract which totaled $22,500. Mr. Allen stated that this would have to be budgeted in the coming year. He added that the construction would be built in and the cash match would come from the County. For phase III, the County would pay the match and the grant would pay for the construction. Commissioner Sorensen agreed that this funding needed to be allocated to finishing the Parson’s contract as the grant required. Mr. Allen stated that they were behind on the time stipulated in the grant and they needed to finish. Mr. Small stated that the County was also delayed due to Parson’s not being finished with their portion. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Phase II of the Parson’s Engineering Science contract for the Virginia Canyon project. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-06, TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CASE #03-TDR-05, TO TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FROM A M-1 ZONED MINING CLAIM TO A M-2 ZONED PROPERTY, FALL RIVER AREA, TIM WHEELER; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CASE FEES FOR TIM WHEELER: Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Applicant Tim Wheeler, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman, Planner II Holland Smith, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, and Planning Commission Chairman Steve Schultz attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following statements: < This was a continued hearing at the applicants request. < Mr. Rollenhagen submitted a letter from Clear Creek Surveying Surveyor Greg Markle stating that a driveway of less than 10% grade was achievable. < Mr. Rollenhagen submitted a letter from the Forest Service stating that they were in favor of keeping development rights from remote areas. < Mr. Rollenhagen presented a letter from Assessor’s office representative Debbie Zarlengo explaining the valuation process of mining claims. < He submitted photos of the sending sites. < Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the request was to transfer development rights from two M-1 claims to one M-2 parcel in order to use the M-2 parcel for residential purposes as permitted in the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations for residential zoning districts. The transfer would result in only one single-family residential development right for the Receiving Site. < The sending sites were accessed by foot from the end of Wild Wagoner Trail, located in the Fall River watershed. < The receiving site was located on the east side of Fall River Road approximately two miles up from I-70. < The sending sites could be accessed from Wild Wagoner Trail or North Spring Gulch Road. < The sending sites were proposed to be rezoned to M-2 and the receiving site was proposed to be MR-5. < Both sites were vacant at this time. < Regarding surrounding properties and uses and the sending sites, there was a residence located at the end of Wild Wagoner Trail on the Dickerson Lode. The sending sites were adjacent to the Dickerson Lode, located on the opposite side of the mining claim from where Wild Wagoner Trail was located. Aside from the residence on the Dickerson, there were a few other residences being built on other mining claims in the general vicinity, however, most mining claims were vacant. < Regarding surrounding properties and uses and the receiving site, the Fall River Subdivision was established in 1970 by subdividing the Fall River Placer and a few other mining claims in the area into 37 lots. The majority of these lots were approximately one acre in size with 5 or 6 lots ranging from 3-8 acres in size. Around this subdivision were numerous mining claims interspersed among former BLM land. Some of it had already been transferred into private ownership, and some of it was still owned by the County. According to the Assessor’s office, there were 32 residences currently located in the Fall River Subdivision. < Included in the staff report were referral responses, review considerations for sending and receiving sites and photos. < Other discussion items included mining suitability as opposed to residential. The

14 receiving site was currently zoned M-2. IT was zoned this designation during the township zoning on this township. According to the Colorado Geological Survey, this area was an area of moderate potential for mineral deposits of the Idaho Springs -Central City type. James Cappa, Chief of the Mineral and Mineral Fuels & Geological Mapping Section of the Colorado Geological Society, during the township zoning, suggested that the County zone this particular region for the highest protection of mineral deposits (zone it M-2). According to the County’s zoning maps, the area east of Fall River Road and north of I-70 was zoned M-2, whereas the property west of Fall River Road and north of I-70 was zoned either NR-PC or Buffer, or for residential development, regardless of mineral potential. It appeared that this property, along with the other public lands east of Fall River Road, were zoned M-2 in order to preserve future mineral potential for the area. If the County approved this Transfer of Development Right case this property would be the first property, initially zoned M-2 during the township zoning process, on the east side of the Fall River Road, that would be rezoned for residential development. < Accessability was usually a good indicator to use in order to gauge whether a site could be threatened by development or not. Mining claims with virtually no accessability probably were not threatened by development nearly as much as those mining claims with fair accessability. And of course, if a site had excellent access such as those along a paved or some sort of County maintained road, Staff felt that the site should probably keep its development right because of that. In this case, the area of the sending sites can be accessed from Wild Wagoner Trail and/or North Spring Gulch Road. This was evident, especially when one considered the number of existing residences, and the number of residences currently under construction along these two roads. Obviously these roads, were somewhat accessible due to existing development. < The Planning Commission was unable to provide the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for this application. They held a public hearing on November 20th to hear this case and a motion was made to recommend approval of this request to the Board of County Commissioners, and to modify the draft Resolution for approval to add a condition that the applicant obtain ownership of both sending sites as well as receiving site. The motion was lost due to a tie vote. Another motion was never proposed. < Considering surrounding land uses and the status of mining activities on the receiving site, the current suitability of the sending sites, development threat in the area of the sending sites and how this application was in conformance with the Review Considerations, Staff was recommending approval of this case as long as the conditions of approval were included.

Mr. Wheeler made the following comments: < He submitted a copy of a letter to the editor of the Clear Creek Courant. < This letter was his opinion of the Planning Commission tie vote. < He wanted to remind the Board that his receiving site was surrounded by residential development. < He had always been willing to give up any minerals if any were found on his property and he would not deny access on either side of his property. < He added that in his first application the M-2 claim was zoned this way by the original property owner.

Commissioner Dale asked why there were two sending sites. Mr. Rollenhagen replied that two sites were not required but that the process stated that more than one site to be suitable was at the discretion of the staff, applicant or the Planning Commission. Commissioner Poirot stated that this applicant brought two sending sites as a persuasion to the Board.

Commissioner Poirot asked about the receiving site and the driveway. Mr. Vogel reiterated that the surveyor had reported that a driveway could be done at less than 10% grade and without a switchback.

Regarding the Todd Consulting Service report stating that there was no evidence that mining had occurred on this parcel and that the wasterock was not hazardous, someone wanted to rezone to mine. Was the owner convinced that there was no mineral potential here? Mr. Rollenhagen stated that, yes, the MR-5 zoning had a minimum lot size so it could not be subdivided. The

15 applicant did not want to subdivide in the future.

Commissioner Dale asked how long the deed restriction of the new M-2 zoning would be on the sending sites. Mr. Loeffler replied that this was perpetual.

Mr. Schultz made the following comments: < Mr. Schultz was speaking as a citizen and not for the Planning Commission. < Mr. Wheeler had sent several letters to the newspaper discussing the Planning Commission actions. < Mr. Wheeler claimed he was treated badly. < Regardless of how Mr. Wheeler met the review considerations of this case, the County was not obligated to approve the case. < Despite this information, Mr. Wheeler claimed the Planning Commission was arbitrary and should not have decided the way they did. < There were many educated people on the Planning Commission with many years in the County. Each of these members were volunteers and were concerned about the future of the County. < This case had been to the Planning Commission three times and was not seen favorably. < The TDR process was still new in the County and evolving. Each case was judged on its own merits and the first qualification was to be in the public’s best interest. < Mr. Schultz did not see the Transfer of Development Right process to be used for personal gain.

Commissioner Dale agreed that the Transfer of Development Right process was evolving and that after the Master Plan process it would be easier to determine sending and receiving sites. He continued that Mr. Wheeler was in the middle of all this and it wasn’t fair to hold him up while the County refined the process. Commissioner Poirot agreed stating that it would take time and difficulty to determine sending and receiving sites. Commissioner Poirot added that the sending sites did have poor access but it wasn’t impossible. Mr. Vogel stated that he and Mr. Rollenhagen had performed site visits to the sending sites and found claim corners and there was a consideration that the sending sites did not have access.

Ms. Moody made the following comments: < Ms. Moody stated that there was a home next to the sending sites. < This indicated that the sending sites were not remote. < This was an area where the County was selling former BLM lands. < Ms. Moody was confused as to how these sending sites were remote. Mr. Rollenhagen replied that it took putting chains on the County vehicles to access these parcels and it could not be denied that the access was difficult. Commissioner Dale stated that the Clear Creek Fire Authority would agree. Commissioner Poirot stated that the building sites for sale by the County in this area were south facing. These sending sites were north facing.

Commissioner Sorensen closed public comment.

Mr. Wheeler stated that he didn’t expect Mr. Schultz to attend this hearing. Mr. Wheeler thought that hearing from a pro-vote person in the Planning Commission would be appropriate at this hearing.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that based on her familiarity of the area, anyone that had preserved their building right and paid taxes, thought they could develop their access for residential uses. Commissioner Dale stated that the process did appear suitable for this area. Commissioner Poirot stated that this case did fit the criteria for Transfer of Development Right cases. Even if Mr. Wheeler had only one sending site it would appear appropriate to Commissioner Poirot. Now, with two sending sites, Commissioner Poirot felt stronger on his decision. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-06, Transfer of Development Right case #02-TDR-05, to transfer development rights from two M-1 claims to a M-2 parcel. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen stated that the resolution indicated a MR-5 zoning for the receiving site. Commissioner Sorensen admitted that she was a commissioner when this parcel was initially zoned M-2 due to its mining

16 characteristics. She expressed that it was difficult to rezone this parcel knowing the Board had deliberately zoned it M-2 initially. Given the Todd Consulting report, and that the new zoning gave no right to mine, and that the property owner knew the rights he was surrendering, she agreed that the transfer was suitable. The vote was unanimous.

In consideration of the waiver of fees, Commissioner Sorensen said that Mr. Schultz claimed that Mr. Wheeler was before the Planning Commission three times. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that Mr. Wheeler brought forth two cases. The first case had a decision the first night. The second case was heard by the Planning Commission and continued to the next meeting. The fee of $1330 was paid twice, once for each case brought forth. Mr. Wheeler felt there was a great deal of duplication in the cases and that he should be entitled to some refund. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that on the second case he still had to research the two sending sites, instead of one, and determine site characteristics. He added that he spent the same amount of time on the second application as the first. Mr. Vogel stated that as a member of the public, Mr. Wheeler acquired his receiving site for a minimal price since the property was sold as an M-2 and not an M-1. As a member of the public, he did not agree with the waiver. Ms. Moody stated that all the hearings required staff reports and mailouts to all Planning Commission members. The Planning Commission covered all this material three times and she did not agree with the waiver. Commissioner Poirot motioned to deny the waiver of the Transfer of Development Right case fees. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COUNTY VEHICLE USE FOR ON CALL SUPERVISORS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following statements: < This was discussed last year with the Board of County Commissioners to allow supervisors to drive home County vehicles for their on call work. < The Road and Bridge Department was still operating this same way and still doing on call procedures and uses. < This was approved for the Road and Bridge supervisors last year with a stipulation that it be reviewed and approved annually. < Mr. Allen requested to continue this policy as it saved time when assessing complaints and emergencies faster. < This was a year round issue with snow in winter and water and rock damage in the summer.

Mr. Small stated that this use was legitimate but whether it was taxable compensation was another issue. The vehicles used must not be used for personal use. Mr. Allen stated that all supervisors lived in the County and included the east and west end supervisors, and two Equipment III operators to cover when supervisors were on vacation. These vehicles did not leave the County. Mr. Small stated that any employee wanting to use the vehicles for personal use should do so only with Board of County Commissioners permission. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the use of County vehicles for on call Road and Bridge Supervisors. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen updated the list of personal contact numbers for the Board of County Commissioners members. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GAMING GRANT AWARD FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT’S VIRGINIA CANYON PROJECT: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Mr. Allen stated that this was a grant approved by Department of Local Affairs for three culverts in the main channel at Virginia Canyon. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the gaming grant award for the Road and Bridge Department’s Virginia Canyon project. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Mr. Allen stated that this work would be finished by the Fall. A garage affected one of the culverts. This garage was approved in a former Board of County Commissioners hearing. This situation would have to be dealt with when these culverts were installed. Mr. Allen thought that a solution could be worked out to install the culvert. Mr. Allen would meet with the design engineer to look at the garage. He added that the County had the right to make sure the channel drained properly with or without the garage. The vote was unanimous.

17 The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 16, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following issues: • obligations with regard to utility locates; • the Golden Egg vs. Clear Creek County case; • the Clear Creek High School Sanitation plan; • the Henderson Mine Reclamation Permit; • the Wahlborg vs. Clear Creek County case; • and the Central City Southern Access Road Agreement; as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a)(b) & (e). Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 21, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 21, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

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

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

18 Commissioner Dale left the hearings at this time for another meeting.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-23, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE #02-TSUP-14, FOR JACQUELINE GILBERE, BARBOUR FORKS, TO USE RV AND SHED DURING PRIMARY RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTION: Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Zoning Enforcement Official Staci Writer, Adjacent Property Owner Melanie McCabe, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman and applicant John Horlick attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen presented the following information: • The applicants on this case were Jacqueline Gilbere and John Horlick. • The legal description was the Standard and the Standard #2 Lodes located in Section 10, T4SR73W, approximately .3 miles off Soda Creek Road. • The current zoning was M-1 and the total acreage was 9.5 acres for both mining claims. • The request was to use a 32-ft fifth-wheel travel trailer and a 10' X 12' storage shed on the Standard Lode prior to construction of residence. • The requested term was three years, if in full compliance with stipulations and conditions of the Special Use Permit. • Legal Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on December 26, 2002 and • Adjacent Property Owners were notified on December 30, 2002. • Agency responses were received from Road and Bridge and from Site Development. Road and Bridge had no concerns and Site Development stated that they had concerns with regard to the legal access to the property. • Written responses were received from Mark Ericson and Conradt and Jeri Fredell. Mr. Ericson was concerned about the access not following the recorded easement, and requested that Mr. Horlick and Ms. Gilbere use that access instead of the old one which was seven feet from the front of his house. He also pointed out that the trailer’s license was expired and that he had seen trash on the property. He expressed concerns about the risks involved in the on-site outdoor barbecue and stacked firewood. • Mr. and Mrs. Fredell expressed concerns about a Special Use Permit becoming effective prior to the issuances of a building permit, and requested compliance with all laws and regulations, particularly with regard to fire danger. • The case was originally set for public hearing on October 15, 2002. However, the applicants requested a continuance until November 12, 2002 to enable them to submit additional information, and to further pursue the issue of a pending access permit from the Forest Service. A request for that access permit was originally initiated by Emil and Elsa Nagy, previous owners of these and adjacent properties, and a property owners association was formed for that purpose. • Prior to the November 12 hearing, the applicants reconsidered their building site due to the steepness of the access. Since they also had not yet been able to obtain any assurance of an access easement across the Forest Service lands, they decided that they should postpone their public hearing until spring, to allow them time to better prepare their case. They were advised that they could not use the trailer or the shed during the intervening time. They stated that the shed was empty, and they hoped to be able to remove it in November. They planned to remove the trailer from the site as soon as the weather permitted. • Due to snowpack and steepness of the access to the trailer location, the applicants have been unable to remove it, and it does not appear likely that they could accomplish this until winter ends. However, Mr. Horlick had learned that he must leave for a job in Antarctica which would last from February through October, further complicating their timetable for construction of a home. In discussions with Staff, they have decided that going ahead with their request for a three-year Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit would best resolve their current zoning issues. They feel that they will be able to complete their house within that time frame, and understand that if that was not possible they must remove the trailer. They have been advised by Staff that, if approved, the permit would allow use of the trailer only in conjunction with construction of a residence, and that if the trailer remained on the property, they were not to use it until their home was actually under construction. • The applicants had explained to staff that the trailer had a removable waste tank that they could take to a legal dumping location, to maintain compliance with sanitary disposal requirements.

19 • Regarding access, staff stated that access was over Forest Service property and some private land holdings. There was currently an easement recorded for the applicants to cross over most of the private property, however, legal access over the Forest Service land had not yet been obtained. Additionally, there appeared to be a parcel that this road crossed down at the intersection with Soda Creek Road. It would be wise for the applicant to research this and make sure that they have legal access over this piece of private property. It may be private, or it may be Forest Service land. At this time staff could not determine which it was. However, the owner of a portion of the Golden Dustman had contacted staff and indicated that he owned the property where the access hit Soda Creek Road. • Mr. Rollenhagen stated that Mr. Ericson requested that the road across his parcel be moved to the access agreement when he purchased the land. An easement was recorded across Ericson’s land that was not in line with the existing road. Horlick and Gilbere were using a trail instead of the easement as they should have been. The easement was for the benefit of the Ericson’s in order to keep the road away from their home. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the easement was reserved for ingress and egress to the Nagy parcels and for utility companies. It was expressly recognized that the 23 acres were to be sold and subdivided by the Nagy’s or their successors and this would include the Standard and Standard #2 Lodes.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if the use of the easement correctly by Horlick/Gilbere was to be considered in this hearing. Mr. Loeffler replied that they needed to hear more on the case to decide if this was a civil matter or not.

Mr. Rollenhagen continued his staff presentation: • Per staff’s examination of the case, there were four issues: access, setback lines, a financial guarantee, and a Combination of Lots Agreement. • As stated before with regard to access, it was over Forest Service property and some private land holdings. There was currently an easement recorded for the applicants to cross over most of the private property, however, legal access over the Forest Service land had not yet been obtained. Additionally, there appeared to be a parcel that this road crossed down at the intersection with Soda Creek Road. It would be wise for the applicant to research this and make sure that they have legal access over this piece of property. It may be private, or it may be Forest Service land. At this time staff could not determine which it was. However, the owner of a portion of the Golden Dustman had contacted staff and indicated that he owned the property where the access hit Soda Creek Road. • Regarding setback lines, the site plan submitted by the applicant appeared to show the trailer encroaching onto the building setback lines. If the trailer was encroaching, it must be moved to comply with setback lines, or, another option was to combine the Standard and the Standard #2 claims, both of which were owned by the applicant. If these were combined, it appeared that building setback lines would not be encroached upon by the trailer. • Regarding the financial guarantee and according to zoning regulations, a financial guarantee, approved to as form by the County Attorney, shall be submitted as a requirement of this Special Use permit. At this time, one has not yet been submitted. In the stipulations and conditions of the attached permit, Staff had recommended that a financial guarantee be submitted prior to February 11th. This deadline would provide the applicant three weeks to submit requirement. • Regarding a Combination of Lots Agreement, these two mining claims had not been combined. This was why there were setback issues in relation to where the trailer was currently located. The applicants had not yet decided where their permanent residence was going to be located – whether it would be on the Standard or the Standard #2. If they were proposing to have the shed located on the Standard and the residence ended up on the Standard #2, the Standard would become a zoning violation with an accessory use located on it without a primary use. Since, at this time, the applicants didn’t know where the residence would be located, Staff did not want to create additional zoning violations with the approval of this Special Use Permit. Therefore, Staff was recommending that there be a condition that required the applicant to do one of three options upon the time when the shed was to be erected:

20 • Combine the lots, • Submit a second financial guarantee that ensures the removal of the shed, • A building permit to be submitted that showed to the County that the residence would be located on the same lot as the shed. • A special exception would be required to allow the applicant to live in the temporary residence while building primary residence. This requirement would be included in the stipulations and conditions of the resolution. • Other stipulations included, the trailer not encroaching on setbacks, legal access being obtained, trailer being licensed during the permit, one option being chosen prior to erection of the shed to avoid zoning violations, etc. • This hearing was to consider the construction of a shed and the storage of an RV during primary residence construction with a term of three years. If after three years, there was no primary residence, the applicants could renew or the permit would expire.

The Special Exception had a term of one year. Ms. Writer explained that if a Special Exception term was over a year long, then it had to be approved by the Board of Adjustment. If under one year term, it could be approved administratively. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the applicants would have until January 21, 2006 to get a building permit and build a residence. Once there was a permanent residence, the trailer and shed would be accessory uses and would be legal. This permit was for these two items without a primary residence. If the applicant’s wanted to live on site during the construction for less than one year, they would need a Special Exception.

Mr. Horlick made the following statements: • He understood that he needed to work on the access issue. • The information regarding the Ericson’s house was new to him and he would contact Mr. Ericson to work on this issue. • The easement that Mr. Horlick had described the access along the present road. • Mr. Horlick presented his easement. The road was close to the Ericson home.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that there appeared to be a discrepancy between what easement was used and what was granted. This would be a civil matter and the County would have no input. Mr. Loeffler agreed stating that this would be a matter between Ericson and Horlick.

Ms. McCabe made the following statements: • She lived at 2204 Soda Creek Road. • She had a copy of her initial improvement location survey of her land that showed the bottom of that driveway on her property. • She owned the Golden Dustmen claim. Mr. Vogel confirmed that there were two homes in this area. One part of this driveway traveled to the McCabe home and the other part of the driveway traveled to the Ericson home. • Ms. McCabe stated that one page of her survey description stated no easements across her land. Her title insurance paper stated that as far as the original owners knew, there was no easement across the land except for the Public Service Co.

Mr. Vogel stated that the Nagy’s owned most of the land in this area and they had at one time owned the Ericson home. Before they sold off their claims, they wrote access agreements for the land. They could only write easements for the land that they owned. The could not write easements across the Forest Service lands. Some of the land they had written easements for and some they had not.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that condition #6 dealt with the issue of access in that “legal access to the property shall be established before a building permit is obtained. This includes obtaining legal access over Forest Service property and any private property that the applicant does not have current legal access over from Soda Creek Road.” Mr. Loeffler stated that this permit requested that the Board of County Commissioners grant permission to store their shed and RV. The RV was already on the parcel and it appeared the applicant did not have legal access to their property. The County knew they did not have access across the Forest Service lands. He recalled that the County had considered and approved a case in the past where there

21 was no legal access and the applicant also had to cross Forest Service lands to obtain access. For this case, the County granted the permit contingent on obtaining access from the Forest Service.

Commissioner Poirot asked for the difference between the two presented easements. Mr. Vogel stated that the applicant’s access began further up the road and did not come down as far as the McCabe property. Commissioner Sorensen asked if Nagy had not owned the McCabe property. Ms. McCabe replied that her estimate was that the bottom of the Ericson land was on Forest Service land. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the Board of County Commissioners could approve a permit conditional that full legal access was obtained prior to residence. Mr. Loeffler stated that ordinarily, he would not do this but with the right conditions, it would work.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the options were to either change the stipulation in #6 of the resolution to require full legal access to the property be established prior to the erection of the shed or to deny the permit which would result in a zoning violation with the RV on the property of which the applicant could not remove as they had no legal access. Commissioner Sorensen asked if there were any land use issues if the applicant had legal access. Ms. McCabe replied that her concerns included construction traffic and material hauling. How many homes would be up in this area? Commissioner Poirot stated that without access, the applicant could not obtain a building permit. Therefore, there would be no construction traffic until the access issue was resolved. Mr. Loeffler stated that the applicant had two mining claims and had a use by right to build, however, he could not build until access was obtained. Ms. McCabe noted that she and her husband would not give access to the applicant.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-23, Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit Case #02-TSUP-14 and Agreement for John Horlick and Jacqueline Gilbere, owners, granted pursuant to Section 12, Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations with the stipulation #6 that the erection of a shed would not commence until legal access was established. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Mr. Loeffler requested a financial guarantee amount and whether there would be one or two financial guarantees depending on a Combination of Lots Agreement. There was still the question of whether the shed would be on the same lot as the primary residence. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the regulations required the applicant to submit two quotes on the cost to remove and clean up the parcel if their plans failed. The Board decided to eliminate the options of combining the two mining claims and obtaining a building application with site plan that demonstrated that the shed would be located on the same lot as the residence. This would require two financial guarantees.

The Board agreed to modify the resolution to reflect this decision. Therefore Stipulation #9 would read that “prior to erection of the shed on the property, a second financial guarantee would be submitted to ensure the removal of the shed should the applicants plans fail.” Commissioner Poirot amended his motion to reflect this change. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and stated that this approval was pending agreement on the financial guarantee established after the applicant and Staff evaluated the cost to remove the structure and clean up the parcel. The vote was unanimous.

The Board of County Commissioners then convened as the Board of Health.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION #03-27, TO CONSIDER AN ISDS VARIANCE ON A MORE THAN 45% SLOPE FOR MIKE UTTER AND MARK LUND, SADDLEBACK: Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson presented. Environmental Health Department Technician Tracy Bennetts, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, Land Use Service Unit Manager Deb Kirkham, Applicant’s ISDS Design Engineer Ron Barta, Contractor Jeff Rausch, property owner Mark Lund, and the applicant’s ISDS installer Mike Utter attended the hearing. Mr. Etcheson made the following presentation: • This request was for a property located at Lot 4, Block 2, Saddleback Ridge Estates Filing No. 2. • The problem was that the new septic system was proposed to be installed within less than 35 feet horizontally of a slope in excess of 45%. (Actual slope was 58%) • The options were that the Board of Health could either approve or not approve the applicant’s request for an Exception from the ISDS regulations.

22 • Based on a site review conducted on December 28, 2002, slopes near the area of the proposed septic system exceeded 45%. The slope was measured by the Environmental Health Department Director at 58%. The proposed drainfield location was not situated above a driveway or a road cut. The proposed drainfield design stipulated the installation of a 20 millimeter PVC liner on the downhill sides fo the drainfield. The design also stipulated a berm above the drainfield to divert surface run-off and seeding of the disturbed areas. There may be an increased risk of sewage surfacing downslope of the drainfield location, due to the steep slopes adjacent to the proposed drainfield area. • The Environmental Health Department recommended consideration of approval of the requested Exception with the following conditions: • That no Adjacent Property Owner object to ths request for an Exception and a valid ISDS permit was obtained. • That a surface water run-off berm be constructed immediately upslope frm the drainfield location. • That a 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on the downslope side to a depth of 8 feet below grade. • That all disturbed areas shall be seeded after completion of the ISDS installation. • That blasting be conducted to create bedrock fracture to a depth of 14-ft below the grade of the drainfield open hold excavation, if bedrock was discovered within that 14-ft. • In the event of any suspicion of ISDS failure, Clear Creek County will be authorized by the owner to investigate any source of contamination at the owner’s expense. • That the property owner shall provide biannual evidence demonstrating septic tank pumping on this ISDS to the Clear Creek County Environmental Health Department. • That a pre-treatment system in compliance with the local ISDS regulations be installed as a part of the septic system serving this property. • The draft resolution included these recommendations but not the requirement of the pretreatment plant. • Mr. Etcheson pointed out that the Board of Adjustment had recently authorized a setback variance for this home as things were set tightly on this site. • The applicant had also submitted a letter that stated due to the closeness and steepness of the parcel, it was almost impossible to put a home and septic on this parcel. • Mr. Etcheson was unsure if other homes would be built on the adjacent lots.

Mr. Barta made the following statements: • The homeowner did go through a setback variance per his request to find the best spot for the drainfield location. By moving the home up a distance of five feet, the engineers were able to put the field in a location that represented a 36% slope that was acceptable with the ISDS regulations. • Unfortunately, there was a misunderstanding on how the engineers and how Mr. Etcheson measured slope. Mr. Barta wanted to share his findings and explain the regulations which at this time were being misinterpreted. • Regarding minimum horizontal distance with regard to road cuts, Mr. Barta and E.O. Church and Associates were instrumental in assisting with these regulations when they were written. • Barta wanted to use a distance 40–ft away from all road cuts . When writing these regulations, the minimum horizontal distance on slopes in excess of 40% should be 35-ft. This was done to have a minimum distance of 35-ft. If the slope or road cut did intercept with the field, Barta wanted a minimum of 35-ft from this. The Environmental Health Department did not interpret these regulations in this way. The Environmental Health Department interpreted the regulations as saying that after finding the most suitable location for the drainfield, measure 35-ft from the field and use that spot. Mr. Barta did not agree with this interpretation especially when the site did not involve a road cut. • Mr. Barta stated that this case did not apply to this section of the regulations and was not conducive to State or County regulations. This had never been done in the past. Mr. Barta asked how the future Saddleback homes would be approved with the regulations interpreted this way. If this was done this way in the future, there would be major problems with the proposed homes in the new Saddleback subdivision.

Mr. Loeffler asked if there were any other areas with more than a 45% slope. Mr. Barta replied that there were and showed Mr. Loeffler on the map. Mr. Loeffler asked if a ring were drawn

23 around the drainfield to a 35-ft radius, would anything inside that radius be in excess of 45%? Mr. Barta stated that he did not measure that within the field as there were no road cuts. Mr. Loeffler stated that he disagreed with Mr. Barta and that the requirements in the ISDS regulations numbered #3 and #4. Regarding minimum horizontal distances, #3 stated that “the minimum horizontal distance required from manmade cut banks and fill material areas to system components discharging effluent into the surrounding soil shall be four times the height of the bank, measured from the bottom of the absorption field, unless it can be demonstrated by a Registered Professional Engineer or a geologist that a mechanical or natural barrier will prevent lateral effluent surfacing.” Under the same topic, Regulation #4 stated that “the minimum horizontal distance required from all slopes in excess of 45% shall be 35-ft except as provided for by Section IV.B.3.” Mr. Loeffler felt that these regulations were very clear in what they required. If regulation #3 did not apply, then regulation #4 did and would require the radius drawing of 35-ft. Mr. Barta disagreed.

Commissioner Sorensen asked what interpretation Mr. Etcheson used. Mr. Etcheson replied that he interpreted the regulation as Mr. Loeffler did with one regulation applying if the other did not and he had shared this with Mr. Utter. Mr. Etcheson measured the slope on December 28, 2002 to find a 58% slope with Mr. Utter present. Mr. Utter stated that there had to be a standard on how to arrive at the slope measurement. If there was an average of a maximum, it was not in the ISDS regulations. In the end, it appeared the accuracy could be disputed. Mr. Utter stated that it appeared vague on how the measurement was arrived at. Mr. Utter was not disputing that this slope was more than 45% but he wanted to know clearly how Mr. Etcheson was arriving at his numbers. Mr. Utter had been doing this type of work for 15 years in the County and had never encountered this regulation. Regarding the letter Mr. Utter sent, he was trying to maintain the 20-ft rule from the foundation to keep the field on the most level spot possible. Mr. Utter urged the County to figure this process out today so that he could perform the rest of his work on building sites correctly. Mr. Utter was also confused as to what the County wanted with regard to the depth beyond the open hole pit. How large were the holes supposed to be? How far apart could the drilling occur? Mr. Utter stated that he could call out three jobs he had done in the past year that did not undergo this process and were similar situations.

Mr. Etcheson explained that his measurement was taken by standing at the edge of the drainfield and measured 35-ft down the hill. A clinometer was used to measure the slope which was at 58%. He did not measure from the edge of a rock. He measured only ground slope. Regardless if an average was used, the slope was still over the regulation requirement of 45%.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that based on legal advice and the ISDS regulation on horizontal distances, regulation #4 applied. Secondly, the methodology that was used to measure the slope and the tool that Mr. Etcheson used was one that was commonly used. Ms. Kirkham agreed. Mr. Etcheson explained how a clinometer was used. The percentage of error could be approximately 5% and this parcel was 13% over regulation.

Mr. Barta submitted a conversion table which related percentages to degrees. He noted that a 30 degree triangle was pushing a 50% slope. This was really not that steep in actuality according to Mr. Barta. Commissioner Sorensen noted that the County was not considering degrees. Mr. Barta stated that over the years, his firm had talked with Jefferson County, Park County and Gilpin County. None of these counties had the verbiage requirement of 35-ft measurement at the drainfield. The best technique was to find the best spot for a drainfield that was flat. Mr. Barta recommended that the Board of Health amend this regulation as most readers saw it as dealing with road cuts. Mr. Barta stated that he knew the original intent of the regulations when they were written. In showing this regulation to other County Health Officers, they too found it confusing.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Board of Health was now being asked to consider an ISDS exception to their regulations and the applicant was saying through their engineer that the Board of Health was not interpreting the regulations correctly and that the rules were badly written. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the applicant could either proceed without an exception and get “red-tagged” or they could follow the regulations at present.

24 Mr. Loeffler stated that he understood Mr. Barta’s argument but he could not evaluate whether this was a bad rule or not. Mr. Loeffler stated that the rules were quite clear and Mr. Etcheson was applying the rules by their terms. The Board of Health could either grant an exception if found appropriate based on the presentation or, if the Board of Health did not approve of this rule, they could follow a different process and amend the rules. The County was still bound by these rules as Mr. Barta was. Commissioner Poirot stated that an exception would solve the current parcel, but Mr. Utter had stated that he has other homes in the future. Mr. Loeffler stated that the regulations could be visited and consider an amendment at a later public hearing.

Mr. Etcheson stated that these regulations were County septic codes written based on minimum guidelines as set by the State. Those guidelines say that any slope in excess of 30% must come before the Board of Health for approval. Commissioner Poirot stated that the Board of Health had heard many of these cases lately and this one appeared less critical. With regard to a health issue, he asked Mr. Etcheson if he saw this as less critical? Mr. Etcheson replied that, no, the regulations stated any slopes over 45% had cause for concern for potential of sewage surfacing downhill. Commissioner Poirot stated that it did not appear as critical due to no road cuts above or below it and no homes were located below it. Mr. Etcheson stated that surfacing effluent could also be harmful to the property owners themselves. Commissioner Poirot added that this proposal was recommended to have a pretreatment system.

Mr. Rausch made the following statements: • He had a license to operate in Clear Creek County and had worked for 27 years putting in leach fields next to road cuts or 4 times the height of the road cut and he had always maintained that difference of 35-ft from the road cut. • The County would be telling people their property was worth nothing if they could not get a leach field. • Mr. Rausch had done many fields on much steeper slopes and made them work. The common sense was knowing how far to blast and how far to drill due to closeness of neighbors. • This home would have a dosing siphon and a 4-ft filter level. The effluent should be well filtered before it hit the rock below. The rock below with few charges staggered to open the veins would work sufficiently. His years of experience told him to stay away from man made cuts. • Mr. Rausch recommended smart levels over clinometers for measuring slope as they were more accurate. • If a study was done on the ISDS systems between Jefferson County and the Eisenhower Tunnel, results would show the ISDS systems were successful.

Mr. Lund stated that the request for the variance was reasonable. He added that no one wanted to see sewage anywhere. With this lot in mind, he tried to put the septic field and home in the best place possible. He did not want excessive cost but only what was reasonable.

Mr. Barta presented a letter from Craig Sanders of Jefferson County Health Department. The practices of the Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment for absorption bed installation on steep slopes in excess of 30% were as follows: • The system must be over-excavated to a depth of 6-ft as measured on the downslope wall, and the bottom of the bed is scarified or fractured. • A -6-ft liner is placed on the downslope wall and ends of the excavation. • Four feet of suitable soil is placed in the excavation and leveled. • A 1-ft layer of gravel is placed on the suitable soil, leveled and distribution pipes are placed in the gravel. • The excavation is backfilled, recontoured and an upslope berm is placed above the excavation to divert surface runoff. • Past studies have shown very little difference in failure rates for systems installed on steep slopes vs. more level sites. Considering that a 50% slope is only 22.5-degree angle, we have not experienced problems with downslope breakout. Secondary wastewater treatment is not required until the slope exceeds 40% and the applicant may request a waiver from the Board of Health.

Mr. Barta stated that he had implemented over 4000 fields and had not seen one fail. Mr.

25 Rausch stated that in the repairs he had done on failing fields, 75% of them were due to a trickle of water from the homes or they have not had their tank pumped. With a dosing siphon and filter, this system should work appropriately and with reasonable cost.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the regulations could not be rewritten with this application so the County would have to deal with their own interpretation of the regulations and a staff recommendation. The pretreatment requirement was a fall back system if the system failed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-27, Board of Health resolution approving an exception for Lot 4, Block 2, Saddleback Ridge Estates, Filing 2, pursuant to Section 2 of III.D.2 of the Clear Creek County ISDS Regulations. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, it was clarified that biannual meant once every two years for submitting a report that the system had been pumped. Commissioner Poirot suggested that Ms. Kirkham and Mr. Etcheson consider the potential issues with the new Saddleback subdivision. Mr. Etcheson stated that these hearing were required by the State and had to be held. This could not be changed at the local level. Commissioner Poirot suggested researching surrounding counties for measurement of slope procedures.

Mr. Utter stated that he needed clear requirements in what was being approved with regard to the over-dig. With the requirements listed, this over-dig could be dangerous and expensive at this depth. He asked how large the hole would have to be and if it would be a visual inspection? If someone got hurt in a hole of this depth, it would put their companies out of business. If bedrock was hit, how far apart would the holes have to be to drill? Over blasting could be very dangerous. It could fail too easily. Was there a requirement or technical data on this requirement? Commissioner Poirot replied that a normal drill hole would suffice and most drillers should know whether they were hitting bedrock or not. Mr. Utter asked if a report had to be kept. Mr. Etcheson stated that on a recent case when bedrock was encountered, the contractor did provide an engineer’s report. He recommended that a report be submitted on this site too. The report would say that bedrock was encountered and fractured.

Mr. Utter asked about the 8-ft liner requirement. Mr. Barta stated that the liners did not come in an 8-ft size. The splice could then become a weak link. Mr. Barta suggested repositioning the liner so they did not lose it in the splice. Mr. Etcheson stated that this was acceptable.

Mr. Utter stated that he wanted to continue building in this area and had good luck in the past. However, he felt that he had hit a brick wall with the Environmental Health Department recently. He was not receiving clear information and regulations appeared to be changing. This new information and regulation had set him back on his timeline to complete this house. He understood that Mr. Barta and Mr. Etcheson had their own opinions but this issue would become a problem for the new Saddleback subdivision. Commissioner Sorensen replied that she felt that Mr. Etcheson had the health and welfare of the citizens in mind when performing his job. Mr. Utter agreed but felt there was still misinterpretation. The vote was unanimous.

The Board of Health then reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMPLIANCE ALLIANCE AGREEMENT FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Human Resources Director Gail Buckley presented. This agreement was to have Compliance Alliance perform all new hire and random DOT drug testing performed. This was a renewal of a previous contract with Compliance Alliance and was approved by the County Attorney. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Compliance Alliance agreement. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-11, CONCERNING EXPENDITURES OF FOREST RECEIPT APPORTIONMENT FUNDS: Regarding these funds, 5% would go to the School District and 95% would go to the Road and Bridge Fund. It was a State requirement to complete this apportionment. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-11. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INCREASE IN THE GEORGETOWN

26 LIBRARY EMPLOYEE HOURS: Commissioner Sorensen stated that this request was to increase the personnel hours as the hours of operation at the Georgetown Library were increasing. This was appropriated for in the budget hearings. Chief Accountant Carl Small stated that this would entail an extra 10 hours for the Library Director. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the increase in the Georgetown Library Employee hours. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL REQUEST FOR STEAM MACHINES FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Mr. Allen made the following statements: • Mr. Allen was making this capital request to purchase two steam machines to assist in melting ice along the culverts. • For safety reasons, Mr. Allen was eliminating a dump truck with a boiler on the back which he was using to steam culverts. • He stated that it was cheaper to buy steam machines. • He requested that the Road and Bridge Department be allowed to order this equipment immediately. This would allow for delivery to take place in time for use this winter. The purchase of this equipment would allow for multiple uses and fulfill the Brookvale shop’s need with one purchase. • Presently the Road and Bridge department was fighting much ice and needed these machines immediately. • The old steam truck could be taken out of service and used in the summer for spraying weeds.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the capital request for two steam machines for Road and Bridge Department. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 22, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 22, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Harry Dale attended other meetings.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 2003

27 The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on January 28, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL REQUEST FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER: Sheriff Don Krueger presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Mr. Krueger stated that this capital request was for a new vehicle for the Chief Animal Control Officer. This was discussed in the budget hearings. Mr. Small stated that this request would be funded from the sales tax fund. Mr. Small stated that after this purchase, there would still be a positive fund balance in the sales tax fund. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the capital request for the Animal Shelter and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Mr. Small stated that the old vehicle could be used at the Transfer Station. Mr. Krueger thought that they could obtain the new vehicle for between $10,000 and $13,000. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-08, REZONING CASE #275, FOR THE BOREALIS MINING CLAIM FROM M-1 TO M-2, HUKILL GULCH, IDAHO SPRINGS: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Senior Planner Lisa Vogel and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann attended the hearing. Potential purchaser of the Borealis Lode, Susan Evans, attended via speakerphone. Ms. Kastens made the following statements: • The request was to rezone the Borealis mining claim from M-1 to M-2. • The Borealis Lode was 2.69 acres of vacant land located in the southwest ¼ of Section 35, T3SR73W, just west of Idaho Springs City limit on the north side of the highway. • The surrounding properties and uses were mostly privately owned and zoned M-1 with the surrounding former BLM land zoned M-2. I-70 was adjacent on the south and the City of Idaho Springs was to the east with mixed uses in that area. • The request was for a M-2 designation to eliminate the currently allowed residential uses prior to being sold into private ownership. The lode would be sold combined with the adjacent County lands .3 acre tract currently zoned M-2. • Adjacent Property Owners were notified on December 9, 2002 and Public Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on January 8, 2003. • Carol Donahue, an Adjacent Property Owner, submitted a request stating that she was opposed to this rezoning as she did not want anyone mining next to her parcel. The access street was a dead end and there was no room. Staff submitted a response letter to Ms. Donahue explaining that the property was already zoned for mining as it was zoned at present. • Philip Aliberti, Adjacent Property Owner, called for more information on the rezoning. After explanation from staff, he had no conflicts. • In 1999, the Colorado Geologic Survey Division of Minerals and Geology identified this area as “the heart of the mineral belt and an area of high potential for mineral deposits of the Idaho Springs-Central City type.” They further suggested that this area be zoned “for the highest protection of mineral deposits.” 70% of the site was greater than 30% slope with the remaining averaging between 15%- 30%. • The property had no existing physical access. This property was adjacent to I-70 right of way however; this was the steepest part of the property. • As County owned land, no taxes have been collected. Tammy Foley, Deputy Assessor, stated that “due to slope and lack of access, this property would be assessed the same amount regardless of zoning.” • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application at their January 15, 2003. • Staff recommended approval pursuant to draft Resolution #03-08.

Ms. Evans stated that this land at one time belonged to her great-grandfather. She was still interested in purchasing the parcel. Ms. Evans agreed to also purchase the .3 acres of County owned land adjacent. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-08, Rezoning Case #275 from M-1 to M-2 for the Borealis Lode. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

28 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY TOURISM BOARD: Tourism Board member Cindy Condon and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann attended the hearing. A list was presented to the Board of County Commissioners of the requested members for 2003. Ms. Condon stated that there was a specific number of members, eleven, which included a representative of each town/city and two from the County at large. All positions were filled at this time. The joint committee listed with the Tourism Board members was a committee that met only once a year and exchanged goals and planning. Some of the Tourism Board members were business owners in the community. This Board was funded by the lodging tax fund and was to be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. The members were as follows: • Barbara Jackson, Hawgwilde Over Scrappin’ • Kevin Wright, Loveland Ski Area • John Rice, Clear Creek Rafting • Cindy Condon, Clear Creek County • Jim Schwab, Tommyknocker Brewery • Dave Morrell, The Skier’s Edge • Todd Hennis, Buckley Bros. Store • Dan Ebert, Two Bros. Deli • Cindy Olson, Idaho Springs City Council • Leah Greska, Georgetown Loop Railroad • Bob Smith, Alpine Insurance Management

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the following list of members as the Tourism Board for 2003 for Clear Creek County and to present a resolution in conformity with this motion. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

OPENING OF SEALED BIDS FOR COUNTY LANDS IN SECTION 31, 34, T3SR73W AND SECTION 5, T4SR73W: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann and Senior Planner Lisa Vogel attended the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen opened the sealed bids for parcel #1961-05-4-00-971 totaling .06 acres. There were two bids and the minimum bid was $100. The first bid was from Michael Gurian for $222.22. The second bid was from Alan Pallarito for $501.00. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Pallarito bid on parcel #1961-05-4-00-971. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sorensen opened the bids for the second parcel #1835-34-3-00-993 totaling 4.52 acres. There were two bids and the minimum bid was $3164.00. The first bid was from Kenneth Walters for $4000. The second bid was from BS & C Enterprises LLC for $6550. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the bid from BS & C Enterprises for parcel #1835-34-3-00-993. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen asked if the check from BS & C Enterprises could be accepted from Boyce Curry. Ms. Kaminski stated that he was the president of BS & C Enterprises. Mr. Loeffler stated that his check was acceptable. The vote was unanimous.

Commissioner Sorensen opened the bid for the third parcel #1835-31-1-00-959 totaling .03 acres. There was only one bid for this parcel and the minimum bid was $100. The only bid was from Donna Gates for $1000. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the bid from Donna Gates on parcel $1835-31-1-00-959. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC ROAD CASE FOR KENT STERETT, SILVERDALE AREA: Please Note: This hearing will be opened and immediately continued. A site visit to the Silverdale area with Land Use Staff and the County Attorney will be held: In attendance were Georgetown Town Administrator Paul McKenna, HDPLC members Lee Behrens, Frank Young, Cindy Neely, Christine Bradley, Bill Wilson, Hal Wahlborg, and John Kruger, Applicant representatives Nick Muller and Dave Steck. County Attorney Bob Loeffler made the following statements: • This hearing was scheduled for this date however at the request of the applicant the hearing is being delayed.

29 • Today would be a site visit by the Board of County Commissioners and staff so everyone would become familiar with the site. • This would not be a hearing for or against on the opinions of the public. • If the applicant wanted to point out land features, they could so that the Board of County Commissioners could become more familiar. • The Board would be allowed to ask questions of staff or the applicant on land features. • The public would be allowed to come along on the site visit and if they had questions on land features, they could ask them. • This would not be the occasion to discuss the merits or demerits of the case.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to March 11, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-17, REZONING CASE #276, FROM M-2 TO M-1 FOR BRIAN AND PEGGY SMITH, VIRGINIA CANYON ROAD, RUSSELL GULCH AREA: Please note this hearing would be opened and immediately continued to March 4, 2003 at 1:00 p.m.: Planner II Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that staff was requesting this continuance as the Planning Commission had not yet made a decision on this case. Public Notice had been set for this date so the case had to be opened and continued so staff did not have to republish. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to March 4, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENTS FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS: These agreements were between Clear Creek County and the U.S. Geologic Survey to test the water flowing into Clear Creek. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Mr. Small made the following statements: • There were automated stations where the U.S. Geologic Survey came to monitor the water readings. • These stations had been installed and operated under previous agreements between the County and the U.S. Geologic Survey. • These agreements were mostly under the direction of the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association. • The Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association had found participants to reimburse the County for this testing, i.e., Henderson Mine. • The U.S. Geologic Survey billed the County once a year for these investigations. • Parts of these expenditures were billed under the Environmental Health Department. • Mr. Small stated that the County was not required by law to do the water resource investigation but it was part of a cooperative agreement with other agencies. The County was the only party that could enter into an agreement with the U.S. Geologic Survey. • Essentially the County paid no part of these investigations and it was simply a pass through.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Joint Funding Agreements for water resources investigations at the station at Leavenworth Creek at the Mouth, the gage on Fall River at the Mouth, and the gage at West Clear Creek near Berthoud Falls. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FINAL SETTLEMENT OF CONTRACTORS ON THE BROOK FOREST FACILITY FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann and Planning Commission member Donna Moody attended. Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen submitted a memo that stated the following: • Per instruction from the County Attorney and in compliance with 38-26-107 CRS, Notices of Final Settlement were published in the Clear Creek Courant issues dated January 15 and 22, 2003. • The Board of County Commissioners hearing on January 28, 2003 at 3:30 p.m. was established as the date of final settlement with Sutton Insulating Company and High Country Finishing, Inc., contractors performing work for Clear Creek County on the Road and Bridge Department Brook Forest Storage Facility project, located at 45 Apache

30 Road. • Anyone making a claim under the above statute must do so no later than the time of the hearing. • If there were no claims, Sutton and High Country would receive final payment. A hearing for considering approval of final settlement for two more contractors would be scheduled soon. • Mr. Allen confirmed that no one had complained under this statute and all work was completed for these contractors.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler agreed that this was the proper procedure and it was up to the Board of County Commissioners to approve the final settlement. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve final settlement with Sutton Insulating and High Country Finishing, Inc., and to authorize payment to these contractors. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 4, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding negotiating strategies relative to the Clear Creek High School Intergovernmental Agreement and the Tech Park land dedication as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) and (d). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF HDPLC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE LOWER SILVERDALE NON-MOTORIZED RECREATION AREA: Please Note: This hearing will be opened and continued to a later date: Commissioner Sorensen stated that this hearing would not be held on this date and would be continued to a later date in the future. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue this hearing to a date uncertain in the future. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO CLEAR CREEK COUNTY ALONG VIRGINIA CANYON ROAD: ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHAPTER, ARTHRITIS FOUNDATION, CENTER FOR HEARING, SPEECH AND LANGUAGE, COVENANT HOME, AND STEVE STAR: County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that these easements were to complete the Road and Bridge drainage improvements along Virginia Canyon Road. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Grants of Easement from the Rocky Mountain Chapter, Arthritis Foundation, Center for Hearing, Speech, and Language, Covenant Home, and Steve Star to Clear Creek County. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSE FOR H.W. STEWART INC., D.B.A. ECHO LAKE LODGE: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Ms. Reimer made the following statements: • This permit was for the Echo Lake Lodge which was only open in the summer.

31 • The lodge had no violations. • Their license could approved and held pending a final inspection by the Building Inspector and the Fire Marshal once the lodge was accessible. • All forms and fees had been submitted. • Their license expired on December 31st of each year but they were within the State Statute guidelines.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the renewal of liquor license for H.W. Stewart Inc., d.b.a. Echo Lake Lodge. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER REQUEST FOR EPSDT CONTRACT FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Ms. Barta made the following statements: • This decrease totaled $230 reduction from the Clear Creek County Nursing EPSDT program. • This should not impact their program too much but after one more year, this program would be returned to the HICFA program. It would no longer be a part of Public Health. • It was up to the Board of County Commissioners if they wanted to keep the program for one more year or turn it over to HICFA early. • The Board could keep the program and finish it for the last year and the Nursing Department would still receive the funding. • This program had increased in client contacts by 100 people. • This contract change affected a multi year contract and the total for the contract for 2003 was $2610.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Contract Change Order Letter #4 for the EPSDT contract for the Clear Creek County Nursing Department. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER REQUEST FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING CONTRACT FOR THE NURSING DEPARTMENT: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Ms. Barta stated that this too was a reduction in a contract for the Public Health Nursing program. This contract was decreased by $872.16. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Contract Change Order Request for the Public Health Nursing Contract for the Nursing Department. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE CAD SYSTEM IN THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE: Sheriff Don Krueger presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Sheriff Krueger made the following statements: • This amendment totaled $45,000. $30,000 was coming from a gaming grant award and the additional $15,000 was needed. • This amendment was an increase to the original CAD system contract. • The $45,000 would be due over a period of three years.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the amended CAD system contract. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Mr. Small requested time to review the amended contract more thoroughly. Commissioner Poirot amended his motion to continue the hearing to February 11, 2003 at 10:30 a.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______

32 Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 11, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR THE PAZ/SHERLOCK GROUP, BLUE VALLEY ACRES: County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this Combination of Lots Agreement would create no new building sites and was done to reduce the taxes. One lot was vacant and the other had a home. Commissioner Sorensen confirmed that this was a permanent decision and could not be undone unless substantial application was made. Commissioner Sorensen wished to discuss the issue of surrendering well rights in situations such as this. There could be a community benefit to banking those rights in the name of the County. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement for the Paz/Sherlock group in Blue Valley Acres and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the document. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD MEETING: This hearing was changed to a working session and update with the Ambulance Director.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE CAD SYSTEM IN THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE: Sheriff Don Krueger, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann, and Undersheriff Stu Nay attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler made the following statements: • This amended contract was a multi year contract. • Unless the County violated Tabor, they would have to include a Tabor provision in this contract. • This contract was with a company in Illinois so they may not be familiar with Tabor. • This contract could be executed in one of three ways: 1) Pay it all this year; 2) Take the money for future years and sequester it; 3) Include a Tabor clause in the contract.

Sheriff Krueger stated that he could pay the first portion of the contract now and pay the remainder by the end of the year. The source of funding would be $30,000 from a gaming grant award. Sheriff Krueger confirmed that the original CAD system was purchased with E911 funds. This amendment to the CAD system of $45,000 was being discussed now. This amendment added additional working stations and reporting systems for the CAD system. Undersheriff Nay stated that the initial training and code entering had been completed. Undersheriff Nay stated that onsite training would be completed for other communications employees and repairs could be completed remotely. Chief Accountant Carl Small expressed concern as the contract did not explain this training and maintenance issues. It had been expressed verbally but Mr. Small preferred this was in writing. Commissioner Dale reminded Undersheriff Nay that as this training was $1250 per day, it would be more efficient to have all employees attend the training at the same time to save funds. Undersheriff Nay stated that the software maintenance fee would occur annually.

Chief Accountant Carl Small expressed concern in that the contract mentioned certain attachments that were not included. He requested that this be resolved. Mr. Small also requested that a clause be included regarding a schedule of implementation and installation. Undersheriff Nay replied that the contracted company was ready for installation upon word of the Sheriff’s Department. Commissioner Dale stated that he did not want to delay this process but requested that the contractor make these changes as soon as possible. Mr. Loeffler stated that he could contact the contractor and resolve the changes. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the amendment to the CAD system contract between the Sheriff’s Department

33 and CIS contingent on the changes being made to satisfy the County Attorney and the Chief Accountant. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-18, APPOINTING TERRY WEHNES TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR FRETAC: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Mr. Abrahamson made the following statements: • This would be the third needed representative for Clear Creek County to the FRETAC Board. • Mr. Wehnes had been involved in Emergency Services in the County for over 15 years. • Mr. Wehnes had been full time with the Ambulance Department and was Emergency Coordinator for Loveland Ski Area. • This was good fit for the FRETAC group and fit with the FRETAC goals. • This appointment was discussed with Tom Candlin, Clear Creek County Board member of FRETAC, and he agreed.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-18, appointing Terry Wehnes to the Board of Directors for FRETAC. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE AT EMPIRE PASS: Film Location representative Brook Johnson and Clear Creek County Tourism Board Director Stephanie Donoho presented. Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann, and Senior Planner Lisa Vogel attended the hearing. Mr. Johnson made the following statements: • He had been in the film location business since 1977. • He had done much work with Warren Miller films and was a Colorado based film professional. • He was requesting the temporary closure of Bard Creek Road at Empire Pass for four days to film a Chevy commercial. • His company had to find this site at the last minute due to weather. • Mr. Johnson had performed a site visit with Mr. Allen to review the site and describe the film shoot. • The gist of the commercial was the Chevy Trailblazer trapped in downed power lines, call for help on their internal system, and watch a DVD movie while waiting. • Mr. Johnson had also met with the Forest Service in the case that they filmed on their land. • Mr. Johnson had met with the Town of Empire and had their support. • The main request was for the road closure for safety reasons. • As the set contained some sparks, the film crew would have a water truck and a CO2 team on site. They had completed commercials such as this last summer during fire danger and were very careful. • The driver in the commercial would be a professional, Bobby Unser. He was a professional driver that had performed many other car shoots. • The main statement that Mr. Johnson wanted to make was that he had been in this business for many years and wanted to be able to come back to film locations. He assured the Board that the site would be much cleaner and restored than when he arrived. He had a reputation to maintain and wanted to be invited back. His crew would be filling the hotels and restaurants and providing economic benefit locally.

Ms. Donoho made the following statements: • She agreed that this provided much economical benefit to the County. • It also provided more exposure to the County with regard to the film community. • Film companies had filmed inside many of the buildings in the County. • The Colorado Film Board considered Clear Creek County to be lucky to have gotten this commercial. • Mr. Johnson had done many commercials on Mount Evans and he was constantly invited to return. • Mr. Johnson had been working with Xcel Energy and the local homeowners to keep them informed of what he was doing. • She agreed that Mr. Johnson would leave this site cleaner than when he arrived.

34 Mr. Johnson noted that the commercial companies were making donation to the Town of Empire for allowing them use of their parks for site development. The director was very environmentally conscious and wanted to benefit the communities he impacted. Mr. Johnson was open to making a donation to the County’s backcountry patrol fund to help preserve the backcountry for future users.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that she had concerns regarding how people treated the backcountry after seeing these SUV commercials. It was a bad trend and difficult to remedy. The County presently had volunteers writing grants for the backcountry patrol to prevent abuse of the backcountry. Mr. Johnson replied that this was not an abusive commercial to the backcountry and he agreed that he did not like these commercials either. He would present to the production company the idea of a donation to the backcountry patrol in lieu of a filming permit.

Mr. Johnson stated that insurance had been provided to the County listing them as additionally insured. Commissioner Dale asked if Mr. Johnson was prepared for traffic issue. Mr. Johnson replied that the Town of Empire was providing security at the ballparks and he would put up signage alerting people that the road was temporarily closed. Mr. Johnson stated that the word was out of the commercial filming so many people would be trying to get on set. He could not allow them on set so he suggested that the Town of Empire film the making of the commercial and show it on their access channel.

Mr. Allen stated that it did not appear that anyone had been accessing the road. The tracks in the snow seemed to stop at the last driveway and the only remaining tracks were recreational. Mr. Allen did not think it would be a huge impact to the community to close this road temporarily.

Mr. Johnson stated that he was also paying Emergency Services to be on site. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the temporary road closure on Bard Creek Road at Empire Pass. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Dale asked if there was a way to alert the recreationalists that this particular area was closed off. Mr. Johnson stated that he would have signage and could alert people to other areas nearby to recreate. Ms. Donoho added that she could put a notice on her website for the backcountry areas. Mr. Johnson stated that they should be completed with all shooting and cleanup on Sunday. The donations would be distributed before he left the site. The vote was unanimous.

Commissioner Poirot left the hearing for meetings at the State Capitol.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIO #03-16, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #02-EX-12, FOR RICHARD AND ARLA SAFE, VIRGIL ALONSO, TO RECONFIGURE BOUNDARY LINES TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING ENCROACHMENT BUILT IN THE 1950’S AT 653 & 683 HWY 103: Applicants Rick and Arla Safe and Virgil Alonso, and the Safe Attorney Stephen Joynt attended the hearing. Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Ms. Kastens made the following statements: • The request was to reconfigure the boundaries of Lot 64 and combined Lot 65 with parts of Lots 66 & 79 of the Placer Valley Subdivision; located at 653 & 683 Hwy6 103. • Virgil Alonso and Rick and Arla Safe were the owners. • Mr. Alonso, Mrs. Safe, Stephen Joynt, representing the Safes were present. • Both lots were zoned MR-1 and were approximately .434 and .381 acres. • The request would reduce the size of the Lot located at 653 Hwy 103 and approximately 146 square feet to resolve the encroachment of an existing garage built sometime in the early 1950’s. • The proposed lot line would go around the garage and encompass the eaves. • A maintenance easement would be granted to allow for painting and upkeep of the garage. • Each lot had an existing single-family residence with a detached garage and both had their own driveway with adequate off street parking. • Both lots were connected to the Chicago Creek Sanitation District and were provided water by the City of Idaho Springs. • 653 Hwy 103 had obtained Variances for their setbacks and for being less than an acre.

35 • 683 Hwy 103 requested a Variance in 1996, but the then owner withdrew the request when it was discovered his garage encroached onto the neighbor’s property. • Adjacent Property Owners were sent notice on January 9 th and Public Notice for this hearing was published January 22nd. • One response was received from the owner of Lot 58, who, after clarification of the request, stated she had no objections. • Staff recommended approval as outlined in the staff report and in draft resolution #03-16.

Mr. Joynt stated that he represented the Safes. He stated that this request would work to resolve both parties’ issues. This proposal did not increase density and did not increase use. It worked for both groups and made everything legal.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-16, Exemption by Resolution #02-EX-12, for Richard and Arla Safe and Virgil Alonso to reconfigure boundary lines to recognize existing encroachment built in the 1950’s at 653 & 683 Hwy 103. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Following the hearing, it was noted by County Attorney Bob Loeffler that vested rights of 3 years was approved in the Resolution.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR CONTRACTORS FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE BROOK FOREST FACILITY: Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that per the Road and Bridge Department, they were ready to approve final settlement with Rocky Mountain Door Systems Inc. for the Brook Forest Road and Bridge Facility. No claims had been received by the County against this settlement and it was confirmed that public notice had been published for two weeks. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the final settlement for contractor Rocky Mountain Door Systems Inc. for the Road and Bridge Brook Forest Facility. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE CO. FROM CLEAR CREEK COUNTY ON BEHALF OF ROBERT WHISSEN: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann and Joseph and Penny Marden attended the hearing. Mr. Smith made the following statements: • Robert Whissen requested a grant of easement, to Public Service Co., across County land for the purposes of installing an aerial utility line to his adjacent property. • Mr. Whissen’s property was located at 288 Mill Creek Road and was contiguous with County Land Parcel #1835-19-3-00-900 (commonly referred to as the arrastra parcel). • Length of the easement was 270.48 feet, 20 feet wide, encompassing approximately .124 acres of land. • A site visit conducted by staff noted the easement property would be located well away from any portions of the arrastra site that were of historical significance. • Preliminary discussion with the Board indicated the Board would accept the easement, setting the value of the easement property at $250. • County Lands Department recommended the Board accept the grant of easement for utility purposes to Public Service Co. of Colorado and authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the document. • The Open Space Commission had no problem with this easement. • There would only be one power pole on the County Lands parcel.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Grant of Easement to the Public Service Co. on behalf of Robert Whissen and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the document. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-33, CORRECTION TO RESOLUTION #00-136, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #00-EX-12, TO DIVIDE County LAND: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann attended the hearing. Mr. Smith made the following comments: • This resolution would correct an incorrect legal description in a prior exemption and resolution. • The County Lands Department had agreement from the two property owners to correct

36 this description. • This correction would also require the correction of a Combination of Lots Agreement and the Special Warranty Deed for each affected party. • The County Lands Department had a series of checks to attempt to prevent this from happening. Most errors were caught but with legal description language, it was challenging. • The parties involved were the McCracken group and the Waddle group.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-33, correction to Resolution #00-136, Exemption by Resolution #00-EX-12, to divide County land. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CORRECTED COMBINATION OF LOT AGREEMENTS AND CORRECTED SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS FOR WADDLE AND MCCRACKEN: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann attended the hearing. Mr. Smith stated that these Combination of Lots Agreements and Special Warranty Deeds were the ones discussed in the prior hearing and needed approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement for the Waddle group and for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deed for the Waddle group and for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement for the McCracken group and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deed for the McCracken group and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER LETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this change order reduced the Environmental Health Department’s contract with the State due to the State overall budget cuts. Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson was out of town but submitted comment that he would continue to complete the contract and perform the food establishment inspections. This amendment was a reduction of $638.10. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the contract change order letter #2 for the Environmental Health Department contract with the State of Colorado. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WAIVER OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PENALTY FEE FOR JOSEPH MARDEN: Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer presented. Zoning Enforcement Technician Tracy Bennetts, and Joseph and Penny Marden attended the hearing. Ms. Writer made the following comments: • Joseph and Penny Marden presented their case to the Board of Adjustment on February 4th. • They were granted a 28’ north front setback for the north side of the deck, a 25’ south rear setback for the south side of the deck, and a 5’ west side setback for the west side of the deck for a proposed 660 sq. ft. deck on a property that was .344 acres in size. • They further went on that night to request a fee waiver of the violation fee that was accessed. • The Board of Adjustment decided in favor of granting them a $610 refund, which left them paying for a regular variance. • The Board of Adjustment decided that since the applicants already had a building permit

37 for the remodeling of the existing home, their intent to build the deck was not harmful. • This deck was not included in the original building permit, but during a building inspection they were issued a stop work order on the deck; the applicants did stop all work on the deck at that time. • The Board of Adjustment decided that the applicants were not trying to hide the building of the deck, building inspections were being performed, and that it was an honest mistake. • The final decision would rest with the Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the waiver of penalty fee for Joseph Marden. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 12, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following matters as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b)(a)(e): < water rights with regard to acquisition and disposition; < the Clear Creek High School Sanitation Tri-Party Agreement; < the Central City Highway Access Agreement; < the disposition of former BLM lands to the City of Idaho Springs; < the application of Section 30-28-110 for developmental activity; < the sale of St. Mary’s Lot 787; < the sale of the Borealis mining claim and other lands; < the Triple Bypass Bicycle Race; < the Service Unit Manager contracts; < the LEPC and corresponding laws; < the Henderson Mined Land Reclamation Permit amendment; < the potential 1041 regulations; < Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 18, 2003

38 The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 18, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CSBG GRANT APPLICATION FOR HUMAN SERVICES: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. Ms. Dicken made the following presentation: T Ms. Dicken requested to reapply for CSBG funding for the Human Services Department. T The CSBG grant was on a different funding cycle from other programs. T Ms. Dicken requested to operate the grant differently this year in that she was requesting to remove the linkages with the mini-grant program so that all of the CSBG funding could be used for Emergency Services. T In the prior year, Human Services had run out of Emergency Services funding and the need was still current. T Ms. Dicken thought it better to hold the money for Emergency Services for the citizens in light of the present economy than to operate a mini-grant application process. T Ms. Dicken stated that the current numbers from the Kids Count manual needed to be input into this current application. The information on the housing rates also needed to be updated.

The Board agreed to continue the hearing to allow Ms. Dicken to update the application. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to 2:25 p.m. the same day. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF REVIEW COMMITTEE TO SELECT ENGINEERING CONSULTANT FOR STANLEY/HOOP CREEK NON MOTORIZED CORRIDOR: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young, Senior Planner Lisa Vogel, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following presentation: T Mr. Weaver requested that the list of people presented to the Board of County Commissioners be appointed to review the engineering proposals for the Stanley/Hoop Creek non-motorized corridor contract. T The list included the following people: Bert Weaver, Carl Small, Carol Hunter, Daniel Lovato, and Tony Devito. T Mr. Weaver stated that these people had been participating in this project since the beginning. T The Board of County Commissioners would make the final decision but this committee would make a recommendation to them on who should be awarded the project.

Mr. Mauck stated that they were unsure if this committee would also be choosing the construction contractor. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to appoint the listed committee as the Review Committee for the Stanley Road/Hoop Creek Trails Project. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GOCO GRANT APPLICATION FOR KING MURPHY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: King Murphy Elementary School representatives Diane Schade, Mike Stewart, and Principal Marcia Jochim presented. Ms. Schade made the following presentation: T She thanked the Board of County Commissioners for their past support. T King Murphy Elementary had submitted three GOCO mini-grants with the County. T These grants had benefitted their community and they would like to submit a request to apply for another one. T The King Murphy Elementary School wanted to submit a mini-grant application to

39 further upgrade and expand their playground facility. This facility was also used as a community park. T The grant application was due on March 3, 2003 and the total of the request was $30,000. This required a match of $15,000 from King Murphy. T King Murphy requested a donation toward the grant match of $4000 from the County. T The remainder after this $4000 would come from fund-raising efforts and in kind donations. T The grant would upgrade the infrastructure under the playground equipment, enhance the ADA accessibility, repair old swings, upgrade the sign at the entrance to the park, expand the community space where people could gather. T The representatives explained what work had been completed thus far with past grant funding. T Ms. Schade requested that the Road and Bridge department participate as an in kind donor by removing the old swings, and hauling wood chips from the Hayden sawmill. T Ms. Schade asked that the County front the initial $15,000 and the County would be reimbursed by GOCO should the grant application be successful.

Mr. Small requested that this $4000 not come from the Conservation Trust Fund as it had already been appropriated. Mr. Small suggested that this funding come from the Sales Tax Fund. Mr. Small stated that King Murphy Elementary had done an excellent job of documenting and submitting the required reports to GOCO.

Mr. Stewart stated that typically the school received approval in June, performed the work in summer when the youth were gone, and then received reimbursement in the Fall. Commissioner Poirot wanted to confirm with the Brookvale Road and Bridge department before committing their staff to the project.

Ms. Schade stated that the PTA would raise $10,000, the Student Council would raise $500, and the remaining $500 would be in kind donations. Mr. Small stated that the PTA completed the administrative portion of the grant and had done an excellent job in the past. Commissioner Poirot agreed to meet with Darryl Funk, Supervisor of Brookvale Road and Bridge. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the GOCO Grant application by King Murphy Elementary School, the $4000 donation from the County, the fronting of the $15,000 until reimbursed by GOCO, and to allow the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-32, CONVEYANCE OF R&PP LANDS TO THE CITY OF IDAHO SPRINGS: County Lands Director Lisa Vogel presented. Planner II Holland Smith, former assistant to the City of Idaho Springs Julie Holmes, Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young, and Idaho Springs Mayor Dennis Lunbery attended the hearing. Ms. Vogel made the following statements: T Ms. Vogel stated that the County Lands Department was very close to conveying the 424 acres to the City of Idaho Springs for recreation and public purposes. T This transfer would be case #03-TR-05 and the land would be transferred under R&PP terms and conditions pursuant to 5-C-1 of Public Law that Clear Creek County received the former BLM lands under. This land was also referred to as Recommendation Area #28. T This land was originally recommended to be transferred to the City of Idaho springs as it was along the northern boundary of Idaho springs and located in Sections 25, 35, and 36 of T3SR73W. T One point to note was that several County roads crossed these lands, i.e., Virginia Canyon and Two Brothers Road. T Adjacent Property Owners were notified of this hearing and the County Lands Department had received several phone calls. T One letter was received after packets were sent to the Board of County Commissioners from Duane Leroy. Mr. Leroy owns a claim in the northern part of the Parcel 1 of the County lands conveyance. Mr. Leroy wanted an exemption and some of this land transferred to him that were superceding his claim. He wanted to buy these portions from the County. T This exemption would set back the conveyance to Idaho Springs by 45 days.

40 T Public Notice was done for this hearing. T Ms. Vogel stated that Ms. Holmes had comments from the City of Idaho Springs with regard to their Long Range Plan.

Ms. Holmes stated that the City was concerned about their access along Virginia Canyon Road and Gilson Gulch Road. The Two Brothers Road was deemed as a private dead end access to the mining site there. Another change was that the City had removed the name of the Idaho Springs Fire Department and changed it to the Clear Creek Fire Authority since they were a member. The Idaho Springs Planning Commission thought it was beneficial to the city and residents to have this land as the development of the area would be a part of the Comprehensive Plan and Long Range Management Plan as outlined in the guideline for the City Council to use in the future. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission’s vision and recommendation. The City was unaware of Mr. Leroy.

Regarding Mr. Leroy, Ms. Vogel stated that in 1998, the County Lands Department had conveyed land to Adjacent Property Owners in the area and she was unsure of why Mr. Leroy did not come forth at this time. Commissioner Poirot asked if the land could be conveyed to Idaho Springs and then they could convey to Leroy. Mr. Smith stated that this was against the R&PP rules. Ms. Vogel stated that she was happy to accommodate Mr. Leroy and complete an exemption provided Mr. Leroy bought the land.

Mayor Lunbery stated that this process had been long already. He was not opposed to taking the time to address Mr. Leroy if it met County criteria. Ms. Vogel stated that this conveyance could be done minus the parcels that Leroy wanted. Mr. Loeffler stated that the land could not be deeded to Idaho Springs until the exemption with Leroy was finished. Mr. Leroy was asking for 2.34 acres. Mr. Smith stated that conveying to Leroy would make the boundary of the conveyance to Idaho Springs much smoother.

Mr. Young stated that there was a prospector’s trail in this area and it was not noted on these maps. Mr. Smith stated that Idaho Springs did not mention it either. Ms. Vogel stated that none of her maps showed this trail and it was not on the survey.

Mayor Lunbery stated that the City would accept the land of Leroy’s if he did not want it and they would accept a Quit Claim deed. Mayor Lunbery was also willing to wait the 45 days for the exemption process even though this process was 2-3 years old.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if these lands were transferred to the City would there be a gap in boundary between the City boundary and this boundary of these lands. Mayor Lunbery replied that there would be a gap however the City would work toward a continuous line. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue this hearing to March 18, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. and approved to consider all three of the County lands portions. Commissioner Dale seconded. Mayor Lunbery agreed to the County lands portions and the continuance. The motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-19, PARTIAL RELEASE OF LETTER OF CREDIT FOR HYDRO MULCH SEEDING FOR SADDLEBACK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SUBPHASES 1A, 1C, 1D1, AND 1D2: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Saddleback Development Corporation representative Rich Cassens, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following statements: T This release was for the hydro-mulch seeding and the rework on Packsaddle Road would widen and reduce the grade by 800-ft. T A letter was submitted from Mr. Cassens on the amount of money to be released. T Mr. Rollenhagen submitted letters from Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel indicating acceptance and that the work appeared complete. T Staff did recommend approval of this partial release of Letter of Credit.

Mr. Vogel explained hydro-mulch seeding. This seeding was a two step process using a gun to shoot the seed onto the slope and then using a mulch to cover it. In the Subdivision

41 Improvement Agreement, it stated that the slopes were not steep enough to require netting. Also according to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, Saddleback Development Corporation was required to form a maintenance program for the area so if any erosion, they would have to correct. The time to do this work was when the ground was not frozen. This work was done in November of 2002 and this was a normal time to do this work. If the seeding did not succeed, the subcontractor would come back and do the work again free of charge. This case was just now before the Board of County Commissioners due to the completion time of the road work. Mr. Cassens agreed and stated that they waited until the road work was complete and then combined these two projects for one release.

Mr. Cassens stated that there was still $73,000 in the Letter of Credit, $50,000 for the bus turnaround and the remainder was for the silt fencing and a 1/2 acre of seeding to be completed along the road alignment. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that Saddleback Development Corporation would soon be requesting a Certificate of Compliance from the County for Lots 13-20. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-19, partial release of Letter of Credit for Saddleback Development Corporation. Commissioner Dale seconded and added with the exception of the 800-ft on Packsaddle Trail in subphase 1-D-2. Commissioner Poirot amended. The vote was unanimous.

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR TIM WHEELER FOR OUTLOT B AND THE ALBERTA/HATTYE LODES: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Planning Commission member Donna Moody attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: T These were the deed restrictions for the TDR Case #03-TDR-05 for Tim Wheeler. T The form of these deed restrictions was approved by County Attorney Robert Loeffler. T These restrictions would restrict development on the sending sites and there would be some restrictions on the receiving site.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the deed restrictions for Tim Wheeler for Outlot B and the Alberta/Hattye Lodes and to have the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners sign the documents. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen stated that these restrictions would be enforced by the Board of County Commissioners or their designee, i.e., the Zoning Enforcement group in the Planning Department. Commissioner Dale noted that the Title Companies would find these deed restrictions in their research. The vote was unanimous.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION OF CSBG GRANT FOR THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented the corrected figures for the grant application with a revised version of the Community Action Plan. Ms. Dicken noted that 25% of the Clear Creek County youth qualify for the free lunch program. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the CSBG grant application for Human Services and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the application. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 2003

42 The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 25, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Poirot was out of town.

