Board of County Commissioners Business Meeting - workshop

Good afternoon, everybody. We are here for a drop-in. And so what we would like to do is start with some introductions around the room. And so just when we get to you, just say your name and who you represent.

You're number two because I stopped. Jeff Baker, Commissioner.

Brianna Mathias, representing Excel. Michelle Halstead, Commissioner's Office. Rhonda Fields, Commissioner. Leslie Same, Commissioner. Carrie Warren-Gully, Commissioner.

Matt Hader from the County Attorney's Office.

Jessica Campbell, Commissioner of District 2.

John Christopherson, County Attorney's Office. Patrick Hernandez, HR.

Wonderful, wonderful. And it looks like we don't have anybody online. So, Mr. Hader, would you like to let us know what's happening?

Sure. As part of our land development code, we require a navigation easement when there is certain development that abuts an airport, including Buckley, Fourth Centennial Airport. And as part of that, we require that the underlying property owner give an navigation easement to the neighboring property. airport to make sure that The airport can still function above that property Despite the development now obviously in these areas because of noise contours, you don't have residential development next to airports But you might have other going things on and I'm assuming the Excel representative is here because for example We recently approved a power pathways project that abuts Buckley so In just really the normal course of business, looking at that evocation easement, and actually in part in the context of Excel, there's a couple issues kind of arose in that form easement. The land development code requires that the Board of County Commissioners approve the form of easement. So we don't need your individual review for every easement, but what we wanted to do is take the opportunity to revise that form. And there was some language that seemed to be a bit over, a little bit maybe possibly of an overreach. So we wanted to make it more palatable for both the landowner and for the abutting airport to make sure that things are there. So you have a copy of the previous one. The revised template is with the BSR published for the meeting today. I did not print out copies of that one. Maybe I should have. But what I've kind of circled around is just some highlights and language that was concerning. When all we're really concerned about is an abrogation easement above the property. So anything outside of that, really I want to make sure that it's narrowly, our easement's narrowly tailored and kind of supported by the code. So we just wanted to take this opportunity to put this in front of you, kind of excise those things that were unnecessary, kind of refocus it back on the purposes of the navigation easement. And that's why the revised document that was published with today's agenda is what I was hoping you could take a look at and give me the thumbs up and approve moving forward. A couple things to note, we added some stuff, a little bit of language at the top to make sure we identified the parties. We expanded some of the language with regard to what the property owner could expect in terms of what might be happening with the airport operations itself. But also, we wanted to make sure there's no sort of waiver by the property owner for anything that the neighboring airport may have been doing unlawfully. um so just trying to make sure that the language is appropriate there um and of course we didn't really have a signature block for the party accepting the easement previously so we've added that signature block as well so again just a effort to try to clean up the template and move forward and for all our all our cases not specific to any one particular case so what i'm looking for is your approval for the the new standard navigation easement form that's in the record

Commissioners, we have any questions? So you're taking away power from us?

No, not at all. You never had it to begin with. It's smoke and mirrors. Yeah, and again, I apologize for not printing another copy of what was in there. It's okay.

Any questions about that? Commissioner Baker. Yeah. Matt, have we had any... Maybe I should knock on wood. We haven't had any... lawsuits or claims or anything come out of having the language the way it is right now?

No challenges that I'm aware of, no. Okay. The document that the existing or legacy easement as you referred to earlier was, according to staff, they sent that to me and they said that was something that they received from Bob Hill. So I don't know the history of that approval previously. Okay. I'm assuming it was all done, you know, after board review as well. But no, no claims or challenges raised. Like in the example of Excel, I did have a discussion with one of the attorneys from their outside counsel about it. So they had looked at the red lines as well, and they thought that what we have here revised was certainly palatable for them. Of course, they need to get Denver and Aurora as the property owners to sign off on it. So it should be more palatable for those public entities as well.

If we take the first move and then they can use that in their discussions with those other jurisdictions. Got it. Thank you. Mr. Christopherson?

This is an example of one of the things in the county attorney's office. We have something that hasn't come up for a long time. We have that. we take it and look at it with fresh eyes just to see not just going oh rubber stamp this is the way it's been done with that because there may have been some statutory change there may have just other stuff there's also can be different interpretations that go on with that so this is a common occurrence that we will then see and if there are some changes or things that we're not um we're thinking ah this isn't really what we're what we have with uh our our view or our review of the statute we're gonna make those changes we do that we do that with a with other departments and offices as well, whichever you think. So this isn't something out of the ordinary to have that review.

Thank you. I'm okay with it. All right. We have three thumbs up, four thumbs up, five thumbs up. There's one that was kind of tentative about that. Okay.

So then this is, as far as I'm concerned, establishes the record for the board's approval of the revised forum navigation easement.

Great. Thank you. You're welcome. I'm going to talk about you when you leave. I hope you do. I'm meeting as quickly as humanly possible, sir.

Rebecca's outside.

Are you okay with having them do the motion?

Yes.

With what? The motion? The exact session. The exact session. Yes. Are you here for exec session two? Or was that what you were here for? I think that's what I was here for. Okay, great. I think that's it. That part's done now. Yeah, you don't have to stay.

We have to stay.

Yes, it was lovely meeting you. Come back anytime. Thank you very, very much. Yes. Madam Chair. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Campbell. I move that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 24.6.402.4B and E of the Colorado Revised Statute to Develop Strategy and Instruct Negotiators to Receive Legal Advice Regarding the Following. 1. Barraza Case Settlement Conference and 2. Update on FOP Negotiations.

Second.

It has been moved by Commissioner Campbell and properly seconded by Commissioner Baker to go into executive session. All in favor say aye. Aye. I guess so. Any opposed? It looks like we are in executive session.