Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here

To hear audio, click on any item of business below.

ROLL CALL

MINUTES

AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA

CONSENT AGENDA

PROCLAMATIONS: 1) APPRENTICESHIP WEEK – NOVEMBER 13-19, 2023

WARRANTS: 1) GENERAL WARRANTS – NOVEMBER 8, AND 9, 2023

NEW BUSINESS: 1) CONSIDER EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 43 BETWEEN CRS 42 AND 44

2) CONSIDER APPEAL OF DECISION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER TO DENY PROTEST OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, DBA VIAPATH TECHNOLOGIES, FOR BID #B2300133, INMATE COMMUNICATION SERVICES – SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC: Karin McDougal, Deputy County Attorney, explained the purpose for this matter is for the Board to determine if they are to grant or deny the appeal of the decision of Cheryl, Pattelli, Chief Financial Officer.

APPEAL (CONT'D)

APPEAL (CONT'D)

APPEAL (CONT'D)

APPEAL (CONT'D)

PLANNING: 1) CONSIDER FULL RELEASE OF WARRANTY COLLATERAL FOR MINOR AMENDED USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT, MUSR15-0020, AS RELATED TO USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT, USR-1687 – JOURNEY VENTURES, LLC, C/O J-2 CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC.

2) CONSIDER CERTIFICATION TO WELD COUNTY TREASURER OF ZONING VIOLATION PENALTIES AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT – CHARLES SIMANSKY

3) CONSIDER CERTIFICATION TO WELD COUNTY TREASURER OF ZONING VIOLATION PENALTIES AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT – GRACIELA QUINONEZ AND VERONICA GUTIERREZ

4) CONSIDER CERTIFICATION TO WELD COUNTY TREASURER OF ZONING VIOLATION PENALTIES AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT – JOHN KRENZELOK

5) CONSIDER CERTIFICATION TO WELD COUNTY TREASURER OF ZONING VIOLATION PENALTIES AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT – VINCE HOLTON

6) CONSIDER CERTIFICATION TO WELD COUNTY TREASURER OF ZONING VIOLATION PENALTIES AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT – LUIS LOPEZ

7) CONSIDER CERTIFICATION TO WELD COUNTY TREASURER OF ZONING VIOLATION PENALTIES AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT – ANDRES HERNANDEZ, JR.

8) CONSIDER CERTIFICATION TO WELD COUNTY TREASURER OF BUILDING AND ZONING VIOLATION PENALTIES AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT – ROLANDO AND ELOISA CASTILLO

9) CONSIDER CERTIFICATION TO WELD COUNTY TREASURER OF ZONING VIOLATION PENALTIES AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT – BRUCE BROTEMARKLE

10) CONSIDER CERTIFICATION TO WELD COUNTY TREASURER OF ZONING VIOLATION PENALTIES AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT – BAUDEL TORTOLEDO HERNANDEZ