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-42, RESOLUTION IN RECOGNITION OF 13 YEARS OF MERITORIOUS SERVICE BY ROSE TRUE, SITE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER FOR VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, SENIOR’S CENTER: Project Support Board member Fabyan Watrous presented. Ms. Watrous stated that Ms. True was retiring this week and the Project Support Board had requested this resolution in recognition of Ms. True. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-42, resolution in recognition of 13 years of meritorious service by Rose. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and during discussion read the resolution into the record. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT TO RECLAMATION PERMIT FOR HENDERSON MINE: Henderson Mine representative Anne Bierle presented. Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Bierle made the following comments: • Ms. Bierle stated that the Henderson Mine was renegotiating their bond with the State. • This process allowed the mine to bring to the table any issues they had with their State bond all at once. • Most of the bond amendment request reflected changes to the mill side of the mine. The amendment also made changes to the proposed land use on the mine site. • Ms. Bierle presented a map of all the buildings at the mine site. The mine reconfigured the closure to allow certain buildings to remain, i.e., the office buildings, machine shop warehouse, water and sewage treatment plants. • The mine had begun discussing with people the redevelopment in the end. The mine was a good 20 years from closing and the conversations on redevelopment have not been very serious. • Ms. Bierle had spoken with the Master Plan Steering Committee and the Planning Commission on this amendment to the mine’s bond and the Planning Commission had written a resolution of support. • Ms. Bierle requested the Board of County Commissioners support of this amendment by the mine as well. She submitted a draft letter of support as a suggestion for the Board of County Commissioners to sign.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler reiterated that the current reclamation permit required the mine to take the property back to open forest. Now, the mine was requesting to leave some of the buildings in the case of future redevelopment. These buildings, parking lots, water and sewer facilities could be used as part of the replacement economy for the County. Ms. Bierle confirmed that this was correct.

Mr. Loeffler stated that if the buildings were left the County would not be responsible for removing them as the reclamation bond would be used for that. Henderson Mine owned the land and the buildings and they would always be responsible for these. Mr. Loeffler stated that the Mined Land Reclamation Board would be looking for this letter or some other response from the County as to their position on this requested amendment. Ms. Bierle stated that if the County wanted all buildings removed, the Mined Land Reclamation Board would require this of the Henderson Mine. Commissioner Dale made the motion to submit a letter of support of the Henderson Mine amendment to their reclamation permit. The letter would support the keeping of the two buildings and support structures, i.e., parking lots, water and sewer facilities, etc. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen clarified that the

43 County was getting nothing from this amendment except for the preservation of certain infrastructure at the mine. The County would receive the benefit to the local the economy to have those buildings remain. Commissioner Sorensen appreciated the relations with the Henderson Mine and the ability to have this opportunity to comment and wanted this to continue into the future. Ms. Bierle confirmed that this was not a transfer of property and the buildings which remain will remain the responsibility of Clymax Molybdenum and Phelps Dodge. The vote was unanimous.

PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE THE CSBG FOR COMMUNITY INPUT: Human Services Assistant Candy Morehouse presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended. Ms. Morehouse stated that this hearing was for open public comment with regard to the Human Services CSBG grant and how it was operated. No public attended the hearing and the Board of County Commissioners had approved the grant application the prior week. The hearing was closed for public comment.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL PURCHASE OF BELLY DUMPTRAILER FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following presentation: < Currently the Road and Bridge fleet was in need of supplementing their ability to haul road surfacing material. During this year’s budget planning, Mr. Allen identified the need of making a capital purchase for one bottom dump trailer, one water truck, and 2 tandem dump trucks. < The purchase of the water truck was forfeited earlier this year as a specific need was identified and approved for an expenditure of approximately $21,000. Budget planning indicated each truck purchase would be approximately $40,000 and the trailer purchase approximately $20,000. < There were two problems with the current capabilities for hauling material. The largest portion of the hauling fleet had a very small capacity. Each Internal and Freightliner truck had a 7 cubic yard carrying capacity. The hauls the Road and Bridge department made from their gravel suppliers to work areas were generally long distance. If a truck can make 5 trips a day then it had only provided about 35 cubic yards of material. This is enough material to cover the road with a 2" depth for 280 feet in length. This same operator could deliver 100 cubic yards in the same day increasing productivity by 530 feet with the use of this trailer. < The International and Freightliner trucks were the Road and Bridge’s 4X4 plow trucks. Using these trucks to haul surfacing material in the summer had been very hard on the front drive axle and transfer case. These trucks had continuously occupied the shop in the past having the front axles and transfer cases rebuilt. Last July Road and Bridge spent approximately $20,000 in repairs to these trucks. < The preferred purchase was the Premier Series LW21-40. This trailer was equipped with the abrasion resistant steel, top boards, fenders, cab and ground control for the gates, a heavy duty push block and under-ride protection. < The Road and Bridge Department strongly recommended the immediate ordering of the Premier Series trailer, option 2. This model provided a significantly greater benefit than the $5340 cost increase indicated. This trailer would last longer and had a significant increase in safety. The increased cost of this trailer over what was budgeted still fit within the capital purchase plan. The elimination of the purchase of the $40,000 water truck in order to purchase the $21,000 high pressure washer equipment, allowed this overrun to remain within budget. < Mr. Allen stated that this purchase was $9000 more than what he had originally budgeted. < Mr. Allen stated that the life span of the belly dumptrailer was 15-20 yeas. < This dumptrailer would be used for six months out of the year, for material in summer and road base in winter. < Mr. Allen stated that his department had two tractors that could pull this trailer. < Mr. Allen proposed to order the 28-ft trailer and have the factory install a hand crank cover for $7850.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the capital purchase of the belly dumptrailer for

44 Road and Bridge. This purchase included the Premier Series. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. Mr. Allen confirmed the total amount was $29,815. Mr. Small confirmed that there was enough funds in the capital purchase fund to cover this. Mr. Small confirmed that there was still an allocation of $19,000 in the budget for the future purchase of a water truck. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WAIVER OF &/OR REDUCTION OF FEE FOR ZONING FOR MUNCHIANDO/CHUCK HOWARD, WEST OF IDAHO SPRINGS ON STANLEY ROAD: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Chuck Howard and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended. Ms. Kastens made the following presentation: < Chuck Howard, representing Tony and Paul Munchiando of T& P Excavating, was requesting the fee for rezoning of their property be reduced and/or waived. < At this time the Planning Department had accepted applications for a Boundary Line Adjustment and a Road Vacation for the Munchiando’s, the Howard’s and the Kincade’s properties located on Stanley Road just west of Idaho Springs. < In order to process the Boundary Line Adjustment and the Road Vacation, the Munchiando’s property needs to be rezoned to acknowledge the existing nonconforming use. < All three applications need to be processed simultaneously in order to correct all of the various problems. < The applicants have paid the fees for the first two processes, however, wish the fee for the rezoning be waived. < Since these applications were being processed simultaneously, much of the research, analysis, notification, and other information needed for the rezoning will be completed through those processes. The rezoning would require additional staff time for the public hearings and associated staff reports. An analysis of these additional costs was performed and staff believed $120 would cover these additional costs. < Other fees already paid were the Boundary Line Adjustment, vested rights, and road vacation fees. < This case had grown due to the number of property owners involved. < If all the cases were approved, all the issues would be resolved.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the reduction of the fee total to have the Howards/Munchiandos to only pay the requested $120. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. Ms. Kastens stated that there would be no other staff involvement in this portion of the case. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-40, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR SADDLEBACK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR LOTS 13-20: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Saddleback Development Corporation representatives Russ Sindt and Rich Cassens, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, and CCMRD Director Mark Cucinella attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: < All of the improvements required by the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Saddleback Mountain Lots 13-20, Phase 1, appear to be complete, with the exception of the required bus turnaround and a small portion of land that still needed to be revegetated. < This has been verified by Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, and the Planning Department. < Therefore, Staff recommended issuance of a Certificate of Compliance on these lots, as requested by the developer. < Saddleback Metropolitan District had certified to the County that well permits would be issued to the new owners of Lots 13-20, in a letter dated January 24, 2003.

County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that the lots could not be sold until this Certificate of Compliance was approved. This certificate could not be approved until the public improvements were done that affect these lots. This was a financial security for the County until the improvements were complete. Mr. Vogel stated that the revegetation, the bus turnaround, and some BMP’s needed to be completed and the amount retained was enough to complete the work if Saddleback Development Corporation did not comply. The County was still holding a total of

45 $73,924.77. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-40, Certificate of Compliance for Saddleback Development Corporation for Lots 13-20. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION WITH THE COLORADO VALUE ADDED FEASIBILITY GRANT PROGRAM --- COLORADO AGRICULTURAL VALUE-ADDED DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Applicant Mike Caistor presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, and CCMRD Director Mark Cucinella. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: < This application was required to be submitted by a local government or a non profit authorized by a local government. < Mr. Caistor needed a pass through from the County in order to receive, apply, and administer this grant. < This project had a minimum need of $30,000. < The deadline for the application was the end of the week. < This proposed project did have benefits to the residents of Clear Creek County but would only primarily benefit one business owner in the County. < This grant required monthly reports to be submitted to the Dept. Of Agriculture.

Mr. Caistor made the following presentation: < Mr. Caistor was proposing a research study on the feasibility of straw bales and forest byproducts as insulation in a building system. < This project would create a local economy and a way to fund fire mitigation and the clearing of slash. < The people involved in this project were Mr. Caistor and the Colorado State University (CSU). < CSU was providing a match and support letter. < The CSU task would be to look for potential areas and set up a lab to do tests for feasibility. < Another player in the proposal was the Oakridge Laboratory which would test the insulation panel. < There was currently a lab in the 4-Corners region that was working on this same project. < Mr. Caistor stated that there was another grant cycle in September in which to apply for additional funding for this project. < Mr. Caistor stated that the reason for the last minute grant application was that he did not know it required a government to sign off. Mr. Caistor stated that he would do most of the work on the grant and little assistance would be required from Mr. Weaver. < Mr. Caistor wanted to apply for this grant now as the economy was in a recession and this could help to sustain his business.

Mr. Weaver requested to review all the information before it was submitted for this grant. Mr. Small stated that the County would have to be the applicant and then contract with Mr. Caistor. Mr. Caistor stated that he came to this County to produce these insulation panels and he could not get the business off the ground without the grant.

Mr. Weaver stated that this application was missing financial statements and the agreement between the County. He suggested continuing this hearing to the upcoming Friday to consider the issues. Mr. Weaver stated that his schedule was booked but he would attempt to help Mr. Caistor meet the Friday deadline. Mr. Weaver asked what the County’s liability would be for applying for this grant. Mr. Loeffler stated that he recommended against the applying for this grant as he could not discern what was being asked of the County. He added that the agreement between the County and Mr. Caistor could be done at the time the grant was awarded. Finally, the grant could be applied for and later not accepted.

Ms. Stokstad stated that she could assist Mr. Caistor with his grant application. Commissioner Dale stated that he wanted to help Mr. Caistor if they could. Mr. Weaver stated that he had completed last minute grants in the past and it was much more difficult than anticipated.

Mr. Caistor made the following statements: < He stated that Mr. Weaver was only sharing the negative aspects of this proposal and he

46 did not want to fight with Mr. Weaver. < Mr. Caistor wanted to be a part of the replacement economy. < This was a grant application for research and the liability in applying was being overblown. < Mr. Caistor was being heavily impacted by the recession and needed this grant. < Mr. Caistor agreed with Mr. Loeffler in that the County could apply and then reject the award later if they were not satisfied.

Mr. Weaver apologized for sounding negative. Ms. Stokstad agreed to assist Mr. Caistor over the next couple of days and return to meet with the Board of County Commissioners on Friday. Commissioner Sorensen noted that most grant applications required financial statements. Mr. Loeffler noted that the County was legally liable to the grant if the grant was awarded. The County was concerned with all pass-through grants as they were freebies. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners had to sign off and Mr. Small was responsible for the funding. The County was aware of this administrative work and the risks involved. Mr. Small stated that the pass-through grants done with other agencies had been done after establishing years of relationships. This created a mutual comfort.

Commissioner Sorensen agreed to allow time for Ms. Stokstad and Mr. Caistor to work on the grant and then meet on Friday to reconsider the application. Ms. Stokstad agreed. Mr. Weaver wanted the word to be out that last minute grant applications were not a good idea. Commissioner Sorensen noted that most applications before the Board were required to be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners a week prior to allow time for review by the Board and the County Attorney.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to continue this hearing to February 28, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC RESTROOM AT THE RUTH MILL PARK: CCMRD Director Mark Cucinella presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small and County Lands Director Lisa Vogel attended the hearing. Mr. Cucinella made the following presentation: < The request of the County was for $500 in support of the public restroom and a letter of support from the Board of County Commissioners. < The non-motorized corridor for the County passed in front of this park and it was an ideal location for a restroom/comfort station. < The City of Idaho Springs was requesting a total of $54,000 for this park project and the total project was $100,000. The City was submitting $13,000 of in kind labor. < The park would had a playground and the Forest Service donated a landscape architect. < Over the years, the City and volunteers had removed much debris from this site and had received a grant for some trees. < Idaho Springs would be responsible for the maintenance of the site. < The City had original photos of what the Millsite used to look like and the comfort station would be designed after this.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the $500 and the letter of support. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. Mr. Small suggested taking it from sales tax instead of conservation trust funds as they were already allocated. The vote was unanimous.

Mr. Weaver brought up the issue of utility bills and who would be responsible for them at the Clear Creek Fairgrounds restroom facility. Mr. Small suggested that since these bills were minimal , they could be taken from the Building Maintenance budget. Idaho Springs would be responsible for the maintenance and utilities at the proposed Ruth Mill Park.

The meeting adjourned.

47 ______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 26, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Poirot was out of town.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding: • purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal or other property interest as related to CRS 24-6-402- 4-a, relative to water, the Borealis Lode, St. Mary’s Lot 787 • matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations pursuant to CRS 24-6-402-4-b, as related to school sanitation, Central City, Public Ways Review, St. Mary’s Road regulations, Tech Park land dedication, Brookvale School, Guanella Pass Road, the Triple Bypass Race, Service Unit Manager contracts; • personnel matters but not regarding commissioners or elected officials or to discussions of personnel policies pursuant to CRS 24-6-402-4-f.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - FEBRUARY 28, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on February 28, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Poirot was out of town.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION WITH THE COLORADO VALUE-ADDED FEASIBILITY GRANT PROGRAM – COLORADO AGRICULTURAL VALUE-ADDED DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Grant applicant Mike Caistor presented. Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Mr. Caistor made the following comments: • This funding would be used to operate a prototype manufacturing process for manufacturing panels made from recycled tree slash. • Additionally, the project would test trees to see if indigenous trees to the area could be used for these insulation panels while simultaneously contributing to the thinning of the forest for fire protection. • These panels provided thermal superiority to other insulation. • Mr. Caistor addressed Mr. Weaver’s concern of including a page explaining the deliverables of this project. Mr. Caistor stated that the grant administrators told him the deliverable page was not needed at this time and they would send him a form to complete.

Mr. Small made the following statements: • The grant application did request a draft agreement between the County and Research Innovators, Mr. Caistor’s company, as the County was the applicant and Mr. Caistor would be the administrator.

48 • Mr. Small stated that documentation on personnel expenses and equipment would have to be provided. • Mr. Small requested more detailed documentation on the cash and match for the application.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler made the following comments: • Mr. Loeffler stated that at this time the grant application appeared to be missing some documentation. • The grant, if awarded, would come to the County and the County needed documentation on how that money was to be released for what purposes. • Mr. Loeffler stated that Mr. Caistor would need a timetable to show deadlines and when things needed to be submitted. This would coincide with a disbursement schedule.

Mr. Small asked where the funding for these grant awards originated. Mr. Caistor thought they were funded through the State. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the grant application requested a complete documentation on financing. Mr. Caistor stated that he could provide income statements if needed and he had the needed $5000 for the grant application.

Mr. Loeffler stated that Research Innovators was not listed with the Secretary of State’s office. Mr. Loeffler explained that this was a large request of the County when there was no background on the company. Mr. Loeffler found the application to be unpersuasive to the support from the County. Commissioner Sorensen stated that it was up to the Board of County Commissioners to determine if the application was credible and if they should endorse it.

Mr. Caistor made the following statements: • This was a start up business and if it had been an ongoing company, he would not be requesting grant funds. • Mr. Caistor stated that he had a business plan in progress and a product with patent pending. Having the product filed for patent was very expensive and he did not want to publicize the product until he knew that he had an entity. • Mr. Caistor understood that grants were to get programs started. • Mr. Caistor did not see a risk in this project in that if the application failed, the County would not lose anything. Mr. Loeffler stated that the risk was the reputation of the County for submitting an incomplete application. • Mr. Caistor felt that the risk was his in that he was fronting the money to get the project started.

Commissioner Sorensen summarized that the things missing from the application were the company’s financials, the agreement between the company and the County, and a correction on the budget page. Commissioner Sorensen stated that most grant boards do not review applications that were incomplete. Mr. Caistor requested that the application be submitted and if the State noted the missing documents, he would submit them immediately. Mr. Caistor felt that if the State liked the proposal, they would overlook the missing documents and allow them to be submitted late. Mr. Caistor added that there was another grant period in six months and he wanted to apply for this round as well in order to obtain more funding for this current project.

Mr. Caistor made the following statements: • He moved here to do business and found Clear Creek County to be difficult with high labor costs and difficulty finding staff. • Mr. Caistor apologized for the incomplete grant application but thought the State should be the one to deny his application not the County. • Mr. Caistor stated that if the County denied all requests the County would go nowhere. • Mr. Caistor stated that this application would not hurt the reputation of the County as it was with the Department of Agriculture and there was no agriculture in Clear Creek County.

Mr. Weaver stated that the County completed over 30 grants per year with different agencies and they had maintained high credibility with these groups. The County did not want to hinder a possible relationship with the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Caistor stated that with the current County focus of replacement of economy needs, he was surprised the County was not

49 supporting more ventures such as this. The County was in trouble and needed to do something about it.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that idea of this application was intriguing but to have the County sign off as applicant on a plan like this that was incomplete, the County could not endorse it. Commissioner Sorensen emphasized the need for grant applications to be complete and she would entertain consideration of this same grant at the second cycle later in the year. Commissioner Dale agreed. Mr. Caistor disagreed stating that the application should be sent anyway and that the posture on this grant had been negative from the beginning.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 4, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 4, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-44, LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO REFINANCE ROAD AND BRIDGE ROAD GRADERS: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen attended the hearing. Mr. Small made the following presentation: • Mr. Small wanted to refinance the road graders at a lower rate that would save the County $5000 over the next 13 quarterly payments. • He requested that he, along with Commissioner Sorensen, be authorized to handle the transactions of the lease.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-44, lease with option to purchase agreement to refinance Road and Bridge road graders. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Mr. Small stated that there was a little over three years left on the term. The Board requested that the accompanying resolution have more details on the terms and conditions of the refinancing. Commissioner Poirot amended his motion to include the amendments to the resolution per the County Attorney. Mr. Loeffler confirmed that the resolution would identify the equipment, the interest rates, the maximum term and the lease the County was replacing. Commissioner Dale seconded. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT TO CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FROM SHARON EMORY, VIRGINIA CANYON: Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that this easement was a part of the Road and Bridge Virginia Canyon drainage improvements project. These easements would be coming before the Board of County Commissioners randomly as property owners were contacted. This particular easement was only for 5% of the property involved and the other 95% would have to contacted as well. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the grant of easement to Clear Creek County from Sharon Emory and authorized the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the document. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-17, REZONING CASE #276, FROM M-2 TO M-1 FOR BRIAN AND PEGGY SMITH, VIRGINIA CANYON ROAD, RUSSELL GULCH AREA: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Brian and Peggy Smith attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: • This case was Rezoning Case #276 requesting to change a portion of the M-2 zoned part of this property to M-1 for a residential building site.

50 • The location of the land was in Section 22, T2SR73W, located approximately 3/4 of a mile west from the Russell Gulch intersection of Virginia Canyon Road and continued west down past York Gulch Road. • The owners were Paul and Barbara Meese and the applicants were Bryan Smith and Peggy Hockett-Smith. • The property in question was a tract of former County-owned land that had been combined with an adjacent mining claim; the Mabel Lode. The Mabel was currently zoned M-1 however, the applicants were interested in a more suitable building site for their residence on the M-2 portion of this combined property that would create less site disturbance, and that also was on a north-west facing slope as opposed to the Mabel Lode that was located down a ravine on a severe north facing slope. If this property was rezoned, the applicants would not acquire an additional building right than what they currently had with the Mabel. Rather, because this was an M-1 property, only one building right was permitted, regardless of size. • This property was surrounded by mining claims and other former County owned lands that had been combined with existing mining claims. All zoning was either M-2 or M-1. Residential uses were interspersed. There was one property zoned PD that permitted MR-1 uses, and for general handcraft and ceramic manufacturing. This property was located northeast of the proposed property. • Mr. Rollenhagen submitted to the Board of County Commissioners the approved Planning Commission resolution and a narrative from the applicant. • Mr. Rollenhagen received responses from the Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson, Ron Oehlkers of the Division of Wildlife, the Jefferson Soil Conservation District and one response from an Adjacent Property Owner, Lois and Karl Kabert. • Mr. Oehlkers indicated concerns over wildlife habitat impacts. If this application was approved, he would like to see a restriction on the building site, such as a building envelope or something that would restrict the location of structures and minimize the habitat loss and site disturbance. • The Jefferson Soil Conservation District indicated concerns that if there were mine tailings present, it could impair water quality and septic system failure. There was a greater potential for groundwater contamination because the soils were coarse and had moderately rapid permeability. • Mr. Rollenhagen stated that he had found no evidence of tailings and the former BLM land was never patented. • The Site Development Department required that the applicant would have to show legal access to the building site. • Mr. Etcheson of the Environmental Health Department stated that he was “okay” after reviewing the engineer’s evaluation for the ISDS. • The Sheriff’s office had no conflicts. • The Adjacent Property Owner Kabert had concerns over existing access and if that access could support additional traffic. • On February 19, 2003, the Planning Commission , after continuing the public hearing from January 15, 2003, adopted a resolution that recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners of this rezoning request to rezone a portion of the M-2 part to M- 1 for construction of a residence, and to rezone the balance of the Mabel lode M-2 and keep the balance of everything else M-2 as it was now. The Planning Commission did not feel comfortable rezoning the entire parcel M-1 as originally requested. The applicants offered to revise their request so only that portion of the property that had the desirable building site would be rezoned to M-1 and the balance of the property would be zoned M-2. • As the Mabel lode was more undesirable to have a residence on the request was to rezone a portion of the former County land in order to have the building site located there.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the recommendation was instead of a simple rezoning, it would be a concurrent zoning from M-1 to M–2 and M-2 to M-1. Mr. Rollenhagen agreed stating that the initial request was to rezone the entire parcel and staff had denied this as they felt there was a reason for the initial zoning of M-2. The Planning Commission had granted the Smith’s a building envelope on the M-2 as an M-1 but wanted the rest of the parcel M-2.

51 Mr. Rollenhagen stated that staff had denied this case mostly because the property had been zoned during a township zoning effort. It was a way for staff to discourage development in these remote areas. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the portion of the proposal that was zoned M-1 was zoned this way many years ago. Mr. Rollenhagen added that he had questioned the Clear Creek Fire Authority Fire Chief Kelly Babeon on this proposal and had not heard a response.

Mr. Rollenhagen stated that he did identify the pros and cons of this proposal. The Mabel lode was zoned M-1 and could have a home now. Additionally, this area was zoned M-2 mostly to protect the mining in the area. The Planning Commission was not comfortable with a straight rezoning so they recommended only a portion of the parcel as M-1. Commissioner Dale stated that the new building envelope appeared better for development than the previous zoning.

Mr. Smith and Mrs. Hockett-Smith made the following presentation: • He stated that he and his wife were EMT trained and that his wife was an RN. • He stated that the M-1 land was not very accessible which supported the reason for moving the building site. • The new location had a gently sloping road and would require little improvement. • The M-1 site would require a lot of improvement to the road. • Ms. Hockett-Smith stated that the access to the Mabel lode would require many trees to be destroyed and they wanted to prevent this. • The present road to the proposed site, even though not wide, would not require as much clearing to enable a fire truck access. • The change would be more gradual with the proposed building site than with the destruction and bulldozing which would be required for the Mabel lode.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-17, approving the Rezoning Case #276 as described. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-30, SPECIAL USE PERMIT #03-SUP-01, FOR A B&B AT 410 SUNNY SKIES TRAILS, OFF TRAIL CREEK ROAD FOR DAVID MCGLONE: In attendance were residents Bob and Ann Timberman, Heidi and Wade Cox, Aldora Fugenschuh, Rusty Nail, Wade Tigelaar, Jeff Hockman, Phyllis Penner, Mined Land Reclamation Board representative Bob Jones, applicants David McGlone and Karla Gordon, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman. Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following presentation: • Mr. Rollenhagen stated that this was Special Use Permit Case #03-SUP-01 to request to operate a B&B at 410 Sunny Skies Trail off Trail Creek Road. • The applicants were David McGlone and Karla Gordon and the property was located at the top of Sunny Skies Trail, three miles up Trail Creek Road from its intersection with Trail Creek Road. • The existing residence had 2700 square feet of finished living space and 5000 square feet of total space. The residence currently had 4 bedrooms. • The proposal was to use two of the existing four bedrooms as guestrooms for the proposed B&B. • The surrounding properties in the section were existing mining claims zoned M-1 or M- 2, that were amongst County owned land. • Criteria for Special Use Permits and the operation of a B&B were included in the staff report. • Two draft resolutions were provided, one for approval and one for denial. • Maps were submitted to the Board to view the roads and adjacent mining claims. • Referral responses were received from Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson, Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, Clear Creek Fire Authority Fire Chief Kelly Babeon, Sheriff Don Krueger, and a total of 5 Adjacent Property Owners. • The criteria for a Special Use Permit did pose some questions. • At the Planning Commission hearing eight people had spoke in opposition to this proposal. • On February 19, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for this case and adopted a Resolution that recommended denial of this request to the Board of County Commissioners. They found that the proposal did not conform to four of the criteria for

52 approving Special Use Permits as follows: • The use did appear to be in harmony with the character of the neighborhood, and was not compatible with the surrounding area. • The use did appear to have an undue burden on available infrastructure, particularly, the road system in the area. • This use did not appear to result in undue traffic congestion and additional traffic hazards. • The proposed use did appear to be detrimental to health, safety, and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Clear Creek County. • It appeared clear that the site characteristics of this property warranted themselves to be very favorable to this kind of development. The Site Characteristics analysis indicated flat land, available infrastructure, no geologic hazards to worry about and a medium fire hazard. Even the surrounding area, in that the properties were zoned for residential use, appeared to be compatible with the proposal. • As with the Planning Commission hearing, access was the biggest issue. If the Board of County Commissioners wished to approve this application, staff recommended that the Board require that the applicant provide additional details as to how Sunny Skies Trail would be adequately improved and maintained for review by the Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel and Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen so the Board could be assured that this use would not cause undue burden on the road, or would not result in undue traffic congestion or hazards.

Mr. McGlone made the following presentation: • Mr. McGlone was very frustrated with the Planning Commission process for three reasons. • The first reason was that the data related to the criteria of qualifying for a permit was not considered. • There was much emotional testimony from the landowners and the Planning Commission. Mr. McGlone tried to put forth further criteria that the County considered for approval and this was not considered. • Mr. McGlone informed the Board of County Commissioners that they would hear much emotional testimony today but asked that they consider the criteria for approval. • The business benefits to the County were not considered at the Planning Commission hearing. He asked the Planning Commission if any of their members owned companies in the County and two did. One recused themself from the hearing and the other was a home builder. Mr. Levin was the member that recused himself from voting but then went on to speak in opposition of the project. Mr. McGlone did not find this fair in the Planning Commission hearings. • The Planning Commission stated that Mr. McGlone did not conform to 4 of the criteria for Special Use Permits and the Planning Department said they didn’t conform to only 2. Both of these criteria with the Planning Department were related to access. Mr. McGlone stated that much of the opposition came from other property owners. • Regarding traffic congestion, the County was allowing more homes to be built in this area but recommending against the B&B. A new residence would have more traffic impact than a B&B. This appeared as a double standard. • The innkeeper would not commute to Denver and they figured 120 stays per year, mostly in the summer. • Mr. McGlone offered to close the B&B in the winter to cut down on traffic. • Mr. McGlone created a plan to shuttle people up to the B&B from the frontage road if needed. • Mr. McGlone measured the road in 8 different places and there were places to pass oncoming traffic. • Mr. McGlone measured the grade and found it to be only 11% and not 20%. • Mr. McGlone had lived on this road for over a year and had only passed someone maybe ten times. This road was not heavily traveled. • Mr. McGlone stated that the B&B advertising would inform guests that this road was a four-wheel-drive road. • Additional residences were planned in this area per Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel.

53 • Mr. McGlone stated that he had spoken with Fire Chief Kelly Babeon after the Planning Commission and Mr. Babeon informed him that it took 17 minutes to reach Mr. McGlone’s home. Mr. McGlone stated that Mr. Babeon agreed to write another letter relating to this 17 minute time. • Mr. McGlone stated that the advertising would state their remote location and the distance time of Emergency Services. • As for Emergency Services vehicles, Mr. McGlone had all types of vehicles up to his home, from well trucks to 2-wheel-drive vehicles. The home did have a sprinkler system and he saw it as safer than many homes in the area. • Regarding the emotional Adjacent Property Owner’s, Mr. McGlone stated that he knew the nearby homeowners thought this would change the area but he disagreed. He had held parties of 30 people and more and had no complaints on anything. • Mr. McGlone hoped that the Board of County Commissioners would consider their data for the criteria and he was happy to work with Mr. Babeon, Mr. Vogel, and Mr. Allen on plan that would work for them. • Mr. McGlone offered to add material to the road and smooth it out. He was willing to invest in the road improvements. He stated that he could improve the section of Sunny Skies Trail from Trail Creek Road and up to his home. Commissioner Poirot informed Mr. McGlone that he would be restricted to the existing footprint. • Mr. McGlone requested to speak after the public comment portion but Commissioner Sorensen denied this request.

The public comment portion of the hearing was opened.

Ann Timberman, nearby resident Ms. Timberman made the following statements: ‘ This issue was about choices. ‘ She chose to live off the main grid, use solar power, little traffic, and have an unmaintained road. ‘ She appreciated her neighbors which wanted the same surroundings. These choices prevented against unwanted impacts. ‘ When McGlone’s built their home, Ms. Timberman understood the trucks going and coming during construction but did not comment as the McGlone’s had chosen this area too. ‘ The proposal of a B&B was different. She did not want strangers in the area and increased traffic. ‘ She felt this would bring the danger of wildfires, more traffic, pollution, and the noise of people exploring the area. A bored teenager on vacation with their parents could start a wildfire. ‘ She apologized for opposing the McGlone’s but she felt the need to protect her area. She wanted it maintained as residential and not commercial. ‘ Regarding the fire issue, in a panic situation, the fire trucks will not be able to access this area in 17 minutes with people rushing to leave the area.

Bob Timberman, nearby landowner Mr. Timberman made the following statements: ‘ He presented a petition in opposition to this proposal. ‘ Regarding Section 2 of the Special Use Permit criteria, by seeing the landowners in the room, the suggestion of a B&B has brought disharmony to the area. Mr. Timberman did not want a B&B or tourists. ‘ Regarding Section 3 of the criteria, this proposal assumes that an infrastructure existed. There were no phone or power lines and this was a one lane mining road. ‘ Regarding Section 4 of the criteria, having a B&B in this area would present undue traffic congestion and an emergency situation would cause many problems for this area. ‘ Regarding Section 5 of the criteria, Mr. Timberman assumed that solar power was not enough at present for the McGlone home as the generator was running non stop. With more people in that home, there would be more of a power draw. ‘ Regarding Section 6 of the criteria, he assumed the septic system for this home was built for a single family residences and not a B&B. ‘ Regarding Section 9 of the criteria and the health and safety of the present and future

54 inhabitants, increasing traffic on this road created more danger for the inhabitants along this road. ‘ Mr. Timberman stated that the County gave the McGlone’s a Certificate of Occupancy for a single family residence and not a B&B. Mr. Timberman’s home was the first one on the road and would be the most affected by this proposal. ‘ This road was maintained by the people that lived here and received no County maintenance. All the work laid with the people that lived on this road. ‘ For traffic on this road, when two cars met, someone had to back up or pull over. If you pulled onto private land to let someone by, you were trespassing. ‘ This commercial venture would change the area for the worst. ‘ Regarding the shuttling of guests, Mr. McGlone did not own the property at the bottom of the road so he could not allow parked cars there. ‘ Paying tourists liked a place they could wander and the McGlone home was surrounded by private lands. The tourists could not wanted onto these lands. ‘ If the County approved this proposal, would they also provide more fire protection to the area? Was the County willing to maintain the road? Would the sheriff come the area more with more theft potential?

Heidi Cox, nearby landowner Ms. Cox made the following statements: ‘ Ms. Cox bought two parcels at the top of Sunny Skies Trail. ‘ She used this land in the summer. ‘ Summer was the time to visit this area and she had been doing this for 8 years. ‘ For the last 3 years, she was not allowed to have a campfire. She had a firepit on her land and was afraid that others visiting the area may try to use it during a fire danger season. ‘ She did not want to see the land destroyed by people visiting and accidentally starting a fire.

Karla Gordon, applicant Ms. Gordon made the following statements: ‘ She requested that the Board of County Commissioners consider the facts and the data presented to meet the criteria for the permit and the operation of the B&B. ‘ The Timberman’s were the only onsite residents. All other property owners were second home owners. ‘ She found it unreasonable that the tourists would trespass. ‘ There were signs on the County road stating private road. ‘ She did not want to have anyone as a guest that would trash the area or start a fire. ‘ There were fire ban posters all over the County. ‘ She understood the neighbors fear and opposition but she asked that the Board consider the facts and the data.

Aldora Fugenschuh, nearby landowner Ms. Fugenschuh made the following statements: ‘ The was the property owner adjacent to the McGlone’s. ‘ She purchased the land so she could build there and have a home with a view. Once her children finished college, she wanted to build. ‘ She thought there were certain regulations for commercial activity and on what grade it could operate. ‘ She doubted that an ambulance could reach the area in 17 minutes. If this was true, she wanted a guarantee from the County. ‘ She knew of a fire in this area and it took Emergency Services three hours to respond. ‘ If the McGlone’s obtained a permit to occupy a home in January then why was a commercial well applied for in December of 2002?

Donna Moody, Planning Commission member Ms. Moody made the following comments: ‘ She was concerned that there were no visual photos in the Planning Commission packet of the area. Therefore she did a site visit and could not reach the site.

55 ‘ She had been driving four-wheel-drive vehicles for many years and could not access the site. ‘ This road was a bad issue and would make this proposal difficult to endorse.

Wade Tigeelar, nearby landowner Mr. Tigeelar made the following statements:

‘ There were actually three permanent residents in this area. ‘ There were scars on the trees where people had slid into to stop on this road. ‘ Additionally, a fourth resident was building in this area. ‘ Mr. Tigeelar lived on Trail Creek Road and he had concerns as Trail Creek Road had too much traffic as it was.

Jeff Hockman, nearby landowner Mr. Hockman made the following statements: ‘ He lived on Sunny Skies Trail. ‘ He had concerns on road access as well and the width of Trail Creek Road to accommodate more than one vehicle at a time. Sunny Skies Trail had the width to only allowed one person on the road at a time. ‘ Regarding the zoning of parcels in this area, some of these parcels were zoned for mining and mining could still occur in this area. Mining would also bring more traffic to the area. ‘ In the case of an emergency, people would be hiking down the roads as there would be no room for vehicles. ‘ Mr. Hockman’s survey showed his land boundary as being in the road. If the road was improved, would he have a say in that? ‘ He did not want to disturb that road in case he wanted to sell the land later. ‘ Any improvements done with gravel would erode the soil on his land. ‘ He had concerns with visitors trespassing in the area and possibly falling into the open mine holes.

Phyllis Penner, nearby landowner Ms. Penner made the following statements: ‘ She owned the Avalanche Claim. ‘ She bought this claim because it was secluded. ‘ She had concerns with the width of the road as she had encountered the McGlone’s while traveling on this road and someone always had to back up and let the other person by. ‘ Ms. Penner had widened an area on her land along the road so she could park there and the McGlone’s contractor and workers were parking there during the construction of their home. ‘ Ms. Penner liked her location because the tourists could not make it up the road. ‘ The pullouts along the road were on her property and she did not want tourists using these pullouts. ‘ This proposal brought about more people which brought more litter, robberies, crime, fire, etc. ‘ She had a young child and did not want a lot of traffic in front of her home.

Rusty Nail, nearby landowner Mr. Nail made the following statements: ‘ Mr. Nail had visited the area on the prior Sunday and could not get up Sunny Skies Trail. ‘ He had a four-wheel-drive with brand new tires and still could not access this road. ‘ The McGlone’s had to chain up all 4 tires to access their home. ‘ His main concern was the road and the intersection with Trail Creek as there was nothing to stop you if you lost control. ‘ Another concern was the trespassing issue.

Mr. Jones stated that if there were open mining holes in this area, people could contact him and he would assist them in closing them. He was speaking on behalf of the Mined Land Reclamation Board.

56 Staff confirmed that Sunny Skies Trail was 4/10 of a mile long and the grade varied from 11% to 18%. It was a fairly steep road. The existing footprint could be improved and Sunny Skies Trail was listed as a County road. Mr. Vogel stated that continuous development would occur in this area as there were many M-1 properties. As there would be more homes coming forth, Mr. Vogel suggested it as a good time to form a road association and maybe widen the road. Mr. Rollenhagen confirmed that there was not a regulation in place for commercial properties.

The following were comments made by the Board of County Commissioners: ‘ Commissioner Poirot stated that this was not considered a commercial development. ‘ Commissioner Poirot stated that closing during the winter months was a good idea and could change the situation. ‘ Commissioner Dale requested to see a favorable letter from the Fire Chief and the Road and Bridge Director. Based on the information provided today, the access issue prevented an acceptance of the proposal from staff. ‘ Regarding the future development of the area, Commissioner Poirot stated that there were more vehicle trips for a single family residence than with a B&B. Additionally, some of the audience had planned on building in the future and this would create more traffic too. ‘ Commissioner Poirot, also, wanted to see an update from the Fire Chief.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to March 25, 2003 at 1:00 p.m to allow time to speak with the Fire Chief and Road and Bridge Director. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Poirot stated that they would only receive more information from staff and not the public. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that he would obtain a statement in writing from the applicant as to the closure during certain winter months. Mr. Rollenhagen asked the Board of County Commissioners to review the conditions of the resolution. Mr. Vogel agreed to take the Board of County Commissioners on a site visit if they so desired. Commissioner Sorensen noted that the County did not make guarantees on Emergency Services response time. The 17 minute time quote was for one person to access this site but not for volunteers to respond, man a fire truck, and reach the location. Commissioner Sorensen asked to know the significance in difference between a commercial well and a residential well. The vote was unanimous.

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE UPPER CLEAR CREEK WATERSHED FOUNDATION’S MINED LAND RECLAMATION PLAN AND TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED REGULATION OF MINED LAND RECLAMATION INCLUDING UNDER 1041 POWERS: In attendance were County Engineer and Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation representative Ed Rapp, Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation representative Bob Jones, EPA representative Mike Holmes, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, Chief Accountant Carl Small, CSM student Ryan Phillips, County resident Trudy Rapp, TBM Land Conservancy representatives Jim Engelking and John Maslanik, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, County Lands Director Lisa Vogel, Emergency Manager Laura Nay, County landowner Jim Pals, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Mining and Environmental Science representative Mark Levin, and Colorado Mining Association representative Karen McHales. Mr. Rapp made the following presentation: • Mr. Rapp stated that he resided at 3237 Mill Creek Road, Dumont, Colorado 80436. • He was a registered professional engineer and served at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners as the County Engineer. • It was a pleasure to appear before the Board of County Commissioners at this first ever public hearing concerning the remediation of some 2000 orphaned mine sites. • An orphaned mine was a residual of the mining era for which there was no potentially responsible party that might be charged with cleanup. • In 1997 with collaboration from the EPA, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and nearly 140 water users of the Clear Creek Watershed, a 501-C3 not for profit corporation was formed to improve water quality and overall environmental health of watersheds in any part of Colorado but with particular focus on Clear Creek. Mr. Rapp was the president of this corporation. • The Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation was here to seek an general excavation permit for an EPA approved action plan to begin remediation of orphan mining residuals in Virginia Canyon and to inform you and your public’s of remediation works

57 contemplated for this summer. • The Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation also wished to place into the record evidence that these works were matters of State wide concern — indeed nationwide concern — that this level of concern can best be met by you acquiring and exercising specifically focused 1041 authority and that this authority and resulting permitting process be maintained for the duration of this $20 million , multi year and multi faceted remediation effort. • The area of focus was the Colorado Mineral Belt within Clear Creek County (See Figure A1). A close up showed the areas of ore mineralization (See Figure A3). Note that these were naturally occurring outcrops of pre-Cambrian rocks that were heavily bisected by streams all of which predated human activity. There was some evidence that the Spaniards mined here but mining did not get started until the 1860's. Those activities accelerated the natural processes of erosion. • Figure 2 showed the areas of concern in the Virginia Canyon specifically addressed in this request for a general permit. The immediate objective was to remove mine dumps # 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 19 and 21 and to consolidate these materials into a cap at the Gem location. These piles were known also as the “Little Six.” The action would reduce the rate of erosion of these exposed wastes. It was the desire of the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation to complete this removal prior to spring runoff. The action depended on the willingness of individual landowners to grant access and the continued availability of funds from the EPA, downstream user groups who have a vested interest in these waters and other contributors to the foundation. The Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation would begin work at #32, and work toward the northwest. Should a landowner not want remediation, they would bypass that pile and move on. Following the remediation of the “Little Six”, they would address side gulches working east to west, first with Seaton gulch, then Boomerang Gulch, then Robinson Gulch and finally the upper end of Virginia canyon. The majority of the work involved ditch work and not removal, therefore, the visual historic values of the place would be retained. In addition to work in Virginia Canyon, there were targets of opportunity for available funds at the Alma Lincoln, Maude Monroe, the General Hirkimer, the McClellan, and the Aorta. These latter mitigation projects do not require a County permit under current regulations even though there was health, safety and welfare issues involved. This deficiency would be discussed later. • The remediation actions and action decision criterial were described in the Best Practices Manual developed by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology. (See Exhibit 2). The division had general authority over mined land reclamation. • The authority for the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation to act as a good Samaritan was contained in the action memorandum soon to be issued by EPA Region 8 (See Exhibit 3). Note that the environmental analysis for these actions had been completed. The Clear Creek/Central City Superfund Site for which these proposed actions were a derivative was listed on the National priorities list in September 1983. Refer also to the September 30, 1987, Record of Decision and the September 30, 1001, Record of Decision. All of the remedial actions required a local public comment process such as was being conducted today. An annual report to the EPA was required in order to complete the administrative record of the superfund site. • The Board and the public at large needed to know that there were others moving dirt and engaging in remediation at orphan sites. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment had identified 19 projects in the watershed that they will clean up as an agent of the EPA. The U.S. Forest Service had a program to do clean ups on federal properties. These activities were not currently within the purview of the County but probably should be so that citizens know who was doing what with which and to whom impacting pro or con on their health, safety and welfare. • Can individual landowners clean up their own pile? The answer was a highly qualified “yes.” They would need to obtain an administrative order on consent similar to the action taken by Fabyan Watrous for the Black Eagle Mill, or become an EPA approved good Samaritan, or work under the good Samaritan umbrella of the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation. • Mr. Rapp introduced the issue of statewide and nationwide interest. The County participated in a the proposal “orphan mines for credit” presented in Washington D.C. in 1990. This proposal named the Clear Creek Watershed as a pilot project for a nationwide

58 effort to address orphan mines sites. The Board of County Commissioners participated in this proposal and the remediation of the Specht Millsite on County owned land was used as a demonstration of what local cooperation could accomplish. The proposal was accepted. Thus began State and nationwide interest in orphan mines in Clear Creek County. • The study outcome showed that there was a potential market in clean water and that water users appeared willing to contribute resources either in kind or in cash provided they could gain some level of credit for their actions and not expose themselves or their constituency to third party lawsuits. In the process of this exchange of values, the waters of the United States can be greatly improved. The study showed that improving water quality can be good business as well as public benefit. This study was published in 2001. The theory of a foundation working as a middleman between citizens, local state, and federal authorities came from this study. The implementation of this theory was the basis for all the actions creating the foundation and resulting in the action memorandum from the EPA. This prima fascia evidence of continued federal and state wide interest. • The missing link was at the local government level. The current regulations were wholly inadequate for monitoring and regulating the remediation of orphaned mining wastes within Clear Creek County. These regulations:

• Have not acquired unto the County any level of authority or local purview over orphaned mine areas or water quality related issues stemming from preexisting mining wastes, many of which date to a time prior to statehood; • Do not provide for public discourse over historic preservation in balance with environmental impacts; • Do not provide public purview over acid mine drainage, transport of sediments, metals, and nutrients as non-point sources and mechanisms affecting health, safety, and welfare; • Do not provide a process to relieve County landowners of a burden not of their making ––there has been no process for removal; • Do not provide sufficient local control to protect downstream users from unscrupulous activities in their headwaters; • Do not provide public hearing regarding other agency activities involving orphan mining wastes. • The 1041 regulation and permitting process the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation outlined to the Board last year would overcome these deficiencies. • The Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation proposed to provide services to overcome these deficiencies and implement the remediation actions provided the County exercises their authority through a 1041 process to provide a local government platform from which to act. The EPA had offered to grant the County funds to defray all administrative costs to accomplish and sustain the effort. To that end, the EPA had approved an initial $20,000 cash grant. • Further evidence supporting the need for a 1041 action was best presented by those in attendance. The letters of support from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment show the position of the State in these matters and should be read into the record so the public here knows that position. • Mr. Rapp stated that when a site was reclaimed, it was capped, revegetated, and fertilized using the BMP’’s of consolidation and capping. The Gem site was chosen as the main site since it was flat, had plenty of space and would most likely not erode. This site also had the potential for energy production in the future. • Mr. Rapp requested three minutes to speak prior to closing the hearing to summarize the foundation’’s position.

Mr. Rapp read into the record the following letters:

59 The first letter was for Mark T. Pifher, Director of the Water Quality Control Division: ““Dear Commissioner Sorensen: The Water Quality Control Division (Division) would like to indicate its support for the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation's ‘‘Watershed Restoration Action Strategy and Program (A Good Samaritan Action Plan)’’ and the U.S. EPA’’s ‘‘Action Memorandum’’ which provides a mechanism for the Foundation to expedite watershed restoration in Virginia Canyon and Russell Gulch. As you know, the Division has long been active in Clear Creek in a variety of ways: • The Clear Creek Watershed Forum; • Orphan Sites Steering Committee (which led to the Asarco good Samaritan cleanup in Virginia Canyon); • As a technical advisor to the Foundation. Through these involvements, the Division has gained a keen appreciation of the need for streamlining the administrative procedures for restoring the hundreds of orphan mine sites in the watershed. EPA’s Action Memo will pave the way for the Foundation to advance these cleanups. In facilitation of these efforts, the Division will continue to serve as a technical advisor to the Foundation on matters related to water quality. As the remediation efforts in Clear Creek County shift from State and Federal agencies to local initiative, the Division would encourage the creation of a legal framework to ensure coordinated local government oversight of these activities.” The second letter was from Carl Norbeck of the Water Quality Control Division: “Dear Commissioner Sorensen: This letter accompanies the Water Quality Control Division’’s (Division) letter of support and elaborates on the value of creating a dedicated legal framework for orphan mine cleanups. This perspective comes from the Division’’s work with the Colorado Watershed Assembly and the 50 some local watershed groups, which are active in Colorado. The Concern is that as the cleanup efforts shift from several large projects to many smaller projects that the overall effort can become piecemeal and less effective than a coordinated effort. Some of the advantages the Division has observed regarding some type of legal framework at the local level for mine site cleanups include: • Provides a mechanism for ensuring that the County and the public are aware of mining- related activities; • Clearly empowers the County to deal with the multiple activities associated with mining and mine cleanups: acid mine drainage, erosion/sedimentation, waste removal and disposal, and site reclamation; • In the case of the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation, provides a mechanism for keeping its cleanup efforts in clear view of the public to minimize any public misunderstanding; • For local landowners who plan to undertake cleanups on their property, provides them with assurance that they are taking proper action and not incurring liability; • Provides for full public disclosure ensuring ample opportunity to balance multiple interests: environmental, historic preservation, upstream benefits vs. downstream impacts. Our experience indicates that a coordinated effort overseen by the County will produce positive results that will be consistent with the County’s land use plans, benefit landowners, ensure that multiple interests are balanced, and that you have an informed public that supports these efforts.”

60 Mike Holmes, EPA Mr. Holmes made the following statements: • He was the project manager for the Clear Creek County Superfund Site. • This site encompassed the entire watershed of Clear Creek including Gilpin County, and from the Eisenhower Tunnel to Berthoud Pass. • The main objective was to improve the water quality. • The EPA had worked with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to improve the Argo Mine, which removed many metals from Clear Creek. • Mr. Holmes supported the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation in taking on this work through the Action Memo.

John Maslanik, TBM Land Conservancy, Two Bros. Mine Mr. Maslanik made the following statements: • He was part owner of the Two Bros. Mine. • This site had been partly reclaimed by the State in the past summer. • He supported the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation but was unclear of their process. • It appeared that water quality issue was more of an ad hoc process that should be avoided because it did not appear to fully integrate with other studies like those done by Jim Herron and the Division of Minerals and Geology. • If this was a voluntary program and some landowners did not want to participate, the project would not achieve all objectives of cleaning up the water. • He asked if there was a larger overall plan. • He requested that the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation provide information on their foundation, i.e., who they were and who supported them so the County knew who they were contracting with.

Mark Levin, Clear Creek County resident Mr. Levin made the following statements: • He held a Master’s degree in Ecological Engineering and a Master’s of Engineering, Engineer of Mines. • Mr. Levin had been involved with several hundred mine closures and cleanups. • He was in support of what the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation was doing. • His company was one of the first to do mine cleanups on Virginia Canyon and with the Asarco, the waste had to be hauled a long distance. • Under this plan with Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation, the waste would be moved a shorter distance so the funding available could accomplish more for water quality. • Regarding a landowner with acid generating waste piles, this landowner could fall under the stormwater regulations with the rain or snowmelt that causes the acid to drain off the site. The reality was that there was no enforcement against the owners of inactive mines in Colorado and these landowners did not have the funding to cleanup their sites.

61 • Mr. Levin advised that the 1041 process be carefully construed and should not be confused with the Division of Minerals and Geology reclamation permit decisions or anything landowners maybe pursing with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment on voluntary cleanup.

Jim Pals, Clear Creek County landowner Mr. Pals made the following statements: • He was in support of the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation assuming the responsibilities of this cleanup necessary to complete this orphan mine site project. • He was an active member in the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association for over five years and anytime the rate of erosion could be reduced was a good opportunity. • The Foundation had exhibited much success in past activities and this was a good opportunity to bring further expertise to the watershed groups. • These sites were being approached with EPA standards and the authorities of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Commissioner Poirot asked what type of pressure would be put on the landowners to participate. Mr. Rapp replied that it would be no more than peer pressure, as some neighbors cleaning up would encourage their neighbors to also cleanup. Mr. Rapp did not think there would be much threat of lawsuits if one neighbor cleaned up and another did not. This was why the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation created this process and the benefits to water quality. It made it easier for the landowner to agree to clean up. Mr. Rapp added that he wanted to prove that the Foundation had left the area better than they had found it. This was the basis for measurement in the EPA Action Memo. The focus of this program was abandoned mines. The Two Bros. Mine was different in that it had an active permit and bond to clean it up. When the State cleaned this area, they could only do it a portion at a time. Mr. Maslanik replied that the Two Bros. Mine was not active and the permit had been terminated. The State termed this mine as an orphan mine and a large contributor to the waste in Virginia Canyon. The State had spent all the bond money. Mr. Rapp replied that the plan was for the Foundation to work its way up from Idaho Springs toward the Two Bros. Mine site. He would have to receive confirmation on the status of the Two Bros. Mine.

Regarding the Virginia Canyon drainage, Mr. Holmes stated that the EPA just funded the State of Colorado to initiate work in addressing the groundwater in Virginia Canyon and waste rock piles. The shallow groundwater that was coming down was a big source of the metal loads in Clear Creek. The EPA planned on putting in a cutoff trench and deliver that water to the Argo Mine to clean it up. Mr. Rapp stated that this plan would be to work on surface drainage and the flood runoffs were being examined under a flood control project. These projects would not interfere with each other. Mr. Engleking asked where the cutoff trench would be located. Mr. Jones replied that this trench would be located one block up from High Street in Idaho Springs in a narrow notch.

Mr. Jones noted that the Foundation had been collecting data since 1992, eight times a year on the Clear Creek Watershed. There was much data on the 24 minerals and metals and two nutrients. The Foundation had a good feeling on where the problems were and where they originated. There was much information from the EPA Superfund study to support these operations.

Mr. Holmes explained that the EPA Action Memo was memo that would document removal actions or response actions. These would document the agency’’s approvals and approve the Foundation’’s BMP’’s that references in remediating the site. Mr. Holmes stated that the EPA

62 needed a public hearing and public comment from the County. The EPA would work with the County and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to ensure that certain remedies were in place. Once the County support was obtained, the EPA would work with the Foundation to approve a specific action, which would be followed with a letter of approval. The EPA would essentially approve the remediation pile by pile.

Mr. Rapp stated that the funding for this project would come from downstream users who find advantage in this clean up and want to buy this in terms of environmental impact. The market was developed from downstream users and their downstream trades. The City of Denver had a copper problem and they could support a project in this area and switch it out for their clean up. This could be used against their permit. The entire country benefitted from this as it cleaned up the water coffers. When the downstream users stopped putting money into the project, the balance of cost and benefit had been achieved. It was possible that this balance could be achieved before all sites were cleaned up.

The Foundation would have to keep track of these benefits and the downstream users by acting as a broker. These transactions would have to comply with federal guidelines. As of January 16, 2003, Federal guidelines were published under the Clean Water Act for sediment and nutrients. Clear Creek was not operating under this Act but it was operating under CRCLA, as it was a superfund site. CRCLA allowed for more flexible and variety in trading. The initial focus was on the orphan sites. Without the legal platform at the County level, the County had no authority over the Clean Water Act but it could be acquired through these clean mine sites. The EPA did not have the funding to clean up all these sites so this project was the best way to achieve the clean water goal. If a downstream user funded a particular cleanup on this project, they would receive a certificate from the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation. The EPA and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment would sanction this certificate. The County was involved in protecting its local public by using a 1041 process for clean water and abandoned mine piles. Mr. Rapp stated that the amount per mine could be determined by comparing the costs per day involved with the Argo Mine. Additionally, there were 24 other projects in the watershed with costs to compare to. With this project, the market would determine the costs. The Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation, the EPA and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment would compile a menu of costs for downstream buyers to compare to. The purchasers of these credits could be from anywhere in the country. The water quality improvements would be realized for users downstream.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if the EPA had approved this Action Memo. Mr. Holmes replied that they had approved this Action Memo. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation's mined land reclamation plan and the proposed reclamation under 1041 powers. County Attorney Bob Loeffler noted that the County did not at this time have 1041 regulations. Mr. Loeffler stated that the Board could approve the reclamation plan but not the 1041 powers. Mr. Rapp requested an approval of a general excavating permit for the Virginia Canyon area to allow the Foundation to get started. The other request was to ask the County Attorney to finish the draft 1041 regulations. Mr. Rapp offered to hire an outside attorney to complete these regulations in order to avoid delay. Mr. Loeffler disagreed that a 1041 regulation was needed for this project. The ability for the Foundation to proceed existed in current law and the EPA Action Memo. The 1041 regulation was not needed, as the County did not regulate reclamation activities. The County did regulate the movement of earth and excavation if it exceeded a certain amount. This would be the only regulation applicable. The present excavating permit required a site-by-site application but it could be amended to allow for a general permit to cover these multiple sites.

Mr. Loeffler stated that his concern with the 1041 power was that it did not have a purpose. Secondly, what was to be achieved by these regulations and did the County have the power to do them? Mr. Rapp was disappointed that the Board did not understand why the 1041 regulations were needed. Mr. Rapp stated that these regulations had a social, economic, and environmental value. Mr. Rapp refused to proceed without the County and their 1041 regulations. This would

63 leave the Foundation out on a limb as once the sites were cleaned up the EPA would leave and the Foundation would be left alone without any governmental support. Mr. Rapp stated that he needed a local legal platform for the program to endure. This project affected 2000 landowners in the County. Mr. Rapp stated that he could not develop a market of downstream users without these 1041 regulations in place. This showed the downstream users that the County was an active participant. Without these regulations, Mr. Rapp did not think the project would operate effectively. Additionally, the County could be sued by downstream users for non-point cleanup and there would be no mechanism in which to protect the County. Mr. Rapp stated that the 1041 regulation acted as a protector for the County and for the Foundation. This was spelled out in the letter from Carl Norbeck.

Mr. Rapp explained that the Foundation was acting as a prophylactic for third party lawsuits. Mr. Rapp stated that if he was acting on a basis from the County, State and the Feds in once piece, and all parties approved, then this project would hold up in court. If the County did not show their support by passing the 1041 regulation, it would not hold up in court. Mr. Rapp stated that either the Board of County Commissioners should support this project with 1041 regulations or he would not do the project. These 1041 regulations would also protect the landowners from third party lawsuits. Mr. Rapp requested a call out for orphan mines sites and the 1041 regulations would do that. These regulations would also require that the State inform the County of their projects. Mr. Rapp stated that he could not complete this project without a proactive stance from the County. Over 6000 acres in Clear Creek County was useless due to these waste piles and the County needed to support this clean up with 1041 regulations.

Laura Nay, Office of Emergency Management Coordinator Ms. Nay made the following statements: • Through Project Impact, FEMA, EPA, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association, and the County established a cohesiveness to clean up Virginia Canyon. • The clean up process occurred in different phases, i.e., flood control, water quality, etc. • This clean up did not include excavation permits or the 1041 process. • The County did say during Project Impact that they were in support of the clean up of this area.

Mr. Jones stated that the 1041 regulation was a platform on which the County could show interest and protect its citizens and hold public hearings. It was the pedestal on which all agencies operate from and allows for the input from the public to be provided for CRCLA and other aspects of the project. Mr. Holmes agreed stating that it allowed the reception of input from the public and the Elected Officials to these actions.

Karen McHale, Colorado Mining Association Ms. McHale made the following statements: • She was a resident of Idaho Springs and worked in the water industry. • She explained that what Mr. Rapp was saying was that since the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation was a corporation and could make deals with downstream users, they could destroy Virginia Canyon because the County had no permit to keep them in line. • With the 1041 regulations and the permit, it protected the County and the Foundation and kept the Foundation from being sued. • The Foundation needed a permit from the local level as they already had support from the

64 EPA and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Mr. Rapp again requested the 1041 regulations so there were no deficiencies in the law. He understood that the County Attorney was happy with the State and Federal support but Mr. Rapp was not satisfied until he had the local support. Mr. Rapp explained that the landowners in Clear Creek County were the keepers of the headwaters and they were beholden to the users downstream for water quality and headwater protection. Some landowners wanted to leave their piles for historical values. The State and the Feds did not care about historical values with regard to water. Mr. Rapp could not complete the project with only State and Federal levels; he needed the local support. Mr. Jones stated that the County participation would require public comments and hearings and then the County could determine how clean up actions occurred.

Mr. Levin made the following statements: • In his mining experience, most mining related excavation and agricultural excavation were exempt from County permitting. He did not agree with this. • Mr. Levin did think that mining or excavating related activities under the Division of Minerals and Geology should be exempt from County regulation. • The issue of 1041 regulations could not be implemented today. • A 1041 regulation would require many drafts and public comment. • He suggested supporting the EPA Action Memo and do the 1041 regulations later.

Mr. Loeffler stated that it was up to the Board of County Commissioners if they wanted his office to prepare the 1041 regulations. Mr. Loeffler felt that further discussion on these regulations was needed and whether the goal of them was achievable. Mr. Loeffler saw the level of appreciation for the requested level of protection that was achievable by local regulations that was not otherwise achievable. Mr. Rapp stated that he could do a draft 1041 regulation immediately. Meanwhile, Mr. Rapp needed a general permit approving any excavation for this project in Virginia Canyon. This could be done by a resolution and the support by the County of the EPA Action Memo.

Commissioner Sorensen motioned to support the Action Memo from the EPA and that a resolution be developed to authorize the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation to proceed with the actions outlined on Figure 2 of Exhibit 1 and that the County pursue the discussion of a draft 1041 process that enabled them to continue this activity on a regular basis. Additionally, Commissioner Sorensen requested documentation from the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Foundation i.e., Articles of Incorporation, Board of Directors, Annual Reports, etc. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PARTICIPATION IN FUNDING OF PARSONS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS: Commissioner Sorensen presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the City of Idaho Springs was contracting with Parsons Engineering Consultants and had requested financial assistance from the County to continue Parsons’’ advising and attending meetings with regards to I-70 issues. County Attorney Bob Loeffler stated that this Intergovernmental Agreement limited the County’s participation to no more than $5000. Mr. Small recommended that this funding come from the Sales Tax Fund. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement regarding professional services for I-70 PEIS between Clear Creek County and the City of Idaho Springs. Commissioner Dale seconded. Mr. Loeffler stated that if Idaho Springs did not like the agreement, they could amend it subject to the County’s approval. The vote was unanimous.

65 The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 10, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 11, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 11, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

The Board of County Commissioners convened as the Emergency Services District Board.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD MEETING: Clear Creek Fire Authority Fire Chief Kelly Babeon presented. Mr. Babeon made the following presentation: G The Clear Creek Fire Authority had two vehicles that they wanted to dispose of and sell. G One vehicle was a 1975 MAC fire engine and the other was a 1988 GMC Blazer. G Mr. Babeon wanted to put the Blazer up for bid with a minimum bid of $1500. G The Clear Creek Fire Authority wanted to offer the fire engine to the Heeney Fire Department. G Historically, fire departments donate vehicles and equipment and the Clear Creek Fire Authority wanted to donate this truck. This truck was only worth $2000-$3000.

The Board of County Commissioners asked that Mr. Babeon put these vehicles out on the departmental email to see if other departments needed a vehicle. If not, put the Blazer for bid and the fire engine to Heeney. The Board agreed that if Heeney did not want the fire engine, the Clear Creek Fire Authority could put this vehicle out to bid as well. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to allow Mr. Babeon to dispose of the vehicles provided that no internal departments

66 wanted them. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the fire at the Gold Rush Center, Mr. Babeon made the following statements: G It was determined from the use of arson canines that this fire was intentional. G Eighteen samples were taken and the Clear Creek Fire Authority was awaiting the results.

G The Clear Creek Fire Authority investigators were working parallel with the building insurance company. G As the Fire Chief, Mr. Babeon would have to investigate who committed the arson. G He was working in conjunction with the Idaho Springs Police Department. G Mr. Babeon stated that the building may require the removal of the second level and then rebuild.

Regarding the Evergreen Fire Protection District, Mr. Babeon made the following statements: G He had only recently heard of the Evergreen Fire Protection District planning a new building in the Tech Park area. G He had contacted the Evergreen Fire Protection District Chief Tom Hayden and was awaiting a phone call. G He did not know the location of this proposed building. Mr. Loeffler requested that this location be known to the County as soon as possible due to the Dan Brown negotiations.

Regarding the defibrillator team in the courthouse, Mr. Babeon stated that there were many employees historically trained on this machinery and they could be utilized as the in house team for the defibrillator use in the courthouse. The Board reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FEE WAIVER FOR ALL PERMITS, I.E., PUBLIC WAYS, VARIANCES, ETC. FOR EVERGREEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT , PARCEL 1, DRALLE DIVISION OF LAND, AT THE INTERSECTION OF UPPER BEAR CREEK ROAD AND ECHO LAKE DRIVE: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer, Zoning Tech Tracy Bennetts, and County Lands Director Lisa Vogel attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following presentation: G Tom Hayden the Fire Chief of Evergreen Fire Protection District was requesting all County fees associated with construction of a new fire station to be located at the Upper Bear Creek Road and Echo Lake Drive to be waived. G This request included all fees for the Public Ways Review ($550), Driveway Permit ($280), Defensible Space Permit ($75), Building Permit and Plan Review fee based on square footage for the 3-bay option (2978), Demolition Permit ($45) for razing the existing structure, Planning Department Plan Review fee ($70), Sign Permit ($45), and the Variance Fee ($350). G No Environmental Health permits would be required, as the new station would be connected to the Upper Bear Creek Sanitation District. G Total for all fees requested to be waived were $4398. G The Board of Adjustment, at their meeting on March 4th, recommended that the $350 variance fee be waived for the reasons that this project was public supported and a benefit to the county. G Ms. Kastens stated that this building would not interfere with other properties.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the waiver of all fees including the recommendation by the Board of Adjustment, as it was a benefit to the area. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CLEAR CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT: This hearing was changed to an Executive Session. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session with regard to the school sanitation system pursuant to CRS 24-6- 402(4)(b)&(e). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. There were no written minutes of this session.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC ROAD CASE FOR KENT STERETT,

67 SILVERDALE AREA: In attendance were applicant Kent Sterett and his son Greg Sterett, Attorney for the applicant Nick Muller, County Archivist Christine Bradley, Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young, HGI representatives Matt & Cynthia Skeen, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, HDPLC representatives Lee Behrens and Smoky Anderson, Forest Service representative Dan Lovato, and Georgetown Mayor Lynn Granger. Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel presented. Mr. Muller made the following presentation: G The applicant was requesting road access including the road which traversed from Guanella Pass Scenic Byway to the Silverdale Recreation Area, be declared “Open Public Road” pursuant to R-98-181, and to allow the construction of a gated, secluded bridge north of the existing footbridge that would allow motorized access to the Capital Central #6 and to the Sterett property below it. G The applicants would be calling upon two witnesses, Kent Sterett and David Steck, Colorado Professional Land Surveyor. Mr. Steck would attend via speakerphone due to a death in the family. G The applicant wished to provide a number of exhibits which included: the original Sterett application showing a number of roads providing access to Sterett’s more than 300 acres of land; a 1878 map by W.C. Willits, with Steck’s notes on it showing historic road access applied for here. Like many of the current maps, the Willits map does not directly align the mining claims with the geographic features. When one superimposed Willits’ geographic features on current maps, the geographic features were within 50 feet and the examination on the ground further restricted that variation. G Another exhibit was Ordinance #4, with 2.2.6 indicating that maintaining a road on HDPLC land required a special use authorization being applied for here. G A fourth exhibit was an 1884 Stockholder’s Meeting of Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Co. showing substantial activity at that time with mines just west of the location in questions, that had to cross South Clear Creek as the heavy ore wagons traversed down to Georgetown on the east side of the river. G The fifth exhibit was a picture of the road below Georgetown Reservoir showing an alternative that traversed Wide West (a HGI property), a road constructed below Georgetown’s Dam to cross South Clear Creek before 1903, and going east into the Capital Central #6. G The sixth exhibit was an 1876 Survey Plat of T4SR74W showing Sterett’s current access, which was also shown on current topographical maps and was being use by the Public Service Co. However, this access was not drivable for much of the year due to rain, snow and the need to ford two streams. G The conclusions made by the applicant and counsel were as follows: G The access near the existing footbridge (as well as the access just below the Georgetown Dam and the current access being used also by Public Service Co.), met the requirements of a public right of way as stated by Federal Law RS 2477. The two criteria for this determination were the road being constructed prior to creation of the Forest Service in 1905, and the road being constructed on federal property. G A gated and secluded bridge near the footbridge would be much less visible than a large bridge constructed below the dam, and also much less expensive. This was also much more feasible than using the current access that Public Service Co. uses, which was not drivable much of the year. G While being a historic road near the existing footbridge, it could in fact be gated just as the Public Service Co. was considering gating the south access Sterett was currently using. G As stated in the Staff Report, there was no doubt that other roads in the area would meet the RS 2477 standards. These roads included portions of the Sporting Times, Chicago Lakes, and Clear Lake trails, all shown on the 1903 U.S. Geologic Survey Quad, the survey plat from 1876, mineral survey plats for mining claims in the area, and parts being shown on the 1878 Willits map. G The mines west of the location in question were very active in 1884, and utilized this access near the footbridge to traverse across South Clear Creek, to then come down on the east side of it Georgetown. G Sterett wished to continue processing applications related to the roads listed in the original application, to help avoid a governmental taking of property related to approximately 300 acres.

68 Mr. Sterett made the following statements: G He was in a situation where he had a large portion of land in this Silverdale area. G The access to it came from a number of different locations, with some easier to access than others. G The question was what was the most responsible way to maintain access to his land. G Over the past few years, there had been actions to limit his access to his land. G Mr. Sterett wanted to do the appropriate thing for this area but also maintain access. G Mr. Sterett was not proposing any use of the land at this time; he just was proposing his right to access it. G Mr. Sterett did not want many roads into this area; he wanted access to his lands. G He wanted to work with the Clear Creek Fire Authority to figure a way to make the lands accessible for a fire truck. G He suggested a gated access with a key for the landowners and the Emergency Services.

Mr. Steck made the following statements: G Mr. Steck had been a surveyor since 1976. G Mr. Steck stated that after reviewing the Willits and several other maps, and surveying existing physical features, he was able to determine where the previous roads had been located. G Mr. Steck stated that some of the mining claims appeared about 50 feet off from other present maps. G Mr. Steck stated that a bridge could have been laid across the creek without an actual bridge in this area and without abutments. G Based on the overlays with the many maps, Mr. Steck came within 50 feet of where he thought the roads had been. G Mr. Steck thought the road had followed the existing road on the northeast side of the road. On the southwest side, the road curved back toward Guanella Pass Road and out of the parking lot. G Mr. Steck was able to find the location of the current dam and then measured and surveyed from this physical feature. Mr. Vogel agreed with Mr. Steck that the current GIS data was not accurate enough and the overlays with the physical features were a good indication of where things were.

G Mr. Vogel made the following statements: Much work and background research had been completed for this case. G Mr. Vogel questioned the legitimacy of the Willits map, as it could have been an advertisement for Georgetown. G Mr. Vogel stated that the maps were inconsistent on where they showed the roads and their connections with Guanella Pass Road. G Mr. Vogel found consistency with the road on the 1903 and the 1905 maps. These were consistent with the 1878 map. Each of these maps showed the road traveling west but it was when the road traveled west that was the point of contention. On some maps the road was on the west side all the way to Guanella Pass Road and at some points it was not. The question arose on where the road traveled from Guanella Pass Road to the bridge. G Additionally, Mr. Vogel stated that if there were a bridge implemented, it would have to be on the Ocean Wave mining claim. The Ocean Wave was patented in 1881 but had no roads shown on the survey plat. Mr. Loeffler asked if there were other patented claims with the road on their plats. Mr. Vogel replied that below the Ocean Wave was the Ohio Millsite, which was patented in 1883. This patent did show a road on the west side of the creek.

Mr. Sterett stated that it was between this point of contention and the Guanella Pass Road that needed to be resolved. There was much activity on the east side of the creek with the hauling of much material from Georgetown and back. Mr. Sterett stated that this left them with trying to find the most responsible location for a bridge. There were several places that were clear to use but he wanted to use the access that was the least intrusive. Mr. Sterett wanted to be discreet and have a locked gate access.

Mr. Vogel stated that the portion of the access across the Ocean Wave mining claim was

69 possibly developed at the same time the Capital Central Mill was constructed in 1918 because the miners were taking workings from this area by rail bed to the Colorado Central Mill. The way the road lined up, it appeared that it crossed the Ocean Wave. Another point was that the Capital Central mining claim did cross Guanella Pass Road. In researching its patent, it discussed tunneling behind the Capital Prize Mine and up 5000 feet to the Capital Central mining claim as access to the vein and then processing down to the Capital Prize Mine.

Mr. Vogel stated that there was not one map, which appeared more valid than others, but he felt that the U.S. Geologic Survey maps and the 1876 plats were probably the most accurate. Even on the new maps, things had changed and the new maps did not show all the old roads. The patent surveys would only show roads if it was in their interest. Ms. Bradley stated that the roads on the west side consistently showed up crossing claims and on photos. It was quite apparent that there was a road that dated to 1873 on the west and further up the mountain. These were areas that were heavily mined. Mr. Sterett stated that the Willits map showed three roads crossing the creek and he was opting for the more discreet and less visible access.

The Board opened the hearing to Adjacent Property Owners to comment.

Mr. Skeen made the following statements on behalf of HGI: G HGI owned the Ocean Wave claim and other lands in the vicinity. G HGI was a member of the HDPLC and supported their plan to create and maintain the Silverdale Recreation area as non-motorized. G HGI understood that Sterett was pursuing access under R-98-181 but HGI had three points for the Board of County Commissioners to consider. G HGI was opposed to the construction of any new road and opposed to any bridge. G HGI invited the public to use the area but would like the area limited to non-motorized use. HGI felt that construction of a vehicle bridge across the creek in this area was inappropriate. G Second, HGI found the Board of County Commissioners to be procedurally improper to find a historic mining road open to the public. In the HGI interpretation of the resolution, it deals with people wanting to use a road that was actually visible. In this case, the road was not visible and HGI could pretty much conclude that there was no bridge. G HGI admitted that from time to time in the past, there could have been roads in this area but the point was that they were no longer there. There was no evidence. G HGI stated that for Sterett to go to the Clear Creek County District Court and ask a judge to declare a right of way, he would have to prove that this right of way had continuous adverse use of that road for 20 years. G HGI stated that Sterett wanted to build an access that did not exist. If this right of way was approved, it would be an improvement and not historic. Sterett was asking to build a new road and a bridge. There may be a way to do that but not under R-98-181. G Third, HGI did not think there was sufficient evidence to show that there was ever a place for a bridge in this area. The one map that the applicant and the surveyor used, the Willits map, did not show the Ocean Wave claim on it. HGI did not find the Willits map to be accurate. HGI argued that Steck could not accurately draw where the dam was located. As the Willits map was not found accurate, there were no maps, which showed the continuation of this road on the east side of the creek or a bridge across. There was a road in this area that everyone used but it was not the one that Sterett was referring to. Mr. Skeen asked the Board to use their common sense and remember from the site visit that there was no clear road. G HGI wanted the Silverdale Recreation area as non-motorized and public use. G HGI was concerned that if a vehicle bridge were installed in this area, it would be difficult to close it off to the public. This would in turn open the mountainside to motorized use and this would be a tragedy for the area.

Mayor Granger read the following statement into the record, which Georgetown representative Cindy Neely composed: “Dear Commissioners:

The Town of Georgetown has a vested interest in the issue of public motorized access in Lower Silverdale. The Town owns the lands lying to the east of the creek up to the U.S.

70 Forest boundary on both the east and the north. The Town acquired these lands through the BLM Lands process as a part of the Historic District Public Lands to be reserved for low impact recreation. The Town also owns 17 acres of mining claims on the west side of the creek, which extend into the area of the footbridge. The Town acquired these lands from the National Mining Hall of Fame in order to limit development and further protect the Town watershed. This entire area is included by ordinance in the Georgetown Watershed Protection Area. The Board of Selectmen of the Town has supported, by resolution, a plan put forth by the HDPLC for the use of Silverdale’s trails, and the adjacent Town of Georgetown lands, for non-motorized recreational purposes. Public motorized access in this area would be almost impossible to control even if the Town had the policing resources to attempt to do so. Silverdale is an ideal location for walking, hiking, snow shoeing and cross country skiing activities that will enhance the Guanella Pass Byway recreational experiences. The Town hopes to limit motorized access to Lower Silverdale to the extent legally permissible. In this case it appears that the applicant has not shown that public access existed at the site where a bridge is proposed. Further, it appears that the applicant has the possibility of creating a more controllable private access to his properties. For those reasons we urge the Commissioners to deny this application.” G Mayor Granger continued that the Town’s biggest concern was control vs. uncontrolled access by motorized vehicles. If this access was made legal to Sterett, the town could not legally deny access to that road. G Georgetown found this area important and given the improvements to the Guanella Pass Road and the increase in traffic, they wanted the Silverdale area to remain non- motorized. G Secondly, the Town was limited on police resources. If this road were opened to the public and a bridge were built, Georgetown would have to hire more manpower to police this area. Georgetown’s biggest concern would then be the risk of wildfire from campers. G Lastly, the Town acquired this land from the BLM contingent that the land be kept low impact recreation. Low impact did not include ATV’s, cars, etc. If the bridge could be built with control and only the property owners had access, the Town could support that. However, the Town was unsure this could be done. Mr. Muller thought that a gated private access could be done. Mr. Loeffler replied that the Forest Service, per Dan Lovato, did not allow RS 2477 roads to be gated. The Forest Service position was that these roads had to be open for all public uses.

The Board opened the hearing for public comment.

Frank Young, Open Space Commission Mr. Young read the following letter into the record: “The Open Space Commission supports the concept of the HDPLC’s management of the Silverdale area as a non-motorized recreation area. The open space, watershed, historic, and recreational values of the area cannot stand the pressure of motorized recreation. Indeed, the present condition of the natural and cultural resources of the area is in large part due to the absence of practical public vehicle access for the past forty to fifty years. Public motorized vehicle access through the area is provided by the current Guanella Pass Road, which passes along the west boundary of the recreation area. Private lands along and adjacent to that western boundary are also provided legal access by the same Guanella Pass Road. A number of early wagon road routes pass through the Silverdale area; such as the original Georgetown/Snake River road and the old roads to Clear and Green Lakes. These road routes could very well still exist as public rights of way established under various federal and state laws; but the past need for motorized public access along these old routes is now met by Guanella Pass Road. The Board of County Commissioners has the responsibility for the management of these types of public R/W routes; and has spelled out its management policy in Resolution R- 98-181. As part of that document it was resolved that the ‘ the Board of County Commissioners has authority over these rights-of-way to make decisions on a case-by- case basis which include, but are not limited to, abandonment, improvement and regulation of use.’ The phrase ‘regulation of use’ is important in this situation. Clearly,

71 the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to declare any of these old R/W’s that might exist, as non-motorized public rights-of-way for recreational use. The Open Space Commission supports such designation. The Open Space Commission stands ready to assist the Board of County Commissioners in any determination of the management of historic rights-of-way in this and similar situations.” G Mr. Young confirmed for Mr. Muller that the Board of County Commissioners had the authority to manage such rights of way and decide what level of use the road would have.

Mr. Lovato made the following statements: G The Forest Service was a member of the HDPLC. G The Forest Service saw the Silverdale area as a day use and non-motorized use. G The Forest Service did not want to see this area opened up to vehicle use. G The Forest Service saw this road as similar to the Lake Edith Road. The Lake Edith homeowners wanted a gate at the entrance of their public access to their homes. The Forest Service had since removed this gate as a road could not be public and simultaneously gated. G Currently the Forest Service had a moratorium on recognizing roads as RS 2477. G Mr. Lovato stated that whatever the County decided on this road would be a precedent for the rest of the County roads, which were in this situation, i.e., Lake Edith, Rainbow Road. The County needed to be consistent in their decision-making.

Lee Behrens, Chairman of the HDPLC Mr. Behrens made the following statements: G The HDPLC had 13 members and were strongly in favor of the statements made by HGI, the Open Space Commission, and the Forest Service. G The County had signed a Cooperative Management Agreement agreeing that the Silverdale area should be low impact and passed Ordinance #4 which disallowed mechanized vehicles in certain areas.

Smokey Anderson, Scenic Byway Committee Mr. Anderson made the following statements: G He was a resident of Georgetown. G He reminded the Board of County Commissioners that the management plans endorsed by the County and the proposed access into this area were part of the interpretive area for Guanella Pass. There would be a parking lot with kiosks in this area. G Regarding the east side of the creek where the cut in the earth was, Mr. Anderson recalled when this area was bulldozed in 1959. Prior to this there was no bridge and the earth was not moved for a roadway.

Regarding the work in the 1960’s, Mr. Young stated that there were unpatented claims in this area and now they were a part of the Georgetown claims. In the 1960’s, these unpatented claim owners could access and work on their lands. When Mr. Young worked for the BLM, the BLM had a policy that federal mining claims could not be used for a saleable source like gravel. There were many claimholders in this area and could have been doing work during this time period. When these claimholders found out they could not mine and remove the gravel, they dropped their unpatented claims.

Mr. Sterett stated that the portion of the road coming from Guanella Pass Road and crossing the dam was where the Public Service Co. had their access. The access they were using now could be the most responsible and the least intrusive. The other accesses required creek crossings. If the County cut off access to his land then they were cutting off access to some 350 acres. This was a large amount of land to lose the use of. There would have to be an answer from the County to this. Mr. Sterett again emphasized that he wanted the most responsible and least intrusive access.

Greg Sterett, son and Wildland Firefighter for Larimer County Mr. Sterett made the following statements: G He had concerns with regard to fire danger in this area.

72 G In reviewing the photos from the 1870’s, there were more trees in this area than ever. This was 100 years of fire suppression and this could bring on more intense and frequent crown fires. G Crown fires were the most intense in that Wildland firefighters could not get in to dig a trench line. Bulldozers could help but if the BTU’s were too high then these could not be used either. G The power lines provided for a good fuel break and aerial attacks could be used to strengthen the fire lines. G The Sterett’s were willing to mitigate against the fire danger. G There was a foundation for a road in this area that heavier equipment could be used on to access the fire dangers. G The Sterett’s would only use this road with the Board approval.

Ms. Bradley made the following statements: G The original U.S. Geologic Survey map showed the road traveling up one side of the reservoir. G The equator crossing was wiped out as the creek was ever changing.

Mr. Sterett stated that much of the Public Service access was on his land. If he could use their access, they could get to their lands very easily but Public Service refused this access. There were easements of record for the Public Service to have access across his land. Mr. Greg Sterett stated that they were proposing a better access for the Public Service Co. as their current access was steep in some places. The Public Service access would not last another 10 years with the erosion. Mr. Vogel replied that if Public Service lost their access they would have to operate by helicopter. Mr. Vogel had received no comment from the Public Service Co.

Commissioner Poirot made the following statements: G Regarding the comments from HGI, continuous use was not a part of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution #980181. It did not have to be continuous use to be considered a public historical road. G Regarding Resolution #98-181, the Board of County Commissioners stated that historic roads were noted on the township maps. After the township maps were complete, the process was that residents/property owners wanting old roads added as public had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their roads in question were historic public roads. It was up to the applicant to prove this information before the Board would accept new roads on the maps. G Regarding the Sterett request, it was apparent to Commissioner Poirot and to Mr. Vogel that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire section of this road was historical and public. Commissioner Poirot could see where the road was accessed up to a certain point but the connection to Guanella Pass Road was not proven. G Commissioner Poirot also stated that the ore did not get to this Millsite by air so at one time there had to be road access. The challenge was where that road was. G Commissioner Poirot asked that HGI and HDPLC work with the Sterett’s to arrive at a better solution rather than put in an access that was an eyesore. He asked that these groups work together instead of going to court. G With the improvements happening to Guanella Pass Road, an access down by the dam could prove difficult to the area with the inflow of more traffic on Guanella Pass Road. G Commissioner Poirot did not think that the HDPLC members wanted an eyesore access for Sterett or a more intrusive access. He asked that they all try to work together to provide a responsible access. G Notwithstanding what the Forest Service had stated on gated roads, Commissioner Poirot stated that the County did have the right to gate roads if they predated the Forest Service. However, Commissioner Poirot was not willing to do this at this time as there was no absolute proof to approve this.

Commissioner Dale made the following statements: G Commissioner Dale thanked everyone for his or her presentations. G He agreed that a road could’ve been there at one time during the mining era. G Due to the different maps and the different points of view, it was hard to show inconclusively that the road was there.

73 G The Board was asked to make a decision based on the RS 2477 law; they could not do that since the absolute proof was missing. G Commissioner Dale agreed with Commissioner Poirot that a better option could be agreed upon if all involved property owners would work together and arrange for a gated use.

Commissioner Sorensen made the following statements: G She agreed with the statements of Commissioner Poirot and Commissioner Dale. There was no absolute evidence. G This road had not been an obvious road and since it was not blocked, she was unsure if it fit under Resolution #98-181. G Commissioner Sorensen urged Mr. Sterett to negotiate with the other property owners to gain access as opposed to the Board of County Commissioners making a questionable call.

Mr. Sterett stated that he was under notice with the HDPLC and Open Space Commission not to cross or enter the property. That meant that he was either to ignore their notice or force access by use of the Public Service easement. Commissioner Poirot and Mr. Lovato confirmed that this was not legal access either. Mr. Loeffler stated that the County could not inform Mr. Sterett of how he would access his land. Mr. Loeffler stated that since the evidence did not prove a public access, a motion was not needed. The Board desired to have a motion on this hearing. Commissioner Dale motioned that the complete roadway, which was examined, did not have conclusive evidence in its entirety that it was at one time a historic public road. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-36, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #03-EX-01, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following statements: G This exemption, if approved, would divide County lands Parcel # 1961-05-3-00-962, a 133.3 acre tract of County land into a 121.89 acre parcel, a 3.29 acre parcel, a 2.86 acre parcel, a .44 acre parcel, a 1.08 acre parcel, a .52 acre parcel, a 1.08 acre parcel, a .82 acre parcel, a .66 acre parcel, and a .66 acre parcel. G The bulk of this parcel was unzoned with six smaller pieces zoned as M-2. G On division the unzoned parcel would remain in the possession of the County while the smaller pieces, of which some were being further divided, would be offered for sale to contiguous property owners with the requirement that the parcels be combined with their respective contiguous properties through a Combination of Lots Agreement. G Additionally, the County Lands Department wanted to avoid split zoned parcels as much as possible. G The bulk of the parcel was currently unzoned and would remain unzoned until the probable creation of a new zoning district as directed by the Board of County Commissioners during the adoption of the zoning of T4SR73W. Nine small portions of the parcel, to be created as a result of division, were zoned M-2. Additional building lots will not be created as a result of this division.

Commissioner Dale agreed with this division as the Division of Wildlife and the Open Space Commission were interested in some of these parcels. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-36, Exemption by Resolution #03-EX-01, division of County lands in Section 5, T4SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-37, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #03-EX-02, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 6, T4SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following statements: G This exemption, if approved, would divide County land parcel #1961-06-1-00-952, a .21 acre tract of County land into a .11 acre parcel and a .10 acre parcel. G The parcels would be conveyed to contiguous property owners and would be combined with their existing holdings through a Combination of Lots Agreement. G Additional building lots would not be created as a result of this division. G The parcel was currently split zoned M-1, as a result of the 1976 zoning of patented and unpatented claims, and M-2 by adoption of zoning for T4SR73W.

74 Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-37, Exemption by Resolution #03-EX-02 to divide County land in Section 6, T4SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-38, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #03-EX-03, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 6, T4SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following statements: G This exemption, if approved, would divide County land parcel #1961-06-4-00-960, a 72.2 acre tract of County land into a 70.48 acre parcel, a .85 acre parcel, and a .02 are parcel. G The bulk of the parcel was unzoned with three smaller pieces zoned M-2. G On division, the unzoned parcel would remain in the possession of the County. G The smaller pieces would be offered for sale to contiguous property owners with the requirement that the parcels be combined with their respective contiguous properties through a Combination of Lots Agreement. Additionally, County lands wanted to avoid split zoned parcels as much as possible. G Additional building lots would not be created as a result of this division.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-38, Exemption by Resolution #03-EX-03, to divide County land in Section 6, T4SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION#03-39, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #03-EX-0-4, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 4, T4SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following statements: G This exemption, if approved, would divide a portion of Government Survey Lot #13, a 20.20 acre tract of County land into a .28 acre parcel and a 19.82 acre parcel. G The smaller of the parcels would be sold to the owner of a contiguous property with the requirement that the parcel be combined with their respective contiguous property through a Combination of Lots Agreement. G The purpose of this sale was to provide the contiguous property owner with access to the Marie Lode by selling that County land located between the Marie and the Savannah Lodes. G The larger parcel would remain temporarily in County possession to be offered for sale to contiguous property owners. G The parcel was zoned M-2. G Additional building lots would not be created as a result of this division.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-39, Exemption by Resolution #03-EX-04, to divide County land in Section 4, T4SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, an Adjacent Property Owners agreed with the division, as she was an interested party in acquiring a portion of the land. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TWO CORRECTED COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS AND TWO CORRECTED SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS FOR NORMAN AND GRACE BERRY, SECTION 26, T3SR73W: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: G These corrections were needed to correct erroneous legal descriptions. G The Berry’s were selling their property and the Title Company caught these errors.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the two corrected Combination of Lots Agreements for Norman and Grace Berry. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the two corrected Special Warranty Deeds. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GOCO GRANT AWARD TO THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION: In attendance were Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young, Open Space Commission representatives Hal Wahlborg, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck and Chief Accountant Carl Small. Mr.

75 Loeffler made the following statements: G The initial desire was to use the GOCO funding for the close of the sale of the Elmgreen land. G It was discovered that the County might have to use their own funds to close this sale and be reimbursed. G This grant also required a conservation easement. This had been discussed with MALT and the Trust for Public Lands. G A resolution would also have to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in order to execute this GOCO contract. G The conservation easement would protect the tax benefits of the Elmgreen’s. G Mr. Small added that an agreement to disburse funds to the Open Space Commission would also have to be completed.

Due to the remaining work to be completed in order to execute the contract, Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to March 18, 2003 at 10:30 a.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION OF A COLORADO HISTORICAL GRANT FOR THE OLD JAIL PRESERVATION: Architect and representative for HGI Paul Donoho presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Mr. Donoho made the following statements: G This grant was 100% funded by the Colorado Historical Society. G Changes were made to the application as measured drawings were not needed at this time. G This brought the grant request to a total of $5100. Of this amount, $4600 was the fee for the architect. G The administrative costs totaled $463.50

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the application for a Colorado Historical Grant for the old jail preservation. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Mr. Donoho stated that he would do the historic structures assessment, which included a construction history, and a full condition assessment of what the building needed. The biggest issue was the roof. HGI wanted to have an interpretive program at this site. A second grant would be applied for to do the actual construction. Mr. Donoho stated that the historic structure assessment would take approximately 2.5 weeks. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 17, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 17, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding: < personnel issues not related to elected officials or commissioners or personnel policies pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(f); < regarding zoning regulations, orphan mine site regulations, the Henderson Mine assessment, zoning enforcement, the Tech Park Land dedication, the Brookvale School, The Triple Bypass bicycle race, Resolution #99-61, utility locates, Ordinance #4, and rafting regulations pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); < regarding the disposition or acquiring of real or personal property in connection with St. Mary’s Subdivision U5, Lot 787, pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(a).

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 19, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 19, 2003 via speakerphone due to extreme snow. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-67, DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY 2003: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to approve Resolution #03-67, declaring a state of emergency for Clear Creek County. Due to the extreme and continuous snowfall from March 17, 2003 to March 20, 2003, a declaration of emergency had to be declared in order to apply for State and Federal funding to assist with the maintenance and clean up of this 100-year snowstorm. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 24, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 24, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. This meeting agenda was held on this date instead of March 18, 2003 due to extreme snowfall and the closure of the County offices.

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR ROBERT BROWN: This Combination of Lots Agreements was for Robert Brown to combine lots in the St. Mary’s Subdivision. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement for Robert Brown. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LEASE OF WATER TO THE WESTERN INN FOR 2003: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck attended the hearing. Mr. Mauck stated that this contract was a little different in that it required the lessee to recognize that the water was subject to availability. The request was for .32 acre feet at $1000 per acre. This contract totaled $320.

77 This was part of the Henderson water supply that was being leased. The Western Inn request was a domestic need thereby the charge was $1000 per acre foot. Commissioner Dale motioned to approve the lease of water to the Western Inn for 2003 and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding: • Conferences with attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • Determining negotiating strategies and positions and instructing negotiators as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e); • Discussion of documents protected from disclosure by the mandatory nondisclosure provisions of the Open Records Act as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(g). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-63, TO SUPPORT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE STATE BOARD OF GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO TRUST FUND: Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young presented. Mr. Loeffler stated that this resolution was the format of GOCO and he recommended approval in order to receive the grant award from GOCO. Mr. Young stated that the Open Space Commission also recommended approval. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-63, to support the agreement between Clear Creek County and the State Board of Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-41, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #03-EX-05, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 25, 35, AND 36, T3SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following statements: • This exemption, if approved, would divide a County land parcel #1835-36-1-00-950A, a 398.58 acre parcel into a 1.09 acre tract, a .74 acre tract, and a 396.75 acre parcel. • The two small parcels will be sold to the owner of a contiguous property with the requirement that the parcels be combined with their respective contiguous property through a Combination of Lots Agreement. • The larger parcel would be conveyed to Idaho Springs under the provisions of the United State Recreation and Public Purposes Act.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-41, Exemption by Resolution #03-EX-05 to divide County land. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR WEST EMPIRE AND FLOYD HILL FOR FUNDING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUND: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Mr. Weaver made the following statements: < This funding eligibility list was the for the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund. < Potential projects had to be listed on this eligibility fund in order to be considered for financing. < Projects on this list were eligible to receive grant and/or loan funding from the Water Quality Control Division’s (WQCD) Financial Assistance Program. < Mr. Weaver suggested that the West Empire project and the Floyd Hill project be included on this listing. < Mr. Weaver thought that the Floyd Hill project would total $2 million and a wastewater service area map had been adopted. The estimated construction for this area was 2003. The Board did not think that $2 million would cover the size of the needed project for this area. Mr. Weaver agreed to clarify that the $2 million was for the phase 1 of the Floyd Hill project only.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to include the Floyd Hill project on the funding eligibility

78 list with the WQCD. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Weaver continued with the following statements: < The second project to be submitted to the list was identified by the CDPHE as their highest priority in Clear Creek County. This area was Empire West. < This area included the Empire West Townhomes. < The needed funding for this area was $800,000 for an interceptor with the hope of assistance from Empire. < There was a projected 2005 start date. < The people in this area were not in a hurry to improve the situation until the system failed again. < The listing of this project with the WQCD did not require the County to finance any of these projects.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to list the West Empire project on the funding eligibility list with the WQCD. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FROM THE TOWN OF SILVER PLUME: Silver Plume Board of Trustee member Gary Regester presented. Mr. Regester made the following statements: < Mr. Regester gave an update on the avalanche situation with their water plant. The water plant had no power at this time and the town was on a boil order. < Regarding DRCOG, Mr. Regester stated that if the Board of County Commissioners wanted Silver Plume to attend the DRCOG meetings, the County would have to pay for their membership as Silver Plume could not afford to join. Commissioner Poirot stated that in the past, he and Commissioner Sorensen had paid for Silver Plume out of their pockets but Silver Plume never attended. They were no longer willing to do this again. Mr. Regester agreed to talk to his Board about this. < Regarding Attorney time, Mr. Regester stated that the County had an addressing resolution which properly addressed areas for Emergency Services. Silver Plume wanted to use this resolution for a boiler plat for their citizens but rather than bring the town attorney up to speed they requested the County Attorney modify it for the town. He did not think it would take more than two hours. Silver Plume did not have much money and could not afford more attorney time. Commissioner Sorensen agreed that Silver Plume should use the County resolution for a boilerplate and asked that Silver Plume check their CML resources to see if there was assistance to modify the resolution. If not, Mr. Regester should return to the County. < Regarding second homeowners voting in Silver Plume, Mr. Regester stated that they had a ballot issue to consider home rule. A normal election in Silver Plume had 40 people but it was recently found out that 8 of these people lived primarily in Denver. Mr. Regester stated that County Clerk and Recorder Pam Phipps agreed to help Silver Plume with the voters that were registered in Clear Creek County but had their taxes mailed to Denver. Ms. Phipps agreed to certify a challenge from Silver Plume residents against these second homeowners if they killed the home rule ballot. < Lastly, Mr. Regester stated that Silver Plume had joined a group called “City and County Resolutions Opposing the Preemptive and Unilateral Action”. He recommended the County join this movement and oppose the war.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-32, CONVEYANCE OF R&PP LANDS TO THE CITY OF IDAHO SPRINGS: County Lands Director Lisa Vogel presented. Planner II Holland Smith attended. Ms. Vogel made the following statements: < This transfer was for 400+ acres of former BLM land located on the northern boundary of the City of Idaho Springs. < The original public hearing was held on February 13, 2003. < During this hearing, an Adjacent Property Owner approached the County about obtaining a portion of these lands to even out his property. < Before this land could be considered for this Adjacent Property Owner, an exemption by resolution had to be performed to divide the portions of land apart. < This exemption was approved this morning and Idaho Springs did not oppose giving this

79 portion of land to the Adjacent Property Owner. < No other public comment was received. < Staff recommended approval of this conveyance for R&PP purposes.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-32, conveyance of R&PP lands to the City of Idaho Springs. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CERT) GRANT FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Since Ms. Nay was absent due to family injury, Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to April 8, 2003 at 3:30 p.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-43, PUBLIC HEARING TO REQUEST EXEMPTION FROM PERMIT PROCESS FOR REGULATIONS FOR AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE INTEREST FOR ST. MARY’S WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, St. Mary’s Water and Sanitation engineer Pat Radabaugh of Integra Engineering, and Planner II Doug Lesh attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following statements: • The request was for exemption from the Regulations for Areas and Activities of State Interest as permitted in Section 19, of the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations regarding construction of a buried 250,000 gallon potable water storage tank. • The location was Lot 47 of the Winterland Subdivision, Unit 4, generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Alice Drive and St. Mary’s Drive on parcel #1707-35-2-02-001. • Section 19(D)(4) of the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations indicated that the Board of County Commissioners could grant an exemption from the permitting process if the Board found than an exemption was warranted. • The applicant had submitted a letter on why they felt they should be exempted from the permitting process. • Staff recommended approval of this exemption and this request.

Commissioner Poirot asked if this exemption was bypassing the 1041 powers. Mr. Loeffler replied that it did go around them because, if approved, the County would be exempting St. Mary’s from the 1041 process. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-43, exempting St. Mary’s Water and Sanitation District from the permitting process for Regulations of Areas and Activities of State Interest. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen commented on the letter from Integra Engineering and why St. Mary’s should be exempt. Commissioner Sorensen agreed with the first of the four reasons for exemption regarding pipe size. Commissioner Sorensen disagreed with justification #2 in that St. Mary’s was not a municipality. Commissioner Sorensen agreed with the third justification with regards to upgrades of existing facilities. Mr. Loeffler disagreed as the upgrade was not required nor was it required maintenance. Mr. Radabaugh replied that the fire code requires that there be a 15 g.p.m. and the current homes did not meet this. If a fire occurred, they would have to pump from nearby lakes. This new system would meet a fire code that the County had not currently adopted. Commissioner Sorensen agreed with justification #4 in the preparation for development of the area. She also requested that the fire code references be included in the resolution. Commissioner Poirot amended his motion to include the three justifications approved by the Board in the resolution. Commissioner Dale amended his second and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS:

#02-131, Louis Brigham, Mill Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Brigham group. Ms. Settle stated that Mr. Brigham would have a lower assessment if the land were valued as residential instead of vacant. Ms. Settle recommended to value the property as residential as Mr. Brigham had a mobile home on the property. This would result in an abatement of $209.82 for 2001 and $226.54 for 2002. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the residential assessment.

80 Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-51, Sam Newton, Ball Placer: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Newton group. Ms. Settle stated that this was an Assessor generated abatement to correct a re-valuation. Ms. Settle recommended approval of this abatement. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation on the Newton Abatement. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-52, Christopher and Rebecca Pinelli, Sapphira Mining Claim: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Pinelli group. Ms. Settle stated this property should be valued as a traditional structure instead of a cabin. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-53, Anna Wells, As P.R. of the Estate of Ryan Wells, Latimer Lode Mining Claim: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Wells group. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was to correct the zoning from M-1 to M-2. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-54, Joe Sysel, Alvarado Road: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Sysel group. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was done to correct the value according to zoning as the Assessor’s office had it zoned for building and it was zoned buffer. This abatement would adjust for years 2000, 2001 and 2002. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-55, Kimie Loeffler, Trail Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Loeffler group. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was to correct the acreage. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-56, Bonnie Vrooman, Old Squaw Pass: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Vrooman group. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was to correct the acreage. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-57, JSR Partnership, Idaho Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the JSR Partnership group. Ms. Settle stated that the Assessor’s office thought this was vacant lots but it was actually apartment buildings. This abatement would decrease the taxes since now it was valued with a building instead of as vacant. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-58, Gisa Pittel, Chicago Creek: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Pittel group. Ms. Settle stated that this was an unfinished structure and needed to be valued as unfinished. She recommended a downward adjustment until the structure was finished. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-59, Georgetown Loop Railroad, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Georgetown Loop Railroad group. Ms. Settle stated that this was an error by the Division of Property Tax and since the State had assessed and set the value, the County level had to adjust their values as well. This abatement would refund the railroad $2000+. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-46, TO AMEND MAPPING DEPARTMENT FEES: Mapping Director Matt Taylor presented. Mr. Taylor made the following statements:

81 • This amendment included some updated map sets that were created in the past year. • Changes included Assessor maps, Georgetown Zoning map, Recorded Plat Map Sheets, Township Zoning maps, Census Tract maps, Appraisal District maps, Commissioner’s District maps, oversized xerographic copies, and parcel information per parcel maps. • The amendment included changes to match the charged fees of other departments, i.e., Assessor and Clerks. • The Mapping Department would continue to charge for shipping and handling for maps.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-46, amendment to the Mapping Department fee schedule. Commissioner Dale seconded and the vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FEE WAIVER AND/OR REDUCTION FOR ROAD VACATION FEE FOR BILL AND CHERYL KINCADE: This hearing was opened and continued due to the snowstorm delay. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to April 1, 2003 at 9:45 a.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-64, TO CREATE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SANITARY SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE CLEAR CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FEE WAIVER FOR CLEAR CREEK HIGH SCHOOL FOR FOUR CASES: AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE INTEREST, PUBLIC WAYS REVIEW, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, PLAN REVIEW FEE FOR THE PERMANENT SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SITE APPLICATION: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Superintendent Don Middleton, Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Director Peggy Stokstad, Adjacent Property Owner David Williams, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson, RTW Engineer Tom Andrews for the School District, Attorney for the School District Pat Mooney, and Rodney Rice, Hydro engineering evaluator for the School District, attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler made the following statements: < Mr. Loeffler stated that Resolution #03-64, was to consider the creation of the Enterprise Fund and then adopt a construction agreement. < The Enterprise Fund was a vehicle for dealing with the construction agreement. < These series of agreements were a part of the County and Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation assisting the School District in solving a wastewater treatment plant situation. < The County through the Sewer Enterprise Fund would borrow $500,000 from Department of Local Affairs and then through a contract with the School District, loan them $500,000 for the construction of the sewage treatment plant. < In exchange for this financing, the County would acquire a proportionate share of the treatment capacity of the plant. < In addition, the County would provide an additional $50,000 for the road related portions of the treatment plant construction. The source of this money was a Department of Local Affairs grant fund to Clear Creek County for Road and Bridge purposes. < The Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation would guarantee payment of interest up to a maximum of $100,000. The interest on the Department of Local Affairs loan would be 5%. Hence, the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation would guarantee coverage of the equivalent of four years of interest. < Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation would be acquiring plant capacity to the extent it paid the interest payments. < The School District would be responsible for construction of the plant and operation of the plant. The School District would be responsible for the ultimate sale of the plant including treatment capacity owned by the County and the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation. < The Enterprise Fund was being used as the vehicle to satisfy Tabor. < Mr. Loeffler stated that neither the County nor the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation had signed the Treatment Plant Construction and Reimbursement

82 Agreement. < The Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation was only covering the first $100,000 of the interest but was making no contribution to the construction of the plant. < The County was coming up with $550,000 for the project.

Mr. Middleton made the following statements: < The School District had been rewarded an impact grant for $300,000 and this would be used toward the construction of the permanent sewage plant project. < The remaining portion needed to build the plant would come from the School District reserve funds and the District would still satisfy Tabor requirements. < Ultimately the School District wanted to recapture the funds when the facility was sold or when the taps were sold so the money could be returned to the School reserve funds. < The most recent figure was that the new plant would cost $1.66 million with construction costs, hard and soft. This would also include the fees for land acquisition, attorneys and engineering. < The School District had spent $268,000 of the $1.66 million in fees for engineering, land acquisition, and attorney fees.

Mr. Loeffler stated that when the plant was sold, the first dollars go to the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation to pay them for their share of the project cost. The next dollars go to the County and the School District would follow. Mr. Middleton stated that the School District would pay the operating costs of the plant. Mr. Middleton stated that the plant could process 40,000 gallons per day and currently the School was using 3,000 gallons per day. With the School as a participant, this drove up the costs of the plant. The School District must retain enough capacity to accommodate the full capacity of the school which was 600 students. The School was presently at 300 students. The intent of the School was to preserve the maximum for its operation which was 10,000 gallons. Mr. Williams made the following comments: < Mr. Williams was the developer of the property next to the school. < He was the president of the Beaver Brook Water and Sanitation District that the school was in. < This district was still the active current district. < This district did all the elections and audits as required. < The Beaver Brook Apartment project was struggling for funding. They had recently discovered a funding source. < There was no guarantee this would happen but all debts were paid as of now and Mr. Williams wanted to complete this project. < Mr. Williams’ district was the only district the plant could be sold to when it was ready to be sold. Mr. Williams stated that he had not been consulted on any of this planning. < Mr. Williams stated that his district was the one that would take over these loans and pay them off. < He was in favor of what the School was doing but was upset that he had been left out of the process. < Mr. Williams saw this agreement today in conflict with the current Intergovernmental Agreement between the School and the Beaver Brook Land Co. < Mr. Williams stated that the school was not calling him back. < Until these conflicts were resolved, the two groups were stuck. < Mr. Williams would lose his potential funding if he did not have the sewer component. < Mr. Williams stated that the proposed price of $10,000 per water tap was too expensive and he could not develop a residential project at that price. < The interest rates and recession had impacted the timeline for Mr. Williams’ project.

Mr. Mooney made the following statements: • Mr. Williams was never denied information on this project. • Mr. Williams had not kept himself apace of what the School was doing. • Mr. Mooney stated that the School District was confronted by two other entities to create a larger plant but the School had been told to work with Mr. Williams on the original size. • Mr. Mooney was unaware of the agreement between Mr. Williams and the School being in conflict.

83 • The agreement with the Beaver Brook Sanitation District became null when they did not make a contribution to this project. The School was left on its own to make the sewer district happen. From the perspective of the School, there was no longer an agreement with Mr. Williams’ company. • The tap fees of $10,000 were at the market rate as compared to other tap fees in the area. A survey of the area showed tap fees at $9,000-$11,000. One reason for the high cost in tap fees was that the School was the only user at this time. • The School District was paying for a higher treatment process called Xenon due to their higher ammonia content. • The Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association required this system in order to approve the project. • Since the Beaver Brook Land Co. did not contribute to the costs of this project, this also drove up the price of the overall plan. • Mr. Mooney added that the Xenon process would also work when the residential clients joined the plant. • Mr. Mooney stated that Mr. Andrews would explain the plant system and Mr. Rice would explain the pricing of the project. • The School Board solicited Mr. Andrews and Mr. Rice in order to compile an accurate price since they were using School contingency funds to assist in payment. • Mr. Mooney stated that the numbers presented were the maximum cost and the School Board had agreed to sign the contract based on the maximum numbers.

Mr. Andrews made the following statements: • The discharge limits were the driving factor for the Xenon process. The planning agencies had been happy with this process, i.e., the Environmental Health Department, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, etc. • This process could meet or exceed the discharge limits with the School having the ammonia output and could accommodate additional residential use. • Another reason for the Xenon process was that it could operate at a low flow indefinitely. • For annual costs paid by the School District, Mr. Andrews was hoping that they could do an on/off energy requirement so that one 225 horsepower blower could be turned off when the other blower was still on. One blower could remain as standby. • This system had the ability to not operate on a 24/7 basis. The Xenon process was chosen because it could be “turned down” and not run up a high bill. • This system would also be able to accommodate the Williams project.

Mr. Rice made the following comments: • His firm had compiled a maximum guaranteed price. • His firm was chosen through a competitive Request For Proposal process. • Mr. Rice had attended design meetings in order to understand the process. • The Hydro firm had been in business for over 30 years and had built water plants in Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc. • Mr. Rice suggested that maximizing concrete and using metal buildings reduced some of the costs. • Mr. Rice’s firm suggested certain ideas to reduce the price of the project without sacrificing quality. • Mr. Rice stated that the maximum price his firm compiled was $1.25 million and they were currently receiving final drawings and structural drawings. This was a high end estimate. • The price could only decrease from this point.

Mr. Mooney stated that based on the School keeping 10,000 g.p.m., the School could sell 128 water taps at $10,000. The actual estimated water tap fee would be $10,938 based on the $1.75 million project cost. Since the project would not cost this much, the tap fees would also decrease. The School had no intention of trying to make money on this deal. The tap fees were based on cost and the final tap fee should be between $10,000 and $11,000. Based on other water districts, this pricing was comparable.

Commissioner Sorensen asked about the agreements between the School and Mr. Williams. Mr. Middleton responded with the following statements:

84 • He was disappointed that Mr. Williams felt left out. It was the School’s intention to work closely with Mr. Williams. • When the School was left to to work with the agencies to build this plant, they found it very difficult. Mr. Williams had not met his conditions of approval for his project. • The School District was in charge of education and not building sewer plants. The School was left with only a year to find a permanent solution. • The School Board meetings were all public and publicized. All the County meetings were public and publicized as well. • It was not the School’s intention to make money on this project and they did not want to be in the sewer plant business. • The School hoped that Mr. Williams would finish his project and take over the sewer plant. • There was also discussion of development on the Elmgreen land which was adjacent to the School and the Elmgreen development would need this facility. • The School had been working heavily with Department of Local Affairs and the County to complete this project and when finished, they were happy to work with the Beaver Brook Water and Sanitation District. • The School did not want to manage the sewage plant. If they had to they would and had done this with their temporary treatment facility. However, the School was anxious to work with someone that would take over the plant and manage it. • The School found itself in this situation of creating this plant not by choice as they only wanted to be a customer. • The School District had jumped through all the hoops for approval and they did want to recover their costs. They realized they would not recover all their costs but they did not want to build this facility on the backs of School money.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the high school project and the Williams project came forth simultaneously. It was the Commissioners’ intent and common sense land use decision making to have one facility for both projects. It did not make sense to have two facilities. Outside agencies agreed on the one plant for the two projects. The Commissioners also wanted this plant to have the capacity to expand as development occurred in this area. Commissioner Sorensen stated that based on this presentation, it appeared the plant could accommodate the School, the Williams project and future development. Mr. Mooney agreed stating that the plant could be expanded to 80,000 g.p.m. with additional funding. The incremental cost would be lower but the real estate, attorneys, and engineering were mostly paid.

Commissioner Poirot asked if the remainder 32,000 g.p.m. would be enough for the Williams project. Mr. Williams was unsure but with a cost of $11,000 per water tap and 200 water taps needed, this was a difficult decision. More than half the costs were collection systems to buy the rights of ways and put in sewer mains. Mr. Williams felt the school was paying very little and they were budgeting over twice the costs of their competitors. Commissioner Poirot stated that if Mr. Williams project purchased the 32,000 g.p.m. and Elmgreen needed the facility too, this would require an enlargement of the facility. Elmgreen’s would, in essence, be paying less to use the plant and this had to be considered now. Mr. Mooney stated that the district would have to adopt a rate structure that would equalize the tap fees in some way. This could be done after the fact. If Williams became the operator and owner of the plant then he would have the position to keep new entries equitable.

Commissioner Dale asked about the school selling the plant based on tap fees. Mr. Mooney replied that the School’s pre-investment could be counted as their tap fee. The only real question was how much the School District would get back for its investment. If the Williams project fell through along with the Elmgreen project, the School may never recover their funds.

Mr. Loeffler stated that this agreement did not require this plant to be sold based on tap fees. This agreement required that the School recover investment from the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation and the County. If Williams bought this plant, he could buy it for the $1.65 million instead of the $2 million in tap fees. The School could also sell the plant and a part of its capacity.

Ms. Stokstad noted that if the grants and loans were removed from this project, the County was

85 taking on the liability of repayment of principal and interest. The financial risk was shared over several entities. The Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation was one of these risk takers. The Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation was pleased to be a partner in this project to make this happen. Ms. Stokstad asked if with the construction contract, were their under budget or performance penalties? Mr. Rice replied that there were liquidated damages and cost savings. There was no incentive for the contractor and the contract was based on a fixed fee. The incentive was to finish the project before August. This would be difficult but during the Request for Proposal process, all fees and markups for Hydro were included. Any savings would be returned to the School District. Ms. Stokstad stated that the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation incentive was that they would own sewer taps. These could be used for potential development on Floyd Hill. The Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation discovered that they were not able to see excess capacity at the plant as it would be sold in one lump sum. Mr. Middleton replied that the reason for the lump sum was that the School did not want to be a barterer for the taps with various groups. The School’s intention was to work with Williams on his project. The Intergovernmental Agreement was formatted so the capacity could be transferred in one lump sum. This lump sum would be ready for Williams when he was ready to backfill what the school had invested up front. Mr. Mooney added that this agreement was open-ended in terms of how the taps and the plant would be sold providing maximum flexibility. Mr. Loeffler agreed stating that the agreement anticipated the sale of the entire capacity and not less than that. The County would be responsible for making a payment schedule that would increase to $61,000 per year. Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation would recover interest up to the first $100,000 or the first four full years. There would be a period of six years that would be interest only. The County would be responsible for paying $25,000 to $30,000 per year up to a maximum of $61,000 per year. If this project went into a 20-year loan, it would involve a cash outlay up front.

Mr. Loeffler asked the County to consider Resolution #03-64, to create the Clear Creek County Sewer Enterprise Fund that was the vehicle through which the County could act in this agreement for the construction and reimbursement. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-64 to create the Clear Creek County Sewer Enterprise Fund. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Loeffler stated that the next consideration was that of the treatment plant construction and reimbursement agreement. The Department of Local Affairs contract had been integrated into this agreement. This agreement was needed in order for Department of Local Affairs to complete their contract. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the treatment plant construction and reimbursement agreement. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Rollenhagen presented the fee waiver request with the following statements: • The School District was requesting the fee waiver of the 1041 process, the Public Ways process, the Plan Review Fee, and the Special Use Permit. Mr. Andrews requested to add the Defensible Space Permit and the BMP permits. • Mr. Rollenhagen suggested also adding the Building Permit fees which were $1475, the Plan Review Fee of $959.05, the Traffic Impact Fee of $3375, 1041 Process Fee of $1830, the Public Ways Fee of $555, the Special Use Permit of $630, Plan Review Fee of $70, and the Defensible Space and BMP fees of $480 for a total fee waiver of $9374. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the rationale was that one taxing agency would be paying another.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to waive the fees for this project for the listed cases for the School District. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the Site Application, Mr. Loeffler stated that this fell under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Mr. Andrews stated that the site application was a planning requirement and went into detail of how the post facility would integrate into regional plans for meeting a service area. This had been approved by the local Environmental Health Department. This application would show how the plant would meet water quality requirements which were reviewed by State and District Court. This process was begun before the local Planning Commission and then to the Upper Clear Creek Watershed

86 Association for the temporary and permanent facility. DRCOG also approved this project. As the Board of County Commissioners signature were required on this application, this portion of the case was brought before the Board of County Commissioners for their approval.

Mr. Andrews explained that the plan for discharge was still to recharge above the Williams pond. The School had heard that Williams was in agreement with this plan and was going to sign the agreement. Two easements were involved: one for effluent and one across the Elmgreen land. The documents were in the hands of the Elmgreen’s to sign as well. The School heard that the Elmgreen’s were also in favor. The State wanted to assure no delays. There were legal remedies if one party did not agree but the School did not favor condemnation proceedings. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the plant’s 1041, the Special Use Permit, and Public Ways Review would go before the Planning Commission in the following week. Mr. Loeffler stated that in most hearings, the 1041 and the Site Application were heard together. The Board of County Commissioners was being asked to approve this Site Application for the purposes of public health considerations which were the province of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Mr. Etcheson stated that he did approve of this Site Application to build the sewer plant. He did attend the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association meetings concerning this plant and did meet with Bob Jones of the Association. He also spoke with Rick Fendell on the project. Mr. Etcheson was comfortable with this application.

Mr. Rollenhagen explained that if residents had concerns with regard to the appearance of the plant, they should attend the Planning Commission hearings on the Special Use Permit and the 1031. The Public Ways hearing was more of a recommendation than a hearing. Commissioner Poirot stated that even if Public Ways was denied, the School could override this and do it anyway. Mr. Loeffler agreed and added that the 1041 and the Special Use Permit cases had conditions which had to be met. Mr. Etcheson stated that one such condition could be odor. If this plant was approved and odor became an issue later, these hearings were the time to suggest conditions. Per the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association, there should also not be water issues, but these could be addressed at these same hearings. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Site Application as recommended by Mr. Etcheson of the Environmental Health Department. Commissioner Dale seconded. Commissioner Sorensen agreed with Commissioner Poirot and Commissioner Dale in approving this based on the recommendation of staff and their review of the Site Application. Mr. Andrews presented the Site Application and Mr. Loeffler reviewed for acceptance. The vote was unanimous. The Planning Commission hearing would be held to consider these cases on March 26, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners hearing room.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MARCH 25, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on March 25, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CDBG GRANT AWARD FOR THE CLEAR CREEK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Commissioner Sorensen stated that this contract provided resources for the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation to make funds available through the Revolving Loan Fund which was eligible to qualifying businesses. This resource also created jobs for low to moderate income people. This loan was for $665,000 with $575,000 for business assistance and $90,000 for administration. This was a

87 multi year contract. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the CDBG grant award for the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH HOGAN DESIGN AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION: Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young presented. Marilyn Hogan and Fran Enright attended the hearing. Mr. Young made the following statements: • The Open Space Commission wanted to expand their master plan for their commission to be included in the County -wide Master Plan. • There was a time constraint and the Open Space Commission wanted to hire a planner to do this extra planning for the Open Space Commission to be included in the Master Plan process. • The Open Space Commission did not have contracting authority so the request was made by them to the Board of County Commissioners. • The contract for services with Hogan Design would total $10,000. • The information in this portion of the master plan would include some parks, recreation , and tourism aspects.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if there were any conflicts in that Ms. Hogan was also on the Open Space Commission. Mr. Loeffler stated that this was considered and since the Open Space Commission was not contracting with Ms. Hogan there was no conflict. It was a County contract with Ms. Hogan’s firm. Ms. Hogan added that she would recuse herself from voting on issues which pertained to this planning process. Mr. Loeffler requested a disclosure letter to the Secretary of State’s office to have on file if anyone questioned the contract. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract for services with Hogan Design and the Open Space Commission. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN WITH THE COLORADO STATE FOREST SERVICE FOR 2003: Colorado State Forester Allen Gallamore presented. In attendance were Sheriff Don Krueger, Silver Plume representative Rick Gaubatz, and Fire Chief Kelly Babeon. Mr. Gallamore made the following statements: • Most of these amendments were phone numbers etc. • A new statute had been added that during any wildland fire, the first helicopter or aircraft load of water/suppressant was free up until the funds were expended. There should have to be a unified command if the fire call was made from two different officials. However, if the fire was seen from two different areas as two different fires, it could be allowed to have two free first suppressant loads. • Mr. Gallamore stated that the entire Annual Operating Plan manuals were being reprinted so all officials would have brand new copies. These new manuals would arrive when all signatures were obtained. • There were more limitations on aircraft this year. The Forest Service was hoping that Congress would fund a R&D program for a new aircraft to handle the heavy loads of retardant. • The Colorado State Forest Service had concerns as many of their aircraft were in the war in Iraq during this fire season. • Some of the air tankers were being used in other states to help fund the programs and keep them in existence for the Colorado fire season. • Mr. Gallamore confirmed that staging areas had been discussed with the Sheriff and would be included in the new Annual Operating Plan manual. He added that changes could be made to the exhibits without amending the entire Annual Operating Plan. • Mr. Gallamore stated that the Annual Operating Plan included a list of equipment the Colorado State Forest Service had stored in Clear Creek County. • Mr. Gallamore stated that the new manuals should be completed and delivered to the corresponding agencies by May 1, 2003. • Mr. Gallamore was working with Clear Creek County Mapping Director Matt Taylor on updating maps in the manual too.

Sheriff Krueger stated that he had reviewed the new amendments and it appeared fine.

88 Commissioner Poirot asked if there was any relief to the County for paying into the Emergency Fire Fund (EFF) for many years and then requesting reimbursement for the Fountain Gulch Fire. Mr. Gallamore replied that he was attending a meeting with the Fire Division the following day and could follow up on this request. Mr. Gallamore expressed concern that this fund was exhausted quickly due to the bad fire season in 2002. It was unclear on how lenient the State was with that funding. The Colorado State Forest Service was not the guardian of that fund only an administrator. There was a gray area on how to apply for that funding and who should be eligible.

Commissioner Poirot stated that during this fire, the special teams from Jefferson County had asked that the local fire fighters stay out and let them handle it. Commissioner Poirot added that if he had known the special teams wouldn’t be covered, the County would have covered the fire or let it burn. Mr. Gallamore agreed that there was always a question on the value of risk. Mr. Gallamore added that he thought the question was whether Clear Creek County provided enough information to determine if the right strategy was used. Mr. Gallamore stated that one question was how much should the State Forest Service get involved or how much could they help out? This information was not collected or determined at the time of the fire. The State Forest Service cannot open the EFF until the County applies and then it has to meet criteria before funded. Mr. Gallamore recalled that there was confusion from the Jefferson County team and the Clear Creek County team and staff. There was also mixed information from the Gilpin County side as well. Mr. Gallamore stated that he would follow up on all these issues at the Fire Division meeting the following day.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if the State Forest Service was connected with the State Office of Emergency Management. Mr. Gallamore replied that they were not connected. He was unsure if they had funding for wildfires. He could also ask this of the Fire Division. He would also ask this division what other funding could be sought in situations such as the Fountain Gulch Fire. The members of the Fire Division were Rich Holman–Director, Bernie Post–Aircraft Division, Bill Graepler–Fire Business and Annual Operating Plan for the State, Steve Hart–Fire Training Division and Type 1 Incident Commander for regional teams, Jim Hubbard–State Forester, who usually had the final decision on whether fires were funded or not.

The process for the EFF was that the Sheriff would contact the Colorado State Forest Service and inform them that the fire exceeded the County capabilities. A worksheet would be completed for the EFF and if it met criteria with points, it would be submitted to the State office and the Fire Division Acting Officer would be informed. If he approved the request, then the fire would be recognized for the EFF and the fire would be taken over by the State Forest Service. The State Forest Service would work with the County Sheriff. An Incident Management Team would take over the fire until it was ready to hand it back to the County.

Mr. Gallamore stated that the State OEM did experience some budget cuts but the fire programs through which his department worked, Colorado State University, had not been impacted. The EFF was separate from the State budgets. If the EFF had reached its cap then no collections were made.

Commissioner Poirot was frustrated during the North Spring Gulch fire in that the Air National Guard was not allowed to assist due to the protocol of fire system. The Air National Guard was also frustrated with their inability to assist. Mr. Gallamore was unsure of who was in charge of that decision. He added that the protocol read to have the Sheriff request the Air National Guard. The service was not free and the Governor would have to approve it. The National Guard State level office would have to be involved. Commissioner Poirot stated that there needed to be better coordination between the State Forest Service, the EFF, the State OEM and the Governor’s office.

Mr. Loeffler asked if the State Forester had made a final decision on the assistance from the EFF for the Fountain Gulch fire. Mr. Gallamore replied that this should have been done already however it was a difficult situation due to the dual County issue. Mr. Loeffler suggested that Mr. Gallamore bring up the issue of this with the Fire Division as the County would like to make a case for reimbursement. Mr. Loeffler stated that the analog for the EFF was insurance and the Colorado Law was clear that insurance pays. Mr. Gallamore agreed to bring this issue to the

89 Fire Division and return with a reply.

Commissioner Sorensen explained that during the time of the Fountain Gulch Fire, Mr. Gallamore was not present due to other fires occurring at the same time throughout the State. Mr. Gallamore replied that there were three other foresters on site for the Fountain Gulch Fire. Mr. Gallamore did not find the confusion to be his absence but the lack of communication between the other foresters. There were too many people going in different directions when there should have been a roundtable with the leaders to discuss a strategy. There was added confusion as the State OEM office became involved and no one knew who was the higher authority, State OEM or the State Forester. Mr. Gallamore clarified that the State OEM can assist but they were not assigned to deal with these fires. Mr. Gallamore agreed to bring this before the Fire Division as well. Mr. Gallamore stated that this meeting with the Fire Division would be to prepare for the coming summer and to review procedures that resulted from the prior summer.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the amendments to the Annual Operating Plan for 2003 between Clear Creek County and the Colorado State Forest Service and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the document. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-30, SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR B&B, CASE #03-SUP-01, 410 SUNNY SKIES TRAIL, OFF TRAIL CREEK ROAD, FOR DAVID MCGLONE: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. In attendance were Applicant David McGlone, Adjacent Property Owners Rusy Nail, Ken Sivits, Biff Roberson, Lucia Tigelaar, Wade Tigelaar, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Adjacent Property Owners Ann and Bob Timberman, and Greg and Ben Markle.

Commissioner Sorensen reminded the audience that public comment was closed on this case. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following statements: • He had received a follow up letter from the Fire Chief Kelly Babeon. • Mr. Babeon’s letter stated that the “emergency response to this location may be delayed due to access and/or weather factors. Our response will be to the best of our abilities given these components.” Mr. McGlone stated that Mr. Babeon was unaware of the proposed winter month closure on the B&B. • There was a memo submitted to the Planning Department regarding the road improvements the McGlone’s were willing to do. • This memo included the information on the winter month closure of the B&B. The proposed closure would be from December to March. This was included as a stipulation in the resolution. • There were no new submittals from the applicant.

Commissioner Sorensen asked about the significance of obtaining a commercial well for this property. Mr. Rollenhagen replied that the commercial well permit required no more than 15 g.p.m., which was the same as household well permits. Additionally the maximum groundwater diverted could not exceed 1/3 of an acre-foot. Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver explained that a exempt commercial and exempt in house well were the same and both limited to 1/3 acre foot. The difference was in a domestic well. A domestic well was for more than in house. It was for irrigation, watering of livestock, etc. A domestic well could divert one acre-foot of water per year. The in house and the commercial had to be applied for on parcels that were platted before July 1972.

Commissioner Sorensen asked about the road condition, the grade and width of the road. Since the road had no rights of way or easements, it could not be improved in width. The road was known to be narrow with only one lane of traffic. The only improvements the applicant could do was to improve the surface. Mr. Allen replied that this was correct and there were no rights of way or easements. Mr. Vogel agreed and added that the only road that Mr. McGlone would be improving was Sunny Skies Trail because Road and Bridge maintained Trail Creek Road. Mr. Vogel continued that Mr. McGlone could improve the surface of Sunny Skies Trail but it would do nothing to help with the grade. The grade was the problem with the area.

90 Commissioner Poirot asked about the parking situation. Mr. Vogel replied that the McGlone’s had parking at the B&B and the only parking below Sunny Skies Trail was on private property owned by Greg Markle. Mr. Allen added that per Ordinance #5, no parking was allowed along County roads that were only one lane. The Ordinance required 12-feet of driving space.

Mr. Markle stated that he was unsure of the McGlone’s intentions for parking however, he did not want B&B guests parking on his land. If the McGlone’s were considering parking elsewhere, he was unaware of it.

Commissioner Poirot stated that he was quite certain that the B&B would cause less traffic than additional residences and the area was platted for more residences. He suggested that the homeowners in the area consider a Local Improvement District (LID) at this time before more development occurred. If an LID was not formed, the residents would end up overcrowding themselves and making the road impassable. Commissioner Dale agreed and stated that he was unsure that the benefits of a B&B outweighed the access concerns from Mr. Allen and Mr. Vogel.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to deny Resolution #03-30, Special Use Permit Case #03- SUP-01, Sunny Skies Trail for David McGlone based on access issues even though more residential development will cause more traffic than a B&B. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen stated concerns of access and Emergency Services. Even though the applicant’s felt similar to the situation in St. Mary’s, Commissioner Sorensen stated that St. Mary’s did have a special district to maintain their roads and a fire station with volunteers.

Regarding the comments on clients of a B&B being less responsible, Commissioner Poirot disagreed with these comments. Most people that stayed at B&B’s were law-abiding citizens. Commissioner Sorensen agreed stating that this was not a convincing argument. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-45, REZONING CASE #277, ROBERT AND SHIRLEY HERRES, OWNERS, AND KELLY AND JENNIFER BABEON, APPLICANTS, FROM PD TO AG, ON A PORTION OF PARCEL 4 OF THE LEVINE SURVEY PLAT, ALVARADO ROAD: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neumann and local resident Opal Watts attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following comments: • He was speaking for Planner II Ruth Kastens as she was out of town. • This hearing had not yet been heard by the Planning Commission due to the snowstorm so the Board of County Commissioners hearing would have to be continued. • Mr. Rollenhagen stated that 13 Adjacent Property Owners were notified of this hearing. Commissioner Sorensen stated that these 13 people should be notified of the continuation date since there were concerned local homeowners. • Mr. Rollenhagen stated that some of the Adjacent Property Owners did reply with a comment on the case.

Ms. Watts stated that some of the residents in the area were opposed or concerned on this proposed case and they would want to attend the continued hearing. The Board agreed to have the Planning Department notify the Adjacent Property Owners. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to April 15, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENTS TO THE COUNTY FROM THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES AND CURTIS LUKOW, VIRGINIA CANYON: Mr. Loeffler stated that these easements were from the Colorado School of Mines and Curtis Lukow to the County for the drainage project on Virginia Canyon Road. The affected properties were known as the Tunnel Lode No.1, the Beauty No. 2 Lode, the Tunnel Lode No.3, the Danube Lode, the Little Casino Lode, the Inter Ocean, the Argo, the Boreas, the Kangaroo, the Rattler, the Cornucopia, and the Cash Lode Amended mining claims. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the acceptance of the grants of easements from the Colorado School of Mines and Curtis Lukow. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

91 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-62, REVISION TO ROAD CUT PERMIT AND ROAD ACCEPTANCE: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Due to an extended Executive Session, Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to April 15, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 1, 2003

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

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FEE WAIVER AND/OR REDUCTION FOR ROAD VACATION FEE FOR BILL AND CHERYL KINCADE: Land Use Assistant Cyndie Ruschmyer presented. Bill Kincade, Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer, Environmental Health Tech Tracey Bennetts, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Ms. Ruschmyer made the following statements: < Planner II Ruth Kastens was out of town and could not present the case at this hearing. < The Kincade’s were requesting that the fees be reduced for their Boundary Line Adjustment and Road Vacation cases. < The Kincade’s were involved with the Howards’ and Munchiando’s with these applications. < The Board of County Commissioners voted to reduce the fees for the Howards’. < After analysis, the Staff recommended denial of the Kincade’s request for fee reduction as the fees matched the amount of work completed by Planning staff. < Three cases were involved in succession: the Boundary Line Adjustment case, the Road Vacation case and the Rezoning case. < The Howards’ paid for the rezoning case for a total of $120 after they had been approved for a fee reduction. < The Kincade’s and the Howards’ both had to complete Road Vacation processes. The Munchiando’s had to complete a rezoning case since they had an illegal non-conforming use. < The Kincade’s began the process to adjust the boundary line and vacate the road, then the other neighbors wanted to do the same.

Mr. Kincade made the following statements: < The Boundary Line Adjustment was needed as the eaves of his home were on the Howards portion of land. The two neighbors agreed on this process to clean up the boundary and the Howards wanted to do the road vacation to fully clean up their property. < In doing this process, it was realized that the adjacent property owned by Munchiandos was also in conflict. < Later, the Kincades received a letter from the Howards that they would not complete the processes until the Munchiandos agreed to clean up their conflict of the rezoning. < Then the Board of County Commissioners agreed to waive the fees for the Howards by 80% and did not waive any of the Kincade’s fees when they had paid $1350. < The rezoning for the Munchiandos could not be completed without the road vacation and the boundary line adjustment. < The Munchiandos did not care about the processes the Howards and Kincades were having to complete. < The Munchiandos had paid nothing in fees in these three processes. The Howards were

Page 92 of 246 reduced to only pay the $120 and the Kincades were left with the $1300 payment. < He was forced to deal with the Munchiandos problem by the Planning Department. He was trying to complete these processes the right way but Munchiandos did nothing to contribute.

The Board wanted to meet with the original Planner on the case, Ruth Kastens, when she retured to work. The fees paid did appear to be unfair. The problem was that the fee reduction went to one party and was not shared by all parties involved. Commissioner Dale made the motion to continue the hearing to April 8, 2003 at 9:45 a.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TELEPHONE/VOICEMAIL SYSTEM MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WITH WTSI: Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger presented. Ms. Krueger made the following statements: < WTSI was a vendor for Clear Creek County for three years now. < They had done an excellent job for the County and provided exceptional coverage during the Blizzard of 2003. < They assisted the County with the Emergency Operations Center. < The contract decreased to $7150. < This agreement included a hardware warranty with Mitel, repairs and replacements, and also a maintenance agreement.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the contract with WTSI for telephone/voicemail system maintenance. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR JEFFREY AND DEBORAH ROTHLISBERGER: Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement for Jeffrey and Deborah Rothlisberger. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MEMBERS: Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Mr. Young made the following statements: < Applicant Gail Gilszmer had withdrawn her application and decided to remain with the Planning Commission. < There was still a remaining vacancy for an Associate member. < Two people had called regarding this vacancy: Roy Beaton from the Yankee Creek area and Joe Dome from another area. < Mr. Young recommended holding the vacancy for the Associate position until a more firm interest was received. < Mr. Young recommended the reappointment of Marilyn Hogan, Sarah Donahue, and Hal Wahlborg to the Open Space Commission.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to reappoint the following members to the Open Space Commission: Marilyn Hogan, Sarah Donahue, and Hal Wahlborg for terms expiring March 28, 2006. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-35, APPROVAL OF CLEAR CREEK HIGH SCHOOL PERMANENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY, FLOYD HILL: This hearing would be opened and immediately continued to April 8, 2003 at 4:15 p.m.: This hearing would be to hear two cases for the School District. One case would be for a Special Use Permit and one would be for a 1041 permit. Commissioner Dale made the motion to continue this hearing to April 8, 2003 at 4:15 p.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SEWAGE TREATMENT LOAN AWARD: County Attorney Bob Loeffler made the following statements: < The official award contract had not yet been sent by Department of Local Affairs. < Mr. Loeffler proposed that the Board approve the contract contingent on receiving it to

Page 93 of 246 the Attorney’s approval and to authorize the Chairman to sign the documents. < It was important that the contract include Exhibit D which was the tri-party agreement. < The County’s only asset in the project were the capacity in the plant. < The County was covering $550,000 with grant agreements and the school was providing $800,000. < The School got a grant for $300,000 for a total project cost of $1.65 million. < Any repayments or reimbursements made would go to the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation first, then the County, then the School District. < The school was motivated to sell the plant to Williams.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Sewage Treatment Loan award and authorized the Chairman to sign the documents contingent on Attorney approval when the originals were received from Department of Local Affairs. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen noted that the County obligation to this project started in 2007 and the first payment was due in 2003 for Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WATER RATE SCHEDULE FOR WATER LEASING: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver and Mr. Mauck made the following statements: < The price suggested for the domestic rate was $1200 per acre foot. < The price suggested for in-County use for business was $2200 per acre foot. < The County was planning for long term water leases, i.e., Shadows Ranch. < During the years when a long term user was not actually using the water, the County could lease their water to other users. < To reserve this water for long term users, the long term user would only pay half the price. < The County did not want to lease water to speculating developers but to people that would actually follow through. < As the County had control over land use, this water bank allowed the County more control by controlling the water and its regulation. < The payment for water reservation meant the County would reserve it for the user in the future. < The reserve option allowed the County to lease water promised to others unless they received a years notice the users would need it. < Another new item to the rate schedule was the late payment charge. < The late payment fee was 18%. < The Chief Accountant had recommended the County put the water bank into an enterprise fund format. < Keeping track of the water activity flows and to whom was difficult work. < The County had received a verbal approval from the Water Commissioners on its accounting practice for the water bank.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Water Rate Schedule for 2003 for the months April through October and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

PRESENTATION OF GAMING IMPACT APPLICATIONS WITH ROAD AND BRIDGE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ADVOCATES; PRIORITIZATION OF ENERGY MINERAL IMPACT APPLICATIONS: Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger presented. Empire Mayor Lori Short, Georgetown Mayor Lynn Granger, City of Idaho Springs Mayor Dennis Lunbery, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Ms. Krueger noted that there were no Energy and Mineral Impact Grant applications to prioritize.

Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented the first Gaming Impact application. Mr. Allen made the following statements: < This project was to improve the drainage and reduce sediment and erosion along the Virginia Canyon Road.

Page 94 of 246 < This project would utilize the drainage improvements/flood mitigation engineering that was partially funded through another gaming contract. < This request was to fund the construction of three sediment basins in the Virginia Creek main channel. < The Phase 2 would enhance the benefit of Phase 1 in the reduction of damage to the roadway. < Indirectly, the sediment basins would reduce flood damage to Virginia Canyon Road by removing sediment and debris that reduced the conveyance capacity of the main channel. < A more direct reduction of flood damage to the roadway attributed to these structures would be their ability in providing some runoff velocity dissipation. < This would allow for an unobstructed flow of runoff to enter the deeper channel at the north end of Idaho Springs without being diverted to the roadway’s driving surface. < The current average daily traffic on Virginia Canyon Road was 640 cars and this was an increase of 398% over 11 years. < The common user of this road was gaming traffic, property owner access, and sightseers. < The entire project involved five total phases. These phases would take several years to complete. < Road widening would be the first step and then a possible asphalt surfacing.

The Board and Mayors discussed the recent Joint Budget Committee proposal to cut the gaming impact fund and devote it to the State General Fund. State Representative Tom Plant had been working to fight this but was having little luck. The Joint Budget Committee had also voted to take the Energy Mineral Impact funds as well.

Joe Flannigan presented the District Attorney’s gaming application. Mr. Flannigan made the following statements: < Mr. Flannigan noted that the Joint Budget Committee was considering taking the Victim’s Services funding totaling $5 million. < Mr. Flannigan stated that his project was aimed at offsetting personnel costs and operating costs at the District Attorney’s office due to gaming impact in criminal and traffic case in Clear Creek County. < Approximately 22% of the cases prosecuted through the District Attorney’s office were gaming related. < The personnel which would be involved in the offset were 1.4 FTE attorney’s which dealt with criminal case, 1 victim services personnel which dealt with all of the victims case, 1 legal secretary dealing with all criminal and traffic cases in the District Attorney’s office, .5 FTE Juvenile Diversion Coordinator who provided pre-filing prevention of juvenile cases where 1 or both parents might work in the gaming industry. < Also, .25 Community Project Administrator who provided supervision for the Victim Services and Juvenile Diversion Coordinators and co-management of the District Attorney’s office. < The Community Project Administrator was also responsible for grant writing. < The District Attorney’s office prosecutes traffic, petty offense, misdemeanor, and felony cases.

Ms. Judi Brown presented the gaming application for the Clear Creek Advocates program. Ms. Brown made the following statements: < This proposed project was to address the increased need for victim services provided by the Clear Creek County Advocates (CCCA), as well as address the needs of children and adolescents of violent homes. < CCCA continued to be requested to respond to more and more crisis scenes that were not domestic violence or sexual assault. < Victim contact had steadily increased since the inception of the program (over 2000 adult contacts in 2002). < As a result, training was expanded to include death notification and information about crimes such as child sexual/physical abuse, domestic terrorism and homicide. < Law enforcement was now able to contact advocates to respond to almost any crisis where there was a victim. < Due to the program’s growth and increased demands, it has been necessary to hire a volunteer coordinator and increase hours to full time.

Page 95 of 246 < The Coordinator offered support in the scheduling and supervision of volunteers and provides he Executive Director with the greatly needed administrative support required to operate this program. < Furthermore, in 2002, over 450 children received services from CCCA. < Some were referred to Social Services, however, many did not require that type of intervention, but they were in need of some form of support. < Therefore, CCCA had support groups for children and adolescents to address these needs. < There were two weekly structured support groups for children ages 5 to 18. < Professional youth workers facilitate the groups. The group thanked the applicants for their presentation and would consider these with the other presentations on April 8, 2003.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-65 TO ADOPT A PRIVACY POLICY FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FOR HIPAA COMPLIANCE AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-66 TO ADOPT A PRIVACY POLICY IN ELECTRONIC FORM FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FOR HIPAA COMPLIANCE: Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Ms. Thibault made the following statements: < The County was still working on becoming HIPAA compliant and meeting all the federal requirements. < Nursing Director Jean Barta would be attending HIPAA training on April 11, 2003. < Ms. Barta agreed to share the training with Human Services. < The County was researching to see if the dispatch employee would have to attend training. < David Blakely from Emergency Services would be attending a training for the Ambulance Department. < Ms. Thibault requested more time to complete the research and training for the HIPAA process before adopting resolutions.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue this hearing to April 15, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Ms. Thibault anticipated further implementation of HIPAA policies in other County departments, i.e., Sheriff, Human Services, etc. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 8, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 8, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

The Board convened as the Board of Directors of the Slacker Races.

INITIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SLACKER RACES: County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, Race Director Beth Luther and Race Treasurer Debbie Zarlengo attended the hearing. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Slacker Articles of Incorporation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Loeffler stated that due to new nonprofit law, bylaws were not required. Commissioner Poirot made the motion not to have bylaws for the Slacker Races corporation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Page 96 of 246 Commissioner Poirot made the motion to appoint Beth Luther as the President of the Slacker Races. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to appoint Debbie Zarlengo as the Secretary/Treasurer of the Slacker Races. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Zarlengo presented the current and past financials. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the financials of the Slacker races. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that the Slacker races did not have a bank account. A fund was created by the County to receive Slacker receipts and expenses were paid through accounts payable. Ms. Zarlengo recommended to continue in this fashion as the Slacker races were paying the Treasurer’s office administrative fees. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the Slacker expenses and revenues through Accounts Payable and the Treasurer respectively. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented a copy of the IRS application for the Slacker races to become a 501-C3 nonprofit entity. This status assisted the Slacker with certain sponsors and donors. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the ruling of the IRS application and decision. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that the Slacker races were set up to defend and indemnify officers. This corporation would be reported to CAPP. Commissioner Dale made the motion to have the corporation established in this way. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FEE WAIVER AND/OR REDUCTION FOR ROAD VACATION FEE FOR BILL AND CHERYL KINCADE: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer, Zoning Enforcement Tech Tracy Bennetts, and applicant Bill Kincade attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following statements: • Bill and Cheryl Kincade were requesting the fees be reduced for a Boundary Line Adjustment and Road Vacation case. • The original agreement was between the Kincade’s and the Howards’ . This agreement was that the Howards’ pay the application fees and not charge the Kincade’s for the sliver of land. • Other problems arose as this case proceeded drawing in the original landowners, the Munchiando’s.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the concerns arose when the Board realized that they had reduced fees for the Howards’ only to burden the Kincade’s. Was there a way to make this fee paying process fair? Ms. Kastens understood the dilemma and had encouraged the Kincade’s to work with the Howards’ on this issue of fee payment. Ms. Kastens stated that the County had processed these cases and the employee time and research equaled these fee amounts.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if the Kincade’s were notified that the Howards’ requested a fee reduction. Ms. Kastens replied, no, but these cases were listed on the Board of County Commissioners’ agenda and posted in the newspaper each week. Ms. Kastens added that she informed Mrs. Kincade that a fee reduction could be requested.

Mr. Kincade stated that the Munchiando’s would pay nothing. He added that the Howards’ did not want to pay any more into these processes. Commissioner Sorensen stated that if there was any overpayment found or if any of the case processes were not needed, that this portion of the fees paid be refunded to the Kincade’s. The Board explained to Mr. Kincade that the County had to cover their costs in the processing of these cases. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion that any expenses not expended in the actual case processing be refunded to the

Page 97 of 246 Kincade’s and the County hoped that the Howards’ would work with them on evening out the fees. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD MEETING: This hearing was changed to a working session only.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CERT) GRANT FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: OEM Coordinator Laura Nay presented. Ms. Nay made the following statements: • This grant opportunity was 100% funded by the State OEM offices. • This grant would be used to train citizens in the awareness of emergency response. • The CERT program and its funds were organized and ready for application. • This program would be used synonymously with the Incident Management Team.

• The funding would begin on May 1, 2003. • The County’s request would total $15,000 for the training of employees. • Ms. Nay would administer the grant.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the CERT grant application from Clear Creek County. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT FOR THE EASTER SEALS OF COLORADO: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Ms. Reimer made the following statements: • This permit was for the Easter Seals of Colorado’s Frisbee Golf Tournament. • The application was complete and all fees were paid. • A map was submitted of where alcohol would be served. • All departments had approved application of this permit. • The proceeds would be used to build a full time frisbee golf course.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Events Permit for the Easter Seals of Colorado. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

PRESENTATION OF GAMING IMPACT APPLICATIONS WITH MOUNT EVANS HOSPICE, COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER, COLUMBINE FAMILY HEALTH, CLEAR CREEK FIRE AUTHORITY, AMBULANCE DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, AND PRIORITIZATION OF GAMING IMPACT APPLICATIONS: City of Idaho Springs Mayor Dennis Lunbery and Administrative Assistant Cindy Condon, Town of Georgetown Mayor Lynn Granger, Sheriff Don Krueger, OEM Coordinator Laura Nay, Town of Empire Mayor Lori Short, VOA Manager Nolan Knox, Mount Evans Hospice Director Louisa Walthers and Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger attended the hearing.

Mayor Lunbery presented the Idaho Springs gaming applications with the following statements: • The first application was for a Canine Police Vehicle. Many of the police calls in Idaho Springs required the use of a canine unit, which was the only locally-available unit for Idaho Springs, surrounding communities, and other state and local law enforcement agencies. The canine unit performed a wide range of duties, including narcotics detection, pursuit and apprehension, and search and rescue. Funding was sought for a properly equipped canine police vehicle to better serve Idaho Springs, as well as the law enforcement needs of the nearby gaming communities. Idaho Springs was requesting $26,250 from the gaming fund for this grant. • The second application from Idaho Springs was for a street improvement project on Miner Street. This grant would improve .2 miles of Miner Street and purchase road winter maintenance equipment (replacement of an aging sander and plow). Miner Street was a major southern access road for traffic from the City and I–70 to nearby gaming communities. Gaming activities from visitor, employee, contractor, and other types of vehicle travel to and from the gaming communities were responsible for 1000 to 2000 vehicle trips on this and other roads in Idaho Springs each week. Miner Street was

Page 98 of 246 deteriorating and needed repair and resurfacing. The amount requested totaled $308,925 from the gaming fund for this project. Mayor Lunbery stated that funding from his capital replacement schedule was being used as a match to this grant. • Mayor Lunbery presented his third application for Idaho Springs requesting wastewater treatment plant improvements. In 1999, the City of Black Hawk commenced operation at the Hidden Valley Water Treatment Plant (WTP) which was approximately 1 mile downstream of the City of Idaho Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant on the main stem of Clear Creek. The Hidden Valley (WTP) had a 700 g.p.m. water intake that now served the majority of the City of Black Hawk because gaming-related water demands had surpassed Black Hawk’s 200 g.p.m. Dory Hill WTP. The Idaho Springs WWTP had recently been the focus of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment–Water Quality Control Division scrutiny as a result of real-time continuous measurement of water quality in Clear Creek by Black Hawk at the Hidden Valley WTP. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s scrutiny had resulted in an assessment of violations and penalties against Idaho Springs despite the lack of a correlation between drinking water parameters measured at the Hidden Valley WTP and traditional wastewater parameters required by permit to be measured at the Idaho Springs WWTP. The net effect of the proximity of the Hidden Valley WTP to the City’s WWTP discharge and the scrutiny of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment was the regulation of a 20-year-old batch-oriented treatment plant as if it had the reliability and redundancy fo a continuously discharging in-direct water re-use plant. The facility was never built with the features to allow it to produce superior effluent water quality. Accordingly, the City was requesting funding to improve the reliability and redundancy of its WWTP and to reduce potential future conflicts with the Hidden Valley WTP. Mayor Lunbery noted that the City had water debt and wastewater debt at this time.

Sheriff Krueger and Ms. Nay presented the County Sheriff’s Department gaming applications with the following statements: • The first application was for law enforcement capabilities and improvement project continuation. The gaming grant requested to maintain the two deputy positions hired on January 1, 2003. In three months, there had been a reduction in overworked patrol. Also the grant would maintain the full time administrative staff support hired as of January 1, 2003, maintain the full time communications dispatcher hired on January 1, 2003, add a part time temporary data entry person to convert files to a new reporting system, expand the communications center to reduce over-crowdedness in dispatch, request 3 laptop computers for the patrol division and two patrol vehicles. The total amount requested from the gaming fund was $261,000. This grant request was almost identical to the request from the prior year. • The second application from the Sheriff’s department was for a confinement capabilities project. This request was for the purchase of the “Jails Management System” component that was compatible wit the CAD and Records System that was purchased already. The Sheriff’s office goal was to have one records management system for all divisions. This system would allow confinement to combine three current outdated systems into one and make booking, processing, criminal identification database maintenance, medical information, database maintenance, and all other aspects of confinement operations a much simpler, more effective process. The total amount requested from the gaming fund was $225,000. This system was compatible with the State system and had GIS components to show where crimes were committed in the County.

Mr. Knox presented the gaming application request from the Volunteers of America with the following statements: ‘ The Older Americans Act program in Clear Creek County provided congregate nutrition, home-delivered meals and transportation for County residents 60 years of age or older. Funding was provided by DRCOG, Project Support, Volunteers of America, local jurisdictions, the clients serviced and through individual citizen donations. Limited Gaming Impact funding was requested to help pay for additional labor costs incurred by the program to compete with the gaming establishments for qualified drivers and other personnel, and to avoid cutbacks in direct services (trips and meals) that would otherwise be necessary. The total requested from the gaming fund for this grant was $21,889.