PUBLIC INPUT

Thank you for the Pledge of Allegiance. 00:07:28
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, 00:07:31
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 00:07:36
Good morning, Monday, November 13th, Colorado, Boyd County Commissioners roll call please. 00:07:47
Scott James Kevin Ross, Lori saying Perry Buck Mike Freeman Reflect all five county commissioners are present minutes approval of 00:07:53
minutes of October 30th, 2023. Second like Mr. Ross to approve all in favor opposed motion carries amendments agenda We have any 00:08:00
amendments? No. No. 00:08:07
Consent agenda. We'll be approved. Consent agenda second moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Ross to approve the 00:08:15
consent agenda. All in favor, opposed motion shows proclamation. We do have one proclamation. 00:08:20
The previous week, November 13th through the 19th, 2023. 00:08:27
And I will read this into the. 00:08:31
Good morning, commissioners. Tina Grant, Deputy Director of the Department of Human Services, Thank you for allowing us to have a 00:09:38
few minutes this morning on your agenda. This morning we just wanted to recognize National Apprenticeship Week as an opportunity 00:09:44
to help strengthen the local workforce and economy through an ear and learn model to build our talent pipeline. National 00:09:49
Apprenticeship Week is a time to celebrate the individual role that apprenticeships play in developing and honing in skills for a 00:09:55
wide range of industries. 00:10:01
In Colorado, the variety of apprenticeship and opportunities available have really expanded and include sectors such as 00:10:07
technology, healthcare, construction, manufacturing and many more. 00:10:13
There are currently over 6000 active apprenticeships in Colorado. I should say apprentices in Colorado. 90% of apprentices who 00:10:20
complete or registered apprenticeship retain employment with an average annual salary of $80,000. 00:10:28
A new apprenticeship that has been developed through a strong team here with employment Services is with Wayne's Electric and Fort 00:10:37
Lupton. 00:10:41
Through this collaboration, Employment Services has supported for new apprentices and helping to support their tuition and 00:10:46
independent electrical contractors through Rocky Mountain. 00:10:52
To start their friendship program, Employment Services has also worked in strong partnership with our Sheriff's Department. 00:10:58
And that is obviously to support our local law enforcement, the apprentices with the initial items such as work boots and other 00:11:06
forms of equipment that are necessary to start that work. 00:11:13
Through graded funding and other things that our team is able to leverage and support, offsetting those initial startup costs for 00:11:21
our local apprentices. 00:11:26
Tomorrow night there's a regional, actually an afternoon, a regional business recognition and informational session at the Blue 00:11:32
Arena in Loveland from 3:00 to 4:30. The event will actually help recognize local and regional employers that are leveraging 00:11:39
apprentices to build their talent and also feature resources for businesses who are interested in learning more and potentially 00:11:47
expanding apprenticeship opportunities further to date the Workforce Center. 00:11:54
Underemployment Services of World County has supported 47 apprentices. 00:12:02
And we're just really excited to have this recognition and to have the strong collaboration in the room with us today. 00:12:07
Just wanted to take a minute to recognize. 00:12:13
The team and board members who are here, we have Karina, Amaya, Raglan. 00:12:17
Cece Mccroskey, Ruth de Boer, Carla Masters. 00:12:22
Troll Escobedo, Greg Cordova, Andrew Chadwick. 00:12:27
Cecil. 00:12:32
Robert Rig. 00:12:34
And Shawn? 00:12:35
And this is part of the team that makes all of this work. 00:12:39
Mr. James, any comments? Yes, I am so thrilled first of all that the success of our workforce development program and the people 00:12:49
that are involved, thank you for the hard work that you do. But secondly and more importantly undone today and this proclamation 00:12:54
is just the fact that we. 00:12:59
As Americans are again realizing there's more than just one pathway to a career, more than just one one educational pathway and 00:13:04
apprenticeships is just so darn important to that. So thank you for what you do. Continue to enlist in those folks who who want to 00:13:10
go through the urban model that's that's so good and and let's celebrate those apprenticeships because it shows that that 00:13:16
alternative pathway to a very fulfilling career. Thank you for what you do. 00:13:23
Well Tammy, I know that workforce development has always been near and dear to your heart. But I look out there and there is quite 00:13:30
the team Andrew and Greg and Karina and Cece. I have to tell you honestly I'm out in the community and I hear about you all and 00:13:37
the phenomenal job that you are doing to help these kids getting these apprenticeships. And I just can't thank you enough and I'm 00:13:44
so proud to be a part of well County and and to see all that you're you're doing you guys walk. So thank you so much. 00:13:51
Excellent job, guys. This is how I mean, this is the gateway into getting some cool jobs going, right? Inspiring youth. Inspiring 00:14:00
others. 00:14:04
To really find their path. Traditional methods don't always work for everybody and I think it's important that they have other 00:14:10