Page 99 of 246 Ms. Walthers presented the gaming application for the Mount Evans Hospice with the following statements: ‘ Since 1980, Mount Evans Hospice and Home Health Care had been providing medical and supportive care to homebound individuals living in Clear Creek County. They provided a variety of services – nursing; physical, occupational, speech therapies; home health aides; and social workers to help ensure that individuals received the necessary in- home medical care for their treatment, recuperation, or end of life care. ‘ Mount Evans Hospice was seeking funding to offset losses incurred from caring for employees of the casino industry and their families, and for additional costs necessary to compete with the wages offered by the casinos for entry-level positions. ‘ The total amount requested from the gaming fund for this application was $17,000. ‘ Mount Evans Hospice had to fund-raise in four counties. They had to raise $540,000 this year alone to survive. Approximately $100,000 had to be raised for the expenses in Clear Creek County alone. Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements had been severely reduced. The group discussed the Columbine Family Health application with the following statements: ‘ Columbine Family Health Center was a nonprofit corporation that provided primary health care services to uninsured, under-served and medically indigent residents and workers in Clear Creek County. A sliding scale was available to low income people and no one was denied care. ‘ The grant request was for personnel, operations, and capital computer requests. ‘ The total request from the gaming fund for this application was $40,245.

The group discussed the potential of the gaming funds being reduced or cut due to the State budget challenges. They discussed the history of the gaming funds and how the impacts of gaming had affected the Clear Creek County community. The group considered the prioritization of the grants and unanimously leaned in the higher priority of the healthcare issues. The prioritization was as follows: < #1 Clear Creek Advocates < #2 Mount Evans Hospice < #3 Volunteers of America < #4 Columbine Family Health < #5 Idaho Springs Wastewater Plant < #6 Sheriffs Department Continued Departmental Funding < #7 District Attorney’s Office < #8 Idaho Springs Street Improvement Project < #9 Sheriff’s Confinement Project < #10 Idaho Springs Canine Unit < #11 Virginia Canyon Road Project

Mayor Short suggested the Confinement grant have a match or be moved to #11. The group agreed. The group agreed on the prioritization.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A SMALLPOX RESPONSE PLAN: Nursing Director Jean Barta presented. In attendance were Nurse Sharon Donnelly, Dr. Katherine Drapeau, Environmental Health Department Chris Etcheson, Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson, Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, Environmental Health Department Tech Tracy Bennetts, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Jefferson County Regional Health Planner Lyle Moore. Ms. Barta made the following statements: < This plan was a response plan for Clear Creek County to a smallpox or other communicable disease outbreak. < This plan was a subdivision of the Public Health Emergency Plan. < This plan dealt with vaccines and medications and addressed a vaccine distribution area at the Clear Creek Middle School. < The plan required working agreements with other agencies, i.e., Jefferson County and their communications and personnel. < This plan required local agreements between the County, the Public Health Department, the Sheriff, Communications, and Emergency Services.

Page 100 of 246 < This plan required the evaluation of liability for the County Health Officer who would be responsible for delegating medications and medical personnel.

Mr. Moore made the following statements: < He was an active regional health planner for Jefferson County, Gilpin and Clear Creek Counties. < This plan was made up by the CDC and included State guidelines. < Jefferson County was in collaboration to assist with Clear Creek County if they needed it. < Mr. Moore had a military background. < Mr. Moore was the point person for the pharmaceutical and strategic stockpile. < This tri-County effort was funded through the Bioterrorism Fund at Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. < The Incident Commander was Dr. Katherine Drapeau and Ms. Barta was the Operations Coordinator. The Patient Care Coordinator would be other public health nurses or Emergency Services staff. Written agreements were needed for these positions. < The Environmental Coordinator was Chris Etcheson and the Security Coordinator was Sheriff Krueger. A logistics and a finance person were needed. < This plan would work for anthrax threats as well. < For radiological and chemical threats, HAZMAT and the Office of Public Safety and Fire would assist. < For threats to the tunnels, Colorado State Patrol would respond. These additional threats would all be addressed in the County Emergency Plan.

Mr. Etcheson noted that for any disaster that invoked a community response the responders would include the same people, EMS, OEM, Sheriff, Fire, Environmental Health Department, and Public Health. Mr. Abrahamson stated that each agency had their own commander which would respond to the Incident Commander. They would operate out of a County Emergency Center.

Ms. Barta explained that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment divided the State into 8 regions. The areas were divided by DRCOG, public health response, geographic, number of public health nurses, etc. Mr. Moore added that all counties had signed mutual aid agreements with the State and these would assist under this plan. Each agency within the County would serve a particular role under the response plan similar to what they did under County emergencies.

Commissioner Poirot expressed concerns on each agency working together. What if multiple events occurred simultaneously? This plan would have to be incorporated into the County Emergency Plan. Ms. Barta stated that the County Emergency Plan needed to be revised as soon as possible as this response plan would not work without that umbrella. Mr. Moore replied that the entire State was working on these same issues. It was difficult as Public Health was utilized as a preventative tool and not a reactive tool. The Emergency Services group was the reactive tool. Mr. Moore would work with each agency on a tabletop demonstration to better prepare them for the use of this plan. In July, there would be a Statewide tabletop demonstration.

Ms. Barta requested that the Board of County Commissioners sign the agreement with the School District to utilize the Clear Creek Middle School as the medical center. Dr. Drapeau asked that her insurance be confirmed as her medical malpractice insurance would not cover her in this capacity. Mr. Loeffler agreed to research this.

Mr. Etcheson stated that the health agencies had come together to review this Smallpox Response Plan and they recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Moore stated that if the plan was activated, the EMS personnel would be vaccinated first in order to help others. There was a 3-5 day window to be vaccinated. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Smallpox Response Plan for Clear Creek County. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-35, 1041 PERMIT FOR THE CLEAR CREEK HIGH SCHOOL PERMANENT WASTEWATER

Page 101 of 246 TREATMENT FACILITY, FLOYD HILL AND CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-72, SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE #03-SUP-02, FOR THE CLEAR CREEK HIGH SCHOOL PERMANENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY, FLOYD HILL: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Clear Creek School District Superintendent Don Middleton, Clear Creek School District Engineer of Rothberg, Tamburini & Winsor, Inc., Joe Tamburini, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, and Environmental Health Department Chris Etcheson attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following statements: < This hearing was for two cases: Areas and Activities of State Interest Case #03-SI-01 and Special Use Permit Case #03-SUP-02. < The proposal was for a permanent wastewater treatment facility near Clear Creek High school, consisting of one buried equalization tank, one operations building, and associated piping and manholes. < The parcel was located on the east side of Beaver Brook Drive, approximately 1800 feet south of the intersection with the I-70 Frontage Road in the Floyd Hill area. < The parcel was 1.22 acres and known as #1963-12-3-00-901. < The property was current zoned MR-1. A sewage treatment plant required the approval of Special Use Permit for it to be located on property zoned MR-1. < Currently, the property was being utilized for the existing temporary sewage treatment facility, which would be torn down. < The surrounding uses were zoned MR-1 which was vacant, C-1 for a proposed apartment complex, MR-1 to the south where the school was located, and to the west, 3 lots zoned MR-1 with residences. One parcel was zoned PD with existing tennis courts and recreational facilities. < Review criteria for the minimum standards of approval was submitted for the Board of County Commissioners review. < Regarding review agencies, Mr. Ohlekers of the Division of Wildlife requested that the facility be fenced in a certain manner to protect wildlife. < The Evergreen Fire Protection District had no comment. < The Open Space Commission responded with comments on building appearance and potential odor effects. < Draft resolutions for each case were submitted to the Board of County Commissioners with stipulations and conditions and the recommendations of the Planning Commission. < The Planning Commission had made a few changes to the Staff recommendation with regard to the building facade, exterior additions, landscaping, and exterior lighting. < Staff supported the Planning Commission changes and recommended approval of both cases.

Mr. Middleton made the following statements: < The proposed plan was attached to the access road which then connected to Beaver Brook Canyon Road. < The School District agreed to comply with the Division of Wildlife request on the proposed fencing. < Mr. Middleton agreed to address the proposed plant with regard to the Review Criteria. < The plant would not be located in the floodplain area. < As for adverse impacts to wildlife, the only trees to be removed were a few aspens. The new footprint would actually add trees. < The operations building would not interfere with the sludge tank. < This plant was not proposed in a wetland or riparian area. < There were no geologic resources or cultural resources identified at this location. < There would be no significant degradation to natural resources in this area. < The School District would obtain the required BMP permitting. < This project met all water quality control requirements and was approved by the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association, DRCOG and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. < There would be no noise, air quality, or erosion issues. < The School District had put much work into the creative financing of this project and still planned on selling the plant and its operation to David Williams.

Page 102 of 246 < The recommendations and new requirements made by the Planning Commission increased the cost of this project by $10,000. < The School District was currently using 3000 gallons per day capacity and with this plant could grow to use 8000 gallons per day capacity. They would maintain this maximum if they sold the plant.

Commissioner Sorensen noted that the School District had addressed the Open Space Commission comments on building appearance. She asked about the potential for an odor issue. Mr. Middleton replied that there would not be an odor issue as the School was implementing the Xenon System which allowed for a smaller sized facility and the system was located underground. Secondly, a service would be employed to remove the sludge on a regular basis to prevent odors. Mr. Tamburini added that if any odor occurred then there was an error with the system. To remove the sludge, it required a 3'X3' section of the cover to be removed and this would not allow much of an odor.

Commissioner Sorensen asked about people wandering into the area of the plant. Mr. Tamburini replied that the concerned areas containing the chemicals would be enclosed within the building. Additionally, the underground pits would be contained.

Regarding the effluent, Mr. Tamburini stated that the effluent from this system would be cleaner than most drinking water. The Xenon system was more expensive and it did satisfy the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association and they were difficult to satisfy. Mr. Middleton added that due to the Clean Water Act, the water going out had to be cleaner than the water coming in.

Commissioner Sorensen asked about potential plant enlargement. Mr. Middleton replied that the plant would require a plan to be enlarged if it reached an 80% capacity. At 90% capacity, the plant would have enlarged and construction performed. The plant was built for 40,000 g.p.m. and the school was only using 8,000 g.p.m.. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-35, a 1041 permit for the Clear Creek High School permanent wastewater treatment plant and motioned to approve Resolution #03-72, a Special Use Permit for this permanent wastewater treatment plant. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, the Board agreed to include the Open Space Commission’s comments within the Findings of Fact. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 10, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 10, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding: • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); • zoning enforcement, subdivision regulations, illegal subdivisions, HUD funds, gaming impact funds, as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b).

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-75, TO DRAW ON SADDLEBACK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LETTER OF CREDIT: County

Page 103 of 246 Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that the Letter of Credit for Saddleback Development Corporation expired the following date. There were partial releases to this Letter of Credit. The original letter totaled $1,600,000+ was released down to $73,924.76. Saddleback Development Corporation was informed that they should have a replacement Letter of Credit before this one expired or the County would draw on this remaining balance and Saddleback Development Corporation would not like this to happen. Saddleback Development Corporation was informed by the Planning Department that the expiration date was approaching. This resolution conforms to the existing Letter of Credit and meets conditions of a Letter of Credit. This Letter was drawn on a bank in Denver called the State Bank of Wiley. The County Attorney, the Planning Director or a Board of County Commissioners member was authorized to execute these documents to those things reasonably required to draw on the Letter of Credit. County Attorney Robert Loeffler recommended approval of this resolution. Commissioner Poirot stated that he would rather the Saddleback Development Corporation finish their project as opposed to drawing on the Letter of Credit and finishing it. Mr. Loeffler stated that this Letter of Credit didn’t keep them from finishing their project. This Letter of Credit amount was simply the collateral. Mr. Loeffler stated that Saddleback Development Corporation would much rather finish their project than to have the County draw on their Letter of Credit. Mr. Loeffler stated that the County still had not received the original replacement Letter of Credit from the State Bank of Wiley. Saddleback Development Corporation Attorney Russ Sindt had received one but the County had not. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-75, resolution to draw Saddleback Mountain Development Corporation Letter of Credit and if the original letter was not received the following day then Mr. Rollenhagen could draw on it. Mr. Loeffler stated that the County did not want to draw on this Letter needlessly but they also did not want this present Letter to expire. He recommended in the future to have more incentive to meet the deadline as now the County was down to the last minute waiting on this original Letter of Credit. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 15, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 15, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Harry Dale did not attend until later in the day.

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REVISED WRAP GRANT AWARD: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault attended the hearing. Ms. Dicken made the following statements: • The WRAP grant had historically been for $5520. • Due to State budget cuts, this grant amount was reduced by $2000. • The State had recently returned to inform Clear Creek County that they would be receiving $4000 for this grant.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the revised WRAP grant award for Clear Creek County. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-74, ENDING THE STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARED ON MARCH 19, 2003: County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented. OEM Coordinator Laura Nay and Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson attended

Page 104 of 246 the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern over ending the emergency as Guanella Pass was still not open yet due to avalanche potential. Mr. Loeffler stated that if the Board of County Commissioners did not terminate the State of Emergency, it would terminate automatically. He recommended for closure that the Board end the emergency. The Board discussed the costs of opening Guanella Pass as being between $3500-$10,000. The Board expressed concern over opening the road for one resident. Mr. Loeffler suggested waiting until after the meeting with the emergency service agencies to decide. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to April 22, 2003 at 9:15 a.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Dale attended the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-71, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SIGNATURE AUTHORITY ON CONVEYANCE OF LAND: County Attorney Robert Loeffler sated that this resolution was needed for the conveyance of former BLM lands which the County now held in its ownership. This resolution was preferred by the title companies and it corresponded with the current law with respect to conveyance of land from a County. This resolution replaced the prior Resolution #99-61. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-71, authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners signature authority on conveyance of land. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-45, REZONING CASE #277, ROBERT AND SHIRLEY HERRES, OWNERS, KELLY AND JENNIFER BABEON, APPLICANTS, FROM PD TO AG, ON A PORTION OF PARCEL 4 OF THE LEVINE SURVEY PLAT, ALVARADO ROAD: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. In attendance were Adjacent Property Owner Tom Briddle, Opal Watts, Myke Hufford, Clear Creek County residents John Fitzgerald, Donna Jump, Shirley Shimon, Paula Lincoln-Clayton, Dana Abrahamson, Polly Werlin, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, landowners Bob and Shirley Herres, and applicants, Jennifer and Kelly Babeon. Ms. Kastens made the following presentation: • Robert & Shirley Herres were the OWNERS and Jennifer & Kelly Babeon were the APPLICANTS, all of whom were present. • The subject property was a portion of Parcel 4 of the Levine Land Survey Plat and 22.328± acres in size, located approximately 1.7 miles northeast of Georgetown on Alvarado Road. • The property was currently vacant and a portion of a 183.32 acre parcel zoned Planned Development in 1984. • This Planned Development allowed for a two hundred room luxury hotel, however, the Official Development Plan was never accepted or recorded. • The Applicants were requesting an Agricultural zoning district designation to allow expansion of the agricultural uses on their adjacent property. • Surrounding Properties had various zonings and uses, including the remainder of the properties zoned PD in 1984, Commercial-Tourism/Recreation across the street, and the adjacent property zoned Agricultural. • Further to the east were several parcels zoned Mountain Residential One or Mining One, most with existing single family residences. This area had historically been used off and on for agricultural purposes and was a part of the original Clear Creek Ranch, dating back to the late 1800's. • Referral agencies and adjacent property owners were notified on the 26th of February and Public Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on March 5. • Environmental Health, Road and Bridge, Sheriff’s Office, the Division of Wildlife and adjacent property owner Shirley Shimon responded they had no conflicts. Site Development responded that driveway/excavation permits would be required prior to a building permit and that parking and turn-around areas would be required for any AG use open to the public. • The Open Space Commission, as well as HDPLC, responded that they had no conflicts with the proposal but would recommend that the county right-of-way for the Silver Creek Trail be noted as crossing the SE portion of the property. • Steve & Brooke Barry, adjacent property owners, responded that they had no conflicts

Page 105 of 246 and historically this land has been used for agriculture and believe it should be preserved for agriculture. • Ernest & Opal Watts, Joe Sysel and Don & Marie Swartz all responded with concerns of animal odor, manure management, erosion control and water contamination. Clear Creek Animal Control did a site visit and responded that they found it to be extremely clean and well managed. The applicants also have a manure management plan in place. • No response was received from the Town of Georgetown, Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation or the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association.

• Staff had received two letters since packets went out last Tuesday, one from Judy Brown, an area resident, and one from Debra Kirkham, a current patron of the Babeon’s Equestrian Center next door. In summary, Ms. Brown’s letter stated her enjoyment of seeing the horses, that the property was kept clean and what an asset the existing facility is to the County and to local kids. Ms. Kirkham’s letter was also in support of the rezoning request to allow expansion of the existing facility and also states the benefits to the County and local children. • Well Permit #234757 was issued for this property and limits the use of ground water for this well to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside 3 single family dwellings, the irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns and the watering of domestic animals. • The property was accessed by Alvarado Road which was a County maintained Primary One road. Adequate parking was available on site and the applicants do not anticipate an increase in the existing traffic to their adjacent property. • Tax Information and site characteristics were outlined in the staff report. • The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this rezoning request during their public hearing on March 26 and Staff recommended approval pursuant to draft Resolution 03-45. • Ms. Kastens reconfirmed that this parcel was part of the original Levine plat of 183 acres which was divided into 5 lots. Some lots were sold to CDOT. • The back half of this particular parcel was very steep so the animals could not be kept on this portion. • Ms. Kastens confirmed that the land would be assessed by use and not the AG zoning. Mrs. Babeon confirmed that her taxes had not decreased on other portions of her land that were zoned AG. • Ms. Kastens noted that regardless of the zoning district, animals could be kept on the land at 2 animals per acre. The number of animals allowed was based on the number of acres. With the current zoning, the Babeon’s could have 44 horses on this land but since they were proposing to board horses, they would need another zoning that allowed this, i.e., AG. • Regarding well contamination, Ms. Kastens stated that regardless of the zoning, the number of horses could still be as high as 44. This regulation may have to be revisited in the future.

Mr. Herres made the following statements: • He was leasing the land to the Babeon’s. • The idea was to have an indoor arena and not to expand the number of horses. • This rezoning would allow the Babeon’s to operate training and instruction on a year round basis.

Mrs. Babeon made the following statements: • The Babeon’s did not want to have as many horses as they were allowed per the zoning. • They did want the new indoor arena and a new barn to accommodate the horses further from the road. • The proposed rezoned portion of the land would be further from the residential areas. • Some show horses would be housed in the new barn. • The Babeon’s were very comfortable with the number of horses they had on the property at this time. • The Babeon’s cleaned the property 365 days per year and shavings were used to prevent urine odor. • The Babeon’s did have a manure management plan in place.

Page 106 of 246 • The Babeon’s were currently training 20 students per week at this time and had a waiting list. • They also held adult lessons with people coming from Breckenridge, Frasier, Golden, etc.

• The Animal Control Unit paid the property random visits and they were happy with the property cleanliness. • The Babeon’s had applied for their excavating and driveway permits. • There was easy access to the property and no parking issues. • The Babeon’s agreed with the Open Space Commission recommendation to allow for granting public access on the Silver Creek Trail above their property.

Mr. Briddle made the following statements: • His family had kept horses on their nearby land for over 30 years. • The Babeon’s had more than kept their property clean. • What the Babeon’s were doing for the children in the community was to be commended. • The Briddle’s were not in opposition to this rezoning.

Ms. Watts made the following statements: • She was a resident on Alvarado Road. • The traffic on the weekends on Alvarado Road was very bad but there had not been a parking problem at the Babeon’s land. • She lived far enough away that she had no problems with the odor. • She had heard from other neighbors, the Swartz’s, that the odor was a problem. This could change when the Babeon’s moved their horses further from the residential area.

Mrs. Abrahamson read the following letter into the record from the Krafczyk family: “This letter is in support of Saxon Mountain Equestrian Center, owned and operated by Kelly and Jennifer Babeon. My family has been involved with this center for the past two years, as Jennifer has instructed my two children in horsemanship and riding. Through this facility’s high quality program and excellent operation, my daughter, 7, and my son, 5, have gained a great deal of self-confidence and an appreciation for animals. Saxon Mountain Equestrian Center brings a much-needed service to this County and community, as there is a great lack of programs to offer children and families in our area. Losing this opportunity for children, by prohibiting the growth and current status of this center would be a great loss to those involved, and this community as a whole. Clear Creek County cannot afford to further stifle the acceptance and encouragement of bringing new, young families, and growth to our community by removing positive programs such as this equestrian facility. Taking away a program such as this will not enhance what we have to offer those whom we seek to sustain the County’s economic dependency. Furthermore, this program enables our children to experience a greater involvement int heir own community and larger communities in the Denver-Metro area through competition and show. I would consider it a great personal loss for my children if they were unable to continue their participation in this program. I have never seen, nor been so impressed by, the cleanliness and maintenance standards that Saxon Mountain Equestrian Center holds to. I am very proud that my family is a patron of this facility and program, and plan to be involved and supportive as long as we reside in this community. Sincerely, Sara Krafczyk”

Mrs. Abrahamson stated that her family also supported this program as there were not many activities for children to do this community.

Mrs. Hufford made the following statements: • She was the sister of Kelly Babeon and also lived on Alvarado Road. • She found this to be a great opportunity for children in the community. • Mrs. Hufford wished this program had been here when she was younger. • She did not recall smelling an odor coming from the Babeon property.

Mrs. Werlin made the following statements: • She had lived in the community for 50 years and fully supported this project. • This was a great opportunity for the youth in the community.

Page 107 of 246 Ms. Shimon made the following statements: • She agreed with prior comments. • She was a patron of the facility and had boarded horses at the Babeon’s in the past. • There had never been an odor problem since she had used the facility. • The stalls were very clean with fresh bedding. • She fully supported this rezoning.

The Board closed public comment.

Commissioner Dale stated that his only concern was the preservation of the public use of the Silver Creek Trail as suggested by the Open Space Commission and HDPLC. Commissioner Sorensen stated that written comments were submitted by Joe Sysel, another Adjacent Property Owner, with regards to odor. Mr. Sysel had suggested certain products to prevent odor. Mrs. Babeon replied that she had researched this products and they were very expensive in excess of $20,000. These suggestions were also products used on feed lots and not horse boarding. Additionally, Mrs. Babeon stated that if she had to purchase these types of products then other horse owners in the County should too. Mrs. Babeon was happy to comply to keep the property in order but feedlot products were too expensive. Mr. Herres noted that this rezoning would mitigate any potential odor issues by creating a larger area for the animals to roam instead of keeping them concentrated. According to the Horse Industry Alliance, Mrs. Babeon stated that the best way to keep odor down was to remove manure and this was what her operation was currently doing. The manure was hauled to the dump and disposed of. Mrs. Babeon stated that she lived on the property and did not want an odor either.

Mr. Babeon stated that his family had made significant investments in controlling odor by purchasing a trailer and hauling manure. Additionally, they had purchased a dump trailer, a spreader, and a bobcat. Mr. Briddle stated that he shared similar clients as Mr. Sysel with the Rocky Mountain Anglers and the anglers had stated that the odor was the Georgetown Sewer Plant and not horses.

Commissioner Poirot stated that, in the future, if any odor problems arise, the County Code Enforcement group could handle it and be receptive to it. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-45, Rezoning Case #277 from PD to AG for applicants Jennifer and Kelly Babeon. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Dale asked if anything should be included on the Silver Creek Trail. Mr. Loeffler replied that a separate agreement could be made between the County and the Herres’. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SECURITY AGREEMENTS FOR JADE MCBRIDE AND BRUCE ROBERSON: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen attended. Secretary III Cyndie Rushmyer presented. The following statements were made: • Bruce Roberson was approved for a Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit which required a security agreement of $1500. This had been done and the funding received. • Jade McBride was approved for a Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit and was required to provide a $1250 financial guarantee which was also completed.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Security Agreements for Jade McBride and Bruce Roberson. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-73, AMENDING RESOLUTION #03-31, APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU, BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Due to time constraints of the Empire representative of the Clear Creek County Tourism Bureau, another representative, Michelle Underwood, had to be appointed. This resolution recognized this new appointment. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-73, appointing Michelle Underwood to the Clear Creek County Tourism Bureau, Board of Directors. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made

Page 108 of 246 the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding: • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); • and conferences with attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions with regard to water, and Central City annexation as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) • and determining negotiating strategies and positions and instructing negotiators as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e).

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 22, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 22, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT WITH FOREST SERVICE: Sheriff Don Krueger presented. This agreement was for the Sheriff’s department to patrol in certain Forest Service area campgrounds. This patrol was performed on Fridays and Saturdays and on Sundays during holiday weekends. This was a 3-hour patrol to assist with drug enforcement, crowd control, and fire prevention. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreement with the Forest Service. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY (NW QUADRANT ELMGREEN PROPERTY): County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that the closing for the Open Space Commission/Clear Creek County and the Elmgreens was set for April 30, 2003. This purchase agreement was needed in order to complete the sale/purchase. Clear Creek County was only one-quarter of the entire acreage purchase. Mr. Loeffler stated that he did not think there were any water rights on this parcel. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Agreement for Purchase of Real Property. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the required documents for the closing. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COUNTY TAX LIEN FEE WAIVERS: Clear Creek County Treasurer Geri Thompson presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mrs. Thompson made the following statements: • The County had certain tax certificates which were only a portion of an interest in a claim. • These certificates were worth nothing to anyone unless they were owned by the remaining interests in the claim. • The title companies charged the Treasurer’s office $100 for title searches and the Treasurer’s office was responsible for advertising fees on these certificates as well. • On a few of these certificates, the remaining interests would purchase if the County would waive the tax lien fees. • Waiving these fees and selling these certificates to the remaining interests would save the County money.

Page 109 of 246 Mr. Loeffler stated that these certificates were delinquent . If these certificates were sold to the remaining interests, they would obtain the deeds and pay the County the taxes. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to waive the tax lien fees for the following remaining interests: Nunnery, Martin, and Peterson. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-74, ENDING THE STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARED ON MARCH 19, 2003: Mr. Loeffler stated that following the FEMA meeting on emergency reimbursements, it was declared that the storm dates were March 17, 2003 to March 20, 2003. Therefore this resolution could be approved to keep the declaration clear in its beginning and end. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-74, ending the State of Emergency declared on March 19, 2003. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AMENDING THE COORDINATED PLANNING AND HIGHWAY ACCESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CENTRAL, CLEAR CREEK COUNTY, AND THE CITY OF IDAHO SPRINGS: County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented. Mr. Loeffler stated that he had sent the draft of this agreement to the Central City attorney and this agreement was adopted by Central City the prior Tuesday. The County was now waiting for the Idaho Springs approval. Mr. Loeffler proposed that the Board approve this agreement and authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the original document once it returned from Central City. This agreement noted the expanded changes in the annexation territory and hence it made provisions to de-annex and disconnect the unused lands. This agreement also provided for a drop-dead date. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement amending the Coordinated Planning and Highway Access Agreement between the City of Central, Clear Creek County and the City of Idaho Springs and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the final documents. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS AND SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS FOR THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE: BENNINGHOVEN FOR 2 PARCELS SECTION 5, T4SR73W; DAVISON FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 22, T3SR73W; INTERNATIONAL MINERALS AND METALS INC., FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 26, T3SR73W; PALLARITO FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W; BREAKER INVESTMENTS FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 6, T4SR73W; ZIMBELMAN FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 34, T3SR73W; GATES FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 31, T3SR73W; MOSCH FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 6, T4SR73W; AND A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FOR THE MOSCH PARTY FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 33, T3SR73W: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. County Lands Director Lisa Vogel attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: • The Combination of Lots Agreements and the Special Warranty Deeds for all parties except the Mosch party were all to be combined with contiguous properties. • The Zimbelman group obtained #1835-34-4-00-954. • The Breaker Investments group obtained #1961-06-1-00-954. • The Pallarito group obtained #1961-05-4-00-967. • The Mosch Group had a Special Warranty Deed only for #1835-33-2-00-975 as the Combination of Lots Agreements was approved earlier with Commissioner Watrous. • The Mosch group obtained #1961-06-1-00-989. • The Benninghoven group obtained #1961-05-4-00-965 & #1961-05-4-00-980. • The Davison group obtained #1835-22-4-00-975. • The International Minerals and Metals Inc., group obtained #1835-26-3-00-979. • The Gates group obtained #1835-31-1-00-959.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreements and Special Warranty Deeds for the listed parties and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the corresponding documents. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Page 110 of 246 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF NOTICE OF FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR BROOK FOREST FACILITY WITH COLUMBIA ELECTRIC INC.: Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. There were no complaints against this final settlement and a proof of publication was confirmed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the notice of final settlement for the Brook Forest Facility with Columbia Electric Inc. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPONSORSHIP OF THE WESTMUTTSTER DOG SHOW: Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen recommended a $500 sponsorship of this event as it assisted with the purchase of a new animal shelter for the County. The advertising benefits could be used to remind radio listeners to spay and neuter their pets. Mr. Small stated that the sales tax fund could support this sponsorship. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the $500 sponsorship of the WestMuttster Dog Show. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT FOR EASTER SEALS CAMP: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Reimer stated that this permit was for a Barn Raising fundraiser. The Easter Seals Camp had paid all fees and submitted all forms. All County departments were in favor of the permit and the building was up to code. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Events Permit for the Easter Seals Camp. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-62, REVISION TO ROAD CUT PERMIT AND ROAD ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT FOR USE OF COLLATERAL: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. EMERGE representative Dick Woods attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following statements: • Mr. Allen was in the process of developing and revising the County Road Design Standards. • Mr. Allen had been receiving feedback from other departments on his revisions. • The manual dealt with traffic impact fees and the needed improvements to roads when development occurred. • One section of the manual dealt with Local Improvement Districts and how residents could get their roads adopted into the County system. • Another section of the manual dealt with Site Development requirements. • In the past, mill levies had been attempted with no success. Commissioner Dale suggested that if a mill levy increase was proposed again that it imply certain projects to be covered. • Chapter 5 of this manual dealt with utility and road cut permits. The Road and Bridge department had been working with utility contractors in composing the revisions. • Mr. Allen would like to adopt Chapter 5 before May when the utility contractors started doing most of their work for the summer season. Chapter 5 had changes in compaction, overhead clearance, trenching, and resurfacing. • Mr. Allen and Mr. Loeffler had received comments from a Qwest attorney on their concerns to the revised standards. • Mr. Allen stated that some of the attorney’s concerns were already addressed and some were not. Mr. Loeffler stated that the County would be in a joint meeting with Qwest regarding utility locate legislation and this approval should follow those meetings. • Mr. Loeffler also wanted time to work with the Planning Department on their concerns with regard to these revised standards as well.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to April 29, 2003 at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR WATER LEASING WITH LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN WATER DISTRICT FOR 10 ACRE FEET AND RECONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WATER LEASING CONTRACT WITH THE WESTERN INN: Administrative Intern Tim Mauck presented. Clear Creek Courant

Page 111 of 246 reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Mauck made the following statements: • Lookout Mountain Water District was requesting 10 acre feet at $1200 per acre foot. • This water would be released directly from Vidler and would not be stored. Vidler Tunnel would open on June 1, 2003. The water would travel down river to the Lookout Mountain Water District. • This was part of the Lookout Mountain Water District augmentation water. It did not matter if it was released all at once or not as they were required to credit the river. • The County had purchased 34 acre feet of the Vidler Water. • The County would try to store this water in June/July for any amounts that downstream users had not purchased.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the contract to lease water to the Lookout Mountain Water District and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Mauck presented the reconsideration of the Western Inn water lease contract. Mr. Mauck stated that there was an error in the contract and the Western Inn only needed .16 acre feet at $160 for one month. The old, incorrect contract was returned and Mr. Mauck presented the new corrected contract reflecting the .16 acre feet. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the amended contract of .16 acre feet for the Western Inn and authorized the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sorensen left the hearings to attend another meeting.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PENALTY FEE WAIVER AND/OR REDUCTION FOR STEVE JECHURA, CIRCLE K: Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer presented. Applicant Steve Jechura, his attorney Rick Garnett, Zoning Enforcement Tech Tracy Bennetts, and EMERGE representative Dick Woods attended the hearing. Ms. Writer made the following statements: • This original case was heard by the Board of Adjustment on April 1, 2003 as an initial variance/set back case for a shed and residence. • This case began as a zoning violation case. • The Board of Adjustment denied Mr. Jechura on the barn and the shed but approved a variance on the home. • The Board of Adjustment gave no deadline but the barn and shed would have to be moved at some point. • Mr. Jechura had asked for a fee waiver from the Board of Adjustment and was denied. The next step was to appeal the fee waiver to the Board of County Commissioners. • Ms. Writer stated that Mr. Jechura claimed there was an existing barn on the property and he tore it down and rebuilt the present one in 1998. However, this did not eliminate the setback problem. • Mr. Jechura had a survey done that showed his property stretching to the other side of the road so he thought he was safe, however, the road cutting through his land presented a problem. • The variance without a violation would cost $350 but with a violation is $960. Mr. Jechura was requesting a $610 refund due to financial hardship as he had already paid citations for horses and losses of contracts.

Mr. Garnett made the following statements:

• Mr. Jechura had shown good faith by removing the horses from the property. • The shed in question would either be removed or moved within setbacks. • The barn would take research on moving as it was very large in size. It could require a house mover. • The barn was 8' X 8' treated lumber and tresses and very difficult to move. • Moving the barn did bring it closer to the neighbors.

Mr. Woods stated that EMERGE supported the recommendations and decisions of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Garnett pointed out that the barn was an existing structure therefore he

Page 112 of 246 questioned the entire penalty fee of $960. Ms. Writer replied that there was no proof that the barn existed in the past. One neighbor stated that in 1998, there was no barn. Ms. Writer continued that the Board of Adjustment found no evidence of a pre-existing structure and that there was adequate room on the parcel to move the structure and meet setbacks. Mr. Jechura stated that having the building where it was presently did not help him. Moving the building would make his work easier. Commissioner Poirot was inclined to make the refund contingent on the moving of the barn into setbacks within a timely manner. The only other choice for Mr. Jechura was to go to District Court to reverse the Board of Adjustment decision. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the fee waiver conditional on movement of the barn into setback requirements by August 30, 2003. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-65, TO ADOPT A PRIVACY POLICY FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FOR HIPAA COMPLIANCE AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-66, TO ADOPT A PRIVACY POLICY IN ELECTRONIC FORM FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FOR HIPAA COMPLIANCE: Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault presented. Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken attended the hearing. Ms. Thibault made the following statements: • Ms. Thibault made corrections to the resolution titles. Resolution #03-65 was to adopt a HIPAA compliance plan for Clear Creek County. Resolution #03-78 was to approve HIPAA business associates standard agreements and delegate authority to sign agreements to the privacy offices. Resolution #03-77, was to approve appointment of privacy officers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. • Only two entities within the Clear Creek County offices were required to register: Nursing Department and the Ambulance Department. The Sheriff and the Nursing group for the inmates were exempt. • Jean Barta of Nursing and David Blakely of Ambulance both attended HIPAA training. Both have assembled their packets of required policies for their affected employees. • The Nursing group had a training policy and the Ambulance had a training test. • Even though Clear Creek County did not make the April 14, 2003 deadline, many other counties had not made the deadline either and it was thought that there would be leniency granted as this was a new federal policy.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-65, to approve and adopt a HIPAA policy for Clear Creek County. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-77, to approve appointment of privacy policy officers. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Ms. Thibault stated that this not only appointed Jean Barta and David Blakely but also allowed them to implement any procedures as approve by the County Attorney’s office to make changes to the overall policy. The vote was unanimous.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-78, to approve the HIPAA business associates standard agreements to delegate privacy officers. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sorensen returned to the hearings.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-34, TO CONTRACT WITH THE SENIORS RESOURCE CENTER TO COMPLETE A TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SENIORS RESOURCE CENTER TO APPLY FOR TRANSPORTATION GRANT FUNDING FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. In attendance were Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman, Seniors Resource Center representatives Jane Yeager and Jane Weinberger, DDRC representatives Todd Lowther and Bob Arnold, Project Support Board member Bill Edwards, residents Sherri and Lisa Potter, Transportation Committee representative Mark Cucinella. Ms. Dicken made the following statements: • Ms. Dicken stated that the Transportation Committee would like to propose that the Seniors Resource Center be contracted with to begin a transportation study for Clear

Page 113 of 246 Creek County. • The latest proposal was to have the Transportation Committee do part of the work to reduce the costs due to the Seniors Resource Center. • Regarding the tension with Project Support in Idaho Springs, Ms. Dicken had attempted to explain the intentions of the Transportation Committee to Project Support Board member Fabyan Watrous. • As the proposed Long Bill was attempting to reduce non-emergent transportation funding, this would leave another group helpless.

Ms. Weinberger made the following statements: • She was the Director of the Yellow House in Evergreen. • The model in Evergreen utilized Title 3 monies and provided transportation for seniors. • For the Evergreen community, she used other funding sources. • The Yellow House also partnered with other agencies to combine rides for all populations. • There were other funds besides those that Project Support received for transportation and the Seniors Resource Center wanted to apply for these on behalf of Clear Creek County Transportation Committee. • The Seniors Resource Center hoped at some point that Project Support would join their efforts and then both groups could help each other. • The Seniors Resource Center also received Older American dollars for their senior transportation needs. • With regard to the Older Americans funding and DRCOG concerns, Ms. Weinberger emphasized that the Seniors Resource Center’s proposal would exclude any of these dollars and focus on other funding for transportation. • The Seniors Resource Center was also happy to discuss ways to collaborate with Project Support and the Volunteers of America (VOA). • Presently, the Seniors Resource Center partnered with the VOA in Evergreen. • It was not the intent of the Seniors Resource Center to take any funding away from Project Support or the VOA in Idaho Springs. The Board of County Commissioners agreed that this was not their intent either.

Ms. Dicken stated that this transportation discussion was based on people ages 0-60. Commissioner Dale stated that it did not make sense to have two transportation agencies. These two groups should work together to provide for all. Ms. Dicken stated that the VOA and Project Support used to attend the Transportation Committee meetings but had stopped coming. She stated that these groups could very well work together in the future.

Mr. Lowther made the following statements: • He reminded the group that he and Mr. Cucinella had been on Project Support’s agenda over two years prior regarding transportation to attempt to apply for highway funding. • He also became involved in the DRCOG process to make sure Clear Creek County was eligible for funding. • No one had ever intended on taking the funding of Project Support or the VOA. • There was a history of needing service for people in the County and certain groups boycotting the process of assisting everyone. Commissioner Poirot stated that others had felt road-blocked as well and maybe the Board of County Commissioners should have coordinated the transportation meetings in the beginning and brought all players to the table.

Mr. Cucinella made the following statements: • The Transportation Committee had many discussions on not diminishing the level of service that Project Support/VOA provided. • The choice for Project Support/VOA to make was whether to expand services or obtain more services for the same price. • The Seniors Resource Center was willing to expand to meet the needs of Clear Creek County. • Mr. Cucinella hoped that Project Support would be willing to partner with the Transportation Committee. • The Seniors Resource Center could move forward with or without the Project

Page 114 of 246 Support/VOA piece. • Regarding the funding received from DRCOG, Mr. Cucinella stated that it was still to be seen if more service could be provided in combination with this funding. • This study to be performed by the Seniors Resource Center would not take anything from the Project Support/VOA group.

Commissioner Poirot stated that DRCOG had informed him that Clear Creek County had received more than their fair share of funding for transportation. Mr. Cucinella replied that this would be a decision factor to see if the County could expand on what they presently had or do the same.

Mr. Edwards stated that Project Support was not intending to roadblock anyone. They were, however, reluctant to change their program as it was a good one and they had a good relationship with the VOA. Project Support was afraid they could lose some of their additional transportation trips if they joined other transportation groups or shared funding. Mr. Cucinella stated that the Transportation Committee intended to meet with Project Support and clear up any confusion. Mr. Cucinella was confident that the Seniors Resource Center with 40 sources of funding would be able to provide the same if not greater transportation service. Ms. Dicken added that the intent of the Transportation Committee was to eliminate no one. Ms. Weinberger stated that the study would reflect the needs for the County and whether these needs were being met.

Ms. Yeager explained the CDOT funding sources as 5310 which was used for capital expenditures and 5311 was used for general public transportation. Ms. Weinberger stated that the Seniors Resource Center had been successful in applying for this funding for 20 years now and always rated in the top 5 applicants. Commissioner Poirot stated that the Project Support program saw the Seniors Resource Center as serving everyone whether Medicaid or not and they were afraid this would take away from their clientele.

Ms. Potter stated that she was frustrated with the community in that there was a huge need for transportation not only for the disabled and seniors but everyone. She had watched her daughter with no transportation for years and now the Seniors Resource Center was the only provider of transportation for her daughter so she could take employment. Her frustration was that now the Seniors Resource Center was willing to perform this study without the Project Support participation and without an impact to them and the County was not yet allowing this. Why? The County was not asking Project Support to give up anything – this was only the study.

Ms. Weinberger stated that she served on the Clear Creek County Council on Aging and had discussed with former Project Support Director Rose True on her challenges with the transportation program. This was when discussions began to collaborate. The Seniors Resource Center could either be a provider or they could stay separate and help out when needed. This relationship had been in place for a long time. The Board of County Commissioners stated that this meeting should’ve been coordinated sooner. Mr. Edwards replied that there had been much hesitation from his board on this issue. They wanted to be cooperative but they did not want to lose anything. Mr. Edwards suggested bringing the VOA to a meeting with Project Support and the Transportation Committee. Project Support would need to be educated on what was proposed.

Commissioner Poirot, again, expressed concern on the warnings of DRCOG and the possibility of Project Support losing funding. Mr. Cucinella replied that this study would not impact Project Support and that a meeting could help to explain everything. The study would show data that included the Project Support services and when it didn’t include them. Mr. Lowther agreed that the Board of County Commissioners should call a joint meeting with Project Support, the Transportation Committee, the VOA, and the Seniors Resource Center.

The Board of County Commissioners agreed to schedule a meeting on Friday, April 24, 2003 to discuss the different forms of funding and what each agency utilized. Mr. Edwards agreed to gather the Project Support Board. The Seniors Resource Center members agreed to attend. The County would contact DRCOG and the VOA. The Board agreed on 10:00 a.m., Friday, at the Heritage Museum meeting room in Idaho Springs.

Page 115 of 246 The group agreed that the study would be beneficial to all groups and having one ultimate transportation system would be better than two. Commissioner Sorensen stated that if Project Support could not attend the Commissioners requested that the VOA and a Project Support board member be included in the Transportation Committee. The Committee members agreed. Commissioner Dale made the motion to continue the hearing to April 25, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 24, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 24, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 25, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-34, TO CONTRACT WITH THE SENIORS RESOURCE CENTER TO COMPLETE A TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SENIORS RESOURCE CENTER TO APPLY FOR TRANSPORTATION GRANT FUNDING FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: In attendance were Project Support members Bill Edwards, Donald Mitchell, Dianne Miller, Mary Ragsdale, and Fabyan Watrous, VOA representative Nolan Knox, DRCOG representatives Steve Cook, Jennifer Edwards and Bonnie Kelly, Cornerstone representative Susan Stillman, Community Service Center representative Mark Cucinella, The ARC representatives Sherri Potter and Todd Lowther, Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken, Seniors Resource Center representatives Jane Yeager and Jane Weinberger, Mayor of Idaho Springs Dennis Lunbery, and resident Doug Potter.

The Board of Commissioners stated that they had received a request for funding for a transportation study for Clear Creek County that the Seniors Resource Center had developed. Ths study would show the transportation needs of the County. The Board wanted all possible affected groups to be included in the discussion of this study.

Page 116 of 246 Ms. Dicken made the following statements: • Many groups had been meeting for many years with regard to transportation challenges. • Last year, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment mandated that counties should find a broker to handle their non-emergent transportation. • At this point, the Seniors Resource Center contacted Clear Creek County to see if they needed help. • The Seniors Resource Center had a great system of transportation in Evergreen which included many types of transportation services and many types of funding. • Once these discussions began, other groups from the County came forward to share their transportation needs. • The Seniors Resource Center recommended the best beginning to starting a transportation service in Clear Creek County would be to do a study of the initial needs. • To keep the costs low for the study, the Clear Creek County Transportation Committee agreed to complete some of the legwork of the study by doing research. • Members of the Transportation Committee were able to raise 50% of the funding of the study.

Ms. Yeager made the following statements: • The Nation Council of Community Transit Board found that mobility was the nation’s number one concern. • The Seniors Resource Center wanted to bring their resources to the table to see how they could assist Clear Creek County and how best to collaborate. • The Seniors Resource Center proposed to gather information and then present several models which could work for Clear Creek County. • The immediacy issue was that there was a funding application deadline for the 5310 and 5311 CDOT funding for transportation. • The County would have to apply by June 6, 2003 for the years 2004 and 2005.

Mr. Cook made the following statements: • DRCOG handled this funding process for the 5310 and 5311 with CDOT. • DRCOG needed to receive some good information and letter of intent from Clear Creek County by mid-May stating that Clear Creek County wanted to be eligible for this funding. • DRCOG would inform CDOT if Clear Creek County was eligible or not. • DRCOG would need a description of what Clear Creek County wanted and how the service would operate. • The statewide funding available was approximately $2 million. The DRCOG area would only receive a third of this amount. • Another piece required was for Clear Creek County to approve the Seniors Resource Center as their broker. This was a part of the regional plan.

Ms. Yeager made the following statements: • The Seniors Resource Center had the expertise to assemble a study informing the community of what was available to them in the form of transportation. • The Seniors Resource Center would present the possible models for the County and then let them choose which option they preferred. • She estimated the study to take 3-6 months to complete. • The application process for 5310 or 5311 was only a two page process so the explanations and narrative had to be condensed.

Mr. Cook explained that the letter of intent from the County did not have to be extremely specific but a strong support from the parties involved and that the project would be completed would have to be shown.

Ms. Yeager continued with the following comments: • The Seniors Resource Center had recently applied for Job Access Reimburse Commute Funding. This funding was only available every three years. • As the Seniors Resource Center was a 501-C3, they were able to apply for many different types of funding. • The Seniors Resource Center had 24 vehicles in their fleet.

Page 117 of 246 • The Seniors Resource Center also worked with low cost providers of transportation in the areas they served. • The Seniors Resource Center could pay mileage reimbursement, could contract with the Mountain Wheels program, could pay Project Action vehicles, and could pay Project Support vehicles in order to support a transportation project. • The Seniors Resource Center would research who could provide transportation and then collaborate with them to provide services. • The Seniors Resource Center provided transportation for people going to the DDRC. • The Seniors Resource Center had Title 3 dollars in Adams County however Adams County was the holder of these dollars. Adams County wanted to hold onto the funding but not operate the service. Adams County has an advisory group that told the Seniors Resource Center which routes and times to operate. • The study that the Seniors Resource Center proposed for Clear Creek County could include or not include the Project Support operation. • One hope was to expand the overall transportation services to include people of all ages. • The Seniors Resource Center had over 30 different funding sources that paid for many different types of trips.

Ms. Potter stated that the Seniors Resource Center had assisted her daughter with her mobility issues. The Seniors Resource Center would transport her physically disabled daughter to work and volunteer jobs each week. Ms. Potter was passionate on this issue as it could be helping other Clear Creek County residents.

Ms. Weinberger explained that this funding with CDOT with the 5310 and the 5311 sources may or may not be included with other funding sources. In order to answer the question of what funding sources could be combined, the study would have to be completed.

Ms. Kelly made the following statements: • The funding that the Project Support currently received was through the Older Americans Act. • Project Support contracted with the VOA to provide the transportation in conjunction with nutritional services. • The Older Americans funding had specific categories. • Project Support served Clear Creek County and Gilpin County. • There was flexibility with the Older Americans money but the older of this funding needed to insure that they were meeting the requirements. • Ms. Kelly suggested that Nolan Knox of the VOA and the Gilpin County representative be at the Transportation Committee meetings. • DRCOG did not want to lose the efficiency of having both Clear Creek and Gilpin counties covered. • The formula that DRCOG received their funding from was based on a 60+ population plus other factors, i.e., rural, minority, low income, etc. • Due to the population, Clear Creek and Gilpin would receive little funding but this was unfair as these counties also needed a service. • Another agency was needed to combine with the transportation piece to bring more funding to these counties. This was where DRCOG contracted with the VOA to provide nutritional services in conjunction with the transportation piece. When all of these services were combined, it did appear that these counties received more than their fair share. • DRCOG was now operating on a need based process which would ensure that all areas received services. • Clear Creek County was now receiving $80,000 in funding through the Project Support and VOA program. • Ms. Kelly stated that if this study was approved that the group include the VOA and Project Support in their discussions.

Ms. Watrous made the following statements: ‘ Project Support felt that they had a very efficient system for the 60+ group. ‘ Project Support feared that if a combined transportation system for the County were established, most of their funding could be lost.

Page 118 of 246 ‘ Project Support feared this would also result in the loss of services to their seniors. ‘ Project Support owned and leased insured vehicles to make their program work . ‘ Ms. Watrous did think it was a good idea to have someone from the Project Support board be on the Transportation Committee.

Mr. Knox stated that he did receive Title 3 funding in Evergreen. He contracted with Older Americans funding to perform meals on wheels and transportation programs in Clear Creek and Gilpin County. The Project Support program had three Older American Act programs: nutritional, transportation, and the congregate program. Mr. Knox did not do meals on wheels programs in Jefferson County. They operated dining centers and collaborated with other centers that provided meals on wheels. The VOA paid the Seniors Resource Center monthly for their operation of the meals on wheels program in Evergreen. The VOA performed all the grant writing and reporting and Seniors Resource Center did this as well for their transportation services. The meals on wheels program in Clear Creek County was small and the transportation program was the largest program for Clear Creek and Gilpin County by the VOA. In both counties, these services would only be 1/3 of what they were currently without the Project Support program. The Project Support and VOA collaboration was used as a model in other areas.

Commissioner Sorensen was hearing that Project Support and the VOA had a good program at present and to break that up may risk services and funding. Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern as well to see the results of this proposed study. If the study was to be complete, Mr. Knox and Project Support would have to participate with input. Mr. Knox stated that his work was with the seniors program. He had only Older American funding and he did not have the resources to serve other age groups. Ms. Kelly suggested identifying the need first and then the group could discuss the funding issues.

Mr. Lowther stated that during this process there were many incorrect assumptions made about the Transportation Committee trying to hide information from Project Support. This was untrue in that he and Mr. Cucinella had approached Project Support several times over the past couple years about transportation issues. During this time, the Seniors Resource Center came forward to assist with what they could. There was no intent to undo the Project Support funding. The Transportation Committee simply wanted to supplement and support transportation in the County. Mr. Knox agreed stating that the VOA had no agendas either. They were simply stewards of a program and had mandates with DRCOG. The VOA goal was to provide the best for the citizens. Ms. Ragsdale stated that the need was present in the services provided for the Potter’s daughter. Project Support did have concerns with the Seniors Resource Center but now these were cleared based on this discussion.

The Board asked how to best tie in the Gilpin County representatives into this process. Ms. Kelly agreed to give the Transportation Committee the Gilpin contacts. Mr. Edwards thought that Project Support could be a part of this process as well.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-34, to contract with the Seniors Resource Center for a transportation plan and to approve the Seniors Resource Center to apply for transportation funding for Clear Creek County while this study was taking place. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Mr. Loeffler stated that the Board may want to see the application by the Seniors Resource Center for the County. The Board agreed. Mr. Cook reminded the Board that DRCOG would need to know in advance that the County was on board with the Seniors Resource Center. DRCOG would have to approve the County’s eligibility. Mr. Cook suggested a letter to attach to the application in support of it. Ms. Yeager suggested that the Seniors Resource Center sign the grant as they have had great success with this grant funding and attach the County’s approval and support letter. Mr. Loeffler suggested that the Board approve the resolution only to expedite the grant application and Memorandum of Understanding. The Seniors Resource Center would then return to the Board for the letter of support and approval and to review the application. Commissioner Poirot amended his motion to only approve Resolution #03-34 to contract with the Seniors Resource Center to apply on behalf of Clear Creek County for CDOT 5310 and 5311 funding and to work with the local Transportation Committee. Commissioner Dale seconded and the vote was unanimous. This funding source did not conflict with the Project Support funding.

Page 119 of 246 The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - APRIL 29, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on April 29, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following: • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); • personnel matters but not regarding commissioners or elected officials or to discussions of personnel policies generally as allowed by CRS 24-6-401(4)(f); • and conferences with an attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF STATE HISTORICAL GRANT FOR THE BROOKVALE SCHOOL STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT: Architect Paul Donoho presented. Mr. Donoho made the following statements: • Mr. Donoho wanted to see if the County desired to pursue a historical structures assessment for the Brookvale School property on the east end of the County. • This had been done for the old jail on the County property in Georgetown. • This assessment would still be valuable even if the County wanted to move the school to another location. • The assessment would be able to tell the County whether the school building could be moved or not. • It would create a plan in place for moving the structure if it were to be moved. • Two options could be explored with this assessment: leave the structure where it was and preserve it or move it . The Board stressed the desire to move it if possible. Mr. Loeffler stated that there was a possibility the structure assessment would result in tearing the building down. • Mr. Donoho stated that this assessment would tell the County whether to move it or tear it down. • The grant would state the intended uses of the building and the State would make the decision on whether to tear down the building or not. • This grant was a three step process. First, the County had to apply for the historic structures assessment grant. Second, the County would apply for funding to execute the plan for the structure. Third, the County would decide what to do with the building and apply for the construction/moving funding.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the County should do this study for this structure as there were no other historical structures or organizations in this area to do this plan. Commissioner Dale agreed stating that the study did not preclude the Board to any action. Commissioner Poirot expressed concern that the County would discover they could move the building and then not have a future location for it. Mr. Loeffler stated that a motion was not needed until the time of application. The Board approved Mr. Donoho to begin the application process and return for review and signature by the County. Mr. Donoho agreed.

Page 120 of 246 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-79, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-79, appointment of Roy Beaton to the Open Space Commission as an Associate Member with the changes by the Attorney. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CORE SERVICES PLAN FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Dicken made the following statements: • This was the third year that the Human Services Department had filed the same application for the CORE Services Plan. • In the past year, the State had rescinded some of the funding promised due to their budget shortfalls. • This funding was for home based therapy, day treatments, sexual abuse treatments, services for children in families at risk of out of home placement, etc. • This funding was 80/20 funding and the County portion was $10,600. • This year’s funding should total $108,000.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the CORE Services Plan for the Clear Creek County Human Services Departments. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-48, REZONING CASE #278, FOR TMP EXCAVATING, OWNERS, AND CHUCK HOWARD, APPLICANT, FROM M-1 TO C-WM, WEST END OF IDAHO SPRINGS, STANLEY ROAD AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-50, ROAD VACATION CASE #02-RD-01, TO VACATE A PORTION OF OLD STANLEY ROAD, WEST END OF IDAHO SPRINGS, AS IT TRAVERSES A PORTION OF THE MICHAEL B. GRAEFF PLACER: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen and Applicant Chuck Howard attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following statements: • TONY & PAUL MUNCHIANDO were the OWNERS and CHUCK HOWARD was the APP LICA NT. Mr. Howard is present today. • The portion of the Property proposed for rezoning was an approximately 1.14 acre portion of the Michael B. Graeff Placer M.S. #381, Mayflower M.S. #783 and Lafayette M.S. #782 located at the west end of Idaho Springs, south of I-70. • This property was currently involved in a Boundary Line Adjustment Exemption to correct the illegal subdivision of the Michael B. Graeff Placer, which occurred in 1977. • The Boundary Line Adjustment will combine the Mayflower, Lafayette and the east portion of the Michael B. Graeff into one legal parcel. • This Boundary Line Adjustment case received conditional approval 9 April 2003, with the conditions that a final plat was received & recorded and this Rezoning was approved. • The request was for a Commercial - Warehouse/Manufacturing (C-WM) zoning district designation for the eastern portion of the Michael B. Graeff Placer and the most northerly 100' of the Mayflower and Lafayette lodes to allow for the existing uses. The remaining parts of the Mayflower and Lafayette will remain zoned M-1. • The property was currently zoned Mining One (M-1) and used as an office, shop facilities and outdoor storage yard for construction equipment and supplies, a horse corral and a dwelling unit for a caretaker. • There was evidence that this property had been continuously used commercially for approximately 55 years, however these uses have changed and expanded over the years, but not since 1985. • Surrounding properties included mostly vacant mining claims zoned M ining One (M-1), County owned land zoned Planned Development (PD) for the Ida Cell Site and vacant Mining Two (M-2) mineral fractions zoned in the 1835 Township Zone Plan; 3, MR-1 parcels with existing homes, the Stanley Mine zoned Mining Two and the West end of Idaho Springs with mixed legal non- conforming commercial uses. • Referral Agencies and adjacent property owners were notified on 11 March 2003 and Public Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on 19 March 2003. • Environmental Health responded they had reviewed the proposal and have no comments or objections. Colorado Department of Transportation responded stating that the Department has no objections to the Rezoning as it should have negligible impact to the State Highway System.

Page 121 of 246 • Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation, City of Idaho Springs, Clear Creek Site Development Department and Road & Bridge were all notified of this request, but, no response has been received. No responses have been received from adjacent property owners. • The property was connected to the City of Idaho Springs water system and a septic permit was issued in 1969 for a one bedroom residence which serves the caretakers cabin. • Any proposed structure(s) will require an approved sewage disposal system prior to any building permit being issued. • There was an existing driveway to the shop and most equipment was stored behind a solid wood fence. A driveway permit would be required and parking re-evaluated prior to any building permit being issued for any new structures. • The property was located on Stanley Road approximately .25 miles southwest of Idaho Springs. The County maintains Stanley Road as a primary 1 road (first day service). Applicants do not anticipate any increase in the existing traffic to th eir property. • The portion of the property proposed for rezoning was a low wildfire hazard area, is gently sloping, had a minimum impact potential to wildlife, was not mapped within the floodplain, but was designated as a potential rockfall area. • The newly reconfigured parcel will meet zoning requirements within this district including Area, Setbacks and all Performance Standards. The property will not require any review under Section 20 - Development Review until 10,000 square feet of development was proposed. • The applicants were not currently proposing any change to the uses already existing, but were trying to legalize the non-conforming uses. • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval at their hearing on the 16th of April and Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request pursuant to draft Resolution 03- 48. • There was a simultaneous request from the owners and the two neighboring properties to the west to vacate that portion of Old Stanley Road as it traversed the Michael B. Graeff Placer. • This road originated in the early 1860's and was declared a County Road in 1866. Between 1966 and 1967 the roadway was re-aligned to the north to accommodate construction of I-70. The State abandoned Stanley Road in November of 1971 and the County accepted it in December of that year. • The original road alignment has been fenced since 1978, an adjacent portion was vacated by the Board in 1997 and all properties in the area are accessed by the current alignment of Stanley Road. • Adjacent Property Owners and Referral Agencies were notified on March 11th and no objections have been received. Staff recommends approval of this request pursuant to Resolution 03-50. • The Howard property would have a split zoning of M-1 and Commercial. There was and address for the shop itself but there was not an address for the caretaker cabin. This would be a split-zoning parcel. • Ms. Kastens agreed with the Board that this parcel had to be one owner and not a subdivision. With the C-WM zoning, the owners would be allowed an accessory use for another home if they wanted one. Additional buildings could get water from the City of Idaho Springs however, if the sewer failed, the property would have to meet new ISDS regulations. With regard to split zoning and residences, Mr. Rollenhagen added that in any residential zone, the property owner was allowed only one residence per property. If the land was split-zoned, they could still only have one residence. Ms. Kastens stated that there had been much debate on this issue.

Mr. Loeffler stated that the split-zoning created many future problems. One way to deal with it was to say that the most restrictive zoning would take over the entire parcel. Ms. Kastens stated that these owners wanted to maintain the split-zoning for the mineral rights. When asked why the owner didn’t apply for a Planned Development zoning, Ms. Kastens replied that the owner did not want to endure that process as it was stuck in it prior for 8 months in the 1980's. Mr. Loeffler stated that the split-zoning invited problems of the owner wanting two homes on the same parcel. Mr. Loeffler recommended continuing the case until the split-zoning problem could be resolved. Additionally, the Boundary Line Adjustment case could not be approved in that the rezoning was not complete. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the consideration of Resolution #03-48, Rezoning Case #278, for TMP Excavating, owners and Chuck Howard, applicant, from M-1 to C-WM, West End of Idaho Springs, to May 20, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to continue the Road Vacation portion of the case, Resolution #03-50. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, the Board discussed approving this portion of the case conditionally. Ms. Kastens stated that this could not be done

Page 122 of 246 as the vesting rights were linked to the adjacent parcel. The Board agreed to continue this portion of the case. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-60, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #03-EX-06, SECTION 35, T3SR73W: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: • Exemption #03-EX-06 would, if approved, reconfigure the existing boundary lines of privately owned parcel of land. • Exemption by Resolution #97-EX-05 approved in 1998, created the Northern parcel area from County land. • The County land parcel was sold to an Adjacent Property Owner, known as, the O’Neal Family Trust. • The O’Neal Family Trust owned five portions of the Mount Pleasant Lode, which was the southern parcel area and five City of Idaho Springs lots. • To facilitate the sale of the County land parcel, a Combination of Lots Agreements was approved on June 8, 2000 and recorded with the Clerk and Recorder. • The Combination of Lots Agreements combined the County land parcel with a “a portion of the Mount Pleasant Lode.” However, the referenced deed included five portions of the Mount Pleasant Lode, therefore it was unclear as to which portion of the Mount Pleasant Lode was combined with the County land parcel. • On April 2, 2001, a deed from the O’Neal Family Trust to the Blaise party was recorded with the Clerk and Recorder, which transferred the remaining two portions o the Mount Pleasant Lode and three City of Idaho Springs lots with an existing single family residence. • The Blaise party had agreed to convey the County land parcel to the adjacent property owners, otherwise known as the Szentmartoni party. IN order to facilitate their request, a reconfiguration of the existing boundary lines would need to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The reconfiguration of the existing boundary lines would resolve the ambiguous description of the combined lots. The property owners had agreed to Deed Restrictions which would require their respective parcels of land to be sold together with the city lots.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-60, Exemption by Resolution #03-EX-06 in Section 35, T3SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-61, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #03-EX-07, SECTION 6, T4SR73W: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: < This exemption, if approved, would divide County land parcel #1961-06-3-00-981, a 137.23 acre tract into a 43.78 acre parcel and a 93.45 acre parcel. < The subject parcel was accessed by South Spring Gulch, Lamartine Road, and County Road #22. < On October 22, 2002, a portion of Parcel A (northern parcel) was zoned M-2 by adoption of Zone Plan Case #01-ZP-02 by Resolution #02-41 and a portion of Parcel A (northern parcel was zoned M-1 by “A Resolution and Order Concerning the Clear Creek County Zoning Rules and Descriptive Regulations and the M-1 Zoning District” adopted November 15, 1976 as recorded. < A portion of Parcel B (southern parcel) was unzoned, and a portion of Parcel B (southern parcel), was zoned M-1 by “A Resolution and Order Concerning the Clear Creek County Zoning Rules and Descriptive Regulations and the M-1 Zoning District” adopted on November 15, 1976 as recorded. The County Lands department wanted to separate these two portions of the parcel to facilitate the zoning. < The mining claims included in this parcel were void and abandoned and had reverted back to the BLM ownership which then reverted to the County. < The County Lands department was proposing to give this land to the Open Space Commission management. < If the County Lands department decided to sell this parcel, they could alert the Adjacent Property Owners with another exemption. The Adjacent Property Owner’s were notified of this exemption and none had responded.

Page 123 of 246 Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-61, Exemption by Resolution #03-EX-07, Section 6, T4SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-68, DECLARATION OF MAY AS MENTAL HEALTH MONTH AND DISCUSSION REGARDING TEEN SCREENING FOR DEPRESSION: In attendance were Laurie Beckel, Kathleen Harnish, Jefferson Center for Mental Health (JCMH) supervisor Jim Reeves, Susan Stillman of Cornerstone, Carrie Schmidt of Family Directions, Christy Skagely of Family Directions, Denise McHugh of JCMH, and Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken. Ms. Beckel made the following statements: < The group was thankful that the Board of County Commissioners had determined May as Mental Health month for the past 2 years. < The resolution was read into the record. < The group of agencies had been working against the stigma of mental illnesses trying to get the population to understand it as legitimate and treatable. < The Cornerstone Initiative had contributed $150,000 to help build a system of care as gaps were identified. This had been the plan to develop the Teen Zone. < The groups were working on a seamless system to combat mental illness.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-68, declaring May as Mental Health Month. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Ms. Skagley stated that her role with Cornerstone was to help families obtain advocacy skills and access services in the community. Mr. Reeves stated that JCMH had a physical presence of support to Cornerstone. Ms. McHugh performed the social marketing for mental health in three counties. Ms. Stillman was the family advocate for Cornerstone and the Services Coordinator.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed concerns with the State funding reductions as well as the Medicaid decreases. People would fall through the gaps and not receive treatment. Ms. Beckel agreed stating that she had further concerns on the youth in the County. The agencies were working on a teen screen to start a suicide prevention program. A crisis team was available by pager at this time. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-20, AMENDING SITE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FEES: Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel presented. Mr. Vogel made the following statements: < This amendment dealt mostly with the defensible space issue. < To stay consistent with surrounding counties, Mr. Vogel suggested an amendment to the voluntary defensible space consult to $75 to cover the cost of the administration. < The chipper could be leased through this program. < A grant was applied to assist in funding a new chipper. < This increase would cover the personnel time.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-20, amending Site Development Department fees. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-47, REZONING CASE #279, COUNTY INITIATED REZONING FOR PROPERTIES CURRENTLY OWNED BY CDOT AND STEVE BARRY, ALVARADO ROAD, PARCELS 1, 2, PORTIONS OF PARCEL 4, AND THE LEVINE LAND SURVEY PLAT, AND PARCEL 3 OF BARRY DIVISION OF LAND FROM PD TO BUFFER, NR-PC, AND AG: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Adjacent Property Owner Tom Briddle attended. Ms. Kastens made the following statements: • Steve & Brooke Barry and Colorado Department of Transportation were the owners and the Planning Department initiated the application. • The Subject Properties were all of Parcels 1 & 2 and a portion of Parcel 4 of the Levine Land Survey Plat and Parcel 3 of the Barry Division of Land Amendment. • Properties involved total 117.463± acres located north and east of Georgetown Lake

Page 124 of 246 beginning approximately one mile from the lake, south of Alvarado Road and spanning north to Bard Creek Road. • All properties were currently vacant, except the portion of Parcel 2 of the Levine Land Survey Plat lying south of Alvarado Road (which has a barn, horses and a corral) and were the remaining portions of the 183.32 acre parcel zoned Planned Development in 1984. • This Planned Development allowed for a two hundred room luxury hotel, however, the Official Development Plan was never accepted or recorded. • The eastern 235' of Parcel 3 of the Barry Division of Land Amendment was currently zoned MR-1, as it was not part of the Levine land in 1984. • The request was for a Buffer zoning designation for the four properties located north and west of I-70; Natural Resource - Preservation Conservation for the five properties located between I-70 and Alvarado Road; and Agricultural zoning for the two properties located south and east of Alvarado Road. • Both of the current property owners were notified by mail on the 26th of February of the County’s proposal to rezone their properties. • No response has been received from CDOT. • Steve & Brooke Barry responded in writing on March 11 and stated: “We are writing in regards to Rezoning Case #279. We are requesting that Parcels #1 and #2 be zoned for agricultural use. The ground has been historically used for the purpose of agriculture for the past 100 years and should be maintained for that use. There are domestic well permits issued for the property that may be used agriculturally for irrigation and for watering livestock. We strongly believe Clear Creek County should approve this rezoning.” • Surrounding Properties have various zonings including large tracts of NR-PC, one Buffer, one Mining 2, three Commercial-Tourism/Recreation (Shadows Ranch), two Agricultural (this includes the Herres parcel the Board of County Commissioners approved April 15) and several parcels zoned MR-1 or Mining One. • Referral Agencies and adjacent property owners were notified on the 26th of March and Public Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on April 2. • Environmental Health, and the Town of Georgetown both responded they had reviewed the proposal and have no conflicts. • The Open Space Commission, as well as HDPLC, responded that they have no conflicts with the proposal but would recommend that the county right-of-way for the Silver Creek Trail be noted as crossing the SE portion of Levine Parcel 1. • The Division of Wildlife responded that the property north of I-70 is critical for sheep habitat and should be zoned either Buffer or NR-PC, the properties between I-70 and Alvarado are critical for several species and should be zoned NR-PC to protect the creek corridor for wildlife use, and they did not have any objection to the Agricultural designation for the properties south of Alvarado Rd., as the wildlife follows the creek. • Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation, Upper Clear Creek Watershed, Clear Creek Site Development, Road & Bridge and the Sheriff’s Office were also notified of the request, but no response has been received. • Three responses from adjacent property owners were received; the owners of the Amenda lode M.S. #5253A stated they were in support of the rezoning, Shirley Shimon stated she had reviewed the proposal and had no conflicts and an email from Adolph Zang, president of Merger Mining and Milling Co. inquiring how it would affect access, use and taxes of their two mining claims north of I-70. Staff replied by email that this action should not affect any of these issues. • The properties north of I-70 were a rock fall hazard, severe wildfire hazard, all greater than 30% slope and have high wildlife impact potential, therefore, staff believes it would be most appropriately zoned Buffer. • The properties between I-70 and Alvarado Road were 80 to 90% within the mapped floodplain, were recognized wetlands areas and were considered critical wildlife habitat areas, therefore, staff feels would be best preserved if zoned Natural Resource- Preservation/Conservation. • The properties south of Alvarado Road, as well as many properties along Alvarado Road, have historically been used off and on for agricultural purposes and there were existing properties in the area zoned Agricultural. • Well Permits were issued for these two properties; each permit limits the use of ground water to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside 3 single family dwellings,

Page 125 of 246 the irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns and the watering of domestic animals. Sewage, access, parking, and traffic impacts would be addressed prior to any building permit being issued. • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval at their hearing on April 16th and Staff recommends approval pursuant to draft Resolution 03-47.

Ms. Kastens noted that these lands were discovered by accident and it was realized they were not all zoned MR-1. Mr. Loeffler stated that they were legal non-conforming uses as they were there by the County’s mistake. Ms. Kastens replied that this was a way to solve the oversight.

The group discussed amending the animal regulations in the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations with regard to odor issues. The Board had received odor complaints from Adjacent Property Owner Joe Sysel in the past and questioned why he had not commented on this application. Mr. Briddle noted that he had commented that the smell was not animals but the Georgetown Sewer Plant. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-47, Rezoning Case #279, a County initiated rezoning for properties currently owned by CDOT and Steve Barry. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Ms. Kastens noted that the lands owned by CDOT were those north of I-70 and all that land between I-70 and Alvarado Road. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF BID FOR PAVING WITTER GULCH ROAD: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Mr. Allen made the following statements: • Following budget hearings, the Road and Bridge department was allowed the funding to pave a portion of Witter Gulch Road. • Bids were obtained for this paving of a one mile section. • The paving would occur for the section between Greystone and Aspen Place. • Asphalt Paving came in with a bid of $100,000 and LaFarge had a bid of $82,000. • Mr. Allen stated that the LaFarge group paid much attention to the road and measured it several times. Since their bid came in under budget, it was possible to extend the paving another 3/10 of a mile to the Upper Bear Creek Road intersection. • This pavement bidding included fabric and underlay treatments to extend the life of the pavement.

Commissioner Poirot expressed concern on the intersection with Upper Bear Creek Road and wanted this section to be included in the project if financially possible. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract bid from LaFarge for the paving of Witter Gulch Road from Greystone to Aspen Place and with the consideration of including the Upper Bear Creek Road intersection. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR EWI BILL IRWIN AND DANA AND BRENDA BRADY: Regarding the Irwin Combination of Lots Agreement application, this was needed for a variance approval and the taxes had not yet been paid on these lands. County Attorney Robert Loeffler recommended the Board reconsider this Combination of Lots Agreement at a later time to ensure the payment of taxes. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to deny the Combination of Lots Agreement for Bill Irwin until the taxes were paid and ownership was confirmed. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the Brady Combination of Lots Agreement application, there was a question of whether the parcel was in a subdivision and the exact location as there was no map. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to deny the Combination of Lots Agreement for the Brady group until a better recommendation could be made from the Planning Department. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-62, REVISION TO ROAD CUT PERMIT AND ROAD ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT FOR USE OF COLLATERAL: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following statements:

Page 126 of 246 Mr. Allen was requesting the approval of Chapter 5 only. This chapter covered issues such as utility locates. Mr. Allen and Mr. Loeffler had been meeting with Qwest to obtain regulations that could be applied to most utility companies. • Mr. Allen and Qwest discussed issues such as submittal requirements, permit fees, as- built maps, etc. • The intent with as-built maps was to submit two site applications with each project. One would go in the file and one would be left on site and would show any changes for the Road and Bridge department to review. • At present, the GIS department did not have a way to reflect the utilities layer in the program but it could be started. • Mr. Allen stated that Qwest also had concerns with regard to the as-built maps and confidentiality. • Mr. Allen added that he and Qwest discussed the definition of if emergency repairs needed to be made between October 1st to May 1st. This time period due to the cold temperatures required special backfill considerations. The Road and Bridge department relied on flow fills to obtain compaction. • Due to frostlines and snow removal, Mr. Allen preferred not to see utility placement and road cuts made during the time between October 1st and May 1 st. • Mr. Allen requested more time on this chapter to further work with Qwest.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to June 3, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following topics: • the Clear Creek High School Sanitation Project, the Central City Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Golden Intergovernmental Agreement, the 1041 regulations, and the Beaver Brook Watershed as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); • personnel matters but not regarding commissioners or elected officials or to discussions of personnel policies generally as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f).

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 5, 2003

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

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

The meeting adjourned.

Page 127 of 246 ______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 6, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 6, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ENGINEERING CONTRACT WITH MDG FOR DESIGN OF STANLEY/HOOP CREEK SEGMENT OF BIKE TRAIL: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Administrative Intern Tim Mauck attended the hearing. Mr. Weaver made the following comments: < The contract was with MDG to perform the design of the Stanley/Hoop Creek segment of the bike trail. < The Forest Service had recently found a glitch in this project in that it was discovered that a possible lynx habitat was located in the bike trail path. < The dilemma was that this project had to be completed by September 30, 2003. < The engineers at MDG had been nationally recognized and were a reputable firm to complete this project. < Mr. Weaver asked for approval from the Board of County Commissioners contingent on the County Attorney’s approval and any modifications needed to resolve the lynx situation.

Commissioner Sorensen noted that as partners with the Forest Service on this project, the situation would be resolved. Mr. Mauck stated that the Forest Service wanted to be cautious and the group would work with the engineers to keep the project moving. This contract did not entail any construction, only design. Mr. Weaver stated that the County had to be under contract on this project by May 30, 2003. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the contract with MDG contingent on County Attorney approval and the resolution of the lynx issue. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WATER LEASING CONTRACT WITH HIDDEN VALLEY SUBDIVISION: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. Mr. Weaver stated that this project was late in needing a water augmentation plan and the Water Court was pressuring the Hidden Valley group. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue this hearing until 11:40 a.m. of this date to allow time to confer with the Water Attorney. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF UTILIZATION OF AREA B FOR THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS ASSOCIATION: Gold Rush Days Chairman Teresa Kaminski and Clear Creek County Fairgrounds Association representative Tracey Bennetts presented. Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson attended. Ms. Kaminski and Ms. Bennetts made the following statements: < The Gold Rush committee desired to use this Area B for flea market events to raise funds for the Gold Rush Days. < The Gold Rush committee wanted to use the area for 2 weekends, Saturday and Sunday. < Under the provisions of the lease between the County and the CCCFA, permission was required from the Board of County Commissioners to use this area. < The comfort station at the fairgrounds was not complete so portable toilets would be needed. < This market would not interfere with the Ambulance station or the rodeo grounds. < The Gold Rush committee agreed to obtain insurance to cover the flea market events. < The Gold Rush committee agreed to clean up the area after the markets were completed. < The Gold Rush committee and the CCCFA agreed not to hold the markets on large event dates, i.e., the Georgetown to Idaho Springs Half Marathon day.

Mr. Abrahamson stated that he would work with both groups to ensure access for all parties.

Page 128 of 246 Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the use of Area B for the CCCFA and the Gold Rush committee to hold two weekend flea markets during the summer with the agreement on having insurance to cover the markets, providing portable toilets, cleaning up, and access for Emergency Services. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Mr. Loeffler recommended a letter in writing to both the CCCFA and the Gold Rush committee on these stipulations. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR GLORIA LAWRENZ AND DANA AND BRENDA BRADY: County Lands Director Lisa Leben-Vogel and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Ms. Kastens explained the Brady Combination of Lots Agreement with the following statements: < The original building permit showed this parcel as one piece of land and the site plan showed the home in a different location. < Later, a second lot line was discovered. < This Combination of Lots Agreement was proposed to resolve the situation of two parcels. < The new owners wanted to combine the lots into one and build a barn within setbacks.

The Lawrenz Combination of Lots Agreement was presented and it was confirmed that Lawrenz was the property owner and the taxes had been paid on these parcels. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreement’s for the Brady and the Lawrenz groups. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WATER LEASING CONTRACT WITH HIDDEN VALLEY SUBDIVISION: This hearing was changed to an Executive Session. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into an executive session to receive legal advice regarding negotiating strategies and water issues as allowed by CRS 24- 6-402(4)(e). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. No written minutes would be made of this hearing.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS:

#03-85, Flinchpaugh, Gayno Tracts: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. Flinchpaugh attended the hearing. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was approved for 2001 but was not carried forth to 2002. This abatement was to carry the adjustment forward. Mr. Flinchpaugh agreed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-86, John and Pamela Davis-Zalesky, Bendemeer Tracts: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Pamela Davis-Zalesky attended. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was approved for 2001 but was not carried forth to 2002. This abatement was to carry the adjustment forward. Ms. Davis-Zalesky agreed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-80, Bernard Buckley, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. Buckley attended later during the abatement hearings. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was to put the Buckley’s on the Senior Tax Exemption list as they were forgotten in the prior year. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-81, Tim and Lisa Vogel, Barbour Heights: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Vogel party. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was a downward adjustment to reflect that the parcel did not have access. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-82, Matthew Collins, Loch Lomond Highlands: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Collins group. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was a downward adjustment to reflect that the home had only a compost toilet, one bedroom and was

Page 129 of 246 only 50% completed. This abatement was for 2001 and 2002. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-83, John Urso, Virginia Canyon: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Urso group. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was a downward adjustment to reflect that the home only had two bedrooms instead of three. This abatement was for 2001 and 2002. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-84, Steve and Brooke Barry, Alvarado Road: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Barry group. Ms. Settle stated that the Barry’s claim was that they were implementing drought prevention by implementing a conservation plan to not have livestock. Mr. Barry had submitted letters from a university but they did not prove that he had a conservation plan in place. A conservation plan was like a contract and the Barry’s did not have this. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-87, Richard and Terry Lear, Hyland Hills: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Lear group. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was another situation with two adjacent lots and the owners wanting them both assessed as residential. The owners had submitted photos of the adjacent vacant lot showing a trampoline, bike path, etc. Ms. Settle recommended approval as the County had lost these cases at the Board of Assessment Appeals. The Lear group bought the adjacent parcel after they had purchased the lot with the home. The Board felt strongly that the Lear’s should combine their lots. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to deny the abatement. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen asked the Assessor to verify how long this adjacent parcel had been used in this manner. The vote was unanimous.

#03-88, Ocean Falls, Bendemeer Tracts: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Ocean Falls group. Ms. Settle stated that the Assessor’s value was based on the purchase price during a base year. However, comparables did not support this current value. The location in the Upper Bear area threw off the value. The lot was less than an acre and the Assessor’s had heard that the interior was not upgraded. The Board desired to postpone consideration of this abatement until the next abatement hearing. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to June 17, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. to allow the Assessor time to complete an interior inspection. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners convened as the Board of Health.

BOARD OF HEALTH HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION #03-76, TO ALLOW ISDS VARIANCE ON A 50-70% SLOPE FOR AMERICAN CRAFTSMAN HOMES, APPLICANT, AND DAVID AND MARIE DEHAM, OWNERS, SADDLEBACK RIDGE ESTATES: Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson presented. Environmental Health Department Tech Tracy Bennetts, Land Use Service Unit Manager Deb Kirkham, American Craftsman representative Bud Moore, E.O. Church engineer Joe Kordziel, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Neuman attended the hearing. Mr. Etcheson made the following presentation: < This new septic system was proposed to be installed within less than 35 feet horizontally of a slope in excess of 45%, actual slope was 68%. < The Clear Creek County Board of Health could either approve or disapprove the applicant’s request for an exception from the ISDS regulations. < Based on a site review conducted on April 8, 2003, sloping ground within 35 feet of the proposed septic system area exceeded 45%. The slope was measured by the Environmental Health Department Director at 68%. < The proposed septic system location was an old roadway cut that created a level area on a steep hillside. The proposed location was not situated above a driveway or a road cut. < The lot was five acres in size. The proposed drainfield design stipulated the installation of a 20 millimeter PVC liner to a depth of 6.5 feet on the downhill side and ends of the

Page 130 of 246 drainfield. < The design also indicated that a berm and swale will be constructed to divert surface run off, and revegetation of the disturbed areas after construction. A separation distance of 200 feet between the private well and the drainfield could not be provided. < As a result, an approved pre-treatment system was proposed with a well to drainfield separation distance of 160 feet. < When a pre-treatment system was provided, the separation distance requirement was reduced to 100 feet. Due to the steep slopes adjacent to the proposed drainfield area, there may be an increased risk of sewage surfacing downslope of the drainfield location. < The Environmental Health Department recommended consideration of approval of the requested exception with the following conditions: < That no Adjacent Property Owner object to this request for an exception. < That a surface water run off berm was constructed immediately upslope from the drainfield. < That a 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on the downslope side to a depth of 8 feet below grade. < That all disturbed areas shall be seeded after completion of the system installation. < That blasting be conducted to create bedrock fractures to a depth of fourteen feet below the grade of the drainfield open hole excavation, if bedrock was discovered within that 14 feet. < In the event of any suspicion of ISDS failure, Clear Creek County would be authorized by the owner to investigate any source of contamination at the owners expense. < That a valid ISDS permit be obtained. < The property owner had access through easements across private land owners parcels.

Mr. Moore made the following statements: < American Craftsman Homes and the property owners were working to clarify the exact location of the easement for the road. < There was a drainage area that the home contractor did not want to interfere with. < Architects designed a way for a home to fit on this lot. < There were gulches running through the parcel but the contractors were able to place a home, a well, access, and ISDS system on this parcel.

Mr. Kordziel asked for clarification on the blasting requirement. Mr. Etcheson replied that blasting would be required to create bedrock fractures should bedrock be found within the 14 feet below the open hole pit. This had been a requirement in past similar projects to open up flow paths and prevent effluent from rising to the surface. Mr. Kordziel had concerns that blasting may result in fracturing out instead of down. Mr. Moore suggested boring instead into the bedrock areas. Mr. Kordziel agreed. Mr. Moore stated that the boring grid was based on a 4- foot separation. With a 12' X 60' drain field, this would require 45 drill holes. Mr. Moore thought that boring could be a solution as the only other residence was located above this one. Mr. Moore confirmed that there were no other locations on site to move the ISDS system due to the stream run off areas. For clarification, Mr. Etcheson confirmed that the boring would have to be completed for the 14 feet below the open hole pit. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Board of Health Resolution #03-76 to allow an ISDS exception on a steep slope for property owners, Deham, in Saddleback Ridge Estates with the changes discussed with regard to boring. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Mr. Etcheson confirmed that this ISDS system did include a pre-treatment system. The vote was unanimous.

EXECUTIVE SESSION: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the following matters: < the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); < the conferences with an attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding the City of Golden and the Buckland property as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); < for determining negotiating strategies and positions and instructing negotiators regarding water leasing and rights of way as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e).

Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. No written minutes would

Page 131 of 246 be made of this session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 13, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 13, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF AMBULANCE WITH WELLS FARGO: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Fire Chief Kelly Babeon and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Abrahamson made the following statements: • Resolution #03-89 was attached to authorize the negotiation, execution, and delivery of a lease purchase agreement for the Ambulance Department. • This agreement would entail three years of monthly payments and the interest was very low. • The total cost of the ambulance was $113,000 with $41,000 from gaming funding, $15,000 from a trade in, and the remainder as the lease purchase. • The Ambulance Department had to buy the most expensive ambulances due to the County’s terrain and the mileage to the nearest hospital. • These ambulances had tandem wheels that allowed better traction in the snow. • Mr. Abrahamson requested the Board’s approval contingent on the Attorney’s approval of the final lease purchase contract.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-89, resolution authorizing the negotiation, execution, and delivery of a lease purchase agreement for a new ambulance contingent on the Attorney’s approval of the contract. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD MEETING: This meeting was changed to a working session.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-90, RECOGNITION OF MAY 6-12, 2003 AS NATIONAL NURSE’S WEEK: Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen stated that this resolution was requested by the Board of County Commissioners in recognition of the nurses in and serving Clear Creek County. The resolution was read into the record. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-90, recognition of May 6-12, 2003 as National Nurse’s Week. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-69, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #03-EX-08, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 3, T4SR73W: County Lands Director Lisa Vogel presented. Ms. Vogel made the following statements: • This exemption, if approved, would divide Government Survey Lot #119, a 8.56 acre tract into a 5.86 acre parcel, a .12 acre parcel, and a 2.58 acre parcel. • Additionally, Government Survey Lot #130, a 10.22 acre tract would be divided into a 6.61 acre parcel and a 3.61 acre parcel. • These parcels were accessed by South Spring Gulch Road. • On October 22, 2002, parcels 119A, 119B, 119C, 130A and 130B were zoned M-1 by adoption of Zone Plan Case #01-ZP-02 by Resolution #02-41. • Adjacent Property Owners were notified and notice of this hearing was published in the Clear Creek Courant.

Page 132 of 246 • The Robertson group was taking parcel 119B. Kazel was taking parcels 130A and 119A. Lee was taking parcels 130B and 119C. • Each group would have to do a Combination of Lots Agreement.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-69, Exemption by Resolution #03-EX-08, to divide County land in Section 3, T4SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

OPENING OF SEALED BIDS FOR COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 28, T3SR73W: County Lands Director Lisa Vogel presented. Administrative Assistant Beth Luther stated that no sealed bids had been received by the County for this parcel. Ms. Vogel stated that this parcel was .75 of an acre with a minimum value of $532. The interested parties were Neal, McDaniel, and Bonanza Land Co. The parcel would be retained by the County.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WATER LEASING CONTRACTS FOR HIDDEN VALLEY SUBDIVISION, THE GEORGETOWN LOOP RAILROAD, MILL CREEK PARK, AND THE TOWN OF SILVER PLUME: Administrative Intern Tim Mauck presented. Dave Hayes, Georgetown Loop Railroad Water Attorney, attended the hearing. Mr. Mauck made the following statements: • Mill Creek Park may not be a water customer this year due to the run off amounts. • Regarding the railroad water lease, the Georgetown Loop Railroad desired to obtain two years worth of water. • They requested 1.7 acre feet for the current year and the County had allocated 2 acre feet just in case. • The railroad operating season would be May 24, 2003 to October 5, 2003. Mr. Hayes stated that in the prior year the railroad used 4100 gallons per day of water. This year the railroad was cutting their early morning ride due to low ridership. • Mr. Mauck requested approval by the Board contingent on the County Attorney’s approval of the contract.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the water leasing contract with the Georgetown Loop Railroad contingent on the County Attorney’s approval of the contract wording and authorized the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Mauck presented the water leasing contract with the Town of Silver Plume. The Town was seeking a long term water solution. This water lease did not cover a long term solution. This contract was for one year only for 1.95 acre feet at the municipal rate of $1200 per acre foot. The final price of the contract would total $2343. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the water leasing contract between the County and the Town of Silver Plume and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Mauck presented the water leasing contract with the Hidden Valley Mutual Water Company. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. The Hidden Valley group desired to purchase water at the $2200 per acre foot rate. Since the County would possibly lose the Mill Creek Park as a water customer, there was a need to find other water users. The Hidden Valley group was a potential user. This lease was a 20-year lease. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the water leasing contract with the Hidden Valley Mutual Water Company and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPEAL OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE FEE FOR THE DIETRICH GROUP: Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer presented. Mr. Dietrich attended the hearing. Ms. Writer made the following statements: • The Dietrich case was heard on May 6, 2003 by the Board of Adjustment. • The request was for a 15-ft north side setback on a garage and it was approved by the Board of Adjustment.

Page 133 of 246 • The Dietrich’s were requesting a reimbursement as they had been before the Board of Adjustment on April 1, 2003 on another setback for the garage. • The Board of Adjustment did not think the second fee should be waived as the Dietrich’s brought in new plans which had to be reviewed.

Mr. Dietrich made the following statements: • He stated that a site visit could not be performed due to the snow in March so a clear view of what work was being proposed could not be properly evaluated at the April Board of Adjustment meeting. • He re-did the plans on the garage to shorten the garage size and increase the setbacks in hopes of approval at the May hearing. • The plans were the same for both hearings, just shorter for the May hearing.

Ms. Writer stated that she had performed two site visits on March 26th and April 16th. She added that there was much snow on the property on March 26th and the topography could not be seen. Ms. Writer stated that the Board of Adjustment did not like to approve setbacks under 10 feet and that was why this application was initially denied. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to refund the second variance fee of $350. Commissioner Poirot seconded. Ms. Writer noted that it did not take much more work on her part to prepare the second case. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPEAL OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE PENALTY FEE FOR THE HUBBSCHMITT GROUP: Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer presented. Mrs. Hubbschmitt attended the hearing. Ms. Writer made the following statements: • The Hubbschmitt hearing was heard by the Board of Adjustment on May 6, 2003. • The Hubbschmitt’s were requesting acknowledgment of an existing cabin built by preivous owners with a 14-ft rear setback. The cabin was 552 sq. ft and had no building permits. • The cabin had no water or sewer but some electrical. • The Hubbschmitt’s did not know this cabin was a setback issue until they purchased the property and had a survey completed. • The variance was the first step in legalizing the property. • The Board of Adjustment did grant a request to refund $610 of the variance penalty fee of $960. However, the Board of Adjustment did not think the remainder of $350 should be refunded. • The Hubbschmitt’s knew there were other zoning violations on the parcel but were unaware of the setback problem.

Mrs. Hubbschmitt made the following statements: • She was unaware of the setback issue. • The previous owners did inform her that they were mistaken in the building of the cabin. • The Hubbschmitt’s did the survey in order to find out the problems and bring the property up to code.

Ms. Writer stated that the Hubbschmitt’s were cleaning up the parcel and would continue to work on the land. This property was located on Alps Mountain Road. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to refund the Hubbschmitt’s the $610 portion of the $960 fee. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CHAIRMAN JO ANN SORENSEN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS THE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY FOR WRAP GRANTS: Caseworker Supervisor Sharon Blum presented. Ms. Blum made the following statements: • The WRAP grant was approved in July of 2002 for funding this year. • The WRAP funding ran from July 1 st to June 30th. • The Joint Budget Committee had recently cut funding and then replaced a portion of these funds. • WRAP funding was from the Division of Criminal Justice for youth at-risk. • As the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners had changed from

Page 134 of 246 Commissioner Watrous to Commissioner Sorensen, a new signature authority form had to be completed. • This was regarded as a grant modification.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Commissioner Sorensen as the signature authority for the WRAP grant funding. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 14, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 14, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding: ‘ the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); ‘ conference with an attorney for the public body for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions as related to the City of Golden water rights, Central City annexation, the Clear Creek Technology Park, the School District Sanitation project, and historic roads as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); ‘ determining negotiating strategies and positions and instructing negotiators as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 20, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 20, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AED AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE AND THE AMBULANCE DEPARTMENT: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson presented. Mr. Abrahamson stated that the Forest Service would pay all costs and any needed repairs under the AED agreement. The AED unit operated under a five-year lithium battery and were very durable. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the AED agreement with the U.S. Forest Service and the Ambulance Department. Commissioner Dale

Page 135 of 246 seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE: PALLARITO, ONE PARCEL, SECTION 5, T4SR73W; MOSCH FOR FOUR PARCELS, SECTION 6, T4SR73W; LEO/QUINN FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W; ABBOTT FOR THREE PARCELS IN SECTION 4, T4SR73W; JEFFERSON FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W; RICKLEFS/SPLETZER FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W; WILSON FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 6 T4SR732W; MOORE/JOHNSON FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W; TEMPLE FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 20 AND 21, T3SR73W; AND ONE CORRECTION COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT AND ONE CORRECTION SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FOR THE KAZEL MOUNTAIN MINES CORP. FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 4, T4SR73W: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Planner II Holland Smith attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski presented the following information: • This hearing was for 9 Combination of Lots Agreements and Special Warranty Deeds for 13 parcels of County lands in Sections 4, 5, 6 and one parcel in Sections 20 and 21. • Five of these parcels were zoned M-1 and 9 were zoned M-2. • The correction Combination of Lots Agreement and the correction Special Warranty Deed were to correct a legal description. • Some of these parcels would have a final split zoning. Mr. Loeffler confirmed that the zonings were M-1, M-2 and Buffer and these would not increase density in the combination of these particular parcels. • No additional building sites were being created by these combinations and deeds. • The parcels were as follows: • Pallarito obtained parcel #1961-05-4-00-971. • Mosch obtained parcels #1961-06-1-00-968, #1961-06-1-00-969, #1961-06-1-00-970, and #1961-06-4-00-960B. • Leo/Quinn obtained parcel #1961-05-4-00-963A. • Abbott obtained parcels #1961-04-3-00-974B, #1961-04-3-00-974C, and #1961-04-3-00- 975D. • Jefferson obtained parcel #1961-05-3-00-962J. • Ricklefs/Spletzer obtained parcel #1961-05-3-00-962C. • Wilson obtained parcel #1961-06-4-00-960D. • Moore/Johnson obtained parcel #1961-05-4-00-963B. • Temple obtained parcel #1835-20-1-00-951.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreements and Special Warranty Deed and for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the required documents. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen stated that these lands totaled $5100 and were mostly small slivers of land. The vote was unanimous.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the corrected Combination of Lots Agreement and Special Warranty Deed for Kazel Mountain Mines Corporation to correct the legal description for parcel #1961-04-4-00-973. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding 1041 regulations as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ADOPTION OF CHAPTER 4 OF THE ROADWAY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL UNDER THE 1997 UBC: Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel presented. Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson, Land Use Service Unit Manager Deb Kirkham, Fire Chief Kelly Babeon, and Secretary II Annette Colle attended the hearing. Mr. Vogel made the following statements:

Page 136 of 246 • Public Notice was published for this hearing on May 7, 2003 and May 14, 2003 in the Clear Creek Courant. • Mr. Vogel presented the regulations with regard to driveway permit requirements as well as the policies of surrounding counties. • The major change between the new Driveway Design Standards to the previously adopted standards were as follows: • A maximum grade of 18% for all driveways was being proposed compared to no cap on grade. This change was located under Section R, “Deviation from the Standards.” • Maximum grades in Jefferson County were 10% and 12% for south facing. Summit had a 8% limit; Gilpin had a 12% limit, and Grand County had a 5% limit for the first 50 feet and then a maximum of 7%. • The main reason for the grade percentage was for consideration of Emergency Services access. • The adopt these new requirements under the Uniform Building Code gave the regulation more strength. • Section 4.74, Standards for Parking Areas: Currently there was no requirement for construction of a parking area. This section would be a guide to this construction as well as requiring a parking area to be constructed in lieu of meeting driveway grades. • A driveway permit would be active with an active building permit. The driveway permit was currently valid for only one year. This time allotment did not fit with most building schedules due to numerous building projects taking more time than one year. Final grade, drainage, and revegetation usually occurred at the end of a project and these aspects were required for final approval on a driveway permit. • Section 4.73, Standards for Driveway Design, Section A: “Location of Driveways Relative to Intersections”, Section B, “Spacing of Driveways”, and Section C, “Shared Driveways”, were new requirements under the Driveway Design Standards.

Regarding a cap on grade percentage, Mr. Abrahamson stated that having a cap was better than no cap at all. Mr. Vogel added that the higher percentage driveways were subject to the Wildfire Mitigation Point Plan.

Commissioner Sorensen asked what the standard of approval was if the applicant wished to appeal the Site Development Inspector’s decision. Ms. Kirkham replied that if there was a question on interpretation of the building code, then the Board of Review would address this. Otherwise, there was no standard of appeal. Mr. Abrahamson stated that point system also allowed applicant’s to perform other mitigations if they could not meet the driveway standards. Mr. Vogel expressed concern with regard to a takings issue if certain applicants were not able to construct a driveway or meet standards. He added that this decision on grade could be difficult if the road to the property was steeper than the proposed driveway. Mr. Babeon noted that the Uniform Fire Code stated that all structures must be accessible within 150 feet of the road/driveway due to the length of the hose line on fire trucks. Therefore, a parking area at the bottom of the property may not be close enough for emergency services access. Mr. Vogel added that at the intersection of the driveway and the road, there had to be a relaxation turn so emergency vehicles could turn into the property safely. Mr. Vogel added that the parking areas were mostly for the convenience of the Road and Bridge vehicles in their snow maintenance and road grading.

Mr. Abrahamson stated that if access could not be gained by emergency vehicles then it was possible the site may not be suitable for building. Grand County had some structures burn due to lack of access. Commissioner Poirot stated that some property owners may have to vary their building site to meet the code for emergency services. This would not be considered a takings issue if the property owner could still build. Mr. Abrahamson stated that this flexibility in grade and the requirement for emergency access would be very educating to property owners.

The Board had questions about other sections in the driveway standard regulations and requested more time for clarification before approving Chapter 4. Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern on whether people could have a driveway on their parcel if not building a home/structure. Mr. Vogel stated that there was not a section addressing this issue. He would meet with County Attorney Robert Loeffler on this issue. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to June 3, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the

Page 137 of 246 motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-48, REZONING CASE #278, FOR T&P EXCAVATING, OWNERS, AND CHUCK HOWARD, APPLICANT, FROM M-1 TO C-WM, WEST END OF IDAHO SPRINGS, STANLEY ROAD AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-50, ROAD VACATION CASE# 02-RD-01, TO VACATE A PORTION OF OLD STANLEY ROAD, WEST END OF IDAHO SPRINGS, AS IT TRAVERSES A PORTION OF THE MICHAEL B. GRAEFF PLACER: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Applicant Chuck Howard and Planner II Doug Lesh attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens stated that this hearing had been continued due to split zoning issues and whether conditions could be attached to a rezoning case. Mr. Loeffler replied that in conference with other County Attorney’s, they all agreed that conditions could not be attached to rezonings. Mr. Loeffler added that per the current County regulations, only 60% of the entire parcel with the zonings combined could be used or developed. The development would be based on a density percentage. Therefore, Mr. Loeffler recommended that if the Board of County Commissioners approved this case that a condition be added to the resolution that structures may be located on the C-WM parcel but would be limited in density requirements specific to the area that was zoned C-WM and not to the entire parcel. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approval Resolution #03-48, Rezoning Case #278 for T&P Excavating, owners, and Chuck Howard, applicant, with the condition to allow density on the C-WM portion based on the square footage of the C-WM portion rather than the entire parcel. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the road vacation case, Ms. Kastens stated that this was being continued due to the boundary lines being adjusted and the Planning Department desired to have this case resolved and vested with the new boundary lines. The boundary lines could not be approved until the rezoning was approved. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-50, Road Vacation Case #02-RD-01, to vacate a portion of old Stanley Road, west end of Idaho springs, as it traversed a portion of the Michael B. Graeff placer. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPEAL OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE FEE FOR THE WHISSEN GROUP: Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer presented. Robert Whissen attended the hearing. Ms. Writer made the following statements: • Mr. Whissen was heard by the Board of Adjustment on May 6, 2003. He was requesting approval of a proposed residence with 2342 square feet basement, 2318 sq. ft. ground floor, 604 sq. ft. deck with a 24' north side setback, and a 874 sq. ft. garage with a 27' north side setback. The variance was approved. • Mr. Whissen was requesting a fee waiver because he had a previously approved variance that he had to change due to conditions on the site. • The Board of Adjustment denied his fee waiver request because they felt this was a completely different application.

Mr. Whissen made the following comments: • He had purchased 2 acres from the Dunlap’s. • The variance he needed was for the garage and the MR-1 zoning required a 30 foot setback. • In his application for a variance, he ran into problems with grade so he flipped the structure layout and lengthened the driveway to meet the County requirements. • The lot was very narrow and construction configuration was difficult. • In his prior Board of Adjustment hearing in which he was approved, he did not realize the severe restrictions as he never received a copy of the approval. He did not receive a copy of the approval due to the changing of staff. • Mr. Whissen had not normally associated deck space/porches with square footage. Therefore, the building permit was denied. When Mr. Whissen adjusted the layout, the Building Department approved the building permit. • Mr. Whissen was requesting a fee waiver of the second variance fee after adjusting the layout.

Page 138 of 246 Commissioner Sorensen asked how much additional work was required for the second case. Ms. Writer replied that much work on the part of staff was needed as there had been a changing of staff and she had to research what had been done in the past. However, this was not at the fault of Mr. Whissen. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to refund half of the second variance fee to Mr. Whissen as there was some additional new work required for this case. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SECURITY AGREEMENT FOR DAVID DODGE, WARREN GULCH: Secretary III Cyndie Rushmyer presented. Ms. Rushmyer made the following statements: • This agreement was for $633 and was an approved case that required a cash collateral agreement. • The $633 dollar amount was determined by the Road and Bridge Department for the removal of a 10' X 12' shed. • The approved Special Use Permit could not be issued without this security agreement.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Security Agreement for David Dodge of Warren Gulch. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR CHARLES BLACK, FALL RIVER ROAD AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RELINQUISHMENT OF ACCESS EASEMENT AS AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER: County Lands Director Lisa Vogel presented. Ms. Vogel made the following statements: • Mr. Black wanted to combine his lots #28 and #29. • Per the advice given to him by the Planning Department, an easement relinquishment would have to be given to him to allow this Combination of Lots Agreement. • An easement of 20 feet was reserved along all side lots lines in Fall River Subdivision, Unit 1, for the purpose of installation , maintenance, and operation of utilities, and for the purpose of providing ingress and egress for the owners of adjacent property. • Clear Creek County was an adjacent property owner to the west side of this subdivision. • Mr. Black had requested that Clear Creek County relinquish this easement so he could combine his lots. • The zoning on both lots was MR-1 so this Combination of Lots Agreement would be reducing building density. • The easement vacation only affects the County and the County had no objection. County Attorney Robert Loeffler agreed.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Combination of Lots Agreements and the relinquishment of easement for Charles Black. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QUIT CLAIM DEED BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FOR THE BROOKVALE SCHOOL PROPERTY: County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler stated that due to the confusion in title work on this property, whatever ownership the School District may have had in this property was now being conveyed to the County. The School District obtained this land in the 1800's and it included a reversionary clause if they stopped using it. The School District did not want to have this building in their possession. Therefore, the School District was quit claiming the property to the County and deleting the reversionary clause. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Quit Claim Deed from the Clear Creek School District and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the document. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

Page 139 of 246 ______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 28, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 28, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

Commissioner Poirot attended later in the day.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-97, GRANTING AUTHORITY TO FRANK YOUNG OF THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION TO EXECUTE REAL ESTATE DOCUMENTS: Chief Accountant Carl Small and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck attended the hearing. County Attorney Bob Loeffler presented. Mr. Loeffler stated that the Elmgreen family wanted to close the land sale before Mr. Elmgreen’s operation. In order to make this closing date, Frank Young would have to be designated to sign the closing documents. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-97 to grant authority to Frank Young of the Open Space Commission to execute the closing documents for the Elmgreen purchase. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Mr. Small stated that the funds were transferred for the purchase and GOCO would reimburse the County with the grant award. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QUIT CLAIM DEED TO GUNNISON COUNTY: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Administrative Intern Tim Mauck attended the hearing. Mr. Small stated that this deed was a part of a County pool program with Colorado Counties Inc., in the 1980's. This deed was for a parcel of land that was in Gunnison County and was used by this County for loan funding. The owner of the bank which handled the pool was located in Seattle and had sent a re-conveyance certificate to Clear Creek County to be signed over to Gunnison County so they could now use their land. This was the appropriate way to deed back the title to Gunnison County. The bank in Seattle would not deliver the title until Clear Creek County had executed the re-conveyance certificate. Mr. Small assured the Board that the required pay offs were completed. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve either a quit claim or a Special Warranty Deed and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the document for Gunnison County. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-96, APPOINTMENT OF MARK BILBO AS COUNTY AT-LARGE MEMBER TO THE DISTRICT LIBRARY BOARD: Administrative Assistant Beth Luther stated that this appointment was recommended by the District Library Board and the Director of the Idaho Springs Library. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-96, appointment of Mark Bilbo as County At-Large member to the District Library Board. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-95, MANAGEMENT REQUEST BY THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION FOR THE IRON FEN CLAIMS, GENEVA BASIN: Open Space Commission members Frank Young and Fran Enright presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small, County Land Director Lisa Vogel, and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck attended the hearing. Ms. Enright and Mr. Young made the following statements: < Ms. Enright stated that the Open Space Commission was working with the Forest Service to complete a plan for this area. < The Natural Areas Program at the State was willing to qualify this area as of June 20, 2003. < The Off-Highway-Vehicle use was still a big issue in this area. < It was up to the Forest Service when they wanted to close off their portions of the road to motorized vehicles.

Page 140 of 246 < A lower road merged with a creek bed in this area. < The Natural Areas Program would assist the Open Space Commission with a management plan and a Memorandum of Understanding for the area and how to care for it. < This land would be eligible for grant funding.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Board would talk to the Road and Bridge department about putting in boulders to block off the roads to motorized use as the iron fen was so rare. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-95, for management of the iron fen claims by the Open Space Commission. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners convened as the Board of Health.

BOARD OF HEALTH HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION #03-91, FOR ISDS VARIANCE ON A 56% SLOPE FOR THE WINSLOW GROUP AS OWNER/APPLICANT, SADDLEBACK RIDGE ESTATES: Environmental Health Department Chris Etcheson presented. Adjacent Property Owners Jerry and Mary Stern attended the hearing. Mr. Etcheson made the following statements: < The new septic system was proposed to be installed within less than 35 feet horizontally of a slope in excess of 45%. The actual slope was 56%. < The Clear Creek County Board of Health may either approval or not approve the applicant’s request for an Exception from the ISDS regulations. < Based on a site review conducted on April 28, 2003, the ground where the septic system was proposed to be constructed had a slope that exceeded 45%. The slope was measured by the Environmental Health Department at 56%. < The lot was 4.86 acres in size. The proposed drainfield location was situated above a road cut. < The proposed septic system design calls for the installation of a 20 millimeter PVC liner on the downhill side and ends of the drainfield. < The design also indicated that a berm would be constructed to divert surface water run off, and seeding of disturbed areas after construction. < The private water well was proposed to be located at least 200 feet from the septic system drainfield. < Due to the steep slopes at the location of the proposed drainfield, there may be an increased risk of sewage surfacing downslope of the drainfield location. < The Environmental Health Department recommended consideration of approval of the requested Exception with the following conditions: < That no adjacent property owners object to this request for an Exception. < That a surface water run off berm was constructed immediately upslope from the drainfield. < That a 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on the downslope side to a depth of 8 feet below grade. < That all disturbed areas shall be seeded after completion of the system installation. < That blasting or boring, on a four foot square blasting grid, was conducted to create bedrock fractures to a depth of fourteen feet below the grade of the drainfield open hole excavation, if bedrock was discovered within that 14 feet. < In the event of any suspicion of ISDS failure, Clear Creek County would be authorized by the owner to investigate any source of contamination at the owner’s expense. < That a valid ISDS permit was obtained. < This case was consistent with prior cases.

Mr. Stern stated that they had no legal concerns but they did want to make some corrections to the display map on the lots they owned. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-91, exception request for Eric and Jennifer Winslow, owners, for an Exception to the ISDS regulations for a 56% slope. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and read the conditions as listed by Mr. Etcheson. The vote was unanimous.

BOARD OF HEALTH HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION #03-92, FOR ISDS VARIANCE ON A 67% SLOPE, FOR HART/COMMANDER, OWNERS,

Page 141 of 246 SADDLEBACK RIDGE ESTATES: Environmental Health Department Chris Etcheson presented. Property purchase from the Hart/Commander group, Jerry Gross, and Jerry and Mary Stern attended the hearing. Mr. Etcheson made the following statements: < The new septic system was proposed to be installed within less than 35 feet horizontally of a slope in excess of 45%. The actual slope was 67%. < The Clear Creek County Board of Health could either approve or disapprove the applicant’s request for an Exception from the ISDS regulations. < Based on a site review conducted on May 7, 2003, sloping ground within 35 feet of the proposed septic system area exceeded 45%. The slope was measured by the Environmental Health Department at 67%. < The proposed septic system location was an old roadway cut that created a level area on a steep hillside. < The lot was 4.86 acres in size. < The proposed drainfield location was not situated above a driveway or a road cut. The proposed septic system design called for the installation of a 20 millimeter PVC liner on the downhill side and ends of the drainfield. < The design also indicated that a berm and swale would be constructed to divert surface water run off, and seeding of disturbed areas after construction. < The private water well was proposed to be located at least 200 feet from the septic system drainfield. Due to the steep slopes at the location of the proposed drainfield, there could be an increased risk of sewage surfacing downslope of the drainfield location. < The Environmental Health Department recommended consideration of approval of the requested Exception with the following conditions: < That no Adjacent Property Owner object to this request for an Exception. < That a surface water run off berm be constructed immediately upslope from the drainfield. < That a 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on the downslope side to a depth of 8 feet below grade. < That all disturbed areas shall be seeded after completion of the system installation. < That blasting or boring, on a four foot square blasting grid, was conducted to create bedrock fractures to a depth of fourteen feet below the grade of the drainfield open hole excavation, if bedrock was discovered within that 14 feet. < In the event of any suspicion of ISDS failure, Clear Creek County would be authorized by the owner to investigate any source of contamination at the owner’s expense. < That a valid ISDS permit was obtained. < This case was consistent with prior cases. < This lot would need to have the ISDS constructed on the parcel adjacent so they would have access. Once this parcel in question constructed their ISDS, the road would not be usable.

Mr. Stern asked about the safety of uphill ISDS pumping systems and power outages. Mr. Etcheson stated that these systems were quite common. They were built with an air relief valve to allow water to drain back into the tank. During power outages, whatever room was left in the tank was the storage left during the power outage. Usually, there was an alarm system in case of a power outage. These alarms had to be on a separate electrical circuit. Mr. Gross confirmed that this system had an alarm. He added that the wells operated on electricity also. Therefore, during a power outage, water could not be pumped into the tank. This would prevent an overflow or backup. If water leaked into the system, then there could be a problem. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-92, for an ISDS variance on a 67% slope for Hart/Commander, owners, Saddleback Ridge Estates. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Mr. Gross confirmed that he had filled out the required paperwork as the potential purchase of the property in order to apply for this variance. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

Page 142 of 246 CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - MAY 29, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on May 29, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following: • zoning enforcement issues, 1041 regulations, river outfitter licensing, and water rights issues as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); • personnel matters but not regarding commissioners or elected officials or to discussions of personnel policies generally as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f).

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 3, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 3, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM THE SHAHEEN GROUP TO CLEAR CREEK COUNTY, VIRGINIA CANYON: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-98, ESTABLISHING AN AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATION PROGRAM FOR THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY OFFICES IN GEORGETOWN: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LETTER TO CDOT REGARDING THE SENIORS RESOURCE CENTER APPLICATION FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE SENIORS RESOURCE CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL REQUEST FOR A WATER PUMP FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING CONTRACT FOR 2003-2004: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT MODIFICATION AMENDMENT FOR THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY MASTER PLAN: In attendance were Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson, Road and Bridge Service Unit

Page 143 of 246 Manager Tim Allen, and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen stated that she would like to remove the third item from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the remaining Consent Agenda items. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the Seniors Resource Center application, Commissioner Sorensen stated that these agreements stated that should the Seniors Resource Center be successful in their grant application, that Clear Creek County would have to provide a match of as much as $10,000. Mr. Abrahamson added that funding for the operations portion of this application would come from any revenues and user fees. Commissioner Sorensen asked what would happen to the investment in capital if the grant was successful but the transportation provided was not viable. Mr. Small stated that certain federal funding required that a grantee keep the awarded operation for a certain amount of time. The State would receive administrative reports on the program. If the capital item was to be no longer used, the State would be informed and they would handle the disposition and make a determination. Mr. Small estimated that the grant funding would also be pro-rated. CDOT would have some form of control in this process as they were the State agency handling the 5310 and 5311 funding.

Mr. Loeffler stated that the grant agreement language was acceptable standard format. The exhibits that were not attached entailed: a scope of work, audit requirements, security agreement, option form letters, and a change order letter. Mr. Loeffler recommended not signing the grant agreement letter until it was needed. The letter to CDOT for the funding could be signed at this time and submitted. Mr. Small stated that the match for this grant could come from the sales tax fund as this was a special project. However, there would be a time when the operational budget would require funding and this could not be pulled from the sales tax fund. Commissioner Dale stated that the feasibility study would lead the transportation group in the right direction of where to find revenues and who to subcontract with the County. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Seniors Resource Center agreement so it could be signed when needed by the Seniors Resource Center and to approve the letter to CDOT for the 5310 and 5311 funding. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-62, REVISION TO ROAD CUT PERMIT AND ROAD ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT FOR USE OF COLLATERAL: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Mr. Allen made the following statements: • This hearing was to consider Chapters 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Road Design Standards for Clear Creek County. • The word “developer” needed to be defined. The intent was, if development caused an increase in average daily traffic to match the amount of traffic in a higher classified road, then the developer would have to upgrade the road to the next classification. • This standard would be utilized to address rezonings, subdivisions, the Development Review Process, and Official Development Plans, but not individual building permits. • Anything other than the individual builder building a home would be subject to performing a traffic analysis that might upgrade the classifications of existing roads. • Regarding Chapter 5 and utility cut permits, Mr. Allen and Mr. Loeffler had been working with Qwest to compile regulations for utility locates and utility work. • The sections in this chapter that were modified or added were overhead height, soil compaction, relocation time period and removal, site plans of each project and as builts, confidentiality, permit timelines between October 1st and May 31st, and the warranty period. • Regarding Chapter 6 on road acceptance and maintenance, Mr. Allen received no comment on this chapter and he also realized that an official LID (Local Improvement Process) had not been adopted for the County. • Chapter 7 dealt with process to exceptions to design and structure standards. Mr. Loeffler asked how the appeals would be handled if an applicant wished to appeal the Road and Bridge requirements. Mr. Allen replied that there was always the likelihood of field changes. If the change was not large, then the Road and Bridge department could work with the developer. However if the changes were large, it could come to the Board of County Commissioners. There was the challenge of knowing where the line was drawn on what issues should come to the Board of County Commissioners and which

Page 144 of 246 could be handled by Road and Bridge. The Board agreed to handle these field changes on a case by case basis with some coming to the Board of County Commissioners and some being handled by Road and Bridge. • Chapter 8 handled enforcement and requirements for the Subdivision Improvement Agreements. • Chapter 8 also dealt with use of collateral and this section was carried over from the Subdivision Regulations already used by the County.

Mr. Loeffler suggested that Mr. Allen bring a final resolution back to the Board of County Commissioners with the remaining Chapters 2-4. Commissioner Dale made the motion to continue the hearing to June 24, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD MEETING: There were no reports from the Emergency Services District Board.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CHAPTER 4 OF THE ROADWAY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL UNDER THE 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE: Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel presented. Secretary II Annette Colle attended the hearing. Mr. Vogel made the following statements: • Mr. Vogel presented additional information for the Driveway Permit Requirements, Chapter 4 of the Roadway Design and Construction Manual. • During the first hearing for the new Driveway Standards, several items were discussed to be addressed at the next hearing for June 3, 2003. The following statements were in reply to the issues discussed. • A Zoning Disclosure Form was to be completed prior to the issuance of any Driveway Permit. The form stated the current zoned use of the property, the minimum lot size required to build, the maximum height of any structure, minimum setbacks and any platting or special conditions imposed by a land use case. By requiring this form to be completed, an applicant was informed of the permitted uses of the property and other requirements that may be adhered to for development. • With the exception of a property being zoned Buffer, all zoning districts were allowed to apply for a driveway permit and construct an access to the property. The County does inform the property owner that if a zoning change was required for development, the road design standard may also change. An example would be rezoning from residential to commercial. • The new regulations contain standards for parking areas. These standards were not adopted within the existing Driveway Design Standards. Section F under 4.74 Standards for Parking Areas, stated that parking areas could be constructed in lieu of meeting the driveway grades. Since the 18% cap was considered a driveway grade standard, the parking area would then be required for driveway grades fo 12% to 18%. • The Evergreen Fire Protection District had submitted a letter regarding the driveway standards which stated that “we would not like to approve grades over 12%, but this District will look at grades over 12% on a case by case basis.” • Mr. Vogel stated that Jefferson County had a maximum of up to 10% and some with 12% for south facing properties. Commissioner Poirot made the point that properties on the east end of the County were much different from the mining claims on the west end. Mr. Vogel stated that the regulations could possibly differ by Fire District if the Board chose. The Board discussed having the Fire Chief’s be the final approval on certain driveways. The Board discussed possible takings issues if driveways/access were not approved for certain properties. Mr. Vogel replied that the reason for the Wildfire Mitigation Point System was to remove the takings issue. The difficulty with this situation was that some County roads were steeper than 14% so property owners would complain that their driveways were the same grade and should be allowed. Mr. Loeffler recommended against two standards for the same County by Fire District. He was concerned that the Fire Districts may then refuse services. • Mr. Vogel recommended one standard for the entire County. He added that he should be the approval person for the driveway permits instead of the Fire Chiefs, since the County had two districts. • Mr. Vogel added that he would inform the Fire Chiefs that the County was one step

Page 145 of 246 closer to lower grades by imposing a cap of 18%. In the past, there was no cap at all. Mr. Vogel stated that the Evergreen Fire Protection District and the Clear Creek Fire Authority each had their own preferred requirements, i.e., cisterns and sprinkler systems, respectively. • Mr. Vogel stated that he had only issued three permits at 18% or greater and there were few others at this grade. Mr. Vogel stated that Building Inspector Deb Kirkham was concerned with areas such as St. Mary’s and Saddleback due to the grades. However, it was not a takings issue if the property owner could still build. The owner may have to move the building site to obtain emergency services properly but they could still build.

Commissioner Dale noted that as stated by the Ambulance Department, they could continue to have to buy the most expensive ambulances due to the terrain and mileage in order to respond. Any limit was better than no limit at all.

Mr. Loeffler noted that CAPP, the County’s insurance, did not cover takings claims. Commissioner Dale asked how Gilpin and Summit dealt with this situation. Mr. Vogel replied that they had not had any takings issues. Commissioner Sorensen replied that Summit County had a TDR process in place to assist in this situation. It was possible that these counties did not have the same steep road problems as they were larger valleys. Commissioner Poirot stated that as long as the Wildfire Mitigation Point System was in place, this should assist the County with the steep grade issues. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Chapter 4 of the Roadway Design Standards Manual with the modifications discussed under the 1997 UBC. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, it was noted that this Chapter would be adopted by Resolution #03-109 and would take effect as of June 4, 2003. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 5, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 5, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Planning Commission Chairman Steve Schultz, Henderson Mine representative Jerry Hannon, Planning Commission member Jack Stauffer, U.S. Senator Allard’s aide Andrea Richard, and Office of Economic Development and International Trade representative Chuck Broerman attended the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and negotiating strategies with regards to economic development in Clear Creek County as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 12, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 12, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in

Page 146 of 246 attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following: • Discussion of County owned lands in Blue Ridge and St. Mary’s areas as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a) • discussion of regulations with regards to mine reclamations; grazing leases, the City of Golden, the Empire Pit, the Public Safety Committee, the Fountain Gulch Fire, the Jechura property, and the Clear Creek Tourism Bureau as allowed by CRS 24-6- 402(4)(b); • discussion of personnel matters but not regarding commissions or elected officials or to discussions of personnel policies generally.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 17, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 17, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES: This hearing was cancelled.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LIQUOR LICENSE FOR MARIETTA INC., D.B.A., MARIETTA’S RESTAURANT: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Joseph and Carol Martinelli attended the hearing. Ms. Reimer stated that all fees were paid and all the departments had approved the permit. As before, a neighborhood had to be established for the new balance. The neighborhood was described as the ski traffic on U.S. Hwy 40, and the area between Berthoud Pass and Idaho Springs. Mr. Loeffler explained that once the neighborhood was established, the County needed evidence that this establishment met the needs of the neighborhood. A petition was attached to show support of the establishment. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the neighborhood as stated with the ski traffic on U.S. Hwy 40 and the area between Idaho Springs and Berthoud Pass. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Reimer stated that Carol Martinelli would be the onsite manager. Mr. Martinelli stated that they had, in the past, had two liquor licenses at this establishment and he was a former Denver Police Officer so he was familiar with TIPS training. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the liquor license for Marietta Inc., d.b.a. Marietta’s Restaurant. Commissioner Dale seconded and the emotion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FRETAC COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES FUNDING REQUEST; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COLORADO WORKS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-109, AMENDING THE BUILDING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF CLEAR CREEK COUNTY ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION #99-119; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SECURITY AGREEMENT FOR GILBERE/HORLICK, BARBOUR HEIGHTS; CONSIDERATION

Page 147 of 246 FO APPROVAL OF EPA CONTRACT WITH CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-108, CONCERNING USE OF COUNTY LAND BY COMMERCIAL RIVER OUTFITTERS: County Land Director Lisa Vogel presented. Clear Creek Metro Rec District Director Mark Cucinella, Planner II Sarah Kaminski, Planner II Doug Lesh, Clear Creek Rafting owner John Rice, and residents Donna Moody and Merinel Williams attended the hearing. Ms. Vogel made the following presentation: • In April of this County Attorney to discuss the possibility of the County implementing a permitting system for commercial river outfitters. • On May 5, the owners of eight rafting businesses attended a meeting at the courthouse. • They suggested a program similar to the Idaho Springs “Revocable Park Use Permit” system to be developed. • In their opinion, this would help protect the natural resource of Clear Creek and enhance the recreational experiences of the rafters. • They expressed concern regarding the limited size and length of Clear Creek and suggested this would help eliminate over-crowding, which had occurred on the Arkansas River prior to the implementation of a permitting system. • Resolution #03-108, concerned the use of County land by commercial river outfitters and a licensing system. • After meeting with ROCC, County Lands Department had come up with a draft licensing system. • This licensing system would be applicable to only 2 County lands parcels. • This licensing did not apply to any private rafters or kayakers, only commercial outfits. • This license would be for one season only and one license per business. This license was also consistent with the State statutes on river outfitters. • The criteria for obtaining a license and the permit fees were listed in the resolution. • The fees were $100, non refundable, and 25 cents per rafter on the river. • The resolution explained denial and revocation of the license. • A draft license was presented to the Board. • At this point, the County Lands Department would like to establish this permitting system with the vision that the Rec District would take over long term management of the program. The funds collected would be used to better the access points, i.e., restrooms, changing rooms, etc. • There were presently 15 rafting companies using Clear Creek and the application and resolution would be sent to them. If the companies did not comply, then they would be allowed no access on County lands. Mr. Rice explained that if the companies still continued to use the access without permit, they would be charged with trespassing. Members of ROCC would help to enforce permitting. If a river outfitter was convicted of trespassing twice, they would lose their license to operate permanently. • Mr. Rice explained that this was not a way to eliminate business on the creek but to control the usage. The Arkansas River had trouble with too many companies on their river and ROCC did not want this to happen to Clear Creek. Mr. Rice supported approximately 10-15 outfitters on Clear Creek. Mr. Cucinella stated that the Rec District would follow the lead and guidance of the County on the rules of the river.

Mr. Rice asked if a County process time could be included in the resolution for the permits. HE also wanted the season listed in the resolution to be April 15th to October 30th. Mr. Cucinella expressed his support of the program and the participation of ROCC. Mr. Rice stated that ROCC wanted to participate in order to improve the access points and to promote the safety of the river and industry. Mr. Rice stated that he was working with Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson on a safety map of certain river locations for response.

Ms. Williams made the following comments: < She expressed concern with regard to the use of County right of ways for buses to pull off on. She saw this as a safety issue. There was a regular and significant use of the buses using the County right of way and there was a safety concern if these buses were dropping off or picking up passengers. < Ms. Williams also expressed concern as to whether this use of County right of way

Page 148 of 246 complied with zoning regulations. There needed to be compliance. < Ms. Williams wanted the resolution to be consistent with regards to littering.

Mr. Rice made the following statements: • Clear Creek Rafting did not have a policy of loading or unloading guests in the county road right of way. • The only reason the drivers pulled over was to ensure the safety of rafters in certain portions of the creek that were dangerous. • They had worked on this with former property owners along the right of way, Bettale and Levin. • Mr. Rice could not speak for other rafting companies but most followed the lead of Clear Creek Rafting. • If there was a problem, the Sheriff or State Patrol would have issued the rafting companies a ticket.

Mr. Loeffler agreed that the County's Ordinance #5, would also handle any traffic infractions in the County right of way. Commissioner Poirot asked if there would be a benefit to designating certain pull outs for the rafting companies. Mr. Loeffler stated that this would require a meeting with Road and Bridge Director Tim Allen. Commissioner Sorensen asked about Ms. Williams zoning issues. Ms. Vogel stated that the Hiawatha Placer was zoned Planned Development and could be used for rafting access. The other parcel at the Twin Tunnels was zoned Commercial- Neighborhood and was established to allow uses with the general character of the area.

Mr. Loeffler noted that the rafting companies had until June 26th to apply for a license to use County lands. The Board approved the change in the dates of the season to April 15th and October 30th.

Ms. Moody made the following statements: • Based on the number of people rafting each year, she felt the County was underselling itself on the price of the license. • She did not think this was enough funds per year to upgrade the access points for rafters.

• She added that some of these rafting companies were not located in Clear Creek County so their guests were spending their money in other counties. • The rafting companies were a heavy use on the creek and a hindrance for fishermen. • She wanted the County to indicate what the funding collected would be used for.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to allow more time for discussion on these issues to 1:30 p.m. on the same day. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE FEE FOR THE DAILEY GROUP: Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer presented. Secretaries Cyndie Ruschmyer and Tracy Bennetts, Applicant Mr. Dailey, and applicant William Ericson attended the hearing. Ms. Writer made the following statements: • This hearing went to the Board of Adjustment on May 6th. • This applicant was also granted a variance in 1998. They did not have time to complete their project so the case returned to the Board of Adjustment again to obtain another five years. • The change in the building plans went from 360-ft to 450-ft. • The Board of Adjustment approved the second variance but not the refund for the second variance fee. • The Board of Adjustment felt that the Dailey's were responsible for their own delay in building and should not be granted a fee waiver for the second hearing.

Mr. Dailey made the following statements: • He stated that he was granted a variance in 1998 and he was unaware of the expiration of the initial permit until he applied for a building permit. • He was also charged an additional $45 for a permit to the previous owners of the property. He wanted this refund considered as well.

Page 149 of 246 Ms. Writer stated that this case required just as much work the second time as the first time as it had changes in square footage and setbacks. The fee was justifiable. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to deny the variance fee waiver for the Dailey group. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF DEFENSIBLE SPACE FEE WAIVER FOR WILLIAM ERICSON, ALVARADO ROAD: Secretaries Cyndie Ruschmyer and Tracy Bennetts, and applicant William Ericson attended the hearing. Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel presented. Mr. Vogel made the following statements: • Mr. Ericson had applied for a building permit to construct a garage at 400-sq. ft. • Any construction over 400 sq. ft required a defensible space plan. • Mr. Vogel stated that he did complete a site visit but no defensible space mitigation was required. The defensible space fee was $150 which was derived on an average of marking trees and inspections. However, this home did not require these measures. • Mr. Vogel stated that he was only completing half of this fee amount in what he had to do on this job.

Mr. Ericson agreed with Mr. Vogel's presentation. He added that the trees which were present were very old and substantial in size to remove. Commissioner Dale did not want to set a precedent in having the homeowner decide when defensible space was needed. He found these inspections very necessary. Commissioner Sorensen agreed and stated that reductions to fees were willing to be heard by the Board. Commissioner Poirot agreed to reduce the defensible space fee to $75 for the Ericson's. Commissioner Dale seconded and commented that the inspection and mitigation would occur. The vote was unanimous.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-108, CONCERNING USE OF COUNTY LAND BY COMMERCIAL RIVER OUTFITTERS: Ms. Vogel continued her presentation. Mr. Rice and Ms. Moody attended the hearing. Ms. Vogel made the following statements: • To address the right of way issues in this resolution was not appropriate, however, the safety issue was important. • Ms. Vogel was unsure of where to include these issues in the resolution. Mr. Loeffler stated that Ordinance #5 dealt with the pull offs on the County right of way and did not need to be addressed here. Commissioner Sorensen recommended that Ms. Vogel and Mr. Loeffler review this situation without addressing it in the resolution. • Commissioner Sorensen suggested that the permit fee be reviewed every two years to make sure that the fees were used properly and the amount of the permit was appropriate.

Mr. Rice stated that it was his future vision to combine this permit fee with that of Idaho Springs and have one permit for the entire County. Ms. Vogel proposed to the group that the permit fee be raised to $200 and the fee structure to be reviewed annually. Regarding zoning, Ms. Vogel stated that they could rezone one of the parcels if needed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-108, concerning use of County land by commercial river outfitters with the changes mentioned. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #03-99, Sol and Dorothea Flax, Georgetown and #03-100, Shirley Bemel, Georgetown: Sol and Dorothea Flax attended the hearing. County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. Flax stated that he and his wife and Ms. Shirley Bemel shared one unit in the Millsite Townhomes in Georgetown. Mr. Flax stated that he noticed that both he and his wife and Ms. Bemel were being charged taxes for an entire unit and not half of a unit. He requested a refund for this in past years. Ms. Settle stated that by statute, she could only refund the past two years. Ms. Bemel asked that the schedule number be changed to the same number to prevent this from happening again. Ms. Settle agreed. Ms. Settle recommended approval of a refund for the prior two years to the Flax’s and Ms. Bemel. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of approval of refund for protests #03-99 and #03-100. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Page 150 of 246 #03-106, Richard Ducate, Hidden Valley: Mr. and Mrs. Ducate attended the hearing. County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Ms. Settle stated that this was a small cabin in Hidden Valley behind the Western Inn Trailer Park and she recommended denial. She stated that the value was $79,720 and the comparables were over $100,000. Mr. Ducate stated that the place was falling apart and he could not get there to work on it. Ms. Settle stated that there was no adjustment for a worse building condition. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-105, Willis Bergen, Brook Forest Estates: Willis Bergen attended the hearing. County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. Bergen requested, again, the Senior Exemption status for his property. This was an ongoing concern for him as he was on a fixed income. He was aware that the County was working on affordable housing projects and that Idaho Springs did utility discounts for seniors. Commissioner Poirot replied that it was the neighbors selling their homes for higher prices that drove up the values. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of partial approval. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-101, Robert Hickam, Personal property in Idaho Springs: Robert Hickam attended the hearing. County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Dr. Hickam stated that he had retired from dentistry and had given up his music studio and personal property in Idaho Springs. Ms. Settle agreed that the Assessor’s office forgot to remove the personal property when Dr. Hickam left the premises. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of approval. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-102, Lani Steiner, Silver Plume: There was no representation from the Steiner group. County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Ms. Settle stated that this was a home in Silver Plume that had burned down and was rebuilt. This abatement was to correct the value for 2001 and 2002 since it was vacant from the burn. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of approval. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-103, Nancy and Greg Ego, Georgetown: There was no representation from the Ego group. County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Ms. Settle stated that the Ego’s put on an addition and they had two lots. The addition crossed onto both lots so this would take the second lot to residential. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of approval. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-104, Donald Hood, Empire: There was no representation from the Hood group. County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Ms. Settle stated that this was a very steep parcel west of Empire and across from the Conestoga Park. It was very steep and small and she recommended a downward adjustment to $500 from $15,000. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of approval. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-113, J.A. Gilmore, Virginia Canyon: There was no representation from the Gilmore group. County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Ms. Settle stated that this was an M-2 parcel valued as an M-1 and this abatement would correct this zoning. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of approval. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 24, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 24, 2003 at the

Page 151 of 246 Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-94, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT #03-TSUP-03, FOR RON EARTHMAN, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A POLE BARN WITHOUT A PRIMARY RESIDENCE, BARBOUR HEIGHTS: Planner II Doug Lesh presented. Applicant Ron Earthman, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Adjacent Property Owners Cindy Dicken, Conrad and Jerri Fredele and Susan Serpa attended the hearing. Mr. Lesh made the following presentation: • The legal description was combined lots 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of the Barbour Heights Subdivision and a portion of the vacated Skyline Drive. • The vacant land was approximately 2.6 miles southwest of Idaho Springs on Soda Creek Road. • The property was zoned MR-1. • The request was to allow construction of a 24' X 32' foot pole barn with a height of 14'6", prior to building a primary residence on the site. In a recent hearing on June 3, 2003, the Board of Adjustment granted a Special Exception for the Placement of Temporary Living Quarters (21'5" 5th Wheel trailer) on the property for a period of 18 months. • The requested term was three years or until the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the single family residence, whichever occurred first. • Adjacent Property Owners and review agencies were notified by mail on June 2, 2003. Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on June 4, 2003. One Adjacent Property Owner, Conrad Fredell responded that he had reviewed the proposal and had no conflicts. Environmental Health Department Specialist Chris Etcheson and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel both responded that they had reviewed the proposal and had no conflicts. • Water and sewer were not required to be provided at this time, as it was proposed to use the pole barn solely for the storage of equipment and not for residential purposes. The temporary living quarters (5th wheel trailer) recently approved by the Board of Adjustment was equipped with self contained water and sewage facilities which were considered adequate to meet the expected demand for these services during the construction of the primary residence. Evidence of a legal water supply and issuance of an ISDS permit would be required prior to construction of the primary residence and would be addressed in the future as part of the building approval process for that structure. • The property was currently accessed via a U.S. Forest Service road easement located approximately 2.6 miles southwest of Idaho Springs off of Soda Creek Road. Although not yet finalized, the Forest Service was in the process of amending their easement to to add the road to the existing Barbour Heights Private Road Easement. The access was determined by the County Site Development Inspector to meet all legal access requirements, and driveway permit #03-038 was issued on May 30, 2003. The permit was currently active, and up to date. • A Defensible Space Permit #24020 was issued on May 31, 2003 and was currently active. The applicant planned on submitting a building permit application for the pole barn by August 31, 2003, and construction of the barn was expected to be completed by the end of September. The applicant planned on submitting a building permit application for the primary residence by May 31, 2004, with framing completed by July of 2004, and receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy by June 24, 2006. • The applicant had submitted two bids as estimates to cover the cost of tearing down and removing the 24' X 32' pole barn and revegetation of the site. The County Road and Bridge Department estimated the cost at approximately $2500, while Anderson Gus Contractors estimated the cost at $5000. • Staff recommended approval subject to the stipulations and conditions as stated in the draft Resolution #03-94. • Mr. Lesh explained that a pole barn was simply post and beam construction and had a dirt floor. • As soon as the primary residence was built, the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit and the Board of Adjustment exception would terminate.

Page 152 of 246 Ms. Serpa made the following comments: • She had concern over the metal sided pole barn. She found it very commercial and not fitting with the neighborhood. Mr. Lesh noted that the construction materials were not governed by the Board of County Commissioners. • She was concerned this pole barn would bring down property values. Mr. Earthman replied that this was the only fireproof construction material he could find and he was willing to negotiate color.

Mrs. Fredell made the following statements: • The proposal of a red metal siding barn with a green roof was too loud and offensive. She preferred a beige or brown if possible. • She was also concerned with outside lighting and preferred it downcast and shielded. Mr. Earthman replied that he was unsure if the barn would have electricity at all.

Ms. Dicken asked if these structures would be on the ridgeline. Mr. Earthman replied that this was his preference. Ms. Dicken added that during her refinance, a key factor was that her view was unobstructed. Mr. Earthman replied that due to setback requirements, this was the only place to put the structures. He wanted to plant pine trees around the structures to enhance the view. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that the County had not yet compiled ridgeline regulations. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Board of County Commissioners could not impose ridgeline regulations in this case but they did place restrictions when selling County lands. The Board recommended that Mr. Earthman work with the neighbors on colors so that everyone could hopefully be happy. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve #03-94, Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit Case #03-TSUP-03, for Ron Earthman, Barbour Heights with the requested term until 2006. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Mr. Loeffler noted that the financial guarantee was a stipulation of approval for $2500. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-115, GRANTING AUTHORITY TO FRANK YOUNG OF THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION TO EXECUTE AND MANAGE GRANT AGREEMENT: In attendance were Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young, Open Space Commission member Fran Enright, and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck. This authority was for the $15,000 grant for trails for the Elmgreen and U.S. Hwy 6 County lands only. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-115, granting authority to Frank Young of the Open Space Commission to execute and manage the grant agreement for the $15,000 trails grant. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY FROM MELANIE REESE: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR JANOWSKI, SILVER LAKES; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR SHARING FIREFIGHTING COSTS; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WATER LEASE WITH HIDDEN VALLEY MUTUAL WATER CO.; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CDBG GRANT FOR HUMAN SERVICES; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFYING OFFICER FOR THE CDBG GRANT; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE GRANT AWARD FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Small requested that the Wildland Urban Interface Grant be removed from the Consent Agenda due to matching funds requirement on the grant. The group had not reviewed the housing assessment needs study so this was also removed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items with the removal of the housing needs study and the Wildland Urban Interface Grant. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The Board requested that these items be on the agenda the following week.

Mr. Vogel made the following statements regarding the Wildland Urban Interface Grant: • The grant was $29,000 for a slash collection program which would fund a position at the Transfer Station to facilitate the amount of slash coming in. This position would be a

Page 153 of 246 temporary full time position. • There would be $1000 left over for the volunteer Defensible Space program and two seminars to educate homeowners. There was a possibility that Laura Nay could apply for a grant to fund a new chipper for the County. • Mr. Vogel recommended that the slash program only last until September as once the snow fell, people were not doing defensible space work. • The match for this grant would be compiled by using the citizens time and the citizens would sign off on their time at $11.68 per hour. This match idea was approved by Rich Homann at the Colorado State Forest Service. Additionally, a dollar value of $16 per cubic yard of slash brought in would be calculated to be used from the grant with the citizens time as the match. • The Colorado State Forest Service would release $10,000 or 25% up front on this grant. As more slash was brought in and the reports were sent to the Colorado State Forest Service, more reimbursement would be released to the County. • Mr. Vogel would present this proposal to Chief Accountant Carl Small in writing for his review.

The Board amended their motion, second and vote to continue this hearing to 4:15 p.m. today.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-93, ADDING A SECTION 26 TO THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS REGARDING ROAD VACATIONS: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Ms. Kastens made the following statements: • Section 26 was proposed to be added to the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations to handle Road Vacations. • In the process of township zonings, the Planning Department considered all platted road rights of way to be unzoned property and any other road would assume the zoning of the property which runs through it. • These new regulations made this process an auto-zone of former road rights of ways and/or a rezoning in some cases. • This regulation also repaired all roads vacated in the past. • There would no longer be confusion on whether a former road area was zoned or not.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-93, adding Section 26 to the Clear Creek County Zoning Regulations for Road Vacations. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FEE WAIVER FOR THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE FOR A REZONING HEARING: Planner II Doug Lesh presented. Clear Creek/Gilpin Homeowners Association President Dave Gallagher, residents Sergio Panelo, Eva Panelo, and Jack Winkler attended the hearing. Mr. Gallagher made the following statements: • Mr. Gallagher was requesting the fees be waived/reduced for a rezoning application. • The application was to rezone five parcels of land in the York Gulch area currently under the U.S. Forest Service ownership from MR-5 to Buffer. • The rezoning would serve to facilitate the future transfer of this land from the U.S. Forest Service to the five adjoining landowners in the area. • This would be a three step process which would include the rezoning, the subdivision of the five lots and the Combination of Lots Agreements. • Mr. Lesh stated that the County had zoned this land as MR-5 during the township zoning process but the zoning would not take effect until the Forest Service sold the land. • Mr. Gallagher was requesting this waiver on behalf of the Forest Service and they had consented to allowing Mr. Gallagher present the request. • The normal fee would be $1330 for the rezoning and the homeowners had already paid $8500 for appraisals and a survey to split the land before the Forest Service even sold them the property. The homeowners were asking the County to meet them and the Forest Service halfway. • Mr. Lesh noted that two homesites would be eliminated by approving this rezoning. • Mr. Gallagher stated that by having the Buffer zoning instead of the MR-5, it would reduce the homeowners purchase price from the Forest Service. The Forest Service was compelled to sell their land at the highest and best use price. He added that this

Page 154 of 246 additional land could not be built on anyway due to zoning requirements.

Mr. Loeffler expressed concern with regard to this case setting precedent to others wanting a waiver of fees. He added that this was a complicated case in that the landowner was the Forest Service and not the same as dealing with private land. After staff’s initial research into this request, Mr. Lesh stated that although it appears that the request was straightforward, and was unlikely to require any additional processing time beyond that which was usually associated with a rezoning case, there was also little evidence to suggest that the case expenses would be any less than the application fee. Mr. Lesh added that Mr. Gallagher did have good points in the reasoning for his waiver. Commissioner Dale made the motion to waive half of the fees for the rezoning hearing for the Forest Service for the lots mentioned. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CORONER CAPITAL REQUEST FOR VEHICLE: Coroner Don Allan presented. Undersheriff Stu Nay and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Allan made the following statements: • Mr. Allan was requesting a large pickup truck with a camper shell (with no windows) for removals. The truck would have to be a 5-speed for the terrain and weather in the mountains. • This type of vehicle was needed due to the County’s topography. • This pickup would last 5-6 years. • The cost of the pickup would equal the County having to request a removal from a Denver company. Mr. Allan recommended that they accept the truck purchase and keep the removals with him as many of the locals knew and trusted him. • Mr. Small noted that the operating costs could be absorbed by the Coroner’s budget. Mr. Allan thought these costs would be low as the truck would only be used for removal calls. • Mr. Allan would work with some of the local dealerships to find a long bed truck with a single cab. Mr. Nay noted that 70% of the calls they received were trauma related and it was easier to clean the back of the truck than a van.

Commissioner Poirot made the approval the capital request for a truck for the Coroner for removals at a $22,000-$24,000 purchase price. Commissioner Sorensen and Commissioner Dale agreed.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-62, REVISION TO ROAD CUT PERMIT AND ROAD ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT FOR USE OF COLLATERAL: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following statements: • Mr. Allen noted some minor changes in Chapter 7 with regards to “deviations of standards”. • The Board of County Commissioners would be the authority to permit a deviation from standard. Chapter 5 reflected the language and discussions held between Mr. Loeffler and Qwest. • The cost burden of relocations would not be on the County. • Relocation time limits were changed to 60 days. • Chapter 6 addressed the process for roads being adopted into the County maintenance schedule. • Mr. Allen requested that the Board adopt Chapters 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Roadway Design Standards Manual.

Commissioner Dale recommended that these chapters be adopted and that the LID (Local Improvement District) process be formalized and adopted by the County. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-62, adopting Chapters 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Roadway Design Standards Manual. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-110, AMENDMENT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE AND PERMIT EXPIRATION

Page 155 of 246 SCHEDULE: Land Use Service Unit Manager Deb Kirkham presented. Ms. Kirkham made the following statements: • This amendment was approved by Mr. Loeffler. • This amendment was in response to a Service Unit Managers meeting with concerns over the length of time it took for a building permit to expire. • The current expiration showed a term of 6.5 years for the permit to expire. • This increased the number of inspections without the closing of permits. • The proposal was to have an expiration of building permits at 2 years to complete a project. • A clause was included for extensions. Two to three months prior to expiration, a notice would be sent to the permit holder reminding them of their upcoming expiration. • If the permit holder renews early enough, it would only cost them half of the normal building permit fee. • If drawings were changed, this may cause an add on fee.

Mr. Loeffler disagreed with sending a notice 2-3 months before permit expiration. He stated that if the County failed to send the notice, the courts would see the blame as being on the County. Mr. Loeffler did not want this liability to rest with the County. Mr. Loeffler preferred that the permit holder keep track of his/her own schedule and know when the permit expired.

Ms. Kirkham noted that there was a 10% increase in the fees as there had not been a fee increase since 1999. Additionally, a fee was established for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for $100. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-110, amendment to Building Department Fee Schedule and permit expiration schedule. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Mr. Small made the following statements: • The Cost Allocation Plan allocated general services to federal programs and was due on June 30th of each year. • The plan required the prior year’s numbers and included a certification by the Board of County Commissioners that they had reviewed and agreed with it. • The departments who provided services under the Cost Allocation Plan were Central Services, Human Resources, Finance Department, Information Services, Clerk and Recorder, Treasurer’s Department, and Building Operations. These departmental costs were applied to Social Services to show the indirect costs for providing them services. • The total net cost was $369,000 for a 6.05% indirect cost rate and salaries for Human Services totaled $526,000. • The final claim from Clear Creek County to the State Department of Health and Human Services was $31,879 as the State paid the County 35% of the total resulting in an $11,000 reimbursement to the County. • Mr. Small recommended that the Board of County Commissioners sign this report as they had in prior years.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve and authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ALLOWING COMMISSIONER POIROT TO APPROVE VOUCHERS DURING THE ABSENCE OF COMMISSIONER SORENSEN AND COMMISSIONER DALE: Commissioner Sorensen and Commissioner Dale agreed to allow Commissioner Poirot to approve the County vouchers on June 25, 2003 during their absence.

Page 156 of 246 CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE GRANT AWARD: Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Vogel made the following statements: • The grant award had to be signed and returned to the Colorado State Forest Service by July 1, 2003. • As the grant award was not as much as was applied for, Mr. Vogel made adjustments to the budget and eliminated some portions of the project. • Mr. Vogel recommended charging the grant award $16 per cubic yard of slash brought in to the Transfer Station. • Mr. Vogel predicted the slash amounts brought in would triple due to the program being free to those who participated. Mr. Vogel also predicted this would triple the required match needed for the grant requirement. • This grant would cover the costs of the operator during the slash season and the equipment costs. • Mr. Vogel noted that the grant could not be used for capital purchases, i.e., a wood chipper. A chipper could be purchased with the insurance money and leased at an hourly rate which could be used as a grant match also. Commissioner Dale expressed concern with leasing out the chipper for fear the public would abuse it. • Mr. Vogel stated that the chipper should be leased only to people working on their lands and not to contractors clearing property. It would also not be available to people required to do defensible space for their development. • Mr. Vogel proposed that the new operator at the Transfer Station could deliver the chipper to private homes and train the homeowners on its operation. The employee could also maintain the chipper. The Board expressed concern on the amount of time required to operate a chipper program based on past experience. • Mr. Vogel agreed to meet with Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen and Transfer Station Director Mike Duran to discuss this employee and the time allotted them. Mr. Vogel also agreed to discuss the chipper maintenance costs with Laura Nay who ran the program prior.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Wildland Urban Interface Grant Award between Clear Creek County and the Colorado State Forest Service. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2003

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

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Page 157 of 246 MINUTES - JUNE 30, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on June 30, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, and County Attorney Robert Loeffler.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following: • Central City annexation, Empire permit, zoning enforcement with regards to Jechura as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 1, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 1, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT ON COUNTY LANDS, SECTION 3, T4SR73W, FOR ROADSIDE LODE FOR RAISHA QUINN; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT ON COUNTY LANDS, SECTION 3, T4SR73W, FOR ROADSIDE LODE FOR RAISHA QUINN; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BILLING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE AMBULANCE DEPARTMENT; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-117, COMBINATION OF COUNTY OWNED LANDS IN SECTION 35, T3SR73W; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-62, APPROVAL OF CHAPTERS 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, OF THE ROADWAY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS #01-50, #00-24, #98-171, AND TO ESTABLISH FEES; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL REQUEST FOR TWO DUMP TRUCKS FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT STATE CONTRACT FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: In attendance was Planner I Sarah Kaminski, Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, Planner II Holland Smith, and Engineer Ron Barta. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of #3: Ambulance billing agreement, and #4: housing assessment study. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners convened as the Board of Health.

BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION #03-111, FOR EXCEPTION TO ISDS REGULATIONS FOR A SLOPE OVER 45%, FOR DENNIS ANDERSON, SADDLEBACK RIDGE ESTATES: Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson presented. Environmental Health Department Tech Tracy Bennetts, Engineer Ron Barta, Planning Commission and member Donna Moody attended the hearing. Mr. Etcheson made the following statements:

Page 158 of 246 # The new septic system was proposed to be installed within less than 35 feet horizontally of a slope in excess of 45%. The actual slope was 52%. # The Clear Creek County Board of Health could either approval or not approve the applicant’s request for an Exception from the ISDS regulations. # Based on a site review conducted on June 10, 2003, sloping ground within 35 feet of the proposed septic system area exceeded 45%. The slope was measured by the Environmental Health Department Director at 52%. The lot was 2.8 acres in size. # The proposed drainfield location was not situated above a driveway or a road cut. # The proposed septic system design calls for the installation of a 20 millimeter PVC liner on the downhill side and ends of the drainfield. # The design also indicated that a swale could be constructed to divert surface water run- off, and seeding of disturbed areas after construction. # The private water well was proposed to be located 140 feet from the drainfield area. The well would be deep grouted to a depth of 125 feet to maintain a physical distance of 200 feet from the drainfield to any ungrouted portion of the water well. # Due to the steep slopes near the area of the proposed drainfield, there may be an increased risk of sewage surfacing downslope of the drainfield location. # The Environmental Health Department recommended consideration of approval of the requested Exception with the following conditions: # That no Adjacent Property Owner object to this request for an Exception. # That a surface water run-off berm be constructed immediately upslope from the drainfield. # That a 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on the downslope side to a depth of 8 feet below grade. # That all disturbed areas shall be seeded after completion of the system installation. # That blasting or boring, on a four foot square blastin grid, be conducted to create bedrock fractures to a depth of fourteen feet below the grade of the drainfield open hold excavation, if bedrock should be discovered within that 14 feet. # In the event of any suspicion of ISDS failure, Clear Creek County would be authorized by the owner to investigate any source of contamination at the owner’s expense. # That a valid ISDS permit be obtained. # Mr. Etcheson stated that the Anderson’s were working on Lots 9A and 10A and the two septic systems would both be located on Lot 10A. Lot 10A would give easement to Lot 9A for their septic installation and maintenance. # If any failure of septic, the property owner would have to start the ISDS process over with possibly more depth and digging. # The ISDS contractor was left to do their best when backfilling around the liner. The PVC liner was very thick and durable. # If this system failed, it would hurt the homeowner as their were downhill from the leachfield. # The well on this property would have to be deep grouted. # Johnson Gulch traveled through the middle of Lots 9A and 10A.