alternatives and ways to find a way to be successful. Find something that they find passionate and and get their toes in it and 00:14:17
say yes for me where this isn't for me. So great job to the entire team. I appreciate all the work you do. You're actually. 00:14:24
Helping out well, carrying a great way as we strengthen our workforce. So thank you very much. Great job. 00:14:32
Thanks for helping people cross that gap and our use and some adults as well because we've heard from just about everyone I know 00:14:38
in the energy industry as long as along with the construction industry in particular how they are #1 concern is they can't find 00:14:46
people to do the work and these are great jobs and they build things of value here in Weld County and elsewhere. So it's it's 00:14:54
important for our workforce, our next generation and for the economic well-being of of Wells County. So I thank you so much. 00:15:02
Everyone who participates in that and and is is has the heart of a teacher. 00:15:10
And. 00:15:14
And thank you so much up here every day. What don't you do for long time? 00:15:16
The Department of Human Services is pretty vast. 00:15:23
OK. Well, thank you and thank you to the team for what you guys do. You know, maybe we're going on this, maybe I'll come see you 00:15:28
in a year. 00:15:31
Congratulations on what you guys do. You know, it is really an important role. There's so many, there's so many opportunities out 00:15:38
there and this is just one more opportunity for to figure out a way to be successful in the workforce. So thank you very much for 00:15:43
what you guys do every day and if that would come take a picture quick. 00:15:48
Oh. 00:15:57
Good job, everybody. Yeah. 00:16:13
Alright, everybody ready? 00:16:21
123. 00:16:24
Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. 00:16:29
Thank you. 00:16:32
Hey, thanks so much again. 00:16:36
That first paragraph. 00:16:39
OK, that will move on to once general ones November 8th and 9th 2023 move to approve words moved by Commissioner Ross, seconded by 00:17:03
Commissioner Buck to approve all in favor OPP. 00:17:08
Motion carries new business. Consider extension of temporary closure of County Road 43 between County roads 42 and 44. 00:17:14
Good morning, Commissioners, Amy Muchi, Public Works. Public Works is requesting to extend this closure through December 1st. This 00:17:25
was originally closed back in April due to some of the flooding events that we had and it's remained closed. Been working with 00:17:32
FICO Ditch Company to get that ditch cleared out. All the property owners are now done receiving water. So we have that window to 00:17:38
complete. The work detour route has not changed. 00:17:45
And we're asking for your approval today. Good quest. 00:17:52
Move to approve the resolution. 00:17:55
Thank you. 00:18:01
#10 Consider Appeal of decision by Chief Financial Officer Denied protest of award of contracted Global Tel Link Corporation DBA 00:18:04
via Path Technologies Forbid 2300 one 33 inmate communication services Secures Technology LLC. Good morning. 00:18:12
Good morning, commissioners. Karen McDougal, Deputy County Attorney, We are here to consider the appeal of the decision by the 00:18:21
Chief Financial Officer to deny the protest of Securus technology. 00:18:27
Of the award to be attacked for the bid for inmate communication services. 00:18:35
Since this is an appeal of a denial, I believe that Securus technology who it has representation here today. 00:18:42
Is will present their. 00:18:49
Position 1st and then we can respond. 00:18:51
So for representing, yes, come on up. 00:18:55
Good morning, Commissioners. Good to see you again as always. 00:19:02
For the record, my name is Bob Cho. 00:19:07
And I am a local counselor for a ventive Securus. 00:19:10
And Securus is as you may know the the current provider of inmate communication services in the jail. You awarded a bid to another 00:19:15
firm to provide these services a little over a month ago and secures filed an appeal within that time frame, that five day time 00:19:22
frame and then submitted a records request which Mr. Barker provided. And based upon that you know what happened is these were the 00:19:29
the scores were very, very close. 00:19:36
The winning bid by the company I called GTL. 00:19:44
Was 90.5 out of 100 and secure as the current provider was 90.25. 00:19:48
So 1/4 of 1% low, right? And when it's that close, it's nearly equal. 00:19:57
And so upon a review of the. 00:20:03
Of the documents that were created as as part of the review of the proposals, we were able to identify what we think is a pretty 00:20:07
significant error. No bad faith, no bad actors, just a very just an error that can be corrected. And that's why we're here in 00:20:14
front of you today to request that. 00:20:22
So I don't want to I don't want to be preaching to the choir. I'll give you a quick background of the inmates communication 00:20:32
services. It will used to be just jail phone calls by inmates right. You pay for the call and and it's it's a a proper long 00:20:38
standing investigatory tool of law enforcement to be able to look at those to be able to review those calls, right. You want to 00:20:44
know if they're talking to Co defendants and things like that. 00:20:51
The system has evolved over the years and now includes modern technology like tablets. Secure tablets that do the same thing, 00:20:58