Mr. Barta made the following statements: # He still disagreed with the measurement on slope. # Mr. Barta had a different way of measuring the drainfields. # Mr. Barta stated that Clear Creek County interpreted the code differently than other counties. # Mr. Barta stated that manufacturers did not sell an 8-ft liner. Mr. Etcheson stated that they did make liners in this size. # Mr. Barta stated that his firm was not in favor of drilling 14-ft below the open pit hole. # Mr. Barta stated that this could be dangerous to dig or blast to this depth. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the County interpreted the regulations this way.

Ms. Moody made the following statements: # She had noticed a large number of Board of Health Exceptions in the past few months. # The Planning Commission had been relying on slope constraints to control growth. # If there was a danger of putting in a home on this hillside, maybe it should not be located there. # If these lots were infringing on other lots, then it would be more potential problems for

Page 159 of 246 the future. Commissioner Sorensen understood Ms. Moody’s concerns and stated that with these exceptions, conditions were added to address the public health issue. The placement of the well and the drainfield were addressed. Commissioner Dale agreed stating that more of these lots would arise as many of the flat lots in the County were gone. Mr. Loeffler stated that this applicant would still have to satisfy the ISDS regulations.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Board of Health Resolution #03-111, for exception to ISDS regulations for a slope over 45% for Dennis Anderson, Saddleback Ridge Estates. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION #03-114, FOR EXCEPTION TO ISDS REGULATIONS FOR A SLOPE OF 51% FOR CHRIS JOHNSON, SADDLEBACK HEIGHTS: Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson presented. Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Adjacent Property Owners John Olson and Paul Thomas, and Environmental Health Department Tech Tracy Bennetts attended the hearing. Mr. Etcheson made the following statements: • The new septic system was proposed to be installed within less than 35 feet horizontally of a slope in excess of 45%. The actual slope was 55%. • The Clear Creek County Board of Health could either approve or not approve the applicant’s request for an Exception from the ISDS regulations. • Based on a site review conducted on June 10, 2003, the ground where the septic system was proposed to be constructed had a slope that exceeded 45%. • The slope was measured by the Environmental Health Department Director at 55%. • The lot was .75 acres in size. • The proposed drainfield location was not situated above a driveway or road cut. The proposed system design called for the installation of a 20 millimeter PVC liner on the downhill side of the drainfield. • The design also indicated that a berm would be constructed to divert surface water run- off, and seeding of disturbed areas after construction. • The private water well was proposed to be located 100 feet from the drainfield area. • The well would be deep grouted to a depth of 245 feet to maintain a physical distance of 200 feet from the drainfield to any ungrouted portion of the water well. • Due to the steep slopes at the proposed location of the drainfield, there could be an increased risk of sewage surfacing downslope of the drainfield location. • The Environmental Health Department recommended consideration of approval of the requested Exception with the following conditions: # That no Adjacent Property Owner object to this request for an Exception. # That a surface water run-off berm be constructed immediately upslope from the drainfield. # That a 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on the downslope side to a depth of 8 feet below grade. # That all disturbed areas shall be seeded after completion of the system installation. # That blasting or boring, on a four foot square blasting grid, be conducted to create bedrock fractures to a depth of fourteen feet below the grade of the drainfield open hold excavation, if bedrock should be discovered within that 14 feet. # In the event of any suspicion of ISDS failure, Clear Creek County would be authorized by the owner to investigate any source of contamination at the owner’s expense. # That a valid ISDS permit be obtained. # Since the Board of County Commissioners packets were issued, an Adjacent Property Owner, John Moore, had submitted a letter. Mr. Moore was in opposition to this proposal and so were other neighbors. This property owner had applied for a permit in the past and was denied. The property owner was aware of his limitations on this property and should have know an ISDS would not be permitted. # Mr. Etcheson noted that this property was also considered by the Board of Adjustment and it was found incompatible with the neighborhood and would impact the health and welfare of the area. Mr. Loeffler stated that he was unsure if the Board of Adjustment would reconsider this case if the Board of Health allowed an exception. He added that the Board of Health was here to decide the exception and not the Board of Adjustment consideration. Mr. Etcheson noted that even though the applicant could obtain this

Page 160 of 246 permit did not ensure him of success with other permits.

Mr. Olson made the following statements: • He lived near this parcel. • He had many concerns on the steepness of this slope. • He was opposed to this application due to concerns of sewage rising to the surface and posing dangers to the Adjacent Property Owners.

Mr. Thomas made the following statements: • Mr. Thomas explained that in the history of this lot, a trailer had rolled down this steep slope. • All the contents of the trailer were left on the hillside and he had cleaned it up by winching himself down the hillside. • The trees below this lot were dead due to the cut in the slope.

Mr. Barta made the following statements: • This septic system was designed to work on this site. • The design was unusual due to the steepness but not impossible. • The system was designed with a trench system so it was easier to build and less material had to be moved. • Infiltrators and suspended pipe were used to reduce erosion. • A dosing siphon was implemented and two 6-ft beds were designed.

Commissioner Dale stated that it was in appropriate for a well and septic to be on a lot that was less than an acre. Commissioner Sorensen agreed. Mr. Barta asked if this parcel was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in the past. Mr. Loeffler replied that it could have been approved but that did not guarantee permits.

Mr. Olson and Mr. Thomas requested that the Board not approve this case due to the slope steepness. Commissioner Dale made the motion to deny this exception to the ISDS regulations for a slope in excess of 45% for Anton Hosch. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DEED RESTRICTION FOR SZENTMARTONI AND BLAISE PARTIES IN SECTION 35, T3SR73W: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: • If approved, these deed restrictions would require the respective property owners of Tract 1 and Tract 2 of the O’Neal Division of Land 2003 to adhere to the following: • “The Property and Dominant Property shall hereafter be treated, owned, used, mortgaged, and sold, for all purposes, as one unified property, and shall not be sold as two separate parcels, or further subdivided. Title to the Property hall be transferred and conveyed with title to the Dominant Property, automatically, whether or not the instrument of conveyance identifies both parcels.” • Exemption by Resolution Case #03-EX-06, approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 29, 2003, reconfigured existing boundary lines to create Tract 1 and Tract 2 of the O’Neal Division of Land 2003. The Exemption by Resolution stated that the property owners have agreed to deed restrictions that will require their respective parcels of land to be sold together with their respective City lots. • The request was to require the Szentmartoni and Blaise parties to convey their respective tracts and City lots as one unified property in perpetuity. • A Combination of Lots Agreement could not be done in this case since the case included city lots. • Ms. Kaminski also requested that the Board of County Commissioners sign the Mylar plat of the Exemption Case.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the deed restrictions for the Szentmartoni and Blaise parties. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-49, ROAD NAMING OF

Page 161 of 246 UNNAMED ROAD ON STEIN DIVISION OF LAND TO HUMMINGBIRD TRAIL, FALL RIVER AREA: Mapping Director Matt Taylor presented. Resident Justin Knobloch and Land Use Secretary Cyndie Rushmyer attended the hearing. Mr. Taylor made the following statements: • This road naming process had been in progress for a long time as the residents could not agree on a name. • 75% of the residents have to agree on a road naming before it could be considered. • The name agreed on was Hummingbird Trail and the Planning Department agreed with this name. • Required notices were posted in the Clear Creek Courant.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-49, naming of unnamed road on the Stein Division of Land in the Fall River area to Hummingbird Trail. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: This hearing was changed to a working session only.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 8, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 8, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF HOUSING NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS ASSESSMENT FROM MELANIE REES; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BILLING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE AMBULANCE DEPARTMENT; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WATER STORAGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IDAHO SPRINGS AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF GEORGETOWN AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY RELATING TO GUANELLA PASS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS RIGHT OF WAY: Regarding the housing needs assessment, Commissioner Sorensen stated that the changes would be made in the agreement to the County Attorney’s request. The Board reviewed the Guanella Pass agreement with the Town of Georgetown and that the County would handle the condemnations. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the items listed. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

OPENING OF SEALED BIDS FOR COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith stated that only one bid was received. The bid was from John Jefferson for $650. Mr. Smith stated that the minimum bid was $272. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve and accept the bid from Mr. Jefferson for $650 for the county lands parcels. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

Page 162 of 246 CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 9, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 8, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, and County Attorney Robert Loeffler.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding: • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); • conference with attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions with regard to water, Jechura, open mines, the Empire Pit Mined Land Reclamation Board Permit Amendment as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b).

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 15, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 15, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Dale attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JAIBG GRANT APPLICATION AND LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE RIGHT TRACK PROGRAM; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-119, SUPPORTING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE GOCO TRUST FUND FOR THE FUN-FOR-ALL COMMUNITY PARK PLAYGROUND PROJECT; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION STUDY BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE SENIORS RESOURCE CENTER: Right Track Program Coordinator Mary Ann Gold and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Gold stated that her grant funding for the other half of her position at the Trailhead Wilderness School had run out and her position had been downsized. Therefore, she would not be applying for the JAIBG grant funding. She added that the District Attorney’s office would apply for these funds. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of item #1, the JAIBG grant application. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. During discussion, Mr. Small noted that the GOCO grant required a $5,000 match from the County Sales Tax fund. The vote was unanimous.

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

PUBLIC HEARING TO COMMENT ON THE HUMAN SERVICES CDBG GRANT: Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken and Human Services Secretary Candy Morehouse presented. Ms. Dicken made the following statements:

Page 163 of 246 ‘ As this was a grant from the CDBG, HUD required the County to hold a public hearing for the public to inquire how the CDBG funds were utilized. ‘ This CDBG grant would be used for the renovation of the Community Service Center in Idaho Springs. ‘ The grant award was for $138,000 and this would be enough funding for the renovation. ‘ Projects with the grant funds included expansion of the front office space, movement of some office walls, resolving the HVAC issue and improving the air flow. ‘ Some insulation had been blown into the walls and ceiling for sound proofing.

As no public was in attendance, the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Dale attended the hearings.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-112, TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND APPROVE RECONFIGURATION OF 108 MINING CLAIMS SURFACE RIGHTS IN YORK GULCH, INITIATED IN 1979: Planner II Ruth Kastens presented. Secretary III Cyndie Rushmyer and Planner I Sarah Kaminski attended the hearing. Ms. Kastens made the following presentation: ‘ Ms. Kastens had been working on this project for five years. ‘ In the lat 1970's/early 1980's, a development company called Clear Creek/Mauzy Joint Venture was selling mining claims in the York Gulch area. ‘ The majority of the claims they sold wad reconfigured surface boundaries. ‘ Wile the County accepted an application for this, Staff cannot locate any documentation of final approval. ‘ When the County noticed that claims were being sold with precedent changes, they made the developer comply with agreements and some improvements. ‘ The Planning Staff had tracked down all mining claims to the sites they were currently, including those which had undergone Combination of Lots Agreements and BLM and Forest Service purchases. ‘ An additional exhibit would be recorded with the Resolution to note the Book and Pages for each claim that was affected by this reconfiguration. ‘ The underlying mineral rights would remain the same and this reconfiguration only affected surface rights. ‘ In this area, the Forest Service would retain their large tracts and sell off their small tracts, most of which were buffer. ‘ Homeowners Association president Dave Gallagher had been working with the Forest Service to establish and clarify access to each of these claims. ‘ Access was a significant issue in this area and had resulted in numerous court cases for the homeowners. ‘ Some of these affected claims cross the County boundary and the deed noted this. It was noted that even though these claims crossed the County boundary, they were not severed by the County boundary. Mr. Loeffler suggested a possible agreement with Gilpin County to not allow purchasers of these claims to build two homes on the one claim. Mr. Weaver stated that this agreement would be similar to the present agreement between Clear Creek County, Idaho Springs, and Central City. ‘ Regarding roads, Ms. Kastens stated that in 1998, the County did a Resolution adopting the township in this area which displayed public roads. Mr. Loeffler recommended that the roads not be on this map for this reconfiguration as the Board was attempting to legalize a de facto situation and people had already been buying and selling these lands. ‘ Ms. Kastens stated that she had informed the inquiring residents that this reconfiguration had nothing to do with the roads and did not affect their property boundaries. ‘ Ms. Kastens stated that many of these claims had been researched back to their original deeds. ‘ The BLM, the Forest Service and the Homeowners Association all collaborated in this effort of reconfiguration. ‘ Public notice for this year was published int he Clear Creek Courant on June 25, 2003. ‘ All property owners involved in ths request were mailed notice on June 18th. ‘ Five property owners made inquiries for clarification of the proposed action and none had objections. ‘ Staff recommended approval of draft Resolution #03-112.

Page 164 of 246 With the changes in the Resolution to not show the roads and that the County boundary did not sever the mining claims, Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-112, the reconfiguration of 108 mining claims surface rights in York Gulch. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS TO SELL COUNTY LANDS TO JGE MINING CO., KAZEL MOUNTAIN MINES CORP., AND SHARON E. ROBERTS, IN SECTION 3, T4SR73W; AND TO JAMES A KOEPSEL IN SECTION 4& 5, T4SR73W: Planner Holland Smith presented. Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman and County Lands Director Lisa Vogel attended the hearing. Mr. Smith made the following statements: ‘ The County would sell approximately 2.32 acres of parcel #1961-04-3-00-964, a 12.73 acre parcel, for $10,440. ‘ The County would divide the larger parcel through an exemption by Resolution for a fee of $150. ‘ Mr. Koepsel would be required to combine the 2.32 acres with the Harper Lode and closing would occur no later than September 2, 2003. ‘ County Lands recommended proceeding with the sale by executing two originals fo the contract by a signature of the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Contract to Sell to James Koepsel and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the Contracts to Sell to the JGE Mining Co., Kazel Mountain Mines Corp., and Sharon Roberts, Mr. Smith made the following statements: ‘ Due to the significantly large parcel price for each portion to be conveyed to the contiguous property owners, County Lands Staff concurred that it would be in the best interest of the department to negotiate a Contract To Sell for each contiguous property owner. JGE Mining Co., will be purchasing 33.04 acres for $59,472, Kazel Mountain Mines Corp., would be purchasing 13.02 acres for $23,436, and Sharon Roberts would be purchasing .12 acres for $216. ‘ Additionally, County Lands Staff agreed that a deadline should be imposed to complete the sale of these County land parcels in a timely manner. ‘ Therefore, the Contract To Sell included a closing date to finalize the sale of these parcels.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Contract to Sell to JGE Mining Co. and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Contract to Sell to Sharon Roberts and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the documents. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the Kazel contract, Mr. Smith stated that in the prior week, Mr. Kazel had agreed to survey a road so that a plat could be recorded and easements could be granted. County Lands was aware that the road in this area had been altered by Mr. Kazel. This survey plat was a condition of the Contract to Sell. County Lands wanted to make this road a public road however there were portions of another road, Gold Digger Trail, which were not public. Mr. Smith stated that one option was to not sign the Contract to Sell until the survey plat was submitted by Mr. Kazel. Another option was to trade land with Mr. Kazel and avoid the access issue. Commissioner Poirot asked Mr. Smith to request from Mr. Kazel the survey plat and then the County would sign the Contract to Sell. Additionally, he requested that Mr. Smith obtain an easement from JGE Mining Co., as a back up plan. The Board refused to sign the Contract to Sell until Mr. Kazel presented the survey plat.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Equalization. Minutes for the Board of Equalization are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of

Page 165 of 246 Commissioners. The Board of Equalization then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-118, TO APPROVE CHAPTERS 2 & 3 OF THE ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS MANUAL: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen presented. Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen attended the hearing. Mr. Allen made the following statements: ‘ Mr. Allen presented Chapters 2 & 3 of the Roadway Design Standards Manual for approval. ‘ Mr. Allen stated that the Planning Commission had approved both of these chapters. ‘ These two chapters pertained to subdivisions as well as other areas. ‘ Mr. Allen had solicited Saddleback Development Corporation Engineer Rich Cassens’ assistance on these chapters for the perspective of a developer. ‘ Mr. Allen also solicited the assistance of EMERGE member Dick Woods from the perspective of a homeowner. ‘ These chapters included definitions of road classifications, road design, future planning of roads and presented the criteria for engineers to work with for design elements. ‘ These chapters discussed erosion control and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel was consulted on this section to keep both departments’ regulations consistent. ‘ Chapter 2 discussed issues with regard to the placement of mailboxes. ‘ Chapter 3 presented information on construction specifications, street closures, permitting processes, compaction testing, backfill fo culverts, and sub-grades. ‘ The maximum road grade discussed and agreed on was 9%. Anything above this would require a Deviation of Standard.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-118, to approve chapters 2 and 3 of the Roadway Design and Construction Manual. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 22, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 22, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR THE FOLLOWING GROUPS: LEROY FOR 2 PARCELS IN SECTION 25, T3SR73W; BS&C ENTERPRISES FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 34, T3SR73W; O’FALLON FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W; POLAND FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 4, T4SR73W; WILSON FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 6, T4SR73W; GMJG, LLC FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 6, T4SR73W; KAZEL FOR TWO PARCELS IN SECTION 4, T4SR73W; CORRECTION DEEDS AND CORRECTION COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR THE FOLLOWING GROUPS: ABBOT FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 4, T4SR73W; MOSCH FOR 4 PARCELS IN SECTION 6, T4SR73W; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COUNTY POSITION WITH REGARD TO FOREST SERVICE RECEIPTS PROGRAM; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ABATEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND KENT LORENZ; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SRO GRANT CONTRACT; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WATER LEASING CONTRACT WITH HIDDEN VALLEY MUTUAL WATER CO.; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF

Page 166 of 246 COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR GALLATY, ECHO HILLS: In attendance were Planner II Holland Smith, Environmental Health Tech Tracy Bennetts, Undersheriff Stu Nay, Cindy Neely, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, and Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young. Regarding the water leasing agreement, Mr. Mauck stated that this was the final version with some issues clarified. It was specified that Hidden Valley would not have to pay for water if “no delivery” was the fault of Clear Creek County. Hidden Valley would purchase water in advance allowing the County to purchase more Vidler rights.

Regarding the SRO grant, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners would have to be changed to Commissioner Sorensen. There was a form included in the grant to do this. Mr. Nay requested that Jackie Crady of the Sheriff’s office be allowed to sign the financials submitted in the grant administration. The Board approved this action. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the items under the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

As Commissioner Sorensen and Commissioner Dale would be absent on the voucher signing date of July 23, 2003, Commissioner Sorensen and Commissioner Dale approved Commissioner Poirot to sign and approve the vouchers on this date in their absence.

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-116, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #03-EX-10, SECTIONS 4 & 5, T4SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following statements: • This exemption, if approved, would divide County Land parcel #1961-05-4-00-961, a 25.48 acre parcel into a .15 acre parcel, a 1.76 acre parcel, a .04 acre parcel, a 6.59 acre parcel and a 16.94 acre parcel. • The northeastern portion of this parcel was intersected by Alps Mountain Road. • All five parcels would be sold to the owners of contiguous property with the requirement that the parcels be combined with their respective contiguous property through a Combination of Lots Agreements. • The parcel to be divided was zoned M-2. On approval of this division of land, the five parcels would remain zoned M-2. Additional building lots would not be created as a result of this division.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-116, Exemption by Resolution #03-EX-10 to divide County lands in Sections 4 & 5, T4SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Andy Bishop was getting the larger parcel. The vote was unanimous.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 23, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on at the Courthouse in

Page 167 of 246 Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - JULY 29, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on July 29, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT FOR EASTER SEALS OF COLORADO: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Ms. Reimer made the following statements: • All fees had been paid and all County departments were in approval of this permit. • There were no outstanding violations. • This permit was for three days so the total would be $30. • This event was the annual meeting for the Iron Pony Committee.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Events Permit for the Easter Seals of Colorado. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Equalization. Minutes for the Board of Equalization are kept separate and apart from the minutes for the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Equalization then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Dale left the hearings for another meeting.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-122, AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING FEES: Nursing Director Jean Barta submitted an explanation of the reasoning for increasing fees. The increases were due to the increasing costs of vaccines and the loss of grant funding for the Colorado On the Move Program. Certain fees would remain the same, i.e., TV, Hepatitis A and B, Tetanus and car seats. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-122, amendment to the County Public Health Nursing Fees. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 5, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 5, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

Page 168 of 246 CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COLORADO FOREST HIGHWAY ROAD #80, GUANELLA PASS ROAD PROJECT DELIVERY PROGRAM: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CEAF GRANT FOR HUMAN SERVICES: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ABATEMENT AGREEMENT FOR JECHURA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS FOR COORDINATED ELECTIONS BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND IDAHO SPRINGS, AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND GEORGETOWN, AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE CLEAR CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CONSIDERATION OF A MAIL BALLOT ELECTION: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WAIVER OF DIRECT SUB-GRANT AWARD JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2003: In attendance were Zoning Enforcement Specialist Staci Writer, Environmental Health Tech Tracy Bennetts, District Attorney’s representative Joe Flannigan, Human Services Secretary Candy Morehouse, Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault, Deputy Clerk and Recorder Arla Safe, and Chief Accountant Carl Small. Regarding the JAIBG grant, Mr. Flannigan stated that the grant deadline had been extended for his submittal.

Regarding the abatement agreement, it had been reviewed by both County Attorney Robert Loeffler and Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault. Ms. Thibault stated that Jechura would plead guilty and would be adjudicated as of today. The District Attorney would sentence him contingent on him complying with the abatement agreement. Provisions were included in this agreement that the County could clean up the land and bill Jechura if necessary. Commissioner Poirot stated that the value of the land alone was worth the risk of cleaning and billing.

Regarding the Guanella Pass agreement, Commissioner Dale stated that the report claimed usage of magnesium chloride on the roads. Commissioner Dale was hesitant on the usage of this product as CDOT was currently performing research on the side effects of this chemical. Commissioner Poirot stated that when it was time to use the product, they would consult with FHWA for another product. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the items on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

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

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-120, EXEMPTION BY RESOLUTION #03-EX-11, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 4 & 5, T4SR73W AND CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR UNPATENTED HARDEE GULCH CLAIM: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following statements: • This exemption, if approved, would divide County land parcel #1961-04-3-00-964, a 12.73 acre parcel into a 2.32 acre parcel and a 10.41 acre parcel. • This parcel was intersected by Gold Digger Trail. • The 2.32 acre parcel would be sold to a contiguous property owner, subject to combination with the owner’s contiguous property. • Sale of the property would resolve the encroachment of the owners home on County land and would satisfy the terms and conditions of a contract, executed July 15, 2003, between County and the contiguous property owner regarding the sale. The remaining larger parcel would be retained by the County until disposition at some future date. • The parcel to be divided was zoned M-1. On approval of the division of land, the two parcels will remain zoned M-1. Additional building lots will not be created as a result of

Page 169 of 246 this division. However, by virtue of the M-1 zoning, the smaller parcel being conveyed could have additional structures, other than a house, built on it.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-120, Exemption by Resolution #03-EX-11, to divide County land in Sections 4 & 5, T4SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the deed for the unpatented Hardee Gulch Claim, Mr. Smith stated that the owner of the claim wanted to relinquish it. The owner deeded it to the County, the County would not pay the maintenance fees to BLM, and the unpatented claim would be null and void. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Quit Claim Deed for the unpatented Hardee Gulch Claim. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 12, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Poirot attended later in the day.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF VIRGINIA CANYON PHASE 1 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RETAINER AGREEMENT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR BECKY SAINT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF METAL MANAGEMENT COLORADO CONTRACT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM CLAUDIA KROPWIANSKY TO CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: In attendance were Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen and Chief Accountant Carl Small. Mr. Allen stated that there were problems with the Virginia Canyon contract. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the exclusion of the Virginia Canyon Drainage Contract. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Allen made the following statements regarding the drainage contract: C There was a big difference between what was budgeted and what the bid results were. C A cost estimate from an engineering firm was used to budget this project. C Mr. Allen had budgeted $420,000 for this project and the bids came back at three times this amount. C Another issue was that the needed easements in the culvert 1 area were not yet obtained. C Mr. Loeffler had suggested to re-contact the engineering firms and downsize the project to fit within the budgeted amount. C If the culvert 1 area were omitted, the water runoff would flood the road as it now does. C Mr. Allen did not think the residents at culvert 1 would ever give easement. C One of the residents wanted a garage as their neighbor did and giving this easement would prevent that. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the County had taken criticism for allowing construction in a flood plain. Mr. Allen replied that the flood plain area stopped at the city limits below these homes. C To channel the drainage around or under these garages would be very expensive. C Mr. Allen stated that if they could channel the drainage under the Nelson garage and then across the Wilson property, they would be okay, however, this would prevent a

Page 170 of 246 garage for the Wilson’s. C Mr. Loeffler stated that the County could either condemn the garage, remove it, put in the culvert, and put back the garage or it could condemn the garage and remove it permanently. C Mr. Loeffler suggested having the garage appraised and compare the prices of channeling under it or removing the garage. C During prior hearings, Mr. Nelson claimed he would not build on the drainage channel but after blasting destroyed his car, he decided to build on the channel. C This project was expensive and required much engineering. Mr. Loeffler stated that it was worthwhile to do an appraisal on the garage. C Mr. Allen stated that Phase II of this project was to implement settling basins to alleviate debris traveling downhill. Clay Brown of Department of Local Affairs informed Mr. Allen that he should not appropriate funds from Phase I to Phase II. C Mr. Allen explained that since neither bid could be accepted due to price, he recommended rejecting both bids and resubmitting another Request for Proposal for a smaller scale handling only one or two curves. He added that the project should start at the bottom of the channel and work upward. C Mr. Allen would attempt to get a bid that included the moving of the garage and he would also apply for a grant extension. C Mr. Allen wanted to continue working with Parsons Engineering however, the two engineers that worked on this proposal were no longer with Parsons. He requested soliciting another engineer as he had the funding to do such. The Board agreed.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to reject the bids for the Virginia Canyon Drainage Phase I Contract. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR JGE MINING CO., KAZEL MOUNTAIN MINES CORP., AND SHARON ROBERTS, SECTION 3, T4SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following statements: C These deeds and Combination of Lots Agreements were subject to a contract which had been signed by the Board of County Commissioners prior to this hearing. C One condition of a contract was remaining and that was to have the funds to County Lands by Thursday. C It was acceptable to sign these deeds and Combination of Lots Agreements at this time because if the funds were not brought in, all deeds and agreements were null and void. C Mr. Kazel was supposed to have a contract with the Board of County Commissioners and a condition of this contract was to submit a survey of the road. Last week, this survey was submitted and it was recorded subject to road easements. Mr. Loeffler agreed that a contract was not needed with Kazel since his conditions were met and all that was left was payment by Thursday. C All of these parcels were to be combined with contiguous parcels. C Some of the lots would be combining M-1 lands with private M-1 lands.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Special Warranty Deeds and Combination of Lots Agreements for JGE Mining Co., Kazel Mountain Mines Corp., and Sharon Roberts provided the funding was submitted by Thursday, August 14th at 11:00 a.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-126, RESCINDING RESOLUTION #99-77, PROCESS OF WHEN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY TO MINING CLAIMS, AS THEY APPLY TO RESOLUTION #98-181, ARE BLOCKED: Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel presented. In attendance were Lawson resident Merinel Williams, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, and Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver. Commissioner Sorensen stated that this Resolution was brought to the Board during a work session whereby the staff discussed the pros and cons of the utilization of this Resolution. It appeared in some circumstances that people were using this Resolution for purposes it was not intended for. The Board reviewed the original intent of this Resolution and decided that it would not prevent them from handling situations of when public roadways were blocked. It would create a process by which the Board must determine the public good before

Page 171 of 246 taking action as opposed to having staff complete hours of research up front. Mr. Vogel made the following statements: C He wanted to rewrite this process for what it was intended. C The first step would be to meet with the Board of County Commissioners to determine the best interest of the public. C Another process would be written for road which fell under the RS 2477 status to be adopted and/or recognized. C In essence, the County would be replacing the Resolution #99-77, with two resolutions for two different processes. C No rights were being rescinded by rescinding this Resolution. C The highest priority would be to rewrite the one now being rescinded. C Resolution #98-181 was still in effect and the County had Colorado Statutes to support them on blocked roadways. C Mr. Vogel thought it would take approximately two weeks to have a new process written. Ms. Williams asked for clarification. She stated that many people used this process for a building permit application. She stated that if the public roadway determination was to have a public benefit and not a personal benefit for one property owner, she was in favor. Mr. Vogel replied that residents still had Resolution #98-181 for this process. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-126, rescinding of Resolution #99-77. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FROM THE VSO OFFICER: VSO Rick Scott presented. Chief Accountant Carl Small attended. Mr. Scott made the following statements: C He was requesting funding of no more than $900 for a bronze plaque honoring all veterans of all wars in this County to be at the base of the flagpole at the new Gateway Visitor Center in Georgetown. C This had also sparked Idaho Springs to complete their Veteran’s plaques in Citizen’s Park in Idaho Springs. C Idaho Springs now had plans for a Korean and Vietnam plaque. They had a plaque completed for the Gulf War. C There would not be an artist charge for the plaque in Georgetown as it was a bronze listing of words and names. C Apparently, there were no veteran memorials in Georgetown. C The best price Mr. Scott found on the plaques was for $756 for 18" X 22" plaque.

Mr. Small stated that this amount could be taken from the General Fund and coded to the Veteran’s budget. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the funding request for a Veteran’s plaque for not more than $800. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding conference with an attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions with regard to tax assessments as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING: This meeting was cancelled due to lack of discussion items.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 14, 2003

Page 172 of 246 The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 14, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice for the following: C conferences with an attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions with regards to the Hardin zoning violation, fiscal responsibility, the Library District, and Mad Creek litigation as allowed by CRS 24-6- 402(4)(b); C determining negotiating strategies and positions and instructing negotiators with regard to the Communications Center and the Burlington Ditch Co. as allowed by CRS 24-6- 402(4)(e); C the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal or other property interest with regard to County lands and Rights of Way in the St. Mary’s area as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a).

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 19, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 19, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CAPITAL REQUEST FOR STATE PROVIDER EMS GRANTS FOR RADIO EQUIPMENT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF VALE GRANT FOR HUMAN SERVICES: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM FRANKLIN CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., TO CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING TOWARD THE GATEWAY VISITOR CENTER COMMUNICATIONS CENTER: Chief Accountant Carl Small and Human Services Service Unit Manager Cindy Dicken attended the hearing. Regarding the radio grant, Commissioner Dale stated that this would not be a redundant project and would assist with car communications. Chief Accountant Carl Small stated that this grant had a 50% grant match requirement. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Ms. Dicken stated that the VALE grant was to train social workers to operate breathalysers and new software. The vote was unanimous.

PUBLIC AUCTION OF THE BOREALIS MINING CLAIM—HUKILL GULCH, COUNTY OWNED LAND BY TAX DEED: Chief Accountant Carl Small and Planner II Holland Smith attended the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen stated that one bid was received for this parcel. The bid was from Susan Evans in Pennsylvania for $1204. The minimum bid was $500-800 per acre and the parcel totaled 1.16 acres not in conflict with other claims. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the bid from Susan Evans for $1204. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Page 173 of 246 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-123, ADOPTION OF THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WITH ADDITION OF NEW SECTIONS TO PROVIDE FOR SPECIFIC PROCESSES: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Planners Ruth Kastens, Sarah Kaminski, Doug Lesh, and Holland Smith and Planning Commission member Donna Moody attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following statements: ‘ The majority of these changes were related to existing processes the County already administrates. ‘ These proposed changes were from the Planning Staff, County Attorney, Environmental Health Department, and the County Lands Staff. ‘ Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the proposal for format changes to several Articles of the Subdivision Regulations, and to add content relating to Correction Plats, Replats, Combination of Lots, Exemptions by Resolution, Boundary Line Adjustments and Minor Subdivisions. ‘ The vast majority of these proposed changes are related to existing processes that the County administrates, and therefore, would be more appropriately considered format changes than content changes. Even the new proposed articles regard processes that the County has historically processed, even though there has not been a documented format for these processes. Therefore, these proposed changes are coming from the recommendations of County Staff that also includes the County Attorney, the Environm ental Health Specialist, and County Lands Staff in order to clarify the platting process in Clear Creek County and to actually adopt some processes that have been used for years, but they just have not been identified in the Subdivision Regulations as an adopted procedure. ‘ More specifically, however, one article that does not relate to these format changes is the Boundary Line Adjustment process, in which Planning Staff received direct instruction from the Board of County Commissioners to make appropriate modifications due to a perceived abuse by the public of this administrative process. Explanations of each amendment is made below. ‘ Mr. Rollenhagen presented the following Additions: ‘ Article 7 - Minor Subdivisions ‘ In order to avoid confusion of whether or not this process was an “exemption” from the subdivision regulations, we took this process out of the Exemptions article and gave it’s own article. Why is the subdivision into four or fewer lots considered an exemption? Especially when any division of land must obtain approval in the same public process that any subdivision must obtain approval? This process is by no means an “exemption” from the regulations, rather, the process is just a simplified version of the full subdivision process. The very fact that this is considered a “subdivision exemption” by the County just confuses things. We also added one more criteria of evidence of a legal water supply for the lots proposed. ‘ Article 8 - Boundary Line A djustments ‘ We took this process out of the exemption article for the same reason as we did the minor subdivisions. However, this process has also been almost fully revamped as instructed by the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons. ‘ The Boundary Line Adjustment has been administrative in process for several yea rs because new building sites were not being created by a boundary line adjustment. However, recent cases have shown that this process can be abused contradictory to it’s intent. When the application to move a lot line is for the purpose of resolving an existing encroachment or deed conflict, the Board feels that the intent is being used correctly. However, some recent cases have seen developers acquire several mining claims, move property lines around in order to maximize building site potential, and then market them as residential building sites. In cases such as this, the BOCC has indicated that the boundary line adjustment is being used more as a means to circumvent the subdivision process rather than just resolve an existing encroachment with a neighbor. Therefore, the BOCC desires to give these requests further review. ‘ Article 9 and Article 10 - Replats and Correction Plats ‘ Surprisingly enough, these processes were outlined in the existing Subdivision Regulations (Article 2.210 and 211) but were never provided a process. Therefore, the purpose of these articles is to do just that. Correction Plats are for very minor technical revisions to an approved subdivision plat. Replats are any other changes proposed to an

Page 174 of 246 existing subdivision plat. ‘ Article 14 - Exemptions ‘ 1403 - Lot Combination ‘ 1404 - Exemption by Resolution ‘ These two processes have been used by the County for quite some time, even though there was never an adopted process for them. These are also more appropriately considered “subdivision exemptions”. In fact, the lot combination is identified in the Colorado Revised Statutes as a process that is to be exempted from subdivision. Additionally, the very definition of the Exemption by Resolution is to exempt those divisions of land that are considered to have unique circumstances and that the BOCC finds the request is not within the purpose of “subdivision” as described in CRS. ‘ Mr. Rollenhagen presented the following Changes: ‘ Article 1 - Administrative Provisions ‘ Under 103.01 through 103.04, we have to make the appropriate changes as these regulations apply to minor subdivisions, boundary line adjustments, replats, and correction plats, now that these processes are part of the Subdivision Regulations. ‘ Under 103.06.9, revisions had to be made to reflect the new lot combination process. ‘ 103.03 has been deleted because it seems irrelevant to explain exemptions in this article when they are identified and explained in their own article. ‘ 109 has been changed. This section regarding repeals identifies all previously adopted regulations. However, this is currently not an all inclusive list. In order to reduce this section’s maintenance whenever an update is approved, Staff is proposing to remove the specific regulations which would, by default, make it an all inclusive list Article 2 - Application Requirements and Procedures ‘ 201.02.3, at this time states that the preliminary plan and sketch plan can be combined into one process if the application proposes seven (7) or fewer lots. Staff proposes to change this to ten (10) because there appears to be a wide disparity in process between the minor subdivision and full subdivision, that it seems reasonable to provide for an intermediate process for a subdivision proposal that requests up to six (6) additional lots over the minor subdivision threshold. ‘ 210 and 211 have been removed because they referred to Replats and Correction Plats. Now that they are proposed to have specific articles, it is not necessary for these sections to exist. Mr. Rollenhagen presented the following General Modifications: ‘ Environmental Health Specialist Recommendations In each article that requires information for individual sewage disposal systems in the Submittal Requirements, Chris Etcheson has recommended that requirements be removed that involve “an analysis of the soil types consistent with the format of the Jefferson Soil Conservation District (JSCD), indicating soil suitability for proposed systems”. This is because the JSCD maps that have this information lack adequate scale and do not provide site specific detail. In addition, a requirement in the full subdivision process requires that either a percolation test or a soil profile analysis shall be provided. This is proposed to be removed because both of these are required in the ISDS regulations anyway. There’s no need to reiterate ISDS code in the Subdivision Regulations. ‘ Deeds Required for M inor Subdivisions and Boundary Line Adjustments As recommended by Planning Staff, and supported by the Assessor’s Office, part of the final documents required for Minor Subdivisions and Boundary Line Adjustments are deeds to be recorded with the plat that identify each new parcel. Documentation issues have arisen due to deeds being recorded that do not match approved subdivision lots. This requirement will solve that issue. ‘ Prerequisite This addition to Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14 merely documents the pre- application conference requirement with Planning Staff prior to an application submittal. ‘ Miscellaneous Other small, technical revisions have been made to better clarify the regulations. They are identified for the Board. ‘ The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review these proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on June 18, 2003 and continued the hearing on July 16, 2003. On

Page 175 of 246 July the 16th, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution #PC-03-14 that recommends approval of the proposed Subdivision Regulation changes. It passed with one vote opposed. The following were modifications that they made to the draft: ‘ Mr. Rollenhagen presented the following Additions: ‘ The Planning Commission included the requirement that all engineers submitting technical reports and plans should stamp them. ‘ “Calendar” was misspelled. ‘ “Affected”, when referring to an “affected party” in the Boundary Line Adjustment appeal process was changed to “aggrieved”. ‘ Since the Planning Commission’s public hearing, Staff has included some additional changes that will better accommodate the needs of the County Lands Department. One of the goals of these Subdivision Regulations changes is to allow for the County Lands Department to utilize the Boundary Line Adjustment process for their use rather than having to get approval through Exemptions by Resolution when they are transferring land into private ownership. The Planning Department understands that the County is not in a position to provide for a full land survey plat to be prepared for every piece of County Land that is transferred, therefore, language has been included that allows for publicly-owned land that is being transferred into private ownership to be exempt from the land survey plat requirement. ‘ Additionally, Staff changed the process for public lands that are being transferred into private ownership from being an administrative minor process to having to go through the full process. This is mainly because of the unique nature of County-owned land that warrants it to be reviewed by the Board. ‘ Mr. Rollenhagen presented the following Proposed Changes: Article 8 - Boundary Line A djustments ‘ 806.08.6 and 808.02.5 are changed to allow for public land being sold into private ownership to be exempt from the site plan requirements. ‘ 803.03.3; the criteria relating to County-owned land, was moved from the minor process to the full process. ‘ Miscellaneous ‘ Other small, technical revisions have been made to better clarify the regulations. They are identified for the BOCC. ‘ While the Board of County Commissioners has the opportunity to remand these additional changes for further Planning Commission review if they believe that it is meaningful additional or conflicting information, Staff feels that these changes are not substantial enough to warrant further Planning Commission review. ‘ Staff recommends APPROVAL of these Subdivision Regulations changes as provided to the Board.

Ms. Moody made the following statements: C She had been the “no” vote at the Planning Commission hearing. C Her concern with these regulations was that they did not address more than one entrance/exit being needed for subdivisions. C This was addressed in the Road and Bridge regulations but she wanted it addressed in these regulations as well. C There were only 2 current subdivisions in the County that had more than one access. C This was a fire danger and should be addressed.

Commissioner Sorensen agreed stating that this was a growing problem in the Saddleback area. Commissioner Sorensen recommended something in these regulations now to prevent it from becoming a future problem. Commissioner Poirot expressed concern to a takings issue. Mr. Loeffler replied that it was not a takings as long as the land could still be used. Commissioner Dale stated that this problem needed to be dealt with now as in the future, this secondary access could be a County expense. Commissioner Sorensen suggested continuing the hearing to address this in one of the sections. Mr. Loeffler stated that this did not need to return to the Planning Commission for review as it was already discussed.

Mr. Loeffler stated that the Planning Department had also proposed a new Article 11 for road and road easement vacations. The process was straight from the Colorado Revised Statues and was not a great substantive change. Commissioner Poirot and Commissioner Dale suggested this new article be heard by the Planning Commission. They suggested that the road access be added to the regulations, the new article be heard by the Planning Commission and then bring the entire regulations back to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to September 23, 2003 at 10:30 a.m. Commissioner Dale

Page 176 of 246 seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 25, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following: • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); • conferences with an attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions with regard to Guanella Pass Road, Mad Creek litigation, the Library District, the Community Service Center, and the Henderson Mine as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b).

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on August 26, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Bob Poirot was absent.

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT FOR CLEAR CREEK ROTARY: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Ms. Reimer stated that this permit was for the Clear Creek Rotary Lobsterfest Fundraiser. The property had been posted and all fees were paid. All departments were in agreement with this permit. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the permit for the Clear Creek Rotary. Commissioner Sorensen seconded

Page 177 of 246 and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR RUTH KASTENS: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM ROBERT AND SHIRLEY HERRES TO CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE THOMAS ALLAN ESTATE AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CDBG CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR CLEAR CREEK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FHWA 95% PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATE FOR THE GUANELLA PASS ROAD PROJECT: In attendance were Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver and Assistant County Attorney Sue Thibault. Ms. Thibault presented the exhibits for the Settlement Agreement. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the exclusion of #5: FHWA 95% Plans, Specifications, and estimate for the Guanella Pass Road Project. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

During discussion of the Guanella Pass item approval, Commissioner Dale stated that there were questions he had on this document: 1) limited access from Memorial Day to Labor Day during construction, 2) times of hauling, 3) hauling of materials only on the County side in which they would be used, 4) runoff channels with regard to Burlington Ditch Co., and 5) use of mag chloride on the road. Commissioner Sorensen stated that FHWA was informed by Clear Creek County that they were opposed to closing the road from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The haul time schedule was that no hauling would occur from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Cindy Neely of Georgetown had asked the Board of County Commissioners to emphasize that Clear Creek County materials be hauled through Clear Creek County and Park County materials be hauled through Park County. Mr. Loeffler stated that he had been trying to reach agreement with the Burlington Ditch Co. The ditch company was concerned that the new culverts create new erosion problems that would impair their water quality. Mr. Weaver replied that the FHWA had assured them that these culverts would be engineered so as not to cause sediment problems. Commissioner Dale expressed concern with regard to the use of mag chloride and requested another dust suppressant. Commissioner Sorensen requested that each of these concerns be clarified by the Board and sent to the FHWA. Mr. Weaver agreed to schedule Mr. John Knowles of the FHWA for a speakerphone conversation later this afternoon. Commissioner Dale made the motion to continue the hearing to 12:30 p.m. later in the day. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-121, REZONING CASE #281, SECTION 15, T5SR72W, FROM MR-1 TO AG FOR FRANK AND BRIDGET ANDERSON, UPPER BEAR AREA: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Don Coppage, applicant and caretaker of the area attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: T The request was to rezone the property from MR-1 to AG. T The location of the property was 387 County Rd. #483 and 388 County Road #483. T The property was approximately 33.61 acres of the Anderson Ranch, otherwise known as Parcel One, located Southwest of Evergreen and south of I-70. Parcel One was created by a Class B Exemption Case #2-87-BX, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on July 26, 1990. T The property was currently zoned MR-1 and two single family residences existed on this parcel at 387 and 388 County Road #483. A 1017 square foot two bedroom/one bath home, building in 1909, existed at 388 County Road #483. An 800 square foot, 3 bedroom/2 bath home, built in 1967, existed at 387 County Road #483. The 1017 square foot home would be replaced with a new home at the same location. When the new home was complete the old home would be razed. T The applicant was requesting to rezone the parcel from MR-1 to AG zoning district designation for Parcel One of the Anderson Division of Land. Since an illegal nonconforming use existed with two houses on this property, the applicant was given two options to correct this problem. Planning staff suggested that the applicant apply for a

Page 178 of 246 Special Use Permit to allow for the second residence or rezone the parcel to AG. The applicant chose to rezone the parcel to AG, since this zoning designation was compatible with the historic and existing uses in the surrounding area. An AG zoning designation would permit a single family residence as a principal use and a single family dwelling unit for employee or farm tenant as an Accessory Use. T Referral agencies and Adjacent Property Owners were notified on July 21, 2003 and Public Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on July 30, 2003. T Four responses were received from Adjacent Property Owners with no objection. T The Environmental Health Department, the Sheriff, and the Site Development Inspector had no opposition. T The Assessor’s office was required by statute to value by use, not by zoning. This property had been assessed as Agricultural. The property currently generated approximately $567.62 in property tax revenue annually. T Ms. Kaminski confirmed that a subdivision of this lot would be required to increase density, however, the chances were slim. T Ms. Kaminski confirmed that only one home was on the property now as the second one had burned down in the past. Under the new zoning, another home was not allowed to replace the burned one.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-121, Rezoning Case #281 from MR-1 to AG for the Anderson’s in the Upper Bear area. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-131, TO CONDEMN PROPERTY ON GUANELLA PASS ROAD: County Attorney Robert Loeffler presented. Mr. Loeffler made the following statements: T The land along the Guanella Pass Road right of way would have to be condemned by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. T Some of the land owned by the Burlington Ditch Co. was needed at this time to proceed with the Guanella Pass Road project. T The deadline for acquiring the land was September 1, 2003 in order for the FHWA to obtain their funding to begin the project. T As final negotiations were not yet complete with Burlington Ditch Co., condemnation proceedings had begun between the County and Burlington, therefore the FHWA could begin their process. T An offer was tendered in writing to Burlington at $1175 per acre. He had not yet heard back from Burlington on the price issue and they had not objected to the condemnation date. T The condemnation acreage totaled 1.5 acres.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-131, to condemn land on the Guanella Pass Road. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. It was noted that there was no public in attendance.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FHWA 95% PLANS, SPECIFICATION AND ESTIMATE FOR THE GUANELLA PASS ROAD PROJECT: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver presented. FHWA Project Manager for Guanella Pass Road John Knowles attended via speakerphone. Mr. Knowles made the following clarifications: T Regarding no hauling between Memorial Day and Labor Day, this meant that there would be no hauling from the towns of Georgetown and Grant. There could be hauling over the summit from the stockpiles but not into the towns. T The FHWA would be mining aggregate on the pass from the Duck Lake site and the Geneva Ski Area site. The ski area would also be a staging area. T Phase 1 of this project would be 90% in Clear Creek County and 10% in Park County. Therefore, 90% of the hauling would occur in Clear Creek County and 10% in Park County. Mr. Knowles did confirm that the hauling in Clear Creek County would be for the Clear Creek County portion of the road and the hauling in Park County would be for their portion of the road. T A total of 8.9 miles worth of work would be in Clear Creek County in Phase 1.

Page 179 of 246 T The equipment that would be hauled would be that for retaining walls, materials, culverts and fuel for the construction equipment. Also, asphalt/cement, chip seal, and macadam would have to be hauled. T The FHWA was proposing to use mag chloride during construction to hold the compaction of the road. It was also proposed to apply a second layer during Phase 2 of the construction. Commissioner Sorensen mentioned that Clear Creek County did not like mag chloride and requested another product. Mr. Knowles agreed to confer with the materials group to find other substitutes. Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern to the slipperiness of the roads from mag chloride. Mr. Knowles replied that mag chloride did not create a slippery effect. Mr. Knowles would ask his group about penn suppress and lignosulfonate. T Mr. Knowles stated that the concern now was to receive this letter of concurrence back and the details could be worked out later. T Regarding the Burlington Ditch Co. and the proposed culverts, Mr. Knowles stated that the FHWA was required to follow the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment storm water runoff regulations. The FHWA had created an erosion control plan. Mr. Weaver stated that presently this road did not require the County to fall under the Clean Water Act, however, after federal improvement, it would. Mr. Knowles replied that counties were responsible for gravel roadways that discharge sediment into water systems. This was why the FHWA and the Forest Service wanted hardened surfaces. However, this was not the approved surface in certain sections of the road. Mr. Knowles stated that the County would be responsible for these portions of the road and clean water in the streams. T Regarding the flow of runoff with the new culverts, Mr. Knowles stated that presently, the road was deteriorated by this runoff but with the new culverts it would protect the road. The FHWA through the Forest Service was implementing an extensive revegetation plan and that plan included using native seed and trees even on slopes that would not be disturbed. The result will be better off and less erosion than there was now. Mr. Loeffler appreciated Mr. Knowles comments with regard to Burlington however, he wanted the FHWA to know that Burlington was making an issue of these new culverts and the new flow. Mr. Knowles agreed to contact Burlington and explain the situation. He added that the Burlington section of the road was mostly rehabilitation and light construction with no heavy impacts. T Mr. Knowles stated that if there were more concerns of the Board of County Commissioners, to list them with the letter of concurrence and they would be noted by FHWA.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the FHWA 95% plans, specifications and estimates for the Guanella Pass Road project contingent on the following items which Mr. Weaver would outline in a letter to the FHWA: hauling, dust suppressant, runoff at the Burlington site, and the inclusion of the remarks made by Cindy Neely. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal or other property interest with the Open Space Commission as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 2, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 2, 2003

Page 180 of 246 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR COUNTY LANDS DEPARTMENT: KOEPSEL FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 4, T4SR73W; KRUGER FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 6, T4SR73W; ROBERTSON FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 24, T3SR74W; BRUSH PRAIRIE MINERALS FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 34. T3SR73W: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-128, NAMING OF UNNAMED ROAD TO GOLD RUN TRAIL, OFF SODA CREEK ROAD: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT FOR XCEL ENERGY FOR UTILITY CUT PERMIT FOR GUANELLA PASS ROAD: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-132, ASSIGNING MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN COUNTY PROPERTY TO THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION, SAXON MOUNTAIN AND OAKLEY LANDS: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF #03-134, RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE AMBULANCE DEPARTMENT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF USE OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FOR THE WITTER GULCH ROAD OVERLAY PROJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WIC CONTRACT RENEWAL LETTERS WITH THE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FROM THE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS (HCP) FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM THE STERNER GROUP TO CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF WATER LEASE WITH MUTUAL WATER CO: Planner II Holland Smith, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, and Road and Bridge Assistant Judi Wilson attended the hearing. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items with the exclusion of item #3: Pledge and Security agreement with Xcel and #4: Open Space Commission management of certain property. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Dale asked what the water was for in the Mutual Water Co., contract. Mr. Weaver replied that it was for dust suppressant on the east end of the County. Mr. Mauck noted that this water was only for use through the month of October. Ms. Wilson confirmed that the amount for the traffic impact fees was $21,450. The vote was unanimous.

Regarding the pledge and security agreement, the agreement was for Xcel Energy through their contractor Lillard and Clark Construction Company. The Board asked why this agreement did not meet current regulations. Ms. Wilson replied that this negotiation began with Xcel before the new regulations were adopted. The Board contacted West End Foreman Patrick Buckley via speakerphone. Mr. Buckley confirmed that negotiations with this company had begun before the current regulations were adopted. He added that the permit was issued in March but a security agreement amount could not be decided until the construction company got on site. Therefore the security agreement was coming after the permit. Additionally, Lillard and Clark knew they would not be on site for the actual road cut until this time. Mr. Loeffler stated that ordinarily, security agreements were signed before the permits were issued. Mr. Buckley stated that Lillard and Clark had to have the paperwork/permit in advance and then would figure the security agreement after the engineering was complete. Mr. Buckley confirmed that the FHWA had reviewed this project as they had met on site with Xcel and Lillard and Clark. Commissioner Sorensen confirmed that this section of the road would not be under construction

Page 181 of 246 with the FHWA for two more years. The County would be depending on Lillard and Clark to perform their project and return the road to a condition to hold up until the FHWA came in. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Pledge and Security Agreement with Lillard and Clark for Xcel Energy. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-124, REZONING CASE #280, FROM MR-5 TO BUFFER FOR APPLICANT DAVE GALLAGHER AND OWNER, THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE, YORK GULCH: Planner II Doug Lesh presented. Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Applicant Dave Gallagher and resident Eva Panelo attended the hearing. Mr. Lesh made the following statements: ‘ The area proposed for rezoning was approximately 17.5 acres of vacant land located off of Mule Deer Trail approximately 420 feet to the south of the intersection of Red Tail Ridge Road and Mule Deer Trail. ‘ The US Forest Service owned the subject site. ‘ Mr. Dave Gallagher was the applicant and was in attendance at this hearing. ‘ The applicant was seeking to rezone the subject site from MR-5 (being Mountain Residential - Large Lot - Single Family) to Buffer and Mining One in order to facilitate the future transfer of this land from the Forest Service to five adjoining property owners in the area. The proposed rezoning was intended to ensure that there will be no future residential development of this land once it was transferred into private ownership. ‘ It should be noted, that the applicant originally requested that all the lots in question be rezoned to Buffer. However, as it appears that the residence on the Jumbo No. 2 likely encroaches onto GS Lot 52, the applicant was advised to amend their application such that this .7 acre portion of land instead be rezoned to Mining One rather than Buffer to be consistent with the current zoning of the ‘Jumbo No. 2'. The reason for this being that should GS Lot 52 have been rezoned to Buffer, no further improvement of the existing residence would have been permitted until such time as either the structure was moved, or the land directly surrounding the dwelling was rezoned to a zone suitable for residential development.

‘ Following rezoning of the subject site, the Forest Service intended to subdivide this land into five separate parcels, and these parcels would then be consolidated with adjoining properties in the area. ‘ This transfer of land was being carried out as part of a larger process currently being undertaken by the US Forest Service under the Small Tracts Act, which will eventually serve to transfer the bulk of US Forest Service land in the York Gulch area from public into private ownership. ‘ The applicant was seeking to rezone the subject site now, rather than after the land has been transferred into private ownership, as rezoning of the land once owned by 5 separate parties will require 5 separate rezoning applications, and will therefore be considerably more expensive. Further, were these parcels to be subdivided by the Forest Service while zoned MR-5, the parcels would not meet the 5 acre minimum lot size as required in that zone. As the land was currently in federal ownership, the Forest Service did not need to go through County process to subdivide the property, and it was not considered to be in the interest of either the County or adjacent property owners, that MR-5 zoned parcels that do not meet minimum lot size are transferred into private ownership. ‘ Referral Agencies and adjacent property owners were notified on July 17, and Public Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on the 30th of July. Only one response was received which was from the US Forest Service and they responded that they “have no conflict as local zoning decisions have no effect on use or management of National Forest Land. ‘ The subject site was surrounded by mining claims zoned Mining One, and other vacant US Forest Service properties. All but one of the US Forest Service lots was zoned Buffer. The one US Forest Service lot not zoned Buffer was zoned MR-5 and was located approximately 350 feet to the east of the subject site. ‘ The Buffer zone was established for the purpose of ‘providing for the long term conservation and preservation of public and private lands to protect natural resources, wildlife, significant views, and open space.’ As such, no further residential development will be permitted on the subject site under the proposed Buffer zoning.

Page 182 of 246 ‘ In support of Rezoning this larger portion of land to Buffer, the proposed zoning will effectively designate this land as open space, and as such will enure that there wasn’t any negative impact on the character of the area as the result of any future development of this land for residential purposes. ‘ In accordance with County Zoning Regulations, property zoned M-1 may be used for ‘single family residential and other appropriate uses’. However, the minimum lot size for development of an M-1 zoned parcel was 2 acres. Therefore, as lot 52 was only .7 acres in size, it was not large enough to create any additional development opportunities either as a stand alone parcel, or once it was combined with the adjoining parcel (Jumbo No. 2).

‘ Rezoning this small tract of land from MR-5 to Mining One was considered appropriate, as under the current proposal, Lot 52 will effectively function as buffer, while the proposed Mining One zoning will also serve the dual purpose of resolving any future issues that may arise as the result of the likely encroachment of the residence on the Jumbo No. 2 onto the subject site. ‘ The Planning Commission, after short discussion, voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning request at their hearing on August 20, 2003. ‘ Staff recommends approval pursuant to draft Resolution 03-124. ‘ Mr. Lesh clarified that the next step for this land would be to complete a site characteristics analysis for wildlife, vegetation, etc, then subdivide the land into 5 parcels, then offer it for sale. ‘ Five Combination of Lots Agreements will be completed between the purchasers and the County.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-124, Rezoning Case #280, from MR-5 to Buffer for applicant Dave Gallagher and owner, the U.S. Forest Service, York Gulch. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 9, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR THE NOVEMBER ELECTION: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DESIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR THE GUANELLA PASS ROAD: 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-133, RESCINDING RESOLUTION #03-96, APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY

Page 183 of 246 LIBRARY DISTRICT BOARD: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE COLORADO WORKS PROGRAM FOR THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL ANTI-DISPLACEMENT ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR CDBG GRANT FOR THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT BETWEEN DRCOG AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FOR SENIOR EYEGLASS PROGRAM WITH HUMAN SERVICES: 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR THE HOLLER GROUP: 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-136, TO LIFT THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FIRE BAN: 9. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CLEAR CREEK COUNTY DRAFT I-70 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: Library District member Sue Lathrop, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver attended the hearing. The Board decided to remove items #1, 2, and 9 from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve items #3-8. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the Library District, County Attorney Robert Loeffler corrected the revenue amount. Ms. Lathrop stated that the Library should have enough of a buffer in the mill levy request. Even with a reduction in the assessed valuation of the County, they should still be safely covered. This language also de-Bruced the library fund allowing them to retain annual revenues.

Regarding the Guanella Pass project, Mr. Weaver stated that many people had attended public hearings to support a rural character road which would scale down the impact. The result was super-elevations and this would not be an easy maintenance process for the local County Road and Bridge Department. It would require increased road base use and would be more costly. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to pass items #1 and #2 from the Consent Agenda regarding the Library District and the Guanella Pass Road project. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Item #9 was postponed until later in the day.

The Board of County Commissioners convened as the Board of Health.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION #03-129, TO CONSIDER AN ISDS EXCEPTION ON A 54% SLOPE FOR CHRIS GUIMARIN, LOCATED AT SADDLEBACK RIDGE ESTATES: Environmental Health Department Chris Etcheson presented. Planning Commission member Donna Moody, Environmental Health Department Tech Tracy Bennetts, Chris Guimarin, E.O. Church Engineers Steve DoKoskie, and Ed Church attended the hearing. Mr. Etcheson made the following statements: • The new septic system was proposed to be installed within less than 35 feet horizontally of a slope in excess of 45%. ( Actual slope was 54%.) • The Clear Creek County Board of Health could either approve or disapprove the applicant’s request for an Exception from the ISDS regulations. • Based on a site review conducted on July 22, 2003, sloping ground within 35 feet of the proposed septic system area exceeded 45%. The slope was measured by the Environmental Health Department Specialist with a Suunto brand clinometer at 54%. The lot was 2.9 acres in size. The proposed drainfield location was not situated above a driveway or road cut. The proposed septic system design called for the installation of a 20 millimeter PVC liner on the ends and downhill side of the drainfield. The design also indicated that a swale would be constructed to divert surface water run-off, and seeding of the disturbed areas after construction. The private water well was proposed to be 300 feet from the drainfield area. There were no other existing wells within 200 feet of the proposed drainfield. Due to the steep slopes near the area of the proposed drainfield,

Page 184 of 246 there may be an increased risk of sewage surfacing downslope of the drainfield location. • The Environmental Health Department recommended consideration of approval of the requested Exception with the following conditions: • That no Adjacent Property Owner objected to this request for an exception. • That a surface water run-off berm was constructed immediately upslope from the drainfield. • That a 20 millimeter PVC liner be situated in the drainfield at the ends and on the downslope side to a depth of 8 feet below grade. • That all disturbed areas shall be seeded after completion of the system installations. • That blasting or boring, on a four foot square blasting grid, was conducted to create bedrock fractures to a depth of fourteen feet below the grade of the drainfield open hold excavation, if unfractured bedrock was discovered within that 14 feet. • In the event of any suspicion of ISDS failure on the above referenced property, Clear Creek County would be authorized by the property owner to investigate any source of contamination at the owner’s expense. • That a valid ISDS permit be obtained. • Mr. Etcheson received 2 phone calls but no objections to the exception request.

Mr. DeKoskie of Church and Associates made the following statements: • The slope area of the drainfield was measured by his company at 40%. The steeper area was found above the drain area. • Setbacks were met and the liner should be installed with no problems.

Mr. Church made the following statements: • He brought up the discussion of blasting and boring. • He understood that blasting opened up the bedrock but the path of least resistance was out instead of down. The blasting would run the risk of creating more seepage problems than without blasting. Blasting could be dangerous to the fractures in the rock as it opened new fractures and concentrate water. • Mr. Church had been in this business for over 20 years and felt that with dosing siphons and liners, they reduced the risk of seepage. • He did not think that boring holes into the bedrock would be effective. This would also concentrate water. • Church and Associates allowed blasting during excavation jobs but not for permeability in septic drainfields. • Blasting was an art and he had seen blasting cause seepage instead of prevent it. • Jefferson County would increase the size of the drainfield if they were concerned on permeability. Mr. Etcheson stated that the Environmental Health Department Director for Jefferson County did inform him that they utilized blasting below bedrock for drainfields. • Mr. Church stated that boring negated the theory of the bottom of the drainfield. This led to concentration of liquid and it wasn’t draining into the ground. • Mr. Church clarified that the design for the drainfield included dosing siphons and liners and this should prevent the seepage risk. The risk was higher for seepage if one blasted than if they did not blast. Mr. Etcheson added that thus far, no applicants have had to blast as the bedrock was soft and able to be excavated. • Mr. Church asked that the condition #5 state “if unfractured bedrock was discovered within 14 feet” instead of “if bedrock was discovered within that 14 feet.”

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Board of Health Resolution #03-129, an exception to ISDS regulations for the Guimarin group with the change to condition #5 as stated by Mr. Church. Commissioner Dale seconded and asked if it would be simpler to create a larger drainfield. Mr. Church replied that he disagreed with blasting as it created a “bathtub” effect and did not allow water to absorb into the ground. The vote was unanimous.

CONTINUED CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DRAFT I- 70 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: Amendments were made to the draft alternative in the following areas: port of entry, changes in title to the TSM/TDM to add IVHS, notations of the Greenway project and the non-motorized corridor. Commissioner Poirot cautioned at the loss of the port of entry as it could be a loss in sales tax. The Board agreed that it could have effects and

Page 185 of 246 that possibly altering the hours of operation would assist in reducing traffic problems. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to endorse the draft #6 of the I-70 preferred alternative. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD MEETING: This meeting was changed to a working session.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 10, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following: • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); • conferences with an attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding zoning enforcement and other issues as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • determining negotiating strategies and positions and instructing negotiators as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e).

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 16, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LETTER OF CONSENT REGARDING THE GUANELLA PASS ROAD PROJECT: Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, Forest Service District Ranger Dan Lovato, and Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver attended. FHWA Project Manager John Knowles and Forest Service Guanella Pass representative Donna Mickley attended via speakerphone. Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Board had reviewed this Letter of Consent from the Forest Service to the FHWA and had identified some issues. This letter was necessary to proceed with the funding for the road improvements. FHWA manager Jim Holben and Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen attended the hearing. Mr. Knowles made the following statements: # This was an agreement between the Forest Service and the FHWA which gave the FHWA the right to build the road.

Page 186 of 246 # This was not an agreement between the County and the FHWA. # The Forest Highway Agreement bound the County to the road maintenance once the FHWA was completed the road construction. # The Forest Service would have specifics on how the road was to be maintained. Commissioner Dale noted that this agreement had stipulations and conditions for the road that the County had to follow. Ms. Mickley stated that these stipulations were agreed to a month ago and there were no problems. If there were problems now, it would take more time to negotiate this agreement. Mr. Lovato stated that the group did not want to lose the opportunity to gain the FHWA funding to complete the road project. The Forest Service wanted to work with the County to have an agreeable Resolution.

Ms. Mickley confirmed that once the road was completed, the County would have permanent easement to the road. Under the Organic Act, the County only had a permit and not the easement. This agreement would not give the Forest Service any new authority they didn’t already have. Once the road was finished, it was no longer under permit but a permanent easement to the County. Mr. Loeffler stated the conditions in this agreement were troubling to the Board of County Commissioners as they made certain requirements of the County. Mr. Knowles confirmed that the easement would be transferred from the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to the County. CDOT was not involved in this agreement.

Commissioner Poirot stated that the other concerns of the County were the size of the easement with regard to the crest of the cut and the toe of the fill. The Road and Bridge department did not want varying widths every mile as it would be difficult for the road graders. The Road and Bridge department requested that there be a consistent easement width throughout the road. Mr. Knowles replied that the easement was consistent through the Forest Service lands. The easement was usually larger than needed as construction was never predictable, i.e., land slides etc. The reason to narrow on the private lands was to prevent the County from paying to acquire too much land. Once the construction was complete, the FHWA would narrow the easement down to the construction limits. Commissioner Poirot stated that with too wide of an easement the County didn’t want to be responsible for noxious weed control, etc. Mr. Knowles replied that once the construction was complete the easement would more closely match the footprint. There would be some buffer from the tops of the cuts and toes of the fill. Commissioner Poirot asked if the FHWA could give the County an easement as constructed. Mr. Knowles replied that the easement would have to be a measurement off the centerline. The 15 meter from centerline measurement provided for a more consistent easement throughout the corridor. Ms. Mickley stated that the Forest Service was aware that the 30 meters was way too much width but it was their hope it would make for a consistent width in the easement. Mr. Knowles confirmed that the easement could be narrowed or widened at the end of the construction. At the transfer of the permanent easement, the width would probably be narrowed. Mr. Allen agreed that this would be better for his road graders.

Commissioner Poirot stated that the County also had concerns with the maintenance plan for the road. This agreement required an annual maintenance plan be submitted to the Forest Service. The County had financial constraints and could not allow this road to take precedence over other County roads. Ms. Mickley stated that this was not the intent of the agreement. The Forest Service did not want to hold the County to a particular level of maintenance. Mr. Lovato stated that this would be similar to the system the County and the Forest Service had for Schedule A roads. Mr. Knowles added that this road would have to be maintained properly. The FHWA would not tell the County how to maintain the road. The road just needed to be maintained otherwise there would be a recourse. The FHWA did not want to spend $35 million on the road and not have the investment protected. Mr. Loeffler agreed stating that the County would not, not maintain the road but did have financial constraints.

The group agreed on the disposal of debris. Mr. Lovato asked that communications remain open on this project. With regard to the use of chemicals for noxious weeds, Ms. Mickley stated that the Forest Service had to abide by a forest plan and only use certain chemicals. In the future, if mag chloride was deemed a harmful product, the forest plan would change.

Regarding the macadam surface, Mr. Allen stated that this was a difficult surface to keep product on the road. If damage was done to this surface, the Road and Bridge Department would be

Page 187 of 246 limited to whatever funds they had to repair that type of surface. If significant damage, it may not be able to be repaired all in one year. Mr. Knowles stated that Gunnison County had not had problems with plowing on their macadam surface. Mr. Knowles added that if after a couple of years, the macadam was beginning to come up, the FHWA would come in and repair it. The macadam section could be re-chipped after the second phase of the project. There would be three layers of chip.

Mr. Loeffler stated that the County simply wanted the Forest Service and the FHWA to know their concerns up front with regard to this agreement. Ms. Mickley stated that the maintenance plan was flexible. Mr. Loeffler stated that the County would submit a maintenance operations plan which would include but not limited to stipulations A-F. This maintenance would not impact the Forest Service campgrounds. Mr. Knowles confirmed that the recreational facilities would not be transferred to the County and the permanent easements would not impact the recreational facilities. Ms. Mickley asked that if any road maintenance would disrupt traffic that the Forest Service be notified.

Mr. Allen asked that his noxious weed manager be allowed to comply with State requirements when doing weed management. Ms. Mickley thought this was not a problem. The Forest Service just asked that they be notified when weed management occurred so they could complete an exception.

The Board of County Commissioners, the Forest Service, and the FHWA agreed on the Letter of Consent between the Forest Service and the FHWA for the Guanella Pass Road project.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-127, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE 4TH MONDAY OF EVERY SEPTEMBER, THE 22ND IN 2003, AS FAMILY DAY- ---A DAY TO EAT DINNER WITH YOUR CHILDREN: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO THE CITY OF IDAHO SPRINGS FOR TWO PARCELS IN SECTION 35, T3SR73W: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ANNUAL FUNDING REQUEST FROM KGOAT RADIO PER INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-138, A RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED REFERENDUM A IN 2003 NOVEMBER ELECTION: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION GRANT FOR HUMAN SERVICES: KGOAT representatives Greg Markle and Mark Cucinella attended. Regarding the KGOAT Intergovernmental Agreement, Commissioner Poirot asked if this group was supposed to become self-sufficient. Mr. Cucinella replied that there was no discussion of this Intergovernmental Agreement not continuing. Commissioner Sorensen confirmed that the Intergovernmental Agreement mentioned an ongoing commitment. Mr. Loeffler stated that the Intergovernmental Agreement allowed for a cancellation notice of 60 days. The agreement appeared to continue forever unless cancelled. Mr. Markle noted that the KGOAT range was from Bakerville to Floyd Hill to St. Mary’s, Central City, Chicago Creek, and Soda Creek. A translator station was being worked on to have a further reach. Commissioner Poirot suggested feedback from the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation and the Tourism Bureau as to whether this $5000 contribution was worthwhile. Mr. Markle stated that other contributions received were $2500 from City of Idaho Springs, $500 from Georgetown, $250 from Empire and Silver Plume, $250 from CCMRD and $500 from the Clear Creek Fire Authority. Mr. Markle stated that KGOAT was collaborating with CDOT to have signage on I-70 to alert travelers to the station.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF IDAHO SPRINGS ANNEXATION IMPACT REPORT: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, and County Lands Director Lisa Vogel attended the hearing. The City of Idaho Springs had provided the County with an annexation impact report. The report did not include a deadline for comment. Mr. Weaver stated that he had no comment on this report but did like the

Page 188 of 246 opportunity to review them. The Planning Commission was also reviewing this annexation impact report. Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern with regard to prohibition of mining uses on this land. Commissioner Poirot stated that the more profitable mines were located above this land. Ms. Vogel stated that the lands in this report were the lands north of the City. Ms. Vogel stated that these lands were designated R&PP so they could not be used for mining. Ms. Vogel agreed to contact the Clear Creek Surveying to see the pre-annexation map. The land they were annexing was public lands only. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that the lands being annexed were zoned part M-2 and part NR-PC. Mr. Rollenhagen would contact the City Administrator to confirm the exact lands being annexed. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to submit the Board of County Commissioners comments to the City of Idaho Springs. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 24, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CORRECTION DEED FOR THE CITY OF IDAHO SPRINGS FOR LAND IN SECTION 25, 35, & 36, T3SR73W: SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED AND COMBINATION OF ALOTS AGREEMENT FOR JOHN LEIGHTON JEFFERSON FOR ONE PARCEL LOCATED IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W; SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR STACEY WILEN FOR ONE PARCEL LOCATED IN SECTION 5 T4SR73W; SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR MOSCH FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 6, T4SR73W; SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED AND COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENT FOR GAYLE DRURY-MRUPHY LIVING TRUST FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 21, T3SR73W; SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FOR MAIZE-EVANS, FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 35, T3SR73W: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FOR NEW COURTHOUSE SIGN: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SECURITY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND AAA OPERATIONS; CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND RENAUD EXCAVATING; AND (3) AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND XCEL ENERGY: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REDEEMING OF TAX LIENS: Planner II Holland Smith and Building Maintenance Director John Black attended the hearing. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into executive session to discuss personnel matters but not regarding commissioners or elected officials or to discussions of personnel policies generally as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. No written minutes would be made of this session.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-123, ADOPTION OF THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WITH ADDITION OF NEW SECTIONS TO PROVIDE FOR SPECIFIC PROCESSES: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Planner II Holland Smith and Ruth Kastens

Page 189 of 246 attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following statements: • On August 19, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners considered the Planning Commission’s favorable recommendation to amend the Subdivision Regulations. During this public hearing, however, additional information was presented in the form of a recommendation of a new article (Article 11) by Staff as instructed by the County Attorney. Therefore, the BOCC remanded this new information back to the Planning Commission for consideration prior to the BOCC making a final decision. On September 17, 2003, the Planning Commission considered this particular remand and recommended approval of the new Article 11 that refers to the process required to vacate roads and easements. • In addition to the new Article 11, the BOCC requested that Staff prepare language referring to the County’s interest in encouraging/requiring multiple access points for new subdivisions. • An entirely new Article 11 outlining process for road and easement vacations. The Planning Commission recommended approval at their September 17 meeting. Articles 11 through 15 have changed to Articles 12 through 16 respectively. All references concerning this renumbering throughout the regs have been changed to reflect the new Article numbers. Article 1, Administrative Provisions (pg 2) 103.05 Any road or easement vacation, as provided for in Article 11 of these Regulations. All following numbering changed to allow for this insertion

Article 8, Boundary Line Adjustments (pg 53) Submittal Process 804.05 If the application includes a request for a utility easement vacation, all known utility companies within the area will be notified and shall be given twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the Board of County Commissioners’ public hearing to com ment. All following numbering changed to allow for this insertion 805.01 Purpose (for Minor BLA’s) The Minor Boundary Line Adjustment process does not apply if the application includes a request to vacate a utility easement.

(pg 55) 806 General Submittal Requirements for All Boundary Line Adjustments

(pg 56) under General Submittal Requirements 806.09 If the application includes a request to vacate a utility easement, a list of all known utility companies providing service to the area. (Pg 57) 807 Additional Submittal Requirements for All Boundary Line Adjustments

Article 13 Design Criteria (now 14) At the Board’s request, staff researched other County’s regs in regards to requiring more than one ingress/egress road to all new subdivisions and suggests the following language for 1306 (pg 7 9) now 1406:

1406.04 Multiple access points to a subdivision are highly encouraged, and may be required, based on emergency service recommendations or requirements, and to safely accommodate total anticipated traffic volume of the proposed development on new and/or existing access.