right? And unlike many other services that are provided to the county, doesn't cost the county any money. It's it actually results 00:21:05
in commissions off of those fees charged to inmates being brought back to the county in a certain amount. 00:21:13
What's interesting, you know, and with the proposal an IFP as opposed to an RFP, it's not just a matter of what's the most money 00:21:22
we get back or what's the least amount of money we have to pay for a truck if we're buying something for public works, as an 00:21:26
example. 00:21:30
It's really it's if it were a bid, it would be what's the most money we can get back and. 00:21:36
But this is a proposal that includes a lot of different things, and the Commission that is received is one of those things, right? 00:21:42
And all over the country this is the model for provision of these services to inmates in in jails and prisons. 00:21:51
And so it's the inmates kind of pay their own way. 00:21:58
But when? When this is being offered in a request for proposals. 00:22:03
It needs to say. 00:22:09
Maximum Commission to the county results in maximum points. 00:22:12
And that's not what this proposal said. This proposal was more holistic, right? They want low fees to the inmates. 00:22:18
Over the inmates also serves additional law enforcement purposes by ensuring that they're continuing to meet with their family on 00:22:28
video calls and things like that, which reduces recidivism when they get back and then through the community. 00:22:35
Also, they're used to doing that when they're outside the jail, so it keeps keeps them happy in the jail, results in less problems 00:22:42
in the jail, and I'm not the expert on this. 00:22:46
But Securus knows that this is how it works, and certainly Sheriff's Office knows this is how it works. 00:22:51
But if you want to maximize commissions, you can absolutely do that. But that's not what the RFP said. And So what we're trying to 00:22:57
do is make sure. 00:23:02
You know the RP. 00:23:07
And everybody sticks within the rules. 00:23:09
And when when looking at this now. 00:23:11
If you know me, you know I have immense respect for our law enforcement. I I have immense respect for all public service. 00:23:16
Public servants, especially law enforcement. Again, you know that action here, no bad actors, but it is very important that 00:23:22
everybody. 00:23:26
Follows the same rules as listed in the RFP, and these RFP's are different all over and so the companies. 00:23:32
Tailor their financial package based on what has been presented. 00:23:39
And so there were four people from from the Detentions staff that were on the Scrollers team. 00:23:43
That we're reviewing. 00:23:53
Right, four people. That's pretty standard for a proposal. 5 categories, each category worth up to 20 points, for a total of 100 00:23:55
points. 00:23:59
Take everybody's average them out on a section by section basis and you get up and you get a number right? And that's where we 00:24:04
came up with where the team, the detentions team, came up with 90.5 and 90.25. 00:24:11
If you look at. 00:24:18
So, so that's what was presented to you for the bid award and and and on the surface makes sense, a word to the highest score. 00:24:20
When you look at, there's really only one particular primary error that we've been able to identify, which is a big one because it 00:24:30
was actually results in a change in the overall score. 00:24:36
Which therefore presumably would change in the recommendation. 00:24:43
And changing who gets the contract. 00:24:46
And there's one of the One of the five categories is called Call, Visiting Call, Visiting Tab, Tablet rating, fees and Commission 00:24:49
accountability. 00:24:55
It states, provided Full disclosure. This is the criterion. 00:25:01
Provide a Full disclosure about how revenue is generated. 00:25:05
Method used to calculate Commission's offer to the county call and visiting rate based on RFP requirements and FCC rules. 00:25:09
Reasonable and fair pricing of phone visiting and service to family, friends and inmates met all requirements as stated in the. 00:25:16
So that is the criteria upon which the concern has arisen, because one of the four scholars. 00:25:25
Use this criteria to. 00:25:34
Score the firms based on what they believed was the maximum Commission that would be returned to the county. 00:25:37
It did not for otherwise, for example. 00:25:44
Take into account lower fees to the inmates for example, or the other items that are listed there. 00:25:47
And so that in itself becomes an issue because three out of four, and just for Clary when there was a Sergeant and three 00:25:55
lieutenants, 3 lieutenants. 00:26:00
Appeared to have applied this this criteria criterion correctly. One of them appeared to be the Sergeant appeared to be 00:26:06
maximizing. 00:26:10
Commissions and above all else. 00:26:14
So that in itself is an issue. The other part of that is the methodology used to determine those maximum commissions. 00:26:18
Is unknown. We don't know where that came from and we haven't been able to look back and say this is how that was because we don't 00:26:26
know it's. 00:26:30
You know, $10,000 or $10 million, it's. 00:26:35
A certain percentage of phone calls and a certain percentage of video calls and things like that. 00:26:39
And so we don't know how those numbers were came around. 00:26:46
It does appear. 00:26:51
That some of those. 00:26:55