Article 14 Exemptions (now 15) under Lot Combination (pg 83) 1403.04 Additional Submittal Process (now 1503.04) has been changed to read: The following process will be required for lot combinations where at least one parcel has water and/or sewer service from a centralized service and/or the application includes a request for vacation of utility easements. • Staff recommends approval of the above described additions and changes, and to the attached new Article 11 - Road and Easement Vacation. • Regarding Boundary Line Adjustment cases, the regulations were changed so that the

Page 190 of 246 larger cases came before the Board of County Commissioners and they also had the Design Review criteria.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-123, adoption of the Clear Creek County Subdivision Regulations with addition of new sections to provide for specific processes. Commissioner Dale seconded. Commissioner Sorensen noted that there was no public comment.

Mr. Rollenhagen noted that there was a revised fee schedule attached for the new processes. There was discussion on whether there should be a fee for the Combination of Lots Agreements process. Mr. Rollenhagen noted that there was staff time involved for this process. Ms. Kastens noted that many people did this process to save money on taxes and then later wanted to subdivide. Commissioners Dale and Poirot stated that the County wanted people to complete the Combination of Lots Agreements process as it reduced density. He did not want a fee for this process. He stated that the applicants may not combine if there was a fee. Mr. Loeffler noted that the County had lost Board of Assessment Appeals hearings with people keeping lots separate and getting a residential assessment. The Board agreed to move the Combination of Lots Agreements fee to zero. Commissioner Poirot amended his motion to include the new fee schedule with the change for the Combination of Lots Agreements process to zero. Commissioner Dale amended his second and the motion passed unanimously.

SLACKER BOARD RACES MEETING: This meeting was continued to later in the day.

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF COUNTY LAND KNOWN AS THE ARRASTRA PARCEL AT MILL CREEK TO THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION, T3SR73W: County Lands Director Lisa Vogel presented. In attendance were residents Ellen Page, Larrice Sell, Merinel Williams, Casey Samuel, and Ken Quast, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Mill Creek Historical members Joan Drury, Gayle Drury-Murphy and Bill Murphy, and Mary Valdez, Open Space Commission members Fran Enright and Marilyn Hogan, and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck. Ms. Vogel made the following statements: # The request was to designate the county owned parcel known as the arrastra for long term management by the Open Space Commission # the property was approximately 22 acres in size and was located along Mill Creek Road. The arrastra was recommended for eligibility to be included in the National Register of Historic Places by the Colorado Historical Society in 1994. Their study site was later expanded to include the quarry (approximately 900 feet east of the arrastra). The BLM grazing lease on the property had expired. A draft grazing lease had been developed by staff and the Open Space Commission and was proposed to be an element of long term management of this property. # In 2001, the Open Space Commission requested the transfer of long term management of three County owned parcels, the arrastra and Quarry site, the Snyder Mountain site, and the Lila B. Lode, a parcel acquired by the County through tax default. The Planning Commission held a public hearing in September and a Resolution was approved, recommending the transfer of management of all three parcels. A public hearing was scheduled for the Board of December 11th, and continued to January 2, 2002. The Board continued that hearing to allow time to solve issues with grazing and other proposed land uses. The Board recommended that the Open Space Commission hold a public meeting at the Dumont School House and requested that the Open Space Commission write a detailed management plan for the area. # Jim Cannady the grazing permit holder requested that this hearing be continued to a day when he could attend.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that Adjacent Property Owner Karl Karner had called in to voice his favor of the Open Space Commission management of the parcel.

Ms. Enright and Ms. Hogan made the following statements: # Ms. Enright submitted slope maps of the site. # Ms. Enright stated that Open Space Commission member Frank Young had been working with this parcel for over 15 years and while he was working with the BLM.

Page 191 of 246 # In the past, the Colorado Historical Society was asked to manage it and they claimed it was too small. The Mill Creek Valley Historical Society was asked to manage it and they said it was too large. The Open Space Commission thought it was just right for their management and they recommended that the County designate it for long term management by the Open Space Commission. # The Open Space Commission explained that their statement of management was one of protection, research, preservation, and sharing with the public. # Protection was instilled to keep the site from being vandalized and working with State Archaeologist Thomas Carr. # Research was included in that a grant was awarded to the Open Space Commission to conduct research on the site the Open Space Commission contracted with SWCA to complete a historical assessment showing it as an arrastra site from the 1860's. The Open Space Commission was working to have the site officially listed with the National and State Registers of Historical Places. With the archaeological results, the Open Space Commission could do a management plan for interpretation and they envisioned it as a low impact site with a rural character of the neighborhood. The Open Space Commission suggested possible kiosks, trails, parking and signage at the important sites. # Ms. Hogan presented a map of the area showing Mill Creek Road, the adjacent ditch, the arrastra, the grazing boundary, and Mill Creek. # Extra fences were found on the property that did not belong there. These fences needed to be moved to the boundary line of the property. One of these fences was clearly not a historical fence. Mr. Loeffler stated that it was irrelevant who had possession of these fences as this was still County land. Mr. Loeffler agreed with Commissioner Poirot that it was who had the better surveyor. Ms. Vogel stated that it was thought the old fences were from former unpatented claim holders. These unpatented claims never went to fruition.

Commissioner Sorensen opened the meeting to public comment.

Ellen Page, Mill Creek resident Ms. Page made the following statements: # She had seen the arrastra for the first time 12 years ago. # She went to the State and they considered putting it on National Register of Historical Places. # The criteria for this status was to be a contribution to our history, to be associated with the lives of significant people in the past, or if the site embodied the characteristics of a period of time or method of construction of a master. # It was determined by archaeologists that some of this criteria did apply. # There was proof of out buildings and living quarters. # Over the years, people had taken pieces of the site and the site artifacts were decreasing. # The site was significant for the presence of a water driven arrastra which was a unique mode of crushing mining ore. # Unless the Open Space Commission was going to put a fence around the arrastra site, the setting would be destroyed. # The stones in the arrastra for dragging and crushing had deteriorated over the years and were in bad shape. # Ms. Page wanted to know more on the history of the site and what protection could be done for it.

Larrice Sell, Mill Creek resident Ms. Sell made the following statements: # She thought the Open Space Commission management was a good idea but did not want it open to the public. # The reason the arrastra was still there was because few people knew about it. # If the public were to be allowed, then it should be under guided tours. # She was in support of the Cannady grazing lease.

Joan Drury, Mill Creek Valley Historical Society member Ms. Drury made the following statements: # She had sent a letter to the Board of County Commissioners requesting a meeting with

Page 192 of 246 the Open Space Commission, the Dumont-Lawson-Downieville homeowners and the Mill Creek Valley Historical Society (MCVHS) to discuss with the Open Space Commission their plan for protection and the management. # The Dumont-Lawson-Downieville and the MCVHS would be happy to host this meeting. # She agreed with the comments of Ms. Sell on the protection of the site. # The more people with access to the site the more it required responsibility.

Gayle Drury-Murphy, MCVHS member Ms. Drury-Murphy read the following letter into the record: “My name is Gayle Drury-Murphy. I am a 5th generation, Colorado native and grew up and live in Clear Creek County.

The arrastra on Mill Creek is located in a secluded, pristine area. It remains in such good condition because of its location and because its existence has been largely unknown by most people, until now.

While history belongs to all of us and the arrastra should be a wonderful educational tool, the concern is that with exposure will come the destruction of this incredible area and resource.

I believe that protection of the arrastra is the utmost responsibility of any governing body that oversees it. Perhaps, access by PERMIT ONLY to recognized, small groups such as field trips of well-chaperoned and supervised school children, or other educational or historical groups would be a way to allow access, but restrict damage. I don’t believe there should be any change in the are at this time, and that it should remain fenced, gated and that he Cannady family should still be allowed to graze their few head of cattle there as they have done for decades.

Information about the arrastra could be made available to these groups as they obtain their permit to visit it.

Signage along the existing fence on Mill Creek Road should be posted immediately: “No Trespassing -- Access by Permit Only’, and a phone number for information, and ‘Violator’s will be prosecuted’ are now necessary to try and deter any vandalism or trespass.

These steps should be taken immediately regardless of future plans for the area. We must remain vigilant to protect the historical and environmental heritage we are so fortunate to have in the Mill Creek Valley and many other areas of Clear Creek County.”

Merinel Williams, Lawson resident Ms. Williams made the following statements: # Ms. Williams saw 2 issues with this case. # The first issue was determination of the long term use of the land. The current zoning was the result of a lively township zoning hearing. The designation at that time was a holding pattern as this land was found as unique and valuable. # This was a prime piece of developable land as it was flat, paved access and had community sewer. # The determination of the long term use was not connected to who managed the land. # She asked when the land was declined by the MCVHS. Ms. Drury replied that this occurred in the 1980's. # It was clearly the mission of the MCVHS to do historical preservation. Ms. Williams was unaware that historic preservation was a function of the Open Space Commission. # She suggested that the Board of County Commissioners consider other managers besides the Open Space Commission.

Casey Samuel, Mill Creek resident Ms. Samuel made the following statements: # She had lived on Mill Creek Road for two years.

Page 193 of 246 # She agreed with preservation but not a parking lot and visitor area there. # She agreed with the idea of having people visit the area via permits.

Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel Mr. Vogel made the following statements: # In 1995, he was the first County Lands Director for the County. # Section 19 was the first area he worked on for distribution of lands. # He asked that the County not rush a decision on this parcel. # This parcel was the most developable of all the lands transferred from the BLM. # The historical value of the parcel lent it to multiple uses. # He suggested giving management to someone else with some right to change the use in the future.

Commissioner Sorensen made the following statements: # She expressed that she had spoken out on this parcel in the past when the discussion first started in 1995. # Her initial thoughts were to preserve the parcel and that having grazing deterred people from trespassing. # Commissioner Sorensen also had considered a caretaker residence on the parcel would be suitable. She had also considered other uses besides mining history and agreed with Ms. Drury-Murphy on guided tours. # Commissioner Sorensen requested a management plan that addressed each of these issues.

Commissioner Poirot made the following statements: # He was on the Board of County Commissioners during 1995 when this parcel was first considered. # He recognized the convenience of the parcel to roads and infrastructure. He also recognized the importance of Ms. Drury and others concerns for preservation. # Commissioner Poirot agreed that this should not be a rush decision # Commissioner Poirot also considered that it may not take all 22 acres to protect the arrastra. A portion of the land could go to Open Space Commission management and the rest of the land could be used for another purpose. # Areas could be fenced off including the area for the cattle.

Mr. Vogel stated that it had been since 1995 that he had worked on this parcel. Ms. Vogel stated that this parcel was zoned NR-U later. Mr. Vogel confirmed that no one had expressed interest in managing this land except the Open Space Commission. Commissioner Dale made the following statements: # The County had heard from a grazing interest and that the Open Space Commission wanted management. # No other agencies had expressed interest in managing the parcel. # In 7-8 years of this process for this parcel, no one has expressed interest. # Now the Open Space Commission wanted to do something with the parcel and everyone says wait.

Commissioner Poirot replied that the agencies didn’t feel a rush as they knew the county was setting the parcel aside. Ms. Hogan stated that after hearing resident concerns on a parking lot, an explanation was needed. She continued that this idea came from Wild Wagoner residents that couldn’t get up their road during heavy snow and had suggested a parking lot at the bottom of the hill to park in and walk home. Ms. Enright added that this lot could also be used as a bus turnaround. Ms. Hogan explained that the Open Space Commission had discussed this parcel numerous times with the Board of County Commissioners. They continued to discuss it under the impression that the County wanted it to remain open space. Second, the Open Space Commission bylaws stated that they will be involved in historic preservation. The Open Space Commission wanted to work with people in the area to develop a master plan for the parcel that made sense. The Open Space Commission wanted to bring in experts from the park service and historic groups to work on ideas to control traffic. The Open Space Commission was not threatened by another group managing it but the Open Space Commission did have the

Page 194 of 246 advantage of funding.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that the atmosphere and setting of the arrastra were as important as the arrastra itself. Commissioner Poirot stated that more than one use could be considered on this parcel. Mr. Loeffler stated that if the Board was considering possible development, then he hesitated to designate the parcel for long term Open Space Commission management. Under public law, the County was not obligated to do anything with the property until the deadline. He suggested that once the land or part of the land was designated for a use, that the Board not change their minds as the BLM would not look favorably on this. He suggested the Board and the Open Space Commission do their research now to determine a future use for all or a portion of the parcel. Commissioner Dale asked what motivation did the Open Space Commission have to further their research on the land if they had no confirmation of obtaining the designation. Mr. Loeffler stated that the Open Space Commission had performed a study with grant funding. A process needed to be completed to decide the future of the parcel. The county could not turn the land over to the Open Space Commission and then change their mind later. However, a portion of the land could be kept for R&PP and the remaining for another purpose.

Commissioner Dale stated that the group was hearing that preservation, the grazing lease, and controlled access were all important. He asked if the Open Space Commission could create such a plan for the land. Ms. Hogan stated that the Open Space Commission had a general plan now and would work with the local residents to create a mutually agreeable plan. It was premature to complete all the details at this point since the Open Space Commission still did not know if they would gain long term management. After conferring with Jefferson County, the Open Space Commission learned that their Open Space Commission only completed management plans for sites with high visibility and access. The Clear Creek County Open Space Commission had limited staff and resources and these plans could be timely and expensive. A management agreement would be needed before a plan could be committed. The Open Space Commission was happy to present a statement of intent with sufficient direction.

Ms. Williams suggested not assigning management until a permanent zoning had been implemented. Commissioner Sorensen noted that Mr. Cannady did want to continue this hearing and that the MCVHS wanted a public meeting at the Dumont School House with the Open Space Commission. Commissioner Sorensen asked that before the Board of County Commissioners hearing was continued that the neighborhood meeting be held. This would hopefully result in a community consensus which would return the meeting to the Board of County Commissioners. From this hearing, a rezoning could be applied for depending on the recommendation. Mr. Loeffler agreed stating that the zoning came last and a concept may have to be developed for the land.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that it was possible to recognize the historic value of the arrastra site and the Board needed to understand how to better manage the site with preservation and integrity. It was hoped that the community and Board of County Commissioners meetings would develop a plan for the property. Commissioner Poirot agreed. Commissioner Sorensen suggested a night meeting with the Board of County Commissioners after the community meeting. Ms. Enright and Ms. Hogan agreed to schedule the neighborhood meeting as soon as possible.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTER: This meeting was canceled.

SLACKER BOARD RACES MEETING: Mr. Loeffler stated that after discussions with the IRS, they accepted the Slacker Races as the a non-profit corporation. He added that the Board needed to approve the distribution of the fundraising. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the financial report and the disbursements of the Slacker Races fundraising. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______

Page 195 of 246 Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 25, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice with regard to the following: • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); • conferences with attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding St. Mary’s Metro District, Clear Creek Technology Park, and the Saddleback sewage disposal system as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • determining negotiating strategies and positions and instructing negotiators regarding water and land issues as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e) • personnel matters but not regarding commissioners or elected officials or to discussions of personnel policies generally as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(f).

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 30, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on September 30, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Robert Poirot, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Harry Dale was out of town.

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FROM THE TOWN OF SILVER PLUME FOR DINGERS PARK: Silver Plume Town Clerk Janine Weeds, Silver Plume Board of Trustee member Cassandra Schenk, and Clear Creek Metro Rec District Director Mark Cucinella presented. Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, and Sergeant Rick Albers attended the hearing. Ms. Weeds made the following comments: • The park volunteers had raised over $20,000 for the park through many fundraisers. • The total cost of the project would be $120,000. • SERSA was the park insurer and they had deemed the present structures as unsafe so these had to be replaced. • In surveying the town, they determined that the residents wanted two projects:

Page 196 of 246 replacement of park playground facilities and the addition of a pavilion and restrooms. • This would be in keeping with the neighborhood as the historic schoolhouse was next door. • The Clear Creek Metro Rec District was a partner in this project and had committed $10,000 toward the project.

Mr. Cucinella agreed stating that he had worked on the design phase and the estimation of the cost of the project. The Clear Creek Metro Rec District recognized the need for recreation in Silver Plume and saw it as a focal point for the Greenway and trails vision of the County.

Ms. Weeds stated that their funding request from the County was for $5000 to use as a match toward GOCO funding. The town had committed all their Conservation Trust Funding toward this project and there were many community members doing in-kind volunteer work.

Mr. Weaver supported this project and the vision of the Greenway. Mr. Small confirmed that there was available funding in the Conservation Trust Fund of the County and the $5000 could be earmarked for the Silver Plume GOCO grant. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to earmark the $5000 for the Silver Plume GOCO grant for Dingers Park. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT FOR THE CLEAR CREEK ADVOCATES: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Advocates Director Judi Brown attended. Ms. Reimer stated that the permit was for the Clear Creek Advocates annual Follies fundraiser, that all fees were paid, and all departments were in favor. Ms. Brown stated that approximately 200 people would attend and the fund-raising should total $11,000- $12,000. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Events Permit for the Clear Creek Advocates. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLORADO STATE PARKS AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CDBG GRANT FOR HUMAN SERVICES: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FEMA GRANT FOR VIRGINIA CANYON: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COLORADO OFFICES OF PREPAREDNESS, SECURITY, AND FIRE SAFETY CONTRACT WITH CLEAR CREEK COUNTY : OEM Director Laura Nay, County Lands Director Lisa Vogel, and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Ms. Nay stated that this contract was a master contract with the State for them to keep on file. It assisted any other future contracts/grants that the County did with the State. It was a part of the Homeland Security program and Ms. Nay stated that the County would be applying for funding in this area in the upcoming year. This contract was not a grant and the grants would have to be applied for case by case.

Regarding the Colorado State Parks contract, Mr. Small asked who the users of the equipment would be. Sgt.. Albers replied that mostly the users would be Sheriff deputies. Ms. Vogel added that Open Space Commission members wanted to use these Off-Highway-Vehicles too and they were considered as volunteers. Mr. Loeffler stated that the contract could be completed now and the volunteer vs. employee issue could be resolved later with an agreement. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-135, TEMPORARY LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE #03-TSUP-08 FOR LEIGH WILLIAMS TO BUILD A GARAGE WITHOUT A PRIMARY RESIDENCE, WARREN GULCH: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Applicant Ed Stenby, and Adjacent Property Owner Greg Dowripple attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: • Ed Stenby, was the applicant in this case and was present at this hearing. • The 5.165 acre parcel zoned M-1 and described as The Webster Lode, M.S. No. 13816 was located in Section 12, T4S, R73W, approximately 1.21 miles from the junction of Soda Creek Road and Little Bear Creek Road.

Page 197 of 246 • The request was for a Temporary Special Use Permit for a period of two years, to construct a 624 square foot garage for storage, prior to building a primary residence. • If approved the permit would expire on September 30, 2005 or at the time of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the single family residence, whichever occurs first. • Neither water or sewage are required at this time, as it was proposed to use the garage solely for storage and not for residential purposes. Evidence of a legal water supply and issuance of an ISDS permit will be required prior to construction of the primary residence. • Adjacent property owners and review agencies were notified by mail, and the property was posted on August 28, 2003. Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on September 10, 2003. No response has been received from adjacent property owners. • Environmental Health responded on September 23, 2003 indicating the need for a letter from an engineer which identifies the viability and potential location of an ISDS system on the property. The applicant provided the required letter from Barta and Associates, Inc. on September 24, 2003. • A response from Site Development was received on September 23, 2003 which addressed the applicant’s driveway permit application. At this time, certain conditions and requirements must be met, prior to the issuance of a driveway permit. However, the Site Development Department does not believe the issues being addressed will threaten the issuance of a permit. • The property was accessed by Warren Gulch Road. Additionally, an access easement was granted across the Pearl, Little Richard, Casey, and Gladys Lodes to the Webster Lode. • Staff believed the application met criteria for approval subject to the stipulations and conditions as stated in the draft Resolution 03-135.

Mr. Stenby requested that the Board of County Commissioners approve the permit as being effective the day of the driveway permit approval. Mr. Dowripple was the owner of the Casey and the Little Richard Lodes and was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-135, Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit #03- TSUP-08, for Leigh Williams to build a garage without a primary residence, Warren Gulch. Commissioner Sorensen seconded. Mr. Loeffler recommended that the Resolution language be changed to reflect the financial guarantee as insuring the removal of the garage. Commissioner Poirot amended his motion to reflect this language change and Commissioner Sorensen amended her second. The vote was unanimous. Following the hearing, Commissioner Sorensen stated that the Board did not clarify in the motion that this permit would be effective when the driveway permit was effective. The dates of each permit needed to match at the request of the applicant. Commissioner Poirot amended his motion to clarify the date of the Temporary Limited Impact Special Use Permit to match that of the Driveway permit. Commissioner Sorensen amended her second and the motion passed unanimously.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #03-147, Howard Hillman and Jane Williams, Bendemeer Valley: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Jane Williams attended the hearing. Ms. Williams stated that the value was too high based on what they paid for it and based on the comparison of other high end homes. Ms. Williams felt the value should be $2.2 million. Ms. Settle recommended a downward adjustment to the $2.2 million as the market was very flat in the higher end homes. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-143, Marjorie Scanlon, Idaho Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Marjorie Scanlon and Ralph Myers attended the hearing. Ms. Settle recommended a downward adjustment as the residential/commercial split assessment was incorrect. The correct assessment was 46% residential and 54% commercial. This adjustment would be for 2001 for a total tax of $686.31 and 2002 for a total tax of $733.16. Ms. Scanlon and Mr. Myers agreed with this adjustment. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-88, Ocean Falls LLC, Bendemeer Tracts: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Jay Anderson attended. At the prior hearing, the Board asked Ms. Settle to perform a site visit to

Page 198 of 246 the house which she found to be in average condition for its age. Based on the sales of other similar homes, the Assessor found the value of $193,000 to be correct. The Assessor recommended denial of this petition. The owner paid $210,000 for the home and the prior owner paid $195,000.

Mr. Anderson presented comparables to his home with similar square footage. He stated that he did overpay for his home for emotional reasons. He felt the value was too high based on the access, steep topography, and it was too much of a tax increase in 2 years. Mr. Anderson feared that the high dollar homes being built in his neighborhood were driving his value too high in taxes. The Board understood Mr. Anderson’s situation, however, the Assessor was required to calculate at market values. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-139, Joan Herrick and Patricia Noble, Idaho Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Herrick/Noble Group. Ms. Settle stated that this property came up during Board of Equalization protests. This lot had 2 homes on it and it would be difficult to divide this parcel so the value was adjusted down for the smaller home for 2002 and 2003. These homes could not be sold separately. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment for #03-139. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-142, L.C. Culp, Silver Plume: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Lloyd Culp attended the hearing. Mr. Culp stated that this parcel was a part of the Burleigh Placer at the west end of Silver Plume. It was a small triangle within the larger portion of the mining placer and it only made sense to combine it with the larger portion. Ms. Settle agreed stating that it was valued at $26,200 and she now recommended a value of $10,480. Ms. Settle noted that within the Town Of Silver Plume, there was not a Combination of Lots Agreements process. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-140, Alvin and Linda Gurule, Idaho Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Gurule group. Ms. Settle stated that the Assessor’s had an error in the square footage amount. After re-measuring, the Assessor recommended a downward adjustment from $99,530 to $78,930. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-141, Dennis and Jo Ann King, Idaho Springs: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the King group. Ms. Settle stated that this was the King’s Derby property. The King’s had sold the business but not the property. The Assessor recommended a downward adjustment due to a correction in the square footage and the assessment ratio of residential to commercial. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment to correct the square footage and residential/commercial split. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-144, Kajsa Philippine & William Fanning, Brook Forest: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Fanning group. Ms. Settle recommended a downward adjustment due to the condition of the home for 2002 only to $128,310. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-145, Jimmie Boyd, St. Mary’s area: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Boyd group. Ms. Settle stated that these claims were valued as buildable but in actuality they were not. None of the lots had water or sewer and two of them had no access. There were restrictions on the division of land as they were not allowed to build on them without water and sewer. The Boyd’s would have to apply for annexation into the St. Mary’s Water and Sanitation District to get these services. These lots were large enough for well permits. The Board requested to postpone a decision on this protest until the next round of

Page 199 of 246 abatements.

#03-146, James Cooper, Fall River Reservoir area: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Cooper group. Ms. Settle recommended a downward adjustment as the comparables supported a lower value. She recommended a value of $18,800. Mr. Cooper had paid more for the property but it was outside the time frame. Mr. Cooper owned a cabin on the lot next door. Commissioner Sorensen suggested a Combination of Lots Agreements to further lower his taxes. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-148, John Wilson, Silver Lakes: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Wilson group. Ms. Settle recommended a downward adjustment based on a design correction from mountain contemporary to traditional. This took the value to $220,990 for 2003 only. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF WAIVER/REDUCTION OF VARIANCE PENALTY FEE FOR LEIGH HINZE, FLOYD HILL: Environmental Health Department Tech Tracy Bennetts presented. Leigh Hinze attended the hearing. Ms. Bennetts made the following statements: # Leigh Hinze was heard by the Board of Adjustment on September 16th. # She was requesting acknowledgment of a 28' north west front setback and a 28' northwest side setback on an existing residence. She also requested a 25' southeast side setback for a proposed 700 sq ft deck. The residence was a modular home and was placed on a foundation that the owner thought was in compliance based on an improvement location certificate. The Board of Adjustment granted her request. # The owner further requested a fee refund of $610.00. She was charged $960, violation fee, because the residence existed prior to the application for the variance. The Board of Adjustment recommended this fee waiver request because the previous owners had applied for a variance that was granted with closer setbacks and a smaller home. The owner had to have a surveyor verification done and that’s when the violation was discovered. The property was 1 acre in size and zoned MR-1. # Ms. Hinze was instructed that the Board of County Commissioners had the last decision on the fee waiver issue. # Staff concurred that Ms. Hinze should be refunded this $610. # Ms. Bennetts confirmed that the county did not rely on the improvement location certificates but the banks did. She added that the Planning Department tried to warn applicants that these certificates were not always accurate.

Ms. Hinze stated that the bank would not authorize a draw without the certificate. The ban informed her that these certificates were accurate. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to refund the $610 of the penalty fee. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REZONING CASE #282, RESOLUTION #03- 149, TO REZONE A PARCEL OF LAND FROM MR-1 & PD to MR-1, HWY 103: Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. George Bauer and Assessor’s Office member Debbie Chapman attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following statements: # The request was to change the zoning from PD and MR-1 to MR-LT for residential use. # The location of the parcel was 8 miles from Idaho Springs on CO Hwy 103 known as 8620 and 8810 CO Hwy 103. # This property was surrounded by the Forest Service land on the north, west, northeast, and south sides. On the southeast side, on the other side of CO 103, were large tracts zoned MR-1. # There were several cabins located on the Forest Service land along Hefferman Gulch located to the southwest of the property. # A response was received from CDOT that the applicant would need to apply for an

Page 200 of 246 access permit if a new access was constructed or if there is a change of use in the existing access. # Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel stated that the applicant should demonstrate that the could meet the Driveway Design Standards prior to permitting additional parcels or zoning changes. # One Adjacent Property Owner P.E. Fenske submitted a response expressing concern that this proposal would severe his access to his cabin on Forest Service lands. # Staff performed more research to find the exact location of these cabins. # There was a blocked access that led from Hwy 103 on this property to the north that went through to Fenske’s land. This access, according to George Bauer, had been blocked off to motorized vehicles by CDOT. Chuck Binford, Access Manager from CDOT, does not recall this situation, however, it was apparently open to non-motorized traffic. # Staff felt that this access would not be affected regardless of the zoning.

Mr. Bauer stated that he had not seen anyone using this access and he did not show up for the Planning Commission hearing. It appeared that he could not contact him. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the best the Planning Department found was the access for the Fenske’s accessed off West Chicago Creek Road. He added that he could attempt contacting Fenske. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the old road leaving the property had much growth on it showing no use on it lately.

Mr. Loeffler stated that the zone change did not have impact on the roads. The board could approve the rezoning and not affect the access. Ms. Chapman stated that there was another road to access the Fenske property and the other cabins on the Forest Service lands. She added that these cabin owners did not use the Bauer access. She explained that Fenske was one of two cabin owners whose Forest Service lease ended in the upcoming year. Mr. Bauer stated that this older road had been blocked off by CDOT with large boulders. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the addresses for Fenske and the other cabin owners matched the road which Ms. Chapman spoke of. Mr. Bauer’s entrance was at mile marker 8.8 beyond this area. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-149, Rezoning Case #282 for George Bauer. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 7, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Poirot was attending other meetings.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF DEFENSIBLE SPACE FEE WAIVER FOR MASON KEENE, YORK GULCH: Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel presented. Mason Keene attended the hearing. Mr. Vogel made the following statements: • Mr. Vogel stated that Mr. Keene applied for the defensible space and driveway permit simultaneously. • At the initial inspection, there were no trees to mark so Mr. Keene had asked about waiving the fee. • Mr. Vogel stated that his time inspecting the property was covered under the driveway permit process. • The driveway permit fee was $280 and the defensible space permit fee was $150.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the fee waiver of $150 for defensible space. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA:

Page 201 of 246 #1 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND BURLINGTON DITCH RESERVOIR & LAND CO., AND TWO QUIT CLAIM DEEDS FROM CLEAR CREEK COUNTY REGARDING RIGHT OF WAY ACCESS FOR GUANELLA PASS ROAD: #2 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WITH THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION: #3 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN GAIL SHEA AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: #4 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH WTSI FOR INFORMATION SERVICES: #5 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FRETAC GRANT FOR AMBULANCE DEPARTMENT: In attendance were Administrative Intern Tim Mauck and Information Services Director Mary Johnson. The Board noted that item #3 would be paid from the Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Special Projects fund. Item #5 would be partially paid with a FRETAC grant to cover the cost of training 2 new paramedics. Mr. Loeffler requested that item #1 be continued to 11:30 a.m. when the original contracts were received. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of item #1 which would be continued to 11:30 a.m. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM #1 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND BURLINGTON DITCH RESERVOIR & LAND CO., AND TWO QUIT CLAIM DEEDS FROM CLEAR CREEK COUNTY REGARDING RIGHT OF WAY ACCESS FOR GUANELLA PASS ROAD: Mr. Loeffler stated that the right of way was acquired for $3500 per acre. Mr. Loeffler explained that the County would deed to Burlington what it deeded to the County in 1953. Second, the County would deed to Burlington the right of way the County claimed by virtue of use. Burlington would then deed the County the right of way that had been surveyed by the FHWA and they would give the County temporary construction easement as identified by the FHWA. The net of what was transferred in total was a little over one acre in terms of permanent easement and less than one acre for temporary easement. Mr. Loeffler stated that since a signed original contract had yet to be received from Burlington, he recommended that the Board approve these agreements and authorize the Chairman to sign the quit claim deeds when they arrive and deliver to the County Attorney for trust. Mr. Loeffler stated that the contract provided for a closing on October 17, 2003 or earlier fi the documents arrived. A court had granted Clear Creek County immediate possession in the prior week of the property which satisfied the FHWA. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the right of way contract between Clear Creek County and the Burlington Ditch Co. and the two quit claim deeds and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign these documents when they arrived. These documents would be held by the County Attorney for the closing. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 8, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Commissioner Bob Poirot was out of town.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding: • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property

Page 202 of 246 interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); • determining negotiating strategies and positions and instructing negotiators as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e); • conferences with an attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions with regards to ISDS permits and access permits as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b).

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 14, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 14, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR THE TRANSFER OF LONG TERM MANAGEMENT OF COUNTY LAND KNOWN AS THE ALPS MOUNTAIN PARCELS, T4SR73W: County Lands Director Lisa Vogel presented. Open Space Commission members Fran Enright and Frank Young, Planner I Sarah Kaminski, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck attended the hearing. Ms. Vogel made the following statements: T Ms. Vogel stated that the Open Space Commission would like to request long term management of the Alps Mountain area parcels. T This land was currently not zoned. This land was purposely left out of the zoning process to allow time for the Planning staff to create a zoning district that combined the NR-PC and mining zones. Staff had not created this zone but it was discussed in the master planning process. T Part of these lands did include an unpatented mining claim—The Diamond Mountain owned by Peter Bouldrin. Mr. Bouldrin was a former partner to the Mosch’s. T The combination of the two possible zonings was difficult for the Planning Staff but they were hopeful that the master plan would create a solution. T The Open Space Commission had requested this hearing even though a zone had not yet been created as they had been working on a plan for this parcel for 2-3 years. They were happy to take over management of these lands without a zoning.

Mr. Young made the following statements: ‘ There were two mining issues with these parcels. One was a mineral resource issue and the potential of the County retaining the land and owning the minerals. During the zoning hearings, the Open Space Commission had envisioned a zoning that would allow extraction of minerals that belonged to the County if it becomes economically feasible. The task there was to assign a proper zoning to allow access to these minerals. The Open Space Commission had considered not zoning the parcel until the master plan was completed. ‘ The second mineral issue was that of the unpatented mining claim. The Open Space Commission had met with Mr. Bouldrin and discussed what plans he had for his claim. Mr. Bouldrin had plans to work with the underground portion of the mine. The Open Space Commission was willing to work out an agreement with Mr. Bouldrin to allow open space and mining uses. This could be the perfect test case for unpatented claims in Clear Creek County. ‘ Mr. Young requested that this land stay in County ownership with the Open Space

Page 203 of 246 Commission management so they could continue to work on these mineral issues. ‘ There were two cabins on this land. One cabin was an emergency shelter that had been repaired by the Boy Scouts. It had been 10 years since any upkeep on the cabins and they now needed work. The Open Space Commission could repair the cabins if they had management. ‘ The second cabin was more historical and the roof was gone. This cabin also needed immediate work. ‘ The Open Space Commission had worked with the neighbors to square the boundaries. The final boundaries were worked out with the Ricklefs’ and Wasilawski’s. ‘ Ms. Vogel and Mr. Young explained that Mr. Bouldrin was not the original patentee in the unpatented mine claim. He had obtained this claim from an owner in Alaska. The location certificate was filed in 1988 which was a late claim. The date of the location was 2/16/88 by Christopher Hoss and David Mosch.

Commissioner Dale noted that the intent with these lands had not changed. The Open Space Commission was still requesting County retention of ownership, recreational uses, and reserving the subsurface for mineral extraction in the future. Additionally, the request continued for the Open Space Commission management and repair to the cabins and property. In the zoning hearing, the Planning Commission had favored a NR-PC zoning. The Board recognized that if they zoned the parcel NR-PC, they would lose the potential for mining in the future. Commissioner Sorensen stated that she had consulted miners on the possibility of mining without disturbing the surface and they found it unlikely. Mr. Young added that the mines on this side of the hill were going straight into the mountain. The lands that he and the Open Space Commission were requesting management of were at the top of the ridgeline above these entrance shafts. There should not be too much mining occurring at the top of the ridgeline. Mr. Young stated that the County needed to research surface disturbance and what the criteria to use would be. The main activity would be at the mouth of the mine adits. Ms. Vogel presented a 1952 map of this mine and what had been explored. The Open Space Commission could work with the existing adits and air shafts but they did not want to see surface mining.

Commissioner Poirot expressed concern that the amount of surface disturbance should be in writing. Mr. Young agreed that the Open Space Commission could work out an operating agreement with Mr. Bouldrin and it would have guidelines for future leaders. Commissioner Poirot asked why the Board didn’t already zone the parcel M-2. Commissioner Sorensen agreed stating that it would address the concerns of Mr. Bouldrin. Commissioner Dale suggested M-2 zoning for the Bouldrin claim and the rest of the parcel as NR-PC.

Regarding the prior township zoning hearings, Mr. Rollenhagen noted that the only 2 types of zoning discussed were NR-PC and M-2. No residential zoning was discussed due to the location of the mineral belt. Commissioner Poirot stated that residential was the highest value of this land.

Mr. Young stated that the Open Space Commission needed to get the boundaries of the unpatented claim from Mr. Bouldrin.

Commissioner Poirot suggested that the County retain the land, zone it M-2 and then later designate it as public purpose. Ms. Vogel stated that BLM had confirmed that this was allowed. Mr. Loeffler stated that at the end of the BLM distribution time with the County, Mr. Bouldrin still may not know what his rights were. Mr. Young replied that at the end of the time frame, if the County retained ownership, and if the unpatented claim was still in place, Mr. Bouldrin would retain his rights. The response that was received from BLM was that at the end of the period, County retained lands would turn to R&PP and mineral development could occur if they didn’t impede the recreational uses. Commissioner Dale suggested conveying management of all the parcels in the Alps Mountain area to the Open Space Commission except for this Diamond Mountain unpatented claim. Mr. Young replied that there was no dispute on accepting the land with the unpatented claim on it. The Open Space Commission was happy to work with Mr. Bouldrin.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern to the immediate sense of urgency to secure the historical cabins and get a plan for this area. She asked that the record reflect that the zoning for

Page 204 of 246 this parcel needed to be completed and how the mineral development in the future would be accommodated. There was an agreement in concept. She suggested allowing staff and the Open Space Commission to resolve what they could with regard to these lands. Commissioner Poirot reminded the group that the mining community had wanted the entire area of parcels zoned M-2. Commissioner Dale added that they had discussed recreational surface rights and retaining the mineral subsurface rights. Mr. Loeffler stated that the Planning Commission was supposed to make a recommendation on these lands and a Resolution was needed with Mr. Bouldrin to figure his rights and form an agreement. Mr. Young replied that the Open Space Commission was asking for the County to retain ownership and allow the Open Space Commission be the long term manager. The Open Space Commission would make a commitment to work on the zoning and operating plan with Bouldrin. Commissioner Dale noted that if the land were under Open Space Commission management, this did not change Bouldrin’s legal rights. Commissioner Sorensen asked if Bouldrin had expressed interest in buying this claim’s surface rights. Commissioner Dale replied that the Board had heard that Bouldrin did want to mine here. Commissioner Poirot expressed concern on changing the use of the land unless the Diamond Mountain mine portion was zoned M-2.

Commissioner Sorensen stated that in the past, the issue was not on the County retaining ownership but how much surface disturbance should occur. Commissioner Sorensen was inclined to approve the County retaining ownership, the long term management by the Open Space Commission, and the zoning could be established later. Mr. Loeffler noted that the zone plan that was adopted should comply with the law that didn’t anticipate zoning before you keep the lands as opposed to zoning before you transfer the lands to private ownership. Commissioner Dale stated that this was a 3 part process: address the use of the parcel through zoning, allow the Open Space Commission to manage the parcel and repair the cabins, and finally, if the NR-PC-Mining zoning did not work, then zone the unpatented claim as M-2. Commissioner Poirot suggested retaining the land without the Open Space Commission management of the unpatented claim until it is determined what Bouldrin will do in the future. It was too much trouble and time to determine what Bouldrin would do. Mr. Loeffler recommended against carving out the unpatented claim. Mr. Loeffler did not want Bouldrin to think he could do whatever he wanted on this unpatented claim. Ms. Vogel stated that Bouldrin had actively worked on this mine every year. The prior owners in the 1940's did not go to patent or they could have had a patent and the County didn’t know it. Commissioner Dale suggested zoning the unpatented claim as M-2 and continue work on the NR-PC zoning.

Mr. Young stated that when the land was transferred to the County, the unpatented claims and BLM regulations related to them did not apply any more. The County had asked for assistance with regard to unpatented claims from the BLM and the BLM denied. They asked that the County’s resolve these claims individually. Therefore, Mr. Young suggested that the County have a system that replicated or replaced all the regulations that were in effect when it was BLM land. Mr. Loeffler added that as the County was the owner of the lands, they decided the use. Since the County was contemplating mining and recreation on the same parcels, decisions on use would have to be made. The zoning would be decided by the use the County wanted. He suggested that the Board of County Commissioners decide how much of this land they wanted as open space and how much as mining.

Commissioner Sorensen noted the historical use of this land by the BLM with the emergency shelter and that someone had given BLM the use of that structure in the past. As the mining process continued with the master plan and the zoning of the lands moved forward with the Open Space Commission, if there was a problem, the miners would voice it. Commissioner Dale agreed adding that the Board of County Commissioners would have to work with the Open Space Commission that the mining would be worked out in the future. Commissioner Poirot disagreed stating that this one unpatented claim should be carved out and allow the Open Space Commission to proceed on the rest of the lands. Mr. Loeffler suggested carving out all of the subsurface property of the entire lands instead of one mining claim.

Mr. Young replied that the Open Space Commission was still in its development stages and certain land management deals would have to be drawn on good faith efforts. If a solution was designed before a decision, it could leave the proposal in debate for 10 or more years. Many of the answers to all the questions will come from experience in handling these lands management

Page 205 of 246 deals. Presently, an Open Space Commission system was approved by the voters of the County and the members had a commission and funding to manage it. Some decisions would have to be made in the beginning without knowing all the answers. The present leaders would have to rely on the future Open Space Commission and the future Board of County Commissioners to refine this process. Mr. Loeffler added that he too did not want to see this land fall under R&PP rules if that affected the ability to mine int he future. Mr. Loeffler suggested that an artfully drawn Resolution would allow the Board to designate management to the Open Space Commission while simultaneously preserving mining rights.

Commissioner Poirot stated that prior Board of County Commissioners tried to decide that late claim filers should be disallowed but the BLM would not allow this. Commissioner Sorensen motioned that a Resolution transferring management for the open space purposes while still preserving the ability of the landowner, the County, to manage or develop a program for mineral extraction if viable and that the Diamond Mountain unpatented claim should remain with the land and to include the necessary surface disturbance to support subsurface mining. Commissioner Dale seconded. During discussion, Commissioner Sorensen suggested adding to protect mineral values and define what surface disturbance would go with it. Commissioner Dale stated that this land management could be conveyed to the Open Space Commission and that some surface disturbance would be necessary to support a subsurface mining use which would later be determined. Ms. Vogel asked if the Board of County Commissioners was waiving the Open Space Commission policy of a Planning Commission recommendation. This should be included in the Resolution. Mr. Young read from the Planning Commission minutes which stated that they voted in favor of the NR-PC zoning. He did not think a waiver should be noted in the Resolution to this effect. Commissioner Sorensen added that the Planning Commission would review this again when a zoning designation was arrived upon. Commissioner Poirot expressed concern with upsetting the Planning Commission by not sending the case before them again. Mr. Young suggested that the Open Space Commission and the County Lands Department would review this with the Planning Commission to assure moving forward. The Board requested seeing the Resolution before its actual adoption. Commissioner Poirot made a new motion to continue this hearing to November 25, 2003 at 10:35 a.m. to review a draft Resolution and hear input from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING MODIFICATIONS TO THE GEORGETOWN GATEWAY VISITOR CENTER: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TWO PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND AAA OPERATIONS: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPOINTING DR. KATHERINE DRAPEAU AS MEDICAL ADVISOR FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson attended the hearing. The Board noted that the Gateway Visitor Center modifications required an additional $1168 from the County from the Sales Tax Fund. The Pledge and Security Agreements were for water and sewer repairs. Commissioner Poirot asked if there would be more modifications to the Visitor Center. Mr. Abrahamson replied that there would be no more modifications to this building until a decision was made on whether the County would use it. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EPA GRANT FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: Clear Creek Watershed Foundation members Ed Rapp and Bob Jones presented. Mr. Rapp made the following statements: G This grant was for the EPA to assist with Forest Service projects in Clear Creek County. G The Forest Service had identified three projects they wanted to complete. G The Forest Service had transferred the funding to EPA who would then transfer it to Clear Creek County to complete these projects. G The Forest Service and the EPA wanted more local involvement in clean ups on federal lands. G There was more universal acceptance and less fear of federal action. G This grant would transfer $180,000 from the U.S. Forest Service to the EPA and then to

Page 206 of 246 Clear Creek County and the Clear Creek Watershed Foundation for the work. G The three approved projects were the Dibbins, the Sidney, and the Lombard mining claims. G Each one would be handled by a task order with MES under an existing contract that the Clear Creek Watershed Foundation had with them. G Mr. Rapp suggested a contract between Clear Creek County and Clear Creek Watershed Foundation to allow the foundation to be the project manager. Mr. Loeffler stated that this agreement would have to handle the pass-through of the funding. G Mr. Rapp stated that once the County received the funding, they could either contract the work to Clear Creek Watershed Foundation or use their own Road and Bridge Department to complete the work. G Mr. Rapp stated that the Forest Service determined the price amount based on the scope of work. These were three small projects that did not require much hauling. G The Dibbins was a mercury clean up. The Sidney was a building and tin clean up with the removal of water from the adit. The Lombard was an old millsite and safety hazard that needed to be cleaned up. G The Forest Service had already obligated this funding and the EPA wanted to complete this work. G The contract presented to the Board of County Commissioners was the application to the EPA and was a model of one performed with Lake County. G Mr. Jones added that the Forest Service had provided the Clear Creek Watershed Foundation with 2 reports explaining the work to be done at each mine site. Mr. Small requested copies of these reports. Mr. Rapp added that the County was the oversight committee to ensure that the scope of services was completed. Mr. Jones stated that there was a Memorandum of Understanding between the EPA and the Clear Creek Watershed Foundation. G Mr. Rapp reiterated that the County could have their Road and Bridge Department handle these projects or they could have the Clear Creek Watershed Foundation design and manage them. Mr. Small noted that whatever agreements were in effect with regard to the project, i.e., Clear Creek Watershed Foundation and MES, would require a statement to the County. The subcontractor to Clear Creek Watershed Foundation would have to be satisfactory to the County with regard to risk and time of completion. The next step would be for the EPA to accept the County’s application with the Clear Creek Watershed Foundation to implement these projects under County authority. The County’s amendment to this contract would state a completion date. Mr. Rapp stated that there was not a completion date on this contract as the funding was obligated by the USA. The Clear Creek Watershed Foundation expected completion by the next construction season.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the EPA grant application for Clear Creek County. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 21, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 21, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in

Page 207 of 246 attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations (the confidentiality of information contained in reports of child abuse or neglect identifying the names and address of any child, family or informant are confidential pursuant to CRS 19-1- 301(1)(a)) as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(c). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

The Board of Human Services then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSENT AGENDA: #1 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: #2 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SERVICES FOR STANLEY ROAD NON- MOTORIZED TRAIL SEGMENT: #3 CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY DEEDS FROM BURLINGTON RESERVOIR AND DITCH CO.: In attendance were Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Director Peggy Stokstad, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Planner II Holland Smith, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck. Mr. Weaver stated that item #2 was a fee proposal and he was waiting for comments from CDOT before writing a professional services agreement. Regarding item #3, Mr. Loeffler stated that the Board had approved the deeds and the contract. He asked that the Board now formally accept the signed deeds from Burlington and record them with the original contract. Regarding #1, Commissioner Dale asked that the water enterprise fund project restart and have a strategy session. Ms. Stokstad agreed. Mr. Weaver wanted to pursue water augmentation plans for businesses. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

OPENING OF SEALED BIDS FOR COUNTY LANDS IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Commissioner Sorensen noted that only one sealed bid was received. Mr. Smith stated that both of these parcels for bid were zoned M-2 and were in the Alps Mountain area. The one bid received was for parcel #1961-05-3-00-962E. The minimum bid amount was $756. The bid received was from James Bales for $1011 with a cashier’s check. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to accept the bid from Mr. Bales for parcel #1961-05-3- 00-962E. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously. There were no bids for parcel #1961-05-4-00-970.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 22, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert

Page 208 of 246 Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following: • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); • conferences with an attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific questions regarding the Sportsmen’s Club lease, Site Development Inspection enforcement, Mad Creek litigation, telecommunications, and Burkhardt litigation as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b).

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - OCTOBER 28, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on October 28, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-151, NAMING OF UNNAMED ROAD TO LOST MINE ROAD, WARREN GULCH: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM THE LUCAS GROUP TO CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM CLEAR CREEK COUNTY TO WILLIAM KAZEL: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM CLEAR CREEK COUNTY TO KAZEL MOUNTAIN MINES CORPORATION: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-154, AMENDING RESOLUTION #03-73, APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY TOURISM BOARD, BOARD OF DIRECTORS: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS FOR THE FOLLOWING: KAZEL MOUNTAIN MINES CORPORATION FOR 3 PARCELS IN SECTIONS 3 & 4, T4SR73W; ONE PARCEL FOR WAREMBOURG IN SECTION 20, T3SR73W; ONE PARCEL FOR ENOCHS IN SECTION 27, T3SR74W: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND HGI INC.: Planner II Holland Smith, Secretary III Cyndie Rushmyer, County Lands Director Lisa Vogel, and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Smith explained that Mr. Kazel’s land was being transferred as 3 separate parcels but on the same deed. These 3 parcels would be combined to other parcels with a Combination of Lots Agreement. The County was supportive of the easement with Kazel as this was an emergency access for the area. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding the following: • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a);

Page 209 of 246 • conferences with attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • determining negotiating strategies and positions and instructing negotiators as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e).

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LONG TERM LEASE FOR THE CLEAR CREEK SPORTSMEN’S CLUB: Sportsmen’s Club members Ray Eaves, Lou Kingsley, and Kathy Hinkle attended the hearing. Mr. Kingsley, Mr. Eaves and Mrs. Hinkle made the following statements: • He stated that the Sportsmen’s Club was submitting a reasonable attempt at a lease agreement. • The club was offering the originally submitted $10,000 per year amount to fund the future clean up of the site. • The lease term was again proposed at 10 years. • The final clean up would remain with the responsibility of the County. • This $10,000 amount annually was preferred to be applied for the future clean up of the site only. • The club found that Best Management Practices (BMP) for an active range were impractical as once the range reopened, it was eliminating any clean up through the BMP’s. • The time to use BMP’s were after the range was closed and inactive. This was the opinion obtained from other range experts. • Mr. Eaves stated that there was no runoff on this site as the club had samples performed.

• Mrs. Hinkle stated that her husband attended a range development conference and spoke with EPA. EPA personnel informed him that $10,000 per year was more than enough to clean a site at the end of the proposed lease term. County Attorney Robert Loeffler noted that a Dr. Dale of Jefferson County stated there were pros and cons of interim maintenance. • Mr. Kingsley stated that a quote from one company stating that interim maintenance would total $8550 per year but was a waste of effort since the range was still active. They would perform the interim maintenance if the County requested it. • Mrs. Hinkle stated that one of the BMP protocols was to count the number of shots fired on the range and this was not practical. • Mr. Kingsley stated that the worst case scenario for cleaning the range at closure was $320,000.

Commissioner Dale expressed concern as after 10 years, the County would still have to fund $220,000. Mr. Kingsley submitted a second bid for total clean up at the closure of the range at $150,000. Mrs. Hinkle noted that if a second term lease was added, it reduced the cost to the County, not to mention the service and use provided to local law enforcement officials.

Commissioner Dale expressed concern over the rising costs of clean up in 20 years. Ms. Hinkle stated that an interest bearing account could yield 10% over that time period to keep up with rising costs. Commissioner Dale stated that the county had to be proactive and not make the mistake in the past of not preparing a clean up plan. Ms. Hinkle replied that they were here to speak on behalf of the entire club and the club knew they could not afford a lease and the clean up costs as well. Mr. Eaves agreed stating that the club could not be responsible for the clean up costs. The county was the permanent entity and the clean up responsibility should lie with them. Mr. Kingsley noted that should the club leave the range, the law enforcement agencies would still continue to use it and this would add to the lead concern.

Mr. Loeffler stated that it was a better arrangement to have the county receiving some funding for the future clean up of the area. Commissioner Sorensen added that BMP’s in full were not productive, however, some could be done inexpensively. Mr. Kingsley replied that the club was replacing the backstops periodically. Mr. Eaves added that the club would not implement all

Page 210 of 246 BMP’s. The club would agree to do sand replacement on the backstops and some periodic raking and sifting. Mr. Eaves continued that the EPA would be happy just knowing that a fund was established with annual contributions for clean up. Mr. Eaves reiterated that the club would not implement BMP’s but would set up a fund for future clean up.

Mr. Loeffler stated that he had received a letter from the State recommending some work be done annually. The EPA also cited numerous levels of clean up. Mr. Eaves stated that a clean up would be difficult as the club did not do bulls eye shooting but positional shooting. It would be impractical to overhaul the entire area. Mr. Kingsley replied that there was a company that sifted with different size screens and then treated the backstops with chemicals. This still did not remove all the lead. Any cost of removing and recycling the lead was barely worth the cost of transporting it. Mr. Eaves replied that what really mattered was the final clean up and this was what the club wanted to start a fund for. Commissioner Poirot suggested that the annual fee include an escalator clause to increase proportionately with the CPI. Mr. Eaves stated that the club preferred that $10 per year be for the lease and the $10,000 per year with the escalator could be set up as a separate clean up fund. Mr. Kingsley stated that this request was to avoid possessory interest tax. Commissioner Dale stated that Chief Accountant Carl Small could assist with this.

Mr. Eaves suggested raising dues for their membership to assist in paying for the clean up fund. Mr. Kingsley stated that if the possessory tax wasn’t too expensive, the club could manage it. However, if it resulted in too great of an expense, he would request a separate account.

Regarding the escalating lease, Mr. Loeffler suggested using the annual increase percentage of the Denver/Boulder area. Mr. Eaves stated that the club would agree to the annual $10,000 fee with the escalator clause but the annual maintenance should be the responsibility of the County. Commissioner Poirot suggested that the Metals Treatment Technology company quoted a $1000 cost to do an estimate for the County on clean up and annual maintenance. Mrs. Hinkle added that this company could also estimate the rising costs of clean up over the years. Mr. Kingsley noted that these prices could decrease over the years as technology improved. Commissioner Poirot suggested that the Board of County Commissioners consult with County Assessor Diane Settle on the possessory interest issue. He added that the lease should include an escalator clause and the County should obtain bids for a clean up.

Regarding the recommendation of use of non-lead ammunition, Mr. Eaves stated that this would be too expensive and the club did not have the means to police this restricted use. The group discussed the challenge of obtaining a real number for the amount of the clean up. Commissioner Poirot suggested using a portion of the club’s $10,000 portion of the lease for the estimate from Metals Treatment Technology. The club’s lease could be adjusted by this amount by the end of the year.

The lease gave the option of a 60 day cancellation period and renewed for a 10-year period unless canceled. Mr. Eaves stated that if the club were approved for a 10-year lease, they would like to implement a 8-ft wall along the frontage road to assist with the sound. The Board of County Commissioners responded that the club should consult with the planning department.

Commissioner Poirot reiterated that it was to the County’s benefit to sign a 10 year lease. He requested that the club pay Metals Treatment Technology $1000 for the estimate on a total clean up of the area. Mr. Eaves added that the club would also agree to the taxes if they were not too expensive. Mr. Loeffler added that the lease would have the CPI escalator clause. Commissioner Sorensen suggested re-evaluating the CPI increases at the end of 10 years. Mr. Kingsley expressed concern of getting into a situation where they could not keep up. Mr. Loeffler replied a contingency plan may be in order. Commissioner Poirot stated that before an annual number was given to the club, the County wanted to see the results of the estimate from Metals Treatment Technology. A definitive answer from this company would be needed before the end of the year and a firm amount would have to be agreed upon for next year. Commissioner Poirot confirmed that whatever the cost of the estimate would be credited toward the 2003 lease. Commissioner Sorensen requested knowing the current zoning of this parcel for future considerations. Commissioner Sorensen asked Mr. Loeffler to contact Dr. Dale of Jefferson County on the periodic cleanup information. Mr. Eaves stated that periodic clean up

Page 211 of 246 would also be the responsibility of the County. Mr. Loeffler agreed to edit the lease and the group would reconvene at a later date.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 4, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 4, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FOR THE HUBSCHMITT GROUP FOR TWO PARCELS OF COUNTY LAND IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FOR 2 COUNTY LAND PARCELS FOR THE BISHOP GROUP IN SECTIONS 4 AND 5, T4SR73W: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LETTER OF INTENT FOR PARTICIPATION WITH DRAPP–DENVER REGIONAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT WITH WILLIAM WUNDERLICK: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND ESSENTERRA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND GLENN WALLACE: BOARD OF HEALTH CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RELEASE OF LIEN FOR MARK KIRIN, WITH REGARD TO RESOLUTION #00-110, BARBOUR HEIGHTS: In attendance were Secretary III Cyndie Rushmyer, Environmental Health Department Tech Tracy Bennetts, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, and resident Joe Sysel. The Board of County Commissioners considered the first six items only as the seventh item was for the Board of Health. Mr. Mauck stated that Essenterra and Glenn Wallace were selected by the Open Space Commission to conduct trail planning on the Elmgreen property. Essenterra would do the on the ground design. Mr. Wallace would handle the easements and access to the lands. Minor amendments were made to each contract by Mr. Mauck and the County Attorney.

Regarding the DRAPP letter of intent, the Board confirmed that they were only approving an amount up to $8500 for the County’s participation. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve items 1-6 of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Health to consider the seventh item on the Consent Agenda.

County Attorney Robert Loeffler stated that there was a Resolution that imposed the lien and now the title company had presented a release of lien for this property. This release acknowledged that the lien fee was paid. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve item #7 on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Page 212 of 246 The Board of Health then recessed and reconvened as the local Liquor Licensing Authority.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT FOR THE IDAHO SPRINGS HISTORICAL SOCIETY: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Ms. Reimer stated that all information had been received, fees paid, and all departments were in approval. This application was for the Idaho Springs Historical Society Fall Ball event. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Special Events permit for the Idaho Springs Historical Society. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL FOR JOE SYSEL, SHADOWS RANCH: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Ms. Reimer stated that all information had been received, fees paid, and all departments were in approval. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Tavern Liquor License Renewal for Joe Sysel, Shadows Ranch. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF HOTEL/RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL FOR KERMITS: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Ms. Reimer stated that all information had been received, fees paid, and all departments were in approval. Ms. Reimer noted that the lease on the building did expire on December 1, 2005. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Hotel/Restaurant Liquor License Renewal for Kermits. Commissioner Dale seconded and expressed concern on the future of this establishment with the proposed Black Hawk Tunnel. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF OPTIONAL PREMISE LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL FOR CLEAR CREEK SKIING CORP., D.B.A. LOVELAND SKI AREA: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Ms. Reimer stated that all information had been received, fees paid, and all departments were in approval. This license allowed Loveland to serve alcohol at different locations on the property. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Optional Premise Liquor License Renewal for Clear Creek Skiing Corp., d.b.a. Loveland Ski Area. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The local Liquor Licensing Authority then recessed and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-152, BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE #03-AX-05, FOR DEFEYTER AND GALBRAITH, YORK GULCH, T3SR73W: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Mr. Defeyter attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: • The three subject parcels were located in Sections 16 and 17 of T3SR73W and all were zoned M-1. • The applicants were requesting to reconfigure the boundary lines of their respective parcels. • Specifically, Mr. Defeyter, who owned the Treasury Lode Amended, had requested that the Boundary Line between his Treasury Lode Amended and a portion of the adjacent Southern Cross Lode be deleted. • For clarification, the Southern Cross Lode was a singular parcel comprised of three noncontiguous portions. • Mr. Defeyter had requested that this proposal for improved potential driveway access. • The owners of the .1 acre portion fo the Southern Cross Lode have agreed to sell this portion of the Southern Cross Lode to Mr. Defeyter. • The 3.97 acre Treasury Lode Amended and the .1 acre portion of the Southern Cross Lode were both vacant parcels. • The second request involved the Rejected Lode Amended and the Treasury Lode Amended. • The applicant was proposing that the boundary line between the Rejected Lode Amended and the Treasury Lode Amended by moved approximately 50 feet to the west. • This proposal would allow the owners of the Rejected lode Amended to increase the size of their existing garage in the future. • The 3.73 acre Rejected Lode Amended currently had an existing three bedroom, two bath single family residence.

Page 213 of 246 • All owners were in agreement with this proposal and no new building sites were created.

• Adjacent Property Owners and referral agencies were notified on October 6, 2003 and no comments were received as of this date. Public Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on October 15, 2003. • Planning Staff recommended approval pursuant to draft Resolution #03-152.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-152, Major Boundary Line Adjustment Case #03-AX-05, for Defeyter and Galbraith, York Gulch. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SAWMILL CREEK ROAD BEING ADDED TO THE ROAD AND BRIDGE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE: Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel presented. Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, Planner I Sarah Kaminski, and applicants James and Louise Fonda attended the hearing. Mr. Vogel and Mr. Allen made the following statements: • Mr. Vogel presented a letter from Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen discussing this road and he presented a diagram of how a crowned road and super- elevated road appeared. • Regarding ownership of the road, Mr. Vogel stated that the plats were signed by the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission thereby assuming County ownership of the road in 1978. • Mr. Vogel stated that it would cost approximately $11,000-$12,000 to bring the road up to County standards for acceptance. This would be the cost to the homeowners on the road of which there were 19 properties and 14 homes. • Regarding the drainage on Santa Fe Mountain Road, Mr. Allen stated that the best thing would be to have the berm there as it was not impeding traffic. • Mr. Vogel confirmed that it would cost the County $3.72 for every tax dollar collected in this area to maintain this road in the Road and Bridge maintenance schedule. Mr. Allen stated that this was a normal cost. • Mr. Allen confirmed that this would be an additional cost out of the Road and Bridge budget which would have to be accounted for. He added that other areas of the County would have to be adjusted to accommodate this new road in the maintenance schedule. • Mr. Vogel stated that there was a one year probationary period for this road once it was accepted into the maintenance schedule. There was also a 2-year period to maintain it before the County fully accepted the road into the maintenance schedule. • Mr. Allen had compiled a budget per lane mile of treated gravel and paved roads. Per lane mile for a gravel road would require an annual budget of $4800. Currently, the Road and Bridge budget was running close to this amount. • Mr. Allen confirmed that the addition of this road to the County maintenance schedule would affect the County HUTF schedule. Since this road was only adding .6 miles, there would be little change to HUTF. Road and Bridge could only report the mileage that they actually maintained. Commissioner Poirot asked if roads that only receive maintenance once a year could be added. Mr. Allen agreed to clarify this with HUTF.

Commissioner Poirot suggested that the homeowners consider a PID (Public Improvement District) in case the County ended up not being able to add this road. A PID allowed a community to fund building and operating roads. It may prove more economical to the homeowners to have the County perform the work under the PID than to hire a private contractor. Mr. Loeffler noted that a PID required 100% of the property owners to support a PID. Commissioner Sorensen confirmed that the process allowed the homeowners group one year to bring the road up to County standard. Once the upgrades were made the County would begin a 2-year probationary period. If no problems arose during this 2 year period then the County could accept the road into the maintenance schedule. It was reasonable to expect the road upgrades would be done in the spring.

Mr. Allen stated that during the probationary period, his crew could do some trial maintenance in the area to get a feel for adding it to the schedule. Mr. Loeffler interpreted the regulations for private roads to read that one year would lapse before the two year probationary period began.

Page 214 of 246 However, this was a public road.

Regarding road width, Commissioner Sorensen asked what type of width would be needed with the additional easements noted in the plat. Mr. Vogel replied that these easements were to implement cut and fill and drainage. Mr. Allen added that without a formal survey, it was difficult to know exactly where the road right of way existed.

Regarding the easement for the Road and Bridge turnaround area, Mr. Allen stated that this agreement would allow his crew to turn around in the driveway at 610 and 612 Sawmill Creek Road while maintaining the road. The group agreed that formalizing an agreement for the turnaround would be beneficial since the landowners could change in the future.

Mr. Loeffler noted that the regulations were not specific to this particular situation. Therefore, he recommended that the Board of County Commissioners should state the conditions for maintenance, a deadline for accomplishing each step, and the probation period for the cost determination. He suggested reconvening to reconfirm the costs and whether to proceed with permanent maintenance. He added that a Resolution should be done to explain each of these items. Mr. Vogel suggested that the turnaround easement be a County approved easement so it did not end with the present landowners. Mr. Fonda submitted a letter of intent that was written by the County Attorney and was signed by the homeowners at the turnaround easement in favor of the easement.

The group agreed to wait until the upgrades were made to the road to County standard before beginning the probationary period. Commissioner Sorensen suggested that the Board reconsider the addition of this road into the maintenance schedule after the two year probation period. Commissioner Poirot added that if after 2 years the County could not afford accept it into the maintenance schedule, the homeowners could opt for the PID and pay the County to maintain the road. Mr. Fonda replied that there were a couple homeowners on their road that would not approve the PID. Mr. Vogel and Mr. Allen stated that there was a possibility to do partial maintenance if this occurred. Commissioner Dale noted that during the probation period, the homeowners were getting two years of maintenance. Commissioner Poirot added that this would offset the cost of bringing the road to County standard.

The Board confirmed that the homeowners could do the road upgrade themselves if they chose. Mr. Allen added that the County could assist with shaping the road. Mr. Loeffler thought this could be a problem if Road and Bridge had timing conflicts. Mrs. Fonda stated that they had neighbors with equipment that could help them. She continued that the homeowners could handle the hauling, spreading and compaction.

The Board agreed to require a schedule and Resolution with regard to this road. The upgrades to the road could be completed by September of 2004 and the County could assume maintenance during winter of 2004 as they move into the 2 year probationary period.

The Board noted that this was the first road to attempt adoption into the maintenance schedule. Commissioner Sorensen noted that when this road was actually considered for adoption, herself and Commissioner Poirot would no longer be in office. Commissioner Sorensen did understand the hardship the addition of this road could put on the Road and Bridge department. Commissioner Poirot stated that many of the maintenance costs would decrease if some roads went to pavement. Commissioner Dale commented that the County was asking the homeowners to spend time and money to bring the road up to standard. Additionally, there was a 2 year probation period to allow the County to re-evaluate. Road petitions would have to be considered one at a time to minimize the risk to the budget. Mr. Allen noted that the County road maintenance system had not been updated since 1986.

Commissioner Poirot motioned to approve a Resolution and timeline contingent on receiving an acceptable Resolution composed by Mr. Loeffler and Mr. Vogel, with stipulations and conditions, for Sawmill Creek Road to be added to the Road and Bridge maintenance schedule. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Page 215 of 246 The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 12, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 12, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 2003 PACIFICARE CONTRACT WITH CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR ANDRESON GREEN/GREEN: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUDIT SERVICES PROPOSAL: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EPSDT CONTRACT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND THE CITY AND COUNTY OF BROOMFIELD HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF BROOMFIELD AND CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FOR EPSDT SERVICES: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND DATA DUNWRITE INC.: In attendance were Human Resources Director Gail Buckley, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Administrative Intern Tim Mauck. Ms. Buckley noted that the health insurance costs for employees would be increasing. The County should expect double digit increases due to three significant claims within the staff. Mr. Small stated that most staff contribute 15% of the total premium. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda items. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WAIVER OF VARIANCE FEE FOR BLOCHINGER, ECHO HILLS: Code Enforcement Officer Staci Writer and Code Enforcement Tech Tracy Bennetts presented. Chris Blochinger attended the hearing. Mr. Writer made the following statements: ‘ Mr. Blochinger was heard by the Board of Adjustment on November 4, 2003. ‘ He had an approved variance, 41-V-2, that approved construction of a 936 square foot garage/barn with a 360 square foot upper level, with a 15-foot north setback, on property less than an acre in size, and to further acknowledge a 6-foot north setback for an existing 6' X 6' platform containing a playhouse. ‘ In the new variance, 41-V-03, he was requesting to have the stipulation and condition, line #2, removed for the Resolution. This stipulation stated that a building permit must be obtained to comply with the variance. ‘ Mr. Blochinger stated that this was an AG building and therefore did not require a building permit. The Board of Adjustment granted his request. ‘ The owner further requested a fee waiver recommendation for this variance. The Board of Adjustment granted the recommendation to receive the $350 back on the variance. ‘ The Board of Adjustment felt that it was staff error that the stipulation was even written and that the minutes from October 2002 clarified that the structure would be a barn only, not a garage. ‘ The property was 1 acre in size and zoned MR-1. ‘ Mr. Blochinger was instructed that the Board of County Commissioners had the final decision on the fee waiver.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the fee waiver for the second variance totaling

Page 216 of 246 $350 for Chris Blochinger. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 17, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CCOERA PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GAMING GRANT AWARD FOR THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: Planner II Holland Smith, Clear Creek Courant reporter Jennifer Voelker, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and resident Gordon Gohlke attended the hearing. Chief Accountant Carl Small, County Attorney Robert Loeffler and Human Resources Director Gail Buckley reviewed the CCOERA participation agreement and had no comment.

Regarding the Sheriff’s gaming grant, Mr. Small had concerns regarding the match which totaled $122,000 of which $86,000 was coming from participating agencies. As the communications center project had not been finalized, there was question as to whether this portion of the match was committed. Commissioner Sorensen and Mr. Loeffler suggested not signing the grant award until an Intergovernmental Agreement was signed between the participating agencies. Mr. Small noted that the one risk to not signing the grant award was losing the funding. Mr. Small stated that a time constraint with the grant award was that certain staff wages were based on the execution of this grant. This staff had already been hired and the funding was needed as soon as possible. Mr. Loeffler suggested the Board continue this hearing to the following week to discuss the match funding. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda item dealing with CCOERA only and to continue the Sheriff’s gaming grant award to the following week, November 25, 2003 at 11:15 a.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-156, BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE #03-AX-07, DIVISION OF COUNTY LANDS IN SECTION 36, T3SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. County Lands Director Lisa Vogel, and Clear Creek Courant reporter Jennifer Voelker attended the hearing. Mr. Smith made the following statements: • This proposal if approved would divide County Land Parcel #1835-36-3-00-957, a .20 acre parcel into a .05 acre parcel, a .06 acre parcel, and a .09 acre parcel. • All three parcels would be sold to the owners of contiguous property. • In that the contiguous private property was located within the Idaho Springs City boundary, the parcels would be conveyed to the respective contiguous property owners subject to a deed restriction, in lieu of a Combination of Lots Agreements, requiring that future sales of the respective properties be as if one “unified” property. • Additional building lots would not be created. • The parcel was zoned M-2. • On approval of this boundary line adjustment, the three parcels would remain zoned M-2. • Per the deed restriction on sale of the County property, only M-2 uses of the land to be sold would be allowed as long as the conveyed County property remained in the unincorporated County. • On completion of the transactions, the unified properties would have access from Divide View Drive located in the Montane Park Subdivision.

Page 217 of 246 Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-156, Boundary Line Adjustment Case #03-AX-07, in Section 36, T3SR73W. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-159, ROAD AND EASEMENT VACATION IN SADDLEBACK RIDGE ESTATES FOR ALAN WOLFF AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-158, BOARD OF HEALTH HEARING TO CONSIDER A ZERO-FOOT SETBACK AND ISDS EXCEPTION FOR A LEACH FIELD IN SADDLEBACK RIDGE ESTATES FOR ALAN WOLFF: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. Applicant Alan Wolff, Saddleback Development Corporation representative Rich Cassens, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson, Environmental Health Department Tech Tracy Bennetts, Planner II Doug Lesh, Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver, former-property owner Mike Vikdal, Church and Associates representatives Ed Church and Ken Hamilton, Adjacent Property Owner Jason Seller, Saddleback Property Owner Gordon Gohlke, and Saddleback Development Corporation representative Rich Cassens attended the hearing. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: ‘ This case had changed radically in the past hour. ‘ The initial application was to vacate a 20-foot roadway easement and an open space easement to facilitate development of the subject property. ‘ The property was located on Clear Creek Road in Saddleback Ridge Estates, approximately 4.01 miles from the Floyd Hill exit off I-70. ‘ The subject parcel was created by a Class A Exemption on October 16, 1978, pursuant to the Saddleback Ridge Estates, Filing #4 amended survey plat recorded at the County. ‘ The parcel was 5.35 acres, vacant, and zoned MR-1. ‘ This entire proposal had changed and Ms. Kaminski asked that the applicant explain the situation.

Mr. Wolff made the following presentation: T This lot contained much rocky cliff areas with a gentler slope at the bottom. A creek and aspen grove crossed the property. T He had met with Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel and had agreed on a driveway location. T He had met with Planning staff to determine a location for the septic. They decided to locate the ISDS in the open space/utility area which would require a variance. Therefore a vacation was needed of the utility easement and this was done in 1999. T The garage would need a setback due to the location of the creek. T An architectural and septic report were completed in August of 2003. T At the beginning of October 2003, septic and driveway fees were paid and the project was moving forward. T At the end of October 2003, the Board of County Commissioners had a meeting on emergency ingress/egress to the Floyd Hill area. This opened up information that the applicant had not been aware of while planning the project. T Mr. Wolff met with Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver and Saddleback Development Corporation representative Rich Cassens and they informed him that this open space easement on the property was for emergency egress. T Mr. Wolff was uncertain if this easement would ever be financially feasible for the County to improve as an emergency egress but Mr. Weaver requested that the County be the one to determine whether they should surrender the easement. Mr. Weaver noted that this open space easement was identified as a roadway/utility easement. T Mr. Wolff noted that until a week ago, the idea of this easement being designated as an emergency egress had never come up during his process with the Planning Department. T With this new information in mind, Mr. Wolff proposed to redevelop his site plan by moving the home, garage, and ISDS to the other side of the creek away from this easement. The ISDS proposal was still uncertain as Mr. Wolff and the Environmental Health Department needed to evaluate if the ISDS could be located on the same side of the creek as the home and garage. T If this was allowed, it would alleviate the need for any hearings at all.

Mr. Vikdal made the following statements:

Page 218 of 246 ‚ In 1989, his neighbor was aggressive in developing his lot so he solicited Mr. Vikdal to implement a joint driveway. ‚ Mr. Vikdal had intended to ask for the easement request at this time but due to the joint driveway situation, he rescinded. ‚ Since then, Mr. Vikdal stated that the joint driveway was not as accessible as he had thought and had suggested an individual driveway for Wolff’s land.

Mr. Sellers stated that he was in favor of this new proposal as the location was more preferable and less noticeable.

Mr. Gohlke made the following statements: G He was amazed at the contemplation of a road in this area. G There were many open space designated roads in Saddleback and most were unbuildable.

G The Saddleback Homeowners Association had no idea that this easement existed. G He stated that if the County was contemplating a road or spending a money on this easement, the Saddleback Homeowners Association wanted to know about it.

Mr. Cassens made the following statements: G In reviewing the older plats of the area, this road easement was listed on the plats as it was about a mile from I-70. G The elevation of the lot along the creek was 13% and the elevation closer to I-70 was 20%. G He recommended to keep the viability there with this access. G He added that the full plat notes for the Saddleback Development Corporation stated that for Tract C to the north and west was reserved for open space, drainage, roadway easements, utilities and subject to future re-platting. For this area, whether any roads will be drawn was unknown at this time.

Commissioner Dale stated that the important point was to retain this easement access and not lose the potential of an emergency egress. It was steep and primitive at this time but technology could change to allow the improvement to the road. Mr. Wolff reminded the Board that some of this easement area may be needed to locate his ISDS. He was willing to discuss a tradeoff of land in order to accommodate a leach field but he wanted everyone to remember that a leach field on the other side of the creek had not been examined for possibility. Mr. Weaver stated that the easement was probably 11-feet wide and would need a cut and fill slope. He was unsure how a leach field would work with cut and fill slopes. In 2003, the County realized the need for emergency egress in this area as it was over-built and only had a single access. There could come a time when this access was needed. Mr. Gohlke noted that further down the road to the northeast, the road became wider and could be a better location for cut and fill as opposed to using this small lot. He asked that everyone see the land on site as it was much different than what was drawn.

Commissioner Poirot stated that he did not want to give up this easement and asked Mr. Wolff to continue to work with Planning to move the ISDS. Water lines could also be an option for easements such as this. Mr. Loeffler explained to the Board that they had two options. They could grant the application with the changes presented, deny the application, continue the matter to allow time for Planning and Environmental Health Department to work out logistics. Mr. Wolff may not need some of the requests in the original proposal. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the hearing to January 6, 2004 at 10:05 a.m. Commissioner Dale seconds. Mr. Gohlke requested that the County keep the Saddleback Homeowners Association informed on any more accesses that come up. The Homeowners Association had no idea on the intentions of types of uses the County could have for these various easements. Commissioner Dale stated that in light of recent wildfires, the Planning Department needs to make it a high priority when handling cases with easements and accesses such as this. Mr. Weaver stated that he would recommend denial on all applications that increase density in this area due to the lack of emergency egress. The vote was passed unanimously.

The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Board of Health.

Page 219 of 246 Mr. Etcheson requested an action from the Board on the Board of Health case associated with this proposal. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue this hearing also to January 6, 2004 at 10:05 a.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion was passed unanimously.

The Board of Health then adjourned and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF FEE WAIVER FOR GREG MARSH, ST. MARY’S/ALICE AREA: Zoning Specialist Staci Writer and Zoning Tech Tracy Bennetts presented. Greg Marsh attended the hearing. Ms. Writer made the following statements: G Mr. Marsh was heard by the Board of Adjustment on November 4, 2003. G The Board of Adjustment denied his request and stated that the Notice of Violation issued to the owner was appropriately issued. G Marsh had appealed his Notice of Violation as being inaccurate and was also appealing the decision of Ms. Writer. G Further the Board of Adjustment found that the items were not grand fathered. G The owner further requested a fee waiver recommendation for this appeal. G The Board of Adjustment denied the recommendation to grant the $140 back on the appeal. G The Board of Adjustment felt that this case took up a considerable amount of staff time to research and put the case together. G The Staff further felt that Mr. Marsh has been in violation for 8 years and has done some steps to comply with Zoning Regulations but just has not achieved full compliance. G It was also Marsh’s decision to appeal this case and the material were moveable therefore it was a self-imposed hardship. G As a note, this property was zoned R-2.

Mr. Marsh made the following statements: G He presented an accounts receivable statement from his firm showing gross income. G His company was experiencing a large operating loss. G He requested a refund based on financial hardship.

Mr. Loeffler replied that the County had no rules on refunding fees due to financial hardship. Commissioner Dale stated that staff time and other expenses had to be covered in these cases. Mr. Marsh explained that Ms. Writer stated she had been watching this property for years. Mr. Marsh felt this was wrong as there was no documentation of this monitoring. He had accomplished the removal of two vehicles and some junk from the property already. Ms. Writer replied that the last Notice of Violation was sent on June 19, 2003. Marsh asked for a 120-day extension and Ms. Writer granted it. Prior to this, Carol Wise had been the case manager with former property owners. Commissioner Sorensen stated that a letter from the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, Jeff Ricklefs, stated that two members of the Board of Adjustment performed a site visit and they did not recommend a reduction or waiver of the fee. Commissioner Dale made the motion to deny the request for a fee waiver or reduction for Mr. Marsh. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THE 2004 CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BUDGET AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BUDGET: The Board of County Commissioners noted that they were also sitting as the Emergency Services District Board. Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. There was no public in attendance. Mr. Small made the following statements: G Public notice was published and another hearing would be held this evening regarding the 2004 budget. G The budget had been reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners in working sessions with Department Heads. G A copy of the proposed budget was on public display at all libraries and in the courthouse. G The budget was scheduled for adoption on December 9, 2003 and certification of mill levies on December 16, 2003. G This year the library would submit a certification on their mill levy which was approved in the November 2003 election.

Page 220 of 246 Commissioner Poirot made the motion to continue the Clear Creek County 2004 budget and the Emergency Services District 2004 budget hearings to 6:30 p.m. later tonight. Commissioner Dale seconded and the vote passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session regarding the Arapaho Project with Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation Director Peggy Stokstad, Jack Stauffer and Steve Schultz as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a) with regard to the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest and with regard to determining negotiating strategies and positions and instructing negotiators as allowed by CRS 24-6-492(4)(e). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THE 2004 CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BUDGET: The Board of County Commissioners noted that they were convening also as the Emergency Services District Board. Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson and Clear Creek Courant reporter Jennifer Voelker attended the hearing. Mr. Abrahamson asked if the Board of County Commissioners had strategized how they would balance the budget. Commissioner Poirot replied that they were still in this process and they had two choices. They could either cut the budgets or raise the mill levy. Mr. Small added that the normal process was to first ask Departments to cut their budgets. Commissioner Poirot stated that int he past, the Board would request that the Service Unit Managers make suggestion to meeting a balanced budget.

Mr. Small reported that two things had not yet been resolved: whether there would be an impact to benefits or whether there would be an adjustment to the compensation plan. The County was facing a 25% increase in health insurance. Mr. Small would continue to work with all departments to make adjustments. Some requested positions could not be avoided, i.e., certified medical assistants for Confinement, dispatchers, etc.

In response to Ms. Voelker’s question, Mr. Small replied that the mill levy decreased since the assessed valuation went up at a larger percentage. Commissioner Poirot added that the County did not think the valuation would increase as it had in past years. Instead of returning the mill, the County would reserve some of it to balance the budget. Commissioner Poirot stated that much of mill levy was related to the Henderson Mine valuation which was still not yet complete.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 18, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______

Page 221 of 246 Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 25, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on November 25, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Administrative Assistant Marni Krueger. Commissioner Robert Poirot and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther were out of town.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR THE TRANSFER OF LONG TERM MANAGEMENT OF COUNTY LAND KNOWN AS THE ALPS MOUNTAIN PARCELS, T4SR73W: County Lands Director Lisa Vogel presented. Open Space Commission Chairman Frank Young attended. Ms. Vogel made the following statements: • This was a continuation of the original hearing held on October 14, 2003. • The County Lands Department had been working on this area of land for three years and ha identified mineral potential and open space values. • The present request was for the Open Space Commission to obtain long term management of these lands. • The property being requested for long term management was four separate parcels consisting of approximately 350 acres. • The lands were located in the historic mineral belt along South Spring Gulch and Lamartine Roads in Sections 5 & 6 of T4SR73W at elevations of 9500 to over 10,500 feet. • The area encompassed a ridgeline with four peaks, significant viewsheds and connected to U.S. Forest Service land on the south and west. • In the previous zone plan hearings of this township, there was a great deal of discussion whether the lands should be zoned NR-PC or M-2. • The final determination was to leave these areas unzoned to allow staff time to create a new NR-PC type of district which would also provide for mining. • The intent was to protect the County’s interest in any future mining potential while allowing managed recreational use of the sties by all citizens. • The Open Space Commission agreed to continue working with the staff to develop a new district or other zoning tool to accomplish this goal. • The Open Space Commissions’ “Statement of Management Intent” outlined concepts for management including: historic sites and interpretation, recreation, educational opportunities, safety improvements, buffer area Clear Creek Courant reporter Dan Newman mining. • The Planning Commission considered this request at their regularly scheduled meeting November 19, 2003. They unanimously voted in support of the Open Space Commission management. • The Planning Commission was in the process of final public hearings on the draft master plan. Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen recommended postponing the zoning discussion of these lands until this document was adopted. The Open Space Commission was willing to continue working on the zoning issues with staff. • The draft Resolution reserved the management of the mineral (subsurface) estate to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff believed this policy could maximize the environmental and economic welfare of the people by preserving all reasonable opportunities for optimum development and the use for all surface and mineral resources. On November 8, 2002, staff asked the BLM this question: • if the County designates property it will keep for open space/recreational use, under Section 5(c)(2) of the Act, may it lease or sell the minerals for commercial development provided that the development not materially impair the quality of the surface for open space/recreational use? Would it need to get approval by the Secretary of the Interior for such leases or sales? • ANSWER: Would not require Secretarial approval. Presumes that the designation for open space/recreational use will contain well defined, enforceable planning/zoning limits under which such commercial development could occur.

Page 222 of 246 • Members of the Open Space Commission and County Lands Department have met with the current owner of the Location Certificate of the Diamond Mountain unpatented claim on the property. A verbal agreement was made that an operating plan would be developed to enable Mr. Bouldrin to continue working in the existing tunnels. • EMERGE, in their comments on the Zone Plan for this township, stated that they supported the Open Space Commission management of this property. • The original BLM Lands Committee’s General Land Disposition Policies recommended that the County should ensure the protection of the visual, historic, wildlife, and recreation value for the long term benefit of Clear Creek County by encouraging qualified public or non-profit entities to town and manage them. • Staff recognized the open space values of this land, in addition to the potential mineral resources, and recommended that the County transfer the long term management of the surface to the Open Space Commission while retaining management of the mineral estate. Mr. Young made the following statements: • This area required a management plan to handle certain activities on the property. • There were cabins which were used as emergency shelters. • To the west was the old Lamartine Mine, along with ridgeline viewsheds, and winter recreation areas. • A proposed development was located to the west and the County needed to begin work now to develop a trail system and work with landowners to get access from South Spring Gulch Road. • The present old mining roads in this area connected all the way to Georgetown.

The group discussed the Resolution and the need to include the information from BLM and the correspondence regarding the Secretary of Interior. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-178 to transfer long term management of County lands known as the Alps Mountain Parcels to the Open Space Commission with the change to include the correspondence regarding the Secretary of Interior. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF GAMING GRANT AWARD FOR THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: Sheriff Don Krueger, Chief Accountant Carl Small, and Records Specialist Jackie Crady attended the hearing. Commissioner Sorensen reminded the group that the Board of County Commissioners was unsure if a match was coming for this particular grant. Commissioner Dale added that the communications expansion, which was a part of this grant, was tabled until the municipalities and County agreed on a plan. Sheriff Krueger stated that Department of Local Affairs was flexible with this grant and would allow the County to continue with it and determine what portions would be continued to later or rescinded. Ms. Crady and Mr. Small agreed to carefully monitor the grant funding usage so as not to utilize the portion of funding which did not have a match. Based on this information, Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Sheriff’s Gaming Grant award #03-296. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF GAMING GRANT AWARDS FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, MOUNT EVANS HOSPICE, CLEAR CREEK ADVOCATES, AND THE CLEAR CREEK SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SRO GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF U.S. GEOLOGIC SURVEY JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENTS: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF STATE TRAILS AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY LANDS AND SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT FOR ED STENBY: Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. The Board discussed the Joint Funding Agreements and that two of the three were reimbursable from a third party. The Gaming Grant awards were in order for the various agencies. Mr. Small said there were no issues with these

Page 223 of 246 grants. The SRO grant had not been submitted so the Board decided to delay decision on this grant to a later time. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the omission of #2, application for the SRO grant from the Sheriff’s Department. Commissioner Sorensen seconded and the motion approved unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on December 1, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-179, DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE AS THE DISASTER AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: Human Resources Specialist Gail Buckley and Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson attended the hearing. Mr. Loeffler stated that this Resolution was prepared in the absence of a County Emergency Manager and would be effective as of November 30, 2003. The office was currently vacant and it was the Board of County Commissioners’ desire to appoint the Sheriff’s Department as the EMO designee until a new manager was hired. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-179, designating the Sheriff’s office as the disaster agency responsible for emergency management. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on December 9, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Vice Chairman Robert Poirot called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen was out of town.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF HOTEL/RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL FOR H.W. STEWART INC., D.B.A. ECHO LAKE LODGE: Paralegal Nanette Reimer presented. Ms. Reimer made the following statements: • The Echo Lake Lodge had submitted the renewal application. • This was a unique application as the establishment was closed during the winter months. • All inspections were held before they closed for the winter except for the Fire Marshals. • The County could renew the license and hold it until the Fire Marshal approved the opening for the summer. • There were no violations stated.

Page 224 of 246 • The establishment was only open from May through September.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the hotel/restaurant liquor license renewal for H.W. Stewart Inc., d.b.a. Echo Lake Lodge. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-160, MAJOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE #03-AX-09, FOR HERBERT LINN, UPPER BEAR AREA: Planner II Doug Lesh presented. In attendance were Applicant Herbert Linn, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, and Adjacent Property Owner Bob Foster. Mr. Lesh made the following presentation: ‘ The applicant, Mr. Herbert Linn was seeking to realign the common property boundaries between parcels A, B and C of the 1996 Linn Division of Land. ‘ Parcels A and C have both previously been developed for the purpose of single family residences, while parcel B remains vacant. The current proposal was intended to increase the development potential of the one remaining vacant parcel by increasing the size of this property from 1.84 to 4.85 acres in size. ‘ Parcel A would increase from .6235 to 1.128 acres in size; ‘ Parcel B would increase from 1.842 to 4.853 acres in size; and ‘ Parcel C would decrease from 5.517 to 2.000 acres in size. ‘ As such, all of the parcels in question meet the minimum acreage requirements as stated in the County Zoning Regulations. ‘ In regards to the issue of access, it was a requirement for Boundary Line Adjustments as stated in the Clear Creek County Subdivision Regulations that “resulting parcels will all have legal access and all proposed driveways can meet adopted driveway standards.” ‘ In a letter dated 14 November 2003, the County Site Development Inspector stated that in order to obtain access to parcel B-1 as proposed by the applicant, it would be difficult and extremely expensive to meet the driveway design standards. Further, due to the length of the road and the amount of site disturbance that would occur to construct the road, a BMP plan and an engineered grading and drainage plan will be required prior to issuance of a driveway permit. ‘ Considering the amount of site disturbance that would occur in order to access Parcel B-1 via the proposed easement, ideally alternative access to the site shall be acquired some time in the future via an access easement from either Potato Patch Circle to the south of the property, or Diamond Drive to the north of the property. ‘ Either of these options will allow access to the site which will minimize the costs involved with construction of a driveway, and which will also result in considerably less site disturbance. ‘ In support of the current application, while the potential for site disturbance as the result of the proposed driveway to Parcel B-1 was recognized, there are no County regulations prohibiting the use of this same easement to access Parcel B at the present time. As such, the same potential for site disturbance exists under the current property configuration as under the proposed property configuration. Therefore, by expanding Parcel B from 1.84 to 4.85 acres in size, the current proposal will effectively increase the number of options available for obtaining access to this Parcel. In particular, the distance from Parcel B to Potato Patch Circle will be reduced from ±413 feet to only ±32 feet, therefore improving the likelihood that more appropriate access to the subject site via an easement from either Potato Patch Circle or Diamond Drive can be acquired at some time in the future. ‘ Adjacent property owners and referral agencies were notified on October 28, 2003 and no comments were received other than from the County Site Development Department. Public Notice was published in the Clear Creek Courant on November 5, 2003. ‘ Staff recommendation was for approval pursuant to draft Resolution R-03-0160. ‘ Should the Board be of a mind to approve the current proposal there were two additional issues which pertain to the draft Resolution which should also be addressed. ‘ First of all as the original easement agreement as recorded was slightly different than the driveway alignment indicated on this map, it was considered that approval should be conditional upon recordation of a new easement agreement. The reason for this being that during the processing of the current application Mr. Linn amended the easement alignment in order to better meet County driveway standards. As such, the easement

Page 225 of 246 alignment as originally recorded was no longer completely accurate. ‘ Second, the easement alignment as indicated on this map was 10-12 feet to closer to the house to meet the 30 foot setback distance as required in the MR-1 zone. However, as it does not appear that there was any reason that the easement can not be moved slightly to the south such that it meets the 30 feet setback requirement, it was therefore considered that approval should also be conditional upon the applicant demonstrating that the proposed easement does not create any non-compliance with the setback regulations.

Commissioner Dale stated that the ISDS regulations require a minimum of 5 acres for an ISDS permit. Mr. Lesh noted that this was not required for the Major Boundary Line Adjustment. Mr. Rollenhagen added that it was also in how the ISDS regulations were interpreted. The Planning Department did not see this as a new subdivision and the regulations specify for new subdivisions, 5 acres is required.

Regarding the outhouse in parcel A, Commissioner Dale noted that the County had outlawed these outhouses. Mr. Rollenhagen stated that the Planning Department had regulations that prohibited land use development if there were zoning violations but not if there were health code violations. Mr. Linn added that his sister owned Parcel A and was planning on installing a septic system. Mr. Lesh stated that if this boundary line adjustment was approved, parcel C would have enough acreage for an ISDS system and the minimum separation distances. He noted that Environmental Health Director Chris Etcheson did not comment on this case. Mr. Loeffler stated that the outhouse would have to be addressed in order to approve this case. Mr. Linn replied that parcel A had the outhouse however, parcels A and C were virtually unused. When the parcels were upgraded, the outhouse would be removed. Commissioner Poirot replied that the outhouse would have to be removed whether the lots were upgraded or not. He suggested the approval be contingent on the removal of the outhouse.

Mr. Linn noted that the cabin on parcel C did have a kitchen and electricity. He was unsure of the destination of the gray water but thought there was a buried cistern. Commissioner Dale requested to hear from Environmental Health Department Director Chris Etcheson before making a decision on this case.

Adjacent Property Owner Bob Foster made the following statements: ‘ He was concerned on the access to the property. ‘ He discussed this with another Adjacent Property Owner to the parcel B to the north and this neighbor was opposed to access across his land. ‘ The other Adjacent Property Owner was concerned about access impeding near his home and well head. ‘ Mr. Foster claimed that the cabin on parcel C had been occupied for the past 10 summers and he anticipated another tenant in the upcoming summer. ‘ Mr. Foster felt that a road cut to parcel B would cause much dislocation to the area. ‘ Mr. Foster claimed that the owner on Potato Patch Circle would also not grant access across his property to parcel B. ‘ Mr. Foster felt that the proposal was too much for the area.

Commissioner Poirot stated that a judge may grant access from Potato Patch Circle if needed. Commissioner Dale added that in this case, access was not the worst concern. The ISDS issues outweighed the other concerns. Commissioner Poirot stated that access could not be prevented. Landlocked parcels were not allowed. Commissioner Poirot agreed that more research was needed into the ISDS issues. Commissioner Dale made the motion to continue the hearing to December 23, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. to allow time for more research. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR COUNTY FAX MACHINE: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-180, TO SUPPORT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND STATE BOARD OF GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO TRUST FUND: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ABATEMENT AGREEMENT FOR RON

Page 226 of 246 KANE: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMBULANCE SERVICE LICENSE FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AMBULANCE AND AMBULANCE PERMITS FOR THE FIVE IDENTIFIED VEHICLES: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUDITOR ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND SWANHORST AND CUTLER, LLC: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH PEAK PERFORMANCE COPIER AND SUPPLY FOR THE COUNTY COPY MACHINES: In attendance were Ambulance Director Craig Abrahamson, Building Permit Coordinator Lynette Kelsey, Planner I Sarah Kaminski, Environmental Health Department Tech Tracy Bennetts, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Pledge and Security Agreement Applicant Ron Kane, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Administrative Intern Tim Mauck, Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel. Regarding the Consent Agenda items, Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Mr. Loeffler noted that the ambulance service agreement licensed the ambulance service and each ambulance utilized by the Ambulance Department. If another ambulance was acquired, the license would have to be amended. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-165, ROAD VACATION CASE #03-RD-03, FOR SADDLEBACK RIDGE ESTATES LOT 24, B2, F4, SECTION 3, T4SR72W, FOR CHRIS GUIMARIN: Planner I Sarah Kaminski presented. In attendance were applicants Chris Guimarin and Kimberly Carlile, Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen, Adjacent Property Owner Gordon Gohlke, and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel. Ms. Kaminski made the following statements: ‚ The applicants, Chris Guimarin and Kimberly Carlile were requesting to vacate a 7000 square foot portion of the Sawmill Creek Road Right of Way. ‚ This portion of the right of way was adjacent to their property known as Lot 24, Block 2, Filing #4, in Saddleback Ridge Estates. ‚ The applicants had requested this proposal to facilitate development of their lot. ‚ Specifically, the applicant would like to build their detached garage within a part of the proposed portion of the right of way to be vacated. The property owners have agreed to relocated the easement reserved in the Plat Notes #1 and #2, of the Saddleback Ridge Estates Filing #4 to be located along the new lot lines created by the right of way vacation, if this proposal was approved. ‚ The majority of the area to be vacated was extremely steep with a large rock outcropping. The southern half of the proposed area for vacation had a 15-30% slope. After conducting a site visit to the subject property on November 5, 2003, Planning Staff concurred that the proposed portion of the right of way to be vacated does not appear to be a viable area for roadway purposes. ‚ Adjacent Property Owners were notified of this proposal on November 18, 2003. ‚ Three Adjacent Property Owners submitted written responses and copies of those responses were included in Commissioner packets. The Seaveys opposed this proposal due to the close proximity of their well head to the proposed gravel driveway, their quality of life being compromised due to close proximity to their home, and that blasting to build the garage could damage their well. The Friends strongly opposed the project as they thought it would require relocating the mailboxes, that the subject property was too steep for construction, their fire protection tanks would be impeded by the Guimarin’s vehicles, and that the proposal would present a sight and distance hazard to traffic in the area. The Stearns were opposed to the proposal for fear of potential drainage problems. ‚ An additional response from an Adjacent Property Owner was received on Monday December 8th. A copy of this submittal was given to the Board of County Commissioners. This submittal from the Jackson’s stated concerns with regard to blasting and the disturbance of the existing rock outcropping. ‚ Referral agencies were also notified of this proposal on November 18, 2003. The response from Tim Allen of the Road and Bridge Department was included for the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Allen stated that this request asked for a vacation of an area greater than was needed to fulfill the setback requirements. He recommended that only the amount of area needed to meet setback distance be granted. He added that the 20-feet utility easement along property lines that abuts streets reserved for utility

Page 227 of 246 installation, cut and fill slopes and snow removal deposits, remain in place. Mr. Allen stated that since Sawmill Creek Road residents had applied for probationary maintenance of their road from Road and Bridge Department, this proposal should not be allowed to interfere with the final success of that adoption. ‚ Planning staff had considered the issues and concerns raised by Adjacent Property Owners and referral agencies and have provided options to mitigate some of these issues. ‚ Planning staff recommended approval of this request with recommended Platting Conditions and Conditions of Approval, as per the attached Resolution.

Commissioner Dale asked that the staff address the comments made by the Adjacent Property Owners. Ms. Kaminski replied with the following statements: T The gravel driveway could be addressed in one of 2 ways. The applicant had agreed to grant a perpetual easement across Lot 24 for the gravel driveway that accessed the well head on Lot 23; or #2, the configuration of the right of way portion to be excavated could be changed to not include the gravel driveway. However, the applicant would need to move the garage back on the property to allow for setbacks. The applicant chose the second option. T Regarding the aesthetic beauty of Lot 24, the applicant wanted to preserve the rock outcropping in question. A “no-build area” could be designated on the survey plat, as a Platting Condition, for the rock outcropping area and steep sloped area located within the proposed right of way vacation area. As per the Defensible Space requirements and for excavation purposes, the applicants were required to remove approximately 50 trees for the following: defensible space thinning requirements and trees needed to be removed from the building footprints and septic footprints. T The mailboxes were not located within the proposed right of way vacation area. Therefore, no relocation or associated relocation expenses would be an issue for this case. T The underground water cisterns were located between the junction of Sawmill Creek Road and Santa Fe Mountain Road. The proposed vacation of this right of way does not impede on the access to the water cisterns. T Staff did not understand how this proposal would pose a sight distance hazard to traffic, because any new structures built would still be a minimum of 30-feet from the footprint of Sawmill Creek Road. The traveled surface will not be modified. T The Site Development Department had not required that all disturbed soils be revegetated. Additional, a silt fence or brush barrier must be installed on the downhill side of the excavation. However, Planning staff did not believe this issue was in direct correlation with this request to vacate the portion of the right of way. The subject property, presumably, would still be developed even if this proposal was denied. Mr. Vogel stated that the drainage areas that people had built on should not be impacted by this lot. T As a Condition of Approval, the applicant could be required to modify the site plan to address the concerns of Tim Allen. Mr. Allen stated that if the applicants could just use the 30-ft from the building, the proposal would be fine. Ms. Carlile replied that they were re-incorporating the utility easement. Mr. Allen added that if the garage remained where it was proposed, they would not need more blasting.

Regarding access to the well head, Mr. Guimarin stated that they would be re-grading this access so the well head was accessible.

Commissioner Dale asked if the applicants would need a variance to accommodate the garage setbacks. Mr. Loeffler replied that they had to own the land to apply for a variance. If they received a variance, it would allow them to vacate up to the garage. This proposal could be approved contingent on the applicants receiving a variance. Commissioner Dale added that this would help Mr. Allen as the applicants would be using the least amount of right of way. Ms. Carlile asked if they gave up an additional 12-feet, would that help Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen replied that it would. Mr. Loeffler reiterated the applicants proposal as being to vacate at the 32- foot mark and give the County easement for 20-feet which resulted in up to 10-feet from the garage. Mr. Allen replied that this amount could be used for support, side slopes, snow storage, etc.

Page 228 of 246 Mr. Seavey expressed concern on access to his well head. Mr. Vogel replied that when the applicant’s driveway permit was issued, it would require that access to the well head be re- worked. Mr. Vogel would ensure this was done before a final permit was issued.

Regarding the rock outcropping, Ms. Kaminski stated that she could compose a platting condition that would leave this as a “no build” area.

Regarding the garage entrance, Mr. Allen stated that the entrance was on a side that did not interfere with Road and Bridge activities. He added that the rock outcropping would not be in the combined 30-ft area and would be as “no build” area. Mr. Loeffler explained that there would need to be a stipulation that the County could take out the rock outcropping if they needed it for roadway but the applicant could not.

Mr. Vogel noted that some additional blasting would be needed for the leach field but it would not interfere with the easement area on the lot. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-165, Road Vacation Case #03-RD-03, for Chris Guimarin of Saddleback Ridge Estates, based on the modification of the distance to 30-ft surrounding the garage and allowing for a 20-ft easement for Road and Bridge use that were stipulated. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Mr. Loeffler asked if the Board of County Commissioners agreed in principle and the exact legal language be written for the easement and vacation. The Board agreed requesting the stipulations to be noted in the language. The vote was unanimous.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS: #03-176 & #03-177, Ben Moore, Idaho Springs: Ben Moore attended the hearing. County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Mr. Moore owned the Hanson’s Lodge in Idaho Springs. Mr. Moore made the following statements: ‘ For 2 years, the lodge was going to be a youth hostel but this failed due to 9/11. ‘ He turned the lodge into a boarding house. He also had a boarding house in Denver and Denver County considered it residential in assessment. ‘ Mr. Moore stated that the lodge had 3 different groups utilizing the facility at present: hostellers, boarders, and college students working for Loveland Ski Area. His books showed that 2.9% were hostellers, 2.2% were Loveland employees, and the rest were boarders.

Ms. Settle stated that a 40/60 split of commercial/residential was her recommendation. Ms. Settle recommended that #03-176 be denied as this was 2001 and Mr. Moore did not own the property then. For #03-177, Ms. Settle recommended the split of 40/60 for 2002 and 2003. Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation for Abatement protests #03-176 and #03-177. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-175, Colette and James Capik, Silver Plume: Colette and James Capik attended the hearing. County Assessor Diane Settle presented. Ms. Capik presented an appraisal showing her property assessed at $149,000. Ms. Settle stated that her value was set at $173,000 but due to the appraisal, she recommended the $149,000 value also. Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of a downward adjustment. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-145, Jimmie Boyd, St. Mary’s area: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Boyd group. Ms. Settle made the following statements: ‘ This abatement was a continuation from an earlier date. The Board of County Commissioners had requested more time to review this case. ‘ These were originally M-2 zoned parcels and were rezoned into 3 building sites. ‘ To have building sites, Mr. Boyd would have to connect to St. Mary’s Water and Sanitation District as he could not implement ISDS. ‘ Based on the distance to connect into St. Mary’s Water and Sanitation District, Ms. Settle recommended that only one of the parcels be considered a building site. The value for this parcel should remain at $25,320 and the abatement be denied. ‘ For the other two parcels, Ms. Settle recommended a 70% downward adjustment for lack of water and sewer and as compared to other lots in St. Mary’s without services.

Page 229 of 246 ‘ Mr. Boyd had agreed with Ms. Settle’s recommendations over the phone. ‘ The cost to connect these parcels into St. Mary’s services was very expensive. ‘ Ms. Settle recommended values of $6380, $6040, and $25,320 for the three different parcels and abatement protest #03-145.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial on the one parcel and downward adjustments on the other two parcels for Mr. Boyd. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-168, Squaw Valley Inc., Squaw Pass area: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from Squaw Valley Inc. Ms. Settle explained that the property owners were requesting a refund for the years 2001-2002. Ms. Settle recommended denial for 2001 and 2002 as comparable sales supported the value. For 2003, Ms. Settle stated that the value did go down but not for prior years. Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-169, Simpson Partnership, U.S. Hwy 6 area: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Simpson Partnership. Ms. Settle stated that this property was valued at $157,400 and the comparable sales supported this. This property was located at the Hidden Valley interchange and was 119 acres. Ms. Settle recommended denial of this protest. Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of denial. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-170, Lee and Betty Mortenson, Empire Junction area: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Mortenson group. Ms. Settle stated that this abatement was to correct a parcel that was valued with access when in actuality it did not. She recommended an adjustment from $22,100 to a value of $200 per acre. Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment due to no access. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-171, Clay and Claudia Watts, Georgetown Meadows: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Watts group. Ms. Settle stated that this property was valued at $202,600 by her department but due to recent comparables, she recommended a downward adjustment to $177,640. The property owner requested a value of $158,260 but the Assessor’s office disagreed reiterating the $177,640 value. Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the adjustment to $177,640. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-172, Charles Christiansen, Georgetown: County Assessor Diane Settle presented that Mr. Christiansen requested a continuation to the next round of abatements.

#03-173, Anton Anderson, North Spring Gulch Area: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Anderson group. Ms. Settle stated that all Anderson’s mining claims were fenced in as one lot. The Anderson property was assessed as vacant but Ms. Settle recommended they be assessed as residential since the lots were fenced together. The property totaled 7 mining claims and about 35 acres. Mr. Anderson was not trying to sell his land.. Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of changing the classification of the land to residential. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

#03-174, Craig Waddle, Virginia Canyon: County Assessor Diane Settle presented. There was no representation from the Waddle group. Ms. Settle stated that this parcel was valued as having access when actually it did not. Ms. Settle recommended a value of the property at $200 per acre. This was a mining claim with some County lands combined with it. Commissioner Dale made the motion to accept the Assessor’s recommendation of the downward adjustment due to no access. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-164, MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENT CASE #03-PDA-04, TO MODIFY PLAT TO ADD ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE, CONESTOGA WAGON STOP AREA, FOR VIACOM OUTDOOR INC.:

Page 230 of 246 Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen presented. Viacom member Cliff Spencer, Conestoga Wagon Stop owners Mark and Ellen Brown, Planning Commission member Donna Moody, and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel attended the hearing. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following statements: < This case was to request the modification of the existing Official Development Plan to allow for additional signage in the form of a 14' X 48' (672 sq.ft.) billboard. This proposed billboard, as viewed from U.S. Hwy 40, was currently located on U.S. Forest Service land, and the applicants wish to move it to the west onto the adjacent private property. < The subject property was approximately 6.6 acres and was severed by U.S. Hwy 40. The developed portion of the property was permitted for one telecommunications facility, RV sites, cabin rentals, campsites, one office with single-family residence, and billboard signage. One billboard was located on the south side of U.S. Hwy 40 and two smaller billboards were located on the portion north of U.S. Hwy 40. No other improvements were located on the property north of the highway. < All signage that was currently permitted on this property was legal signage that was in place at the time of the approval of the Planned Development (PD) rezoning in 2001. After a boundary survey identifying the exact location of property lines, this signage included the following: < South Side of U.S. Hwy 40: < One business identification sign < One 14' X 48' monopole billboard located between the two western-most cabins (Clear Creek County Sign Permit #81-2, issued on 9/17/81) < North Side of U.S. Hwy 40: < One a-frame sign know as Sign #07011 < One rectangular sign know as Sign #07010 < Located on the adjacent Forest Service land was one additional 14' X 48' billboard. This billboard presumable was mistakenly constructed on the Forest Service land when it was supposed to have been located on this property with the other billboard. Clear Creek County Sign Permit #81-3 was provided to the Planning Staff by the applicant indicating that the billboard was apparently given this sign permit by the County on 11/16/81. Unfortunately, the sign was constructed on the wrong side of the property line. < The property did exceed the sign restrictions of the County’s current regulations, however, because the land was zoned Planned Development, the regulations indicate, “flexibility may be allowed, when determined to be appropriate.” < Based on the following evidence: < The County approved the issued Sign Permit #81-3 for this sign, and the sign was intended to be located on the property when it was constructed in 1981, and < If the applicants in 1981 wouldn’t have missed the property by 7-feet when constructing the sign, this sign would have been considered a non-conforming use on this property. < Staff recommended approval of this request to the Planning Commission to move the sign off U.S. Forest Service land and onto the property in which it was intended to go on.

< Staff also recommended that the sign be setback from all property lines no closer than the total height of the sign from the ground, as required by the current sign regulations, and that the applicant demonstrate that the new location of this sign was not within the 100- year flood plain zone; Zone A as per the FEMA maps. < Referral responses were received. CDOT stated that no new permit would be required by their agency and no access would be allowed from the State Highway. The applicant would have to access from the Conestoga Wagon Stop property. < The response from the Forest Service stated that the billboard could not remain on their land since it did not fit with the Forest Service plan for this area. Mr. Loeffler added that the Forest Service had been with the Board of County Commissioners prior in the day and had stated that Viacom had attempted to apply for a Special Use Permit to have the sign remain but it was denied due to incompatibility with the Forest Service plan for the area. The sign would have to be moved within 90 days. < There were no responses from the Adjacent Property Owners or the property owners except for Steve Schultz’s memo. < After taking public comment from those that were present, the Planning Commission, at their regularly scheduled meeting on November 19th, moved to recommend denial to the

Page 231 of 246 Board of County Commissioners of this request based on the exceeding of the sign regulations under a Planned Development zoning, as well as any other Commercial or Industrial zoning, the fact that the sign permit was issued for the sign to be on the Conestoga land and it was not, the mention that the sign did not fit with the Forest Service plan for the area, and that the sign was not mentioned at the prior Official Development Plan rezoning for the Conestoga property. < Staff would have felt more comfortable recommending approval to allow additional signage on this property if there were more mitigation measures proposed by the applicant in order to reduce visual impact of the site as a whole by lowering either one or both billboards, reducing the overall square footage of the billboards, or both. For example, by lowering the billboards, not only would visual impact be reduced, but it would permit more flexibility for the applicant to locate their billboard closer to the property line if necessary. < At this time, the applicant has indicated that they were open to suggestions if the Board of County Commissioners wished, but they have not proposed any mitigation measures up front. < Mr. Rollenhagen responded to a question that the sign regulations for commercial and industrial properties were that no single free standing sign shall exceed 160 sq.ft. and a maximum of 240 sq.ft. was permitted. The initial permit for this sign was issued in 1981, and the regulations had changed since that time. < Mr. Rollenhagen noted that before the Official Development Plan was approved in 2001 for the Conestoga property, all signage was considered a legal non-conforming use. When the County approved the Official Development Plan in 2001, the signs were legalized. The property owner was currently conforming to the approved Official Development Plan minus the sign in question on the Forest Service lands.

Applicant and Viacom member Cliff Spencer made the following statements: G In 1981, Viacom obtained permits from Clear Creek County and CDOT to install this billboard. G At this time, it was mistakenly put on the Forest Service lands. G Normally, Viacom obtained surveys for this type of project but he did not know the details of this location during that time. G According to CDOT, they approved the moving of the sign if Clear Creek County did. G Viacom did not plan on increasing the size of the sign in any way. G Viacom was willing to lower the sign in some way. G Viacom had been paying rent on the location of this sign since 1981. G This was an unfortunate situation and Viacom was asking to move the sign to where it should’ve been in the first place.

Planning Commission member Donna Moody made the following statements: # She had attended the Planning Commission hearing where this case recommended denial. # She had performed some research since this hearing from Jefferson County Planning Commission. # Ms. Moody stated that one member of the Jefferson County Planning Commission informed her that this area could apply for a Scenic Byway status. This prevented commercial signs along the road. One member of the Jefferson County Planning Commission had worked for the highways department and had said that Berthoud Pass was not considered for the Scenic Byways program because it did have commercial signage. # Second, most billboards were not as large as this proposed sign. This was a super billboard. # Third, Ms. Moody asked that the Board of County Commissioners check with Clear Creek Economic Development Corporation on Scenic Byways and the economic benefits of designating this highway as one. Ms. Moody stated that it could bring a lot of economics to Clear Creek County. # Fourth, Ms. Moody claimed that the billboard lights were supposed to automatically turn off at 10:00 p.m. This was not happening. # Ms. Moody asked if the nearby telecom site could be located on one of the billboards in the area to reduce the clutter. # She was disappointed that the misplacement of this sign was not mentioned in the

Page 232 of 246 Planning Commission’s prior hearing on the Official Development Plan.

Mr. and Mrs. Brown made the following statements: ‘ They were the owners of the Conestoga Wagon Stop property. ‘ The lights on the billboard did turn off at 10:00 p.m. Without these lights, they would have to install lighting on the property for the campers. Mr. Spencer noted that, sometimes, with lightening, it reset the timers on the lights and these had to be adjusted. Ms. Moody stated that the light switches should be locked up so people could not tamper with them. ‘ The Browns bought the land based on the income of the property. The sales price was based on the income of the land. ‘ The Browns had invested $100,000 in the past 18 months of their ownership to clean it up. ‘ The property had been at this location since 1936 and reduced in size due to the expansion of U.S. Hwy 40. ‘ The Browns did not see the benefit of the Scenic Byway idea as the removal of one sign still would not qualify the state highway for the status. There were still remaining signs along the roadway. ‘ Mr. Brown noted that the property was zoned commercial until 2 years ago. Mr. Loeffler replied that if the property was commercial then, the County could not have regulated the signage.

Ms. Moody stated that people were aware the sign was located on the wrong parcel during the Planned Development rezoning hearing. Ms. Moody added that she had seen a letter from the Forest Service seven years ago stating that the sign was on the wrong property. Ms. Moody stated that there was a redress from the former land owner not disclosing this to the Planning Department that the sign was misplaced. The former landowner was also adamant about keeping this rental income for the property. Ms. Moody stated that this formal landowner knew the sign was not on her property. Mr. Loeffler replied that the 2001 Official Development Plan showed that the sign was not at the proper location. Mr. Brown added that there had been an application with the Forest Service for a land swap of approximately 50-feet along the boundary submitted six years ago. It was not concluded as it took the Forest Service five years to review the application. This application was pending during the Official Development Plan 2001 case. Mr. Brown stated that he knew the location of the sign was in dispute when he purchased the land.

Commissioner Dale stated that the Planning Commission took a close look at this case. It was unfortunate that the signs were so large and that the Planning Commission found them inappropriate for the corridor. If Viacom would reduce the size of the sign, Commissioner Dale could consider supporting the application. Commissioner Poirot agreed stating that if each of the Viacom signs could be reduced in size by half, he would consider approval. Mr. Spencer replied that Viacom would rather have one large sign as opposed to two smaller ones. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to deny Resolution #03-164, Major Plan Amendment Case #03-PDA-04, to modify plat to add additional signage in the Conestoga Wagon Stop area, for Viacom Inc. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-181, ADOPTION OF THE 2004 CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BUDGET: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Mr. Small made the following statements: ‘ The only addition to the budget was the $30,000 to the General Fund for the Ambulance fee replacement due to confinement calls. ‘ The Resolution reflected the projected 2004 expenses and revenues for Clear Creek County. ‘ This budget did reflect revenues under expenditures of $3,422,916. ‘ The fund balance of all funds was estimated to be at the end of 2004, $3,559,317. ‘ Any amounts unspent at the end of 2003 would be carried forward. ‘ Estimated unspent amounts at the end of 2003, which were mostly reserve accounts, carried forward totaled $6,982,000.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-181, to adopt the 2004 Clear Creek County budget. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Clear Creek Courant

Page 233 of 246 reporter Jennifer Voelker asked if the Board of County Commissioners could spend the Capital Improvements and the Special Projects Fund as they saw fit. Mr. Small replied, yes, within the limitations of the law. The motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-182, TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES, INT EH AMOUNTS FOR THE PURPOSE AS SET FORTH BELOW FOR THE CLEAR CREEK COUNTY 2004 BUDGET YEAR: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-182, to appropriate sums of money. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Mr. Small stated that this identified, by spending authority, what was adopted in each fund. The vote was unanimous.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-183, TO LEVY GENERAL PROPERTY TAX FOR THE YEAR 2003, TO HELP DEFRAY THE COSTS OF GOVERNMENT FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY FOR THE 2004 YEAR: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Mr. Small stated that the Resolution described each fund for property tax purpose and the amounts collected. This Resolution gave the assessment of all taxable property in Clear Creek County. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Resolution #03-183, to levy general property tax for the year 2003. Commissioner Poirot seconded. During discussion, Clear Creek Courant reporter Jennifer Voelker asked if there was a $5 million debt. Mr. Small replied that there was not a debt but an operating need for taxes to apply to County funds. If the County did not apply this funding, it would not operate. Mr. Loeffler added that a large portion of the government would be shut down without this funding. The vote was unanimous.

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

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-02, TO ADOPT THE 2004 EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BUDGET: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Mr. Small made the following statements: # He stated that this district did not cover the entire County. # There was an operating need in this budget for $403,140, and to appropriate and levy a tax rate sufficient to cover property taxes. # There was a 4.117 net mill levy, or $346,643 of property tax. # Most of this funding will be for the Clear Creek Fire Authority for their services and some will be applied to Treasurer and audit fees. # The total district budget and appropriation, was $403,140 and tax levy totaled $346,643. # The remaining fund balance totaled $23,000 for cash flow purposes. # There was an amount of $11,475 for emergency reserve.

Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Emergency Services District Resolution #03- 02, to adopt the 2004 Emergency Services District budget. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT RESOLUTION #03-03, TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY FOR THE 2004 EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT BUDGET: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented the prior appropriations figures. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approval Emergency Services District Resolution #03-03, to appropriate sums of money. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT RESOLUTION #03-04, TO LEVY PROPERTY TAX FOR THE 2003 YEAR TO HELP DEFRAY THE COSTS OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT FOR THE 2004 YEAR: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented the mill levy for the Emergency Services District with a net mill levy of 4.117. Commissioner Dale made the motion to approve Emergency Services District Resolution #03-04, to levy property tax for 2003. Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

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

Page 234 of 246 Commissioners.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Robert J. Poirot, Vice Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on December 10, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Vice Chairman Robert Poirot called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioner Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen was out of town.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Commissioner Poirot made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice for the following: • conferences with an attorney for the public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding employee contracts, insurance coverage, Tech Park litigation, zoning enforcement, MTC surcharges, subdivision enforcement, pest control, and public forums as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b); • the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest regarding Brookvale School as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(a); • and determining negotiating strategies and positions and instructing negotiators regarding St. Mary’s Metro District and water storage as allowed by CRS 24-4-402(4)(e).

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

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Robert J. Poirot, Vice Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - DECEMBER 16, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on December 16, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL WARRANTY DEEDS FOR COUNTY LANDS FOR THE FOLLOWING GROUPS: BALES FOR 2 PARCELS IN SECTION 5, T4SR73W; B GROUP FOR 2 PARCELS IN SECTION 34, T3SR73W; WALTERS FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 36, T3SR73W; MARMACK FOR ONE PARCEL IN SECTION 36, T3SR73W; ONE DEED RESTRICTION FOR MARMACK IN SECTION 36, T3SR73W; AND ONE CORRECTION DEED FOR ELLZEY IN SECTION 21, T3SR73W; ENCROACHMENT LICENSE FOR WALTERS IN SECTION 36, T3SR73W: 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUESTS FROM MOUNT EVANS HOSPICE, GEORGETOWN COMMUNITY CENTER AND PROJECT SUPPORT: 3. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSALS FROM PACIFICARE AND DELTA DENTAL FOR 2004 AND MODIFICATION TO EMPLOYEE

Page 235 of 246 CONTRIBUTION AMOUNTS FOR PACIFICARE AND DELTA DENTAL FOR 2004: 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMBINATION OF LOTS AGREEMENTS FOR PAUL AND NANCY SCHERER: 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COUNTY POSTAGE MACHINE CONTRACT WITH COMPLETE MAILING SOLUTIONS INC.: 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT CONCERNING DISTRICT ATTORNEY EMPLOYEES IN SPECIFIED RETIREMENT PLANS: Zoning Specialist Staci Writer, Planner II Holland Smith, and Chief Accountant Carl Small attended the hearing. Mr. Small confirmed that the County had the funding to meet the proposals from Mount Evans, Georgetown Community Center and Project Support. Mr. Loeffler noted that the funding requestor was required to show how the funding would be spent. He suggested requesting an itemized list from Project Support such as what Mount Evans Hospice and Georgetown Community Center provided. Mr. Smith confirmed that Mr. Walters understood the conditions of his encroachment license. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the exclusion of Project Support from request #2. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-161 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE #03-AX-10, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LAND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF GS LOT #1, SECTION 5, T4SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following statements: ‘ This adjustment, if approved, will divide County land parcel #1835-36-1-00-955, a 31.5 acre parcel into a .23 acre parcel and a 31.27 acre parcel. ‘ The parcel was accessed by South Spring Gulch Road. ‘ One parcel, located south of South Spring Gulch Road, would remain in County possession under management of the Clear Creek County Open Space Commission. ‘ The remaining parcel, located north of South Spring Gulch Road, would remain in County possession until final disposition was determined at a later date. ‘ Additional building lots would not be created. ‘ The parcel, to be divided, was split zoned NR-PC and M-1 north of South Spring Gulch Road and was unzoned south of South Spring Gulch Road. ‘ The unzoned parcel (.23 acres) would be zoned at such time as a new zoning district was created recognizing the mineral potential of the property as well as diverse open space characteristics. ‘ The larger parcel, to the north of South Spring Gulch Road, would remain split zoned NR-PC (21.78 acres ) and M-1 (9.49 acres).

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-161, to divide County land. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-162, BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE #03-AX-11, TO DIVIDE COUNTY LAND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF GS LOT #2, SECTION 5, T4SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following statements: ‘ This adjustment, if approved would divide a portion of County land parcel #1961-05-1- 00-954 (portion of Government Survey Lot #2) a 15.97 acre parcel into a 5.43 acre parcel and a 10.54 acre parcel. ‘ This parcel was accessed by South Spring Gulch Road. ‘ One parcel, located south of South Spring Gulch Road, would remain in County possession under the management of the Clear Creek County Open Space Commission. ‘ The remaining parcel, located north of South Spring Gulch Road, would remain in County possession until final disposition was determined at a later date. ‘ Additional building lots would not be created. ‘ The parcel, to be divided, was split zoned NR-PC and M-1 north of South Spring Gulch Road and was unzoned south of South Spring Gulch Road. ‘ The unzoned parcel (5.43 acres) would be zoned at such time as a new zoning district was created recognizing the mineral potential of the property as well as diverse open space characteristics. ‘ The larger parcel, to the north of South Spring Gulch Road, would remain split zoned

Page 236 of 246 NR-PC (8.56 acres) and M-1 (1.98 acres).

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-162, to divide County lands. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-163, BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE #03-AX-12, TO DIVIDE COUNTY KNOW AS A PORTION OF GS LOT#8 AND CONFLICT OF COMSTOCK LODE WITH QUEEN LODE, SECTION 5, T4SR73W: Planner II Holland Smith presented. Mr. Smith made the following statements: ‘ This adjustment, if approved, would divide a portion of County land parcel #1961-05-1- 00-954 (portion of Government Survey Lot #8) a 8.57 acre parcel into a 1.34 acre parcel, 6.37 acre parcel, and a .86 acre parcel. ‘ This parcel was accessed by South Spring Gulch Road. ‘ One parcel, would remain in County possession under the management of the Clear Creek County Open Space Commission. ‘ The remaining two would be sold to contiguous property owners subject to combination with their respective contiguous properties. ‘ Additional building lots would not be created. ‘ The parcel, to be divided, was unzoned. That portion of the parcel to managed by the Clear Creek County Open Space Commission would be zoned at such time as a new zoning district was created recognizing the mineral potential o the property as well as diverse open space characteristics. ‘ The two remaining parcels would be zoned M-1 or M-2 prior to conveyance to contiguous property owners.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-163, to divide County lands. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-184, CERTIFICATION OF MILL LEVIES FOR 2004 FOR ALL TAXING ENTITIES IN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Mr. Small made the following statements: ‘ In 2003, there would be a total of $15,104,595 of property tax assessed for all taxing entities in Clear Creek County. This was an increase from the prior year by $473,028. ‘ The mill levy was decreased by 13.241 for all taxing entities and this would not impact property owners since there were so many districts and they were spread out. ‘ The school had a decrease of 3.021 mills and taxes increased .91%. ‘ All County, town, and special districts were listed within this Resolution. A certification was received by all taxing entities. ‘ Some districts did certify before certification from the Assessor but the amounts were so small they were told not to re-certify. ‘ This certification will be sent to the Division of Property Taxation where it would be incorporated. Department of Local Affairs would notify any districts if they exceeded their limits. ‘ The assessed value affected the school district as well as the County and both could consider an abatement mill levy in the coming year.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-184, certification of mill levies for Clear Creek County. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-185, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO CLEAR CREEK COUNTY TO THE 2003 BUDGET: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. Mr. Small stated that public notice was given for this hearing. The supplemental appropriations identified funds for the County, i.e., lodging tax, library, water and sanitation sewer fund, etc, to be supplemented based on revenues received this year. Expenditures were expected to occur in the lodging fund, library and sewer funds. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-185, supplemental appropriations to the 2003 budget. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Page 237 of 246 The Board of Commissioners then recessed and convened as the Emergency Services District Board of Directors.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-05, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT TO THE 2003 BUDGET: Chief Accountant Carl Small presented. The Emergency Services District budget was funded tightly and would distribute most revenues to the Clear Creek Fire Authority. Additional revenues were coming from Type F taxes that were distributed to each fund for $3860. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Emergency Services District Resolution #03-05, supplemental appropriations to Emergency Services District to the 2003 budget. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

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

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FOR PEST CONTROL FROM THE SADDLEBACK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, EMERGE, AND THE FLOYD HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: In attendance were residents Linda and Wilbur Jewell, Ron Klusman, Orley Burgess, Joan Drury, Ken Quast, Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel, Chief Accountant Carl Small, Planning Director Frederick Rollenhagen, Noxious Weed Manager Pat Buckley, Land Use Service Unit Manager Deb Kirkham, and Site Development Assistant Annette Colle. Mr. Burgess made the following statements: ‘ He had consulted the Forest Service representative in Jefferson County, Alicia Duran, to discuss the pieces needed to implement a pest control program for Clear Creek County. ‘ The easiest way to implement the program was to appoint a pest control officer and then an ordinance was not needed. ‘ Colorado State Forest Service employee Allen Gallamore stated that another easy solution was to train certain volunteers to be the pest control inspectors. This group would receive complaints and have a secretary send out letters and set up inspections. Jefferson County had used this format and most people had complied with the statute once they received warning letters. However, it only took 2-3 people to create havoc for their adjacent neighbors. ‘ The Saddleback Homeowners Association had been operating this way in their community for years. ‘ Mr. Burgess asked that the County name a pest control officer to handle the paperwork and then train a group of volunteers to do inspections. ‘ If landowners would not allow the County on the property for inspections, the statues provided for obtaining warrants from the court based on a request from the Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Sorensen asked for comment from staff. Mr. Vogel stated that Jefferson County had the funding for a full time employee that did more than just pest control. He added that Allen Gallamore also discussed the forest health issues and that Clear Creek County did not have an epidemic at this time. Funding could be found through grant writing but Mr. Gallamore advised that we did not yet need a full program. He suggested involving the Homeowners Association with the County.

Mr. Loeffler asked Mr. Burgess how the Homeowners Association’s did their inspections. Mr. Burgess replied that first they look for sap balls if they suspect beetles. If they suspect worms, they look for buds. If they suspect the tree could be infected, they hatchet a portion of the bark off and look for a blue stain. This stain confirms infection and the tree must come down. One beetle, the ips, can fly and infect trees beyond the summer season.

Commissioner Poirot expressed concern over the cost of such a program. The County would be responsible for removing infected trees and then billing the landowner. It could be over a year before the County was reimbursed. Financially, the County could not afford to front the money for all infected trees across the entire County.

Mr. Loeffler expressed concern on designating people as volunteers for the County. This

Page 238 of 246 program would give them police power of the County to exercise and they would be entering private property. Most likely, the people the volunteers will be dealing with would be problem landowners. This would open the County to liability from the landowner. Mr. Loeffler added that the County would have to undertake someone to repair or remove trees and have a hearing regarding the problem property. The County would be liable for whatever the volunteers did or said. The County could also be liable for punitive damages and attorney fees. The volunteers could also be sued under the 1983 Act which deals with violation of Constitutional rights. If the volunteers were County staff, the County would still be liable but have more control over the situation.

Mr. Klusman stated that his Homeowners Association had done inspections from the road with binoculars. If this upset the landowner, the County could then send staff on site to peel the bark. Generally, people could tell from the road whether there was a suspected infection or not. Mr. Loeffler stated that this was a better way to handle the situation. If there was a suspicion of infestation, Tim Vogel or Patrick Buckley could go on site as employees and inspect. They would also have to be confident the trees were infested in order to defend the County’s case to remove the trees. This program could start with someone viewing the trees from the road and then contacting staff. This would prevent volunteers from going on private property. Commissioner Poirot reminded the group that the County would still be limited financially by how many trees they could remove. Mr. Loeffler agreed stating that the County would have to be willing to go the distance once they began with the landowner. He was unsure the County could afford the $5000 limitation in the statute. Commissioner Poirot noted that a large bill for removal of trees could really “break” a landowner financially while simultaneously, the County could do nothing about the infestations on Forest Service lands.

Commissioner Sorensen expressed concern about trees that were dead from earlier infestations. The County had no standing on these types of issues and they were just as much a fire hazard as current infestations. Mr. Klusman stated that the Saddleback Homeowners Association program allowed landowners with infestations to work off their fees to remove the trees by assisting in taking down the trees and cutting them up. However, when these landowners did not participate, it did anger the other members of the Homeowners Association.

Mr. Vogel read a comment from Road and Bridge Service Unit Manager Tim Allen into the record: “The request for a County funded pest control program is coming at an inopportune time. The budget process is completed and there has been no budgeting for any mitigation except for noxious weeds. It would not appear that the County would have the ability to fund a program described in the Pest Control Act. I am sure that is why there was a ballot issue to increase tax to fund a program. It was about 3 years ago there was some interest in creating a County department to manage weed and pest control. To fund the service, the County placed a mill levy increase on the November ballot to generate revenue specifically for this purpose, and it was voted down significantly. It would be expensive to fund a department for this service considering that the service would not be self supportive either in tax or in fees, especially when there is not a significant problem in the County. I would recommend at this time to leave this issue at its ‘status quo’.”

Mr. Vogel continued that the problem in Saddleback had been the Ips beetle which were difficult as they had a year round life cycle. After the recent drought, this would increase beetle problems. Commissioner Sorensen agreed that this was a problem and the Saddleback and EMERGE Homeowners Associations have worked hard on this issue. However, if the County had to remove trees from 10 properties at $5000 per property, it would hurt the County. Mr. Buckley noted that the County had an ordinance for noxious weeds and a $3000 budget and this was a much worse problem than pests. The County tried to get a weed/pest department in 2001 and it didn’t pass in any precinct. He suggested combining the two programs if the County wanted to fund it. Mr. Vogel added that the County did perform inspections and let landowners know if they had problems. Also, if the County received their applied grant funding, there could be educational programs implemented. Commissioner Dale stated that these programs were for the cooperative landowner and the County needed a tool for the uncooperative property owner. He suggested that the County may be able to set up a program that at least sent out letters to the

Page 239 of 246 problem landowners. Commissioner Poirot agreed that staff sending letters could be done but the County did not have the funding for a full blown program.

Mr. Klusman explained that the Saddleback Homeowners Association program assessed $250 to the landowner with problem trees. The landowner could work this amount off by helping remove other trees in the area. If the landowner doesn’t work it off the Homeowners Association applies the $250 to the tree removal service.

Commissioner Sorensen noted that the citizen inspired ballot questions tend to be successful. However, the County inspired ones were not and the County did not have the funding to initiate and fund a new program. Mr. Burgess agreed to discuss a ballot issue with his Homeowners Association.

Commissioner Dale asked if a minimal action could be taken today to address this situation. Mr. Loeffler replied that it was up to the Board of County Commissioners if they wanted staff to spend time on this. The County would have to make a commitment to use resources. Commissioner Dale thought the initial request should come from the Homeowners Association. Mr. Vogel asked if the Homeowners Association could adopt this into their covenants and enforce it. Commissioner Poirot replied that the Homeowners Association had to be willing to participate. Mr. Loeffler noted that changing covenants was a lot of work. Mr. Klusman agreed as his Homeowners Association had done this in the past.

Mr. Quast stated that a letter from the Homeowners Association about an infestation would not concern him as much as a letter from County Government stating statute and penalties. Ms. Kirkham stated that when the County sent enforcement letters and then did not have the staff to back up the enforcement, it created more problems. It made people more resistant later in the case.

Regarding ballot issues, the Board reemphasized that Homeowners Association support was imperative. Commissioner Poirot noted that certain precincts would also have to be influential. Mr. Burgess asked if a ballot issue could be proposed by precinct. Mr. Loeffler replied that this would take some researching. Commissioner Sorensen suggested soliciting other Homeowners Associations for interest in case other precincts could be added. Commissioner Dale stated that the County needed to see if the statutes supported a pest/weed control district. The Board agreed that the ballot should be for both weeds and pests.

In the meantime, Commissioner Poirot included that if homeowners suspected an infestation, they should call Tim Vogel for an inspection and the County would be able to remove some trees if needed. Mr. Klusman added that with his Homeowners Association’s $250 fee and assistance program in removing trees, the number of problem properties was very small. His Homeowners Association had passed this special assessment for infestations and this was an easier solution than revising covenants.

Commissioner Poirot requested an answer on the question of ballot proposals by precincts as well as whether the statutes supported a weed/pest district.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-132, ASSIGNING MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN COUNTY PROPERTY TO THE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION: In attendance were Open Space Commission employee Tim Mauck, Open Space Commission members Frank Young and Pete Helseth and Georgetown resident Cindy Neely. Mr. Young made the following statements: ‘ This conveyance of management included the Saxon Mountain lands and the Oakley Recreation Lands. ‘ The Saxon Mountain lands were obtained during the BLM transfer and from private ownership. They were included in the HDPLC management plan. ‘ The Oakley lands were donated to the County in 1983 by the Oakley family. These lands were high alpine meadows over 10,000 feet in elevation. The lands had been impacted by off-road-vehicles but they were intended for low impact recreation and wildlife habitat. Some of these lands were located in the Georgetown Watershed boundary. ‘ Mr. Frank Young questioned by the County had exempted the Dunbarten Mine in the

Page 240 of 246 Saxon Mountain lands. This mine had been gated and the Silver Creek Trail traveled through this area. Mr. Mauck replied that there was County concern in that this mine was positioned in a gulch with much runoff and the County was concerned on liability to the Open Space Commission when there was a runoff. Mr. Young replied that the Open Space Commission could still accept management of the mine since the County was still the owner.

Mr. Loeffler agreed stating that the County would be liable one way or the other regardless of who held management. Mr. Loeffler did request that the deed from the Berry Trust be confirmed that the management by the Open Space Commission did comply with the deed request. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-132, contingent on the clarification of deed language on the Dunbarten Mine. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION #03-167, REPLAT CASE #03-PA-01, FOR AMENDING PLATTING CONDITIONS FOR SADDLEBACK MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION FOR SADDLEBACK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: In attendance were Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association member Rick Gaubatz, residents Ron Klusman, Evan Asby, Pete Helseth, Jim Pals, and Charles and Jean Tindall, Site Development Assistant Annette Colle, Environmental Health Department Tech Tracy Bennetts, Saddleback Development Corporation representatives Russ Sindt and Rich Cassens, contractor Chris Johnson, Land Use Service Unit Manager Debbie Kirkham, and E.O. Church and Associates owner Ed Church. Mr. Rollenhagen made the following statements: ‘ The draft Resolution was revised to reflect the comments of the Environmental Health Department, the Floyd Hill Homeowners Association and the Open Space Commission’s comments. ‘ The request was to amend the Plat Notes 17, 18, 19 and 20 as they relate to the ISDS. However, the County Planning Department denied the request to amend item #18 due to unproven septic system technology. The applicant accepted the denial on #18. ‘ The proposed Plat Note Modifications were proposed to be changed for the primary purpose to modify the restrictions for total phosphorus discharge from 1 mg/liter to 10 mg/liter of phosphorous because the applicant believed the current levels were too restrictive. ‘ Chris Etcheson, Environmental Health Department Specialist, had evaluated the applicant’s proposal and had provided his own recommendation. In short, Mr. Etcheson was recommending the same increase in discharge allowance for phosphorus, however, he did not agree with the applicant’s request to test the newly installed aeration treatment system, rather he believed that ongoing testing would verify performance. ‘ Mr. Etcheson also did not believe it was appropriate to have a phosphorus reduction program nor was it appropriate to allow “experimental permits” for technologies that were not yet proven as requested by the applicant. ‘ Mr. Etcheson had amended his recommendation to loosen the restrictions on the phosphorous count to be 8 mg/liter instead of 10 mg/liter. ‘ Plat Note #17 was proposed to read: ‘ Each residence will have: (A) It’s own mechanically aerated sewage treatment system preceding a specifically designed leach field for that individual residence or area considering the soil conditions of that area. (B) A monitoring well at the output of each leach field and a sample port at the discharge point of each mechanically aerated sewage treatment system, to be sampled at the time of installation and at least every six months with the samples to be analyzed by a State certified water laboratory for the items listed: Total Coliforms, BOD, Total Suspended Solids, Temperature, PH, Total Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorus. Results of the sample analysis shall be furnished to the County Environmental Health Department Specialist and the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association within 30 days of sampling. The Saddleback Metropolitan District shall be responsible for ensuring that the monitoring wells are installed and sampled.” ‘ Plat Note #19 was proposed to read: ‘ “The Saddleback Metropolitan District shall have mechanically aerated sewage treatment system vendors provide test data on the capability of their equipment to remove nutrients (total phosphorous and total nitrogen) and provide this data to the County end Specialist and the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association. Vendors will be given a goal of 8

Page 241 of 246 mg/liter phosphorus. The test data shall be provided prior to issuance of any building or ISDS permit for a residential dwelling in the subdivision.” ‘ Plat Note #20 was proposed to read: ‘ “If any individual mechanically aerated sewage treatment system tests more than 8 mg/liter of phosphorus the Saddleback Metropolitan District will implement, on that system, nutrient removal techniques to lower the effluent to lower than 8 mg/liter of phosphorus or best possible technology as shown by the vendors. All excursions of this type will be reported tot he County Environmental Health Department Specialist and the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association along with the solutions to the excursion within 30 days of sampling.”

Mr. Etcheson made the following statements: ‘ The intent was to use the monitoring well and if that did not work to use the sampling port. ‘ Mr. Etcheson suspected that the monitoring wells were dry. ‘ Mr. Etcheson responded to concern from Maureen Gohlke of the Saddleback Mountain Homeowners Association explaining that the draft Resolution did not change the frequency of collections of samples. Mr. Etcheson did not want to recommend any changes in the frequency of collections. ‘ Regarding the number of items monitored, Mr. Etcheson stated that some of the items were combined and not necessarily reduced from sampling. For example ammonia was eliminated but captured under the Total Nitrogen heading. Testing for phosphorus included phosphate and the same amount of chemicals. ‘ The Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association passed a motion the previous Thursday that they would consider reductions in the testing program but Mr. Etcheson did not agree. ‘ Mr. Etcheson stated that the applicant wanted a new section added to test for newly installed systems every year for 2 years or until a performance record was established. Mr. Etcheson followed up by stating that he was not recommending any changes in the length of time to test. He had support of this everywhere but with the Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association.

Mr. Sindt stated that the Saddleback Development Corporation was in agreement with staff on the 8 mg/liter of phosphorous level. He did have concerns on the recommendation for testing. Regarding the Open Space Commission comment on the aerated treatment facilities, Mr. Cassens stated that there was never a proposal to eliminate mechanically aerated treatment facilities. Mr. Cassens did have concern over the wording in 17B. He requested that it read that the primary monitoring well at the output of each leach field be tested with the alternative as the sample port but not that both be sampled because it was too expensive.

Mr. Cassens interpreted the new sampling language to be done each six months for 2 years and then once every third year thereafter if it met criteria. The reason for this was because existing ISDS regulations did not require that a plant at a home in Clear Creek County be tested at all. The original sampling language read that it be tested every six months forever. Mr. Church added that every six months forever was appropriate for a municipal treatment plant but not for one home. He added that if ownership of the home changes and the County would like to test at that time, this was understandable. It was too expensive to sample every six months and this amount of testing was built for a municipality and not 86 lots. Mr. Etcheson disagreed stating that this was the amount of testing agreed to originally and he did not see the justification for scaling back the testing at this time. Most ISDS function well in the beginning and then deteriorate over time when the homeowner doesn’t maintain them properly. With frequent testing, the sooner a problem was identified the sooner it could be addressed. Commissioner Dale suggested the testing twice a year for the first two years and then once a year for the succeeding years.

Mr. Klusman made the following statements: ‘ The Saddleback Mountain Homeowners Association recommended that the first 10 homes all be sampled and analyzed for the constituents in Plat Note 17C (new version) during the summer and again in the winter for the proposed 2 year period. After there are

Page 242 of 246 more than 10 homes in place, then 30% could be randomly sampled approximately every year, but having some in summer and some during the winter. ‘ Mr. Klusman thought the testing should include this seasonality. ‘ Mr. Klusman stated that there were 3 monitoring wells drilled along Clear Creek Drive two years ago and he wished to see the testing data on these wells. Mr. Etcheson replied that he had this data. ‘ Mr. Klusman added that if the monitoring wells were found to be dry, the County could do a suction to draw moisture out and test that.

Mr. Church made the following statements: ‘ He had talked with the manufacturer of the system proposed for this area and he thought he could meet the criteria of 8 mg/liter with the sample port. He was concerned that it would be below level. ‘ Mr. Church stated that the 1 mg/liter was clear proof that there was something wrong with the plat notes because no manufacturer could meet the requirement. Commissioner Poirot replied that this was caused by pressure on the County from the Stanley Lake Agreement.

Commissioner Sorensen asked if there was a current standard in the ISDS regulations or a recommendation from Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment on the phosphorus levels. Mr. Etcheson replied that there was not. Mr. Church stated that the phosphorus issue was a watershed to watershed issue. A watershed had to have a reservoir and this was where the problems normally surfaced. There had not been a good correlation between ISDS and reservoirs.

Mr. Etcheson stated that there was a requirement for data on monitoring wells and Saddleback Development Corporation had submitted the data. It had been tested for phosphate but not for phosphorus. Mr. Etcheson stated that phosphorus was not important at this time. Mr. Klusman disagreed stating that ortho-phosphate results could show something. Mr. Etcheson replied that one of the three monitoring wells had resulted in that type of phosphorus and nothing was built yet. Mr. Cassens stated that the next set of samples was to be done this week.

Mr. Helseth, speaking for the Open Space Commission, stated that they wanted 100% of the wells to be tested and now it was proposed for only 30% to be tested. Commissioner Dale replied that this was not in the Resolution but in the applicant’s proposal. Mr. Etcheson added that this was not the County recommendation. The County recommended a testing program as it exists which was testing every six months. Commissioner Dale added that he would like to see annual testing after 2 years with summer and winter variations. Mr. Cassens stated that they did seasonal testing already. Mr. Loeffler agreed to amend the language in 17B to reflect this.

Mr. Asby stated that phosphorus was not a human problem but it was the main concern of the Stanley Lake Agreement. Mr. Etcheson agreed stating that it made the water more difficult to treat and created algae. Mr. Asby asked that these restrictions and conditions be the same for all of Clear Creek County and not make the Saddleback development a “guinea pig.” Commissioner Poirot replied that these regulations were for new developments and Saddleback was the only new development. Mr. Helseth added that septic systems were more restrictive in the County year by year. If the County did not make adjustments to the regulations, the lack of restrictions would create future trouble for the County.

Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-167, Replat Case #03-PA-01, amending the plat of Saddleback Mountain Subdivision, with the changes mentioned with regarding testing frequency. Mr. Loeffler asked that this final Resolution come before the Board of County Commissioners for final approval of language. The Board needed to clarify if they wanted to test both the monitoring well and the sampling port or just one. The Board also needed to clarify whether they preferred the primary testing site to be the monitoring well or the port. Mr. Church stated that testing the ports was better for true sampling. Monitoring holes could be too shallow. Mr. Etcheson suggested installing the wells and attempting to sample. If unsuccessful, sample the ports. Mr. Cassens agreed. Commissioner Sorensen suggested the monitoring well as the primary sampling point and an alternate well at the discharge point. She added to perform sampling at the time of installation and then every six months for 2 years and

Page 243 of 246 then annually alternating summer/winter testing times. The Board agreed to twice a year for 2 years and then annually with seasonality. Commissioner Poirot amended his motion to continue the hearing but close public comment to January 6, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES - DECEMBER 23, 2003

The Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on December 23, 2003 at the Courthouse in Georgetown. Chairman Jo Ann Sorensen called the meeting to order. Also in attendance were Commissioners Robert Poirot and Harry Dale, County Attorney Robert Loeffler, and Deputy Clerk and Recorder Beth Luther.

CONSENT AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM CIFGA TO CLEAR CREEK COUNTY: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND EAGLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLEAR CREEK COUNTY AND VARIOUS AGENCIES FOR GAMING GRANT FUNDING: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LEGAL SERVICES BY CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES: BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LEGAL SERVICES BY CLEAR CREEK COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FOR PROJECT SUPPORT: Regarding item #1 the quit claim deed, Mr. Loeffler stated that the original deed had not yet been received. The gaming contracts were with the Volunteers of America, the Mount Evans Hospice and the Clear Creek Advocates. Since item #5 was a Board of Social Services item, Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve consent agenda items #1-4 and #6. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners then convened as the Board of Social Services to consider item #4 and #5, consideration of approval of Contractual Agreement for Purchase of Legal Services by the Clear Creek County Board of Social Services. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve items #4 and #5 regarding the legal services contract. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The Board then ended the Board of Social Services session and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE: Community Development Project Director Bert Weaver attended. Commissioner Sorensen made the motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding negotiations with the City of Golden, Henderson Mine, and property management issues as allowed by CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e). Commissioner Poirot seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sorensen stated that no written minutes would be kept of the hearing.

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #03-160, MAJOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE #03-AX-09, FOR HERBERT LINN, UPPER

Page 244 of 246 BEAR AREA: In attendance were Adjacent Property Owners Bob Foster, Craig Donairie, Applicant Herbert Linn, and Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel. Planner II Doug Lesh presented. Mr. Lesh made the following statements: # This hearing was a continuation of a prior hearing which was allowed more time to determine the capability of homes to be proposed for lots A and C and the ISDS regulations associated. # The current means for the two cabins on lots A and C was a shared outhouse. # Last week, Mr. Linn submitted ISDS applications on both lots A and C. # On December 18, 2003, permits were issued for both properties for vault style holding tanks. # The lots would not fully comply with health codes until the systems were installed and the outhouse was removed. # A new draft Resolution was prepared for this hearing which reflected the requirement for the ISDS regulations. # A new condition was written to stated that the installation of the ISDS on both parcels had to be installed by June 23, 2004 to be in compliance with permits and the ISDS regulations. # At this time, the applicant must then apply for a building permit with the required installation of a restroom, hot/cold water, and smoke detection systems. # At the prior hearing, there was discussion regarding site disturbance on lots C and D. # One access was proposed from Diamond Drive or Potato Patch Circle. # Mr. Linn had an agreement with the owner of lots 6 and 7 on Diamond Drive for a 15-ft access easement which would run along the eastern boundary. The Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel had not yet reviewed this access in detail. # Irrespective of which access was appropriate, the condition of approval should comply with driveway design standards. # Staff did recommend approval of this case. # Regarding the access from Potato Patch Circle, Mr. Lesh stated that the property owner along this road would not allow an easement for Mr. Linn. The owner of this land on Potato Patch Circle was Phillip Inglee. Mr. Linn noted that he had spoken with Mr. Inglee numerous times and he was adamantly against allowing an access to Mr. Linn’s land. Commissioner Poirot stated that this access should be kept in the Resolution as an option since in the future, a new property owner may allow it and it would be more appropriate. Mr. Foster disagreed stating that the access in this area would travel a long distance across Inglee’s land before turning off to Linn’s land. Mr. Loeffler replied that this did not matter as a solution would be found in 6 months when the ISDS permit was complied with.

Mr. Vogel made the following statements: # Regarding the longer access which traveled across the other Linn lots, it would be expensive but it would meet driveway design standards. # He had not examined the proposed access across lots 6 and 7 off Diamond Drive. Mr. Donairie asked that the County examine this access carefully as this easement crosses his well head on his land. Mr. Donairie would be closing and purchasing on the sale of lots 6 and 7 off Diamond Drive in the next week. He was purchasing the land from Gene Graham. Mr. Donairie added that this access would also be very steep. # Regarding a question from Mr. Foster on required 20-ft easements, Mr. Vogel replied that the width of the easement depended on the cut and fill slopes. Retaining walls may be required.

Mr. Foster asked what the options were to not developing the lot at all. Commissioner Poirot replied that this was not an option as the landowner had the option to develop it. Commissioner Dale added that the cost of developing the land could be expensive and this was up to the landowner. Commissioner Poirot asked if Mr. Graham was willing to grant a wider than 15-ft easement. Mr. Linn replied that he did verbally agree to 25-ft in width but Mr. Graham passed away before it was in writing. Mr. Graham was also concerned about the easement crossing a well head. Mr. Donairie added that the well head was on the property line. Commissioner Dale stated that if the access went through the County process and did not meet standard then it would not be approved. Another access would have to be considered. Regarding the well head, Mr. Vogel stated that this could be protected with a manhole and access could be mitigated. The

Page 245 of 246 important question was whether this access met the County standards. Mr. Foster asked if the Adjacent Property Owners could specify a preferred route. Commissioner Poirot replied that this could not be specified until Site Development Inspector Tim Vogel examined the accesses. Mr. Loeffler stated that the Resolution should include all access options regardless of which one was used. Commissioner Poirot made the motion to approve Resolution #03-160, Major Boundary Line Adjustment Case #03-AX-09, for Herbert Linn, Upper Bear area with no changes to the Resolution. Commissioner Dale seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned.

______Deputy Clerk & Recorder Jo Ann Sorensen, Chairman

Page 246 of 246