Some of those numbers, some of those presumptions. 00:26:56
Were inaccurate, at least in retrospect. Right, if you. 00:26:59
Say I'm going to give you 85% or 83% Commission on all phone calls and we're going to presume that there's this many phone calls, 00:27:03
but we know that once you introduce video calling. 00:27:08
Phone calls dropped down to 10% what they were, so you're not going to get the correct numbers. 00:27:14
The point here is not that they are incorrect, although that does appear to be the case. 00:27:22
Suppose that that's not what the RFP called for, right? We didn't, We don't know what the methodology was to. 00:27:27
To do that and if it had been included in the RFP, we could, we could say OK and they were and all of the firms would have 00:27:34
tailored their bid, their financial package based upon that. 00:27:39
Even if it was wrong. Even if they. 00:27:44
It doesn't make sense. You have so many phone calls after you have video calls. We've seen this all over the country. It's still 00:27:47
doing the same thing and everyone would be submitting the same thing. 00:27:51
In this case, we have what appears to be inaccurate, inaccurate information. 00:27:57
But it's outside the scope of this criterion. 00:28:02
And we're talking about. 00:28:07
22 The highest 2 scores were virtually identical. 00:28:09
And that result from the one score of the Sergeant on that one category gave him the seven, whereas the three lieutenants gave him 00:28:15
a 15 or 16. 00:28:20
And so we're talking about at least a two point difference in the overall total score based upon this. 00:28:25
Potential this error, right? And again, it's not that it's wrong, it's not certainly a bad faith, it's not that it's wrong, it's 00:28:31
just something that that's not what the RFP said. 00:28:36
And so based upon these, this is, This is why we're here, this is an opportunity for you. 00:28:42
To correct the error, right. And this is one of those cases where security has been providing this service in the jail for I think 00:28:50
18 years, is my understanding right. It's not one where they've been put out because it's bad service. 00:28:56
It's good government to send it out for proposal every few years to make sure you're getting the best either pay for your taxpayer 00:29:04
buck or service to service to the Sheriff's Office in this circumstance. 00:29:10
And so if security, if you were to for example vacate the award to GTL and send it to Securus. 00:29:17
It's going to continue on and you're still going to get better than what you had last year because you did the RFP. 00:29:27
Right. You got new proposals, new technology, all of it, but what we're asking for and certainly you can do that because if you 00:29:33
take out that. 00:29:37
One score on that category for all bidders. 00:29:42
Securities is clearly the highest bidder but in but in the alternative and I do think as at a minimum I I absolutely suggest that 00:29:46
you you resubmit this forbid for proposal and and go through the process again to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to 00:29:52
submit. 00:29:58
Information proposals that are tailored to exactly what? 00:30:05
The county wants, and if you want to maximize commissions, put it in there if you. 00:30:10
Minimize fees. Inmates put it in there. It can be done, and it is done all over the country. And securities does it. 00:30:15
And they get a copy of everybody's bid that they lose all over the country, just like GTL and every other bidder here. This is a 00:30:22
very like open industry. They know what everybody's doing. 00:30:26
In this circumstance. 00:30:31
It just resulted it was a good faith error that resulted in an actual change to who won the bid. 00:30:33
And so. 00:30:40
Given that it's a significant error that resulted in the total score change and can be corrected. 00:30:41
I'm. I'm respectfully requesting that you do so and. 00:30:50
Umm Securus, I am authorized to say is that council are willing to allow the extension of the current contract which ends at the 00:30:55
end of the year, however much time the county needs to make that to make this happen if you want to submit it for rebid. 00:31:02
It is an error. It can be. 00:31:10
I respectfully request that you do so, and I'm happy to answer any questions. 00:31:12
More than any questions. 00:31:16
Yeah, actually this. 00:31:19
Bothers me, especially on page. 00:31:22
Regarding, no, absolutely no documents received during Quora, is that correct? Is that still correct? Is it today? That was at the 00:31:26
beginning and I apologize for that. No, I think looking back on that, I think that it was a miscommunication. I can't speak to 00:31:32
what happened internally, but we did get the the records. 00:31:38
Oh, you did get the records, Yes. I apologize if I didn't say that clearly. We did get the records. 00:31:45
Alright 'cause it just says in this paragraph ensure the county is not allowed any sunshine to the public regarding how it 00:31:50
rewarded awarded this contract because I've not provided security, any required documents required RFP process you're saying that 00:31:54
has changed between. 00:31:58
The state of life, Yeah. I think that when we put that together, it was. 00:32:03
I should have taken that out. I apologize because it was correct. We did get that and I think it was just a delay internal, but. 00:32:09
I don't, you know I can't. Again, I can't say that we got everything. I think we did. How long was the delay? 00:32:16
I don't know, a few weeks. 00:32:24
OK. 00:32:26
So I guess just to dialogue, Mr. Chair? 00:32:30
So one of the requests that you had was to. 00:32:34
Rebid the process. Am I saying that correctly? That's the request of secures. 00:32:39
Certainly because we're still, it sounds like what you just said you're still not sure about. 00:32:44
How? 00:32:50
About the transparency of the process. 00:32:52
I'm asking questions of the applicant because he's still at the area. 00:32:58
Thank you very much. You know, I just this representative district three loss coordinatorships after pointing out transparency 00:33:02
issues and open meetings law violations. 00:33:06
Pardon me if I'm a little. 00:33:11
He got the documents. 00:33:15
And it's about a couple weeks, is that correct, between when you receive the documents and the request? I think so. I was not 00:33:16
involved at the time that the court request was submitted. 00:33:21
I was brought on after that occurred, so by the time that I received, I was brought on to review and assist with this. As a local 00:33:25
council, I already had the documents in hand, so I apologize I don't have the time frame. That's OK. I I. 00:33:32
I appreciate that because just to the contrary what I'm reading here so. 00:33:39
Any other questions, Mr. Davis? Thanks. Mr. Jeffer, could Bob help me understand I get to the crux of your beef so to speak, it is 00:33:44
you believe that the the RF in this place PR RFP process, was it was incorrect or you believe that the scoring was not applied as 00:33:51
was stated in the RFP? 00:33:58
The second option, the second prescription, OK, OK. And so are you are you mentioned the Sergeant a couple of times. Was it do you 00:34:06
believe the Sergeant to be unfair in in his scoring that it did not match the RFP and was the Sergeant consistent in his scoring 00:34:12
of the other of the other RFP? 00:34:18
I would say that. 00:34:26
The Sergeant. 00:34:28
Is again, I'm not throwing mud. I don't want it to come out that way. You're just saying the East German judge is tough, is what 00:34:31
I'm wondering, you know, I mean. 00:34:34
Yeah, so, but there's multiple parts of why it didn't work right and if you had, if the county had had submitted a request for 00:34:39
proposals that said. 00:34:45
Maximize maximum Commission to the county results in maximum points. 00:34:50
Then that would take care of. Then what you would also do is say this is how we will judge that right. 00:34:56
Remember, you know, per the Commission, per phone call, the per the Commission per video call, things like that. It didn't include 00:35:04
any of that And so we don't know the methodology to decide whether or not. 00:35:10
You know, basically the Sergeant. 00:35:16
I want to maximize. 00:35:19
And give highest points for that, which is the one issue. The other part is I don't know how that was done. I don't know the 00:35:21
methodology to determine that Securus would have lower Commission. I think that there's. 00:35:28
Pretty significant likelihood that if new RFP's go out that it'll show securities has a pretty High Commission. But again, we 00:35:35
don't, we don't know that. 00:35:39
Thanks, Commissioner. I guess I got a problem with a few things you're stating here, Bob. I feel like you're contradicting 00:35:45
yourself and I apologize. You say you don't know what goes into it, but it's pretty clear on the application that applicants are 00:35:52
supposed to get their best and final offers at the time of submission. Would you agree with? Oh, absolutely. So that would mean in 00:35:59
all matters inside of the contract. So appears to me and and I'm waiting to hear from staff. 00:36:07
Right, that now that we found out maybe our offer wasn't the best it could be in a certain area and you're wanting to change what 00:36:15
you're able to submit. And so that's kind of where I'm struggling with here, Bob, is because now that you've gotten the data back, 00:36:21
now that you know what the others have scored, it's an area for you to retweet when everyone's coming forth with their best and 00:36:28
final offer, right so. 00:36:35
Why should we be considering allowing you to now change what you're offering? That seems to me like you don't come in with your 00:36:43
best and final offer. 00:36:46
On the original. 00:36:49
That's a very fair question, Commissioner. I what I would say is. 00:36:52
I don't know. 00:36:57
What the best offer is here? 00:36:58
I I don't think any of us can look at that and say this is the best offer. 00:37:01
And the reason is because it's not a bid. It's not like. 00:37:05
You know 100 is better than 90, right? It's not a bid. It's not like money on the table, highest number of money wins, right? And 00:37:12
that or or in the case of buying a vehicle lowest amount of money wins, right. It's that's not the way this was designed and so. 00:37:20
What I'm saying is if you wanted to do that and say the highest Commission. 00:37:28
To the county wins this criteria criter. 00:37:36
You could say that, but it doesn't say that, right? It's it doesn't say that. That's not what it says. So judging it in that 00:37:41
capacity is is an error. 00:37:45
If you wanted it to say, you could say that. So it's it's. It's like if you decide to rebuild and don't change it. 00:37:51
I would also suspect, I would expect that you also wouldn't have a score base that's higher just because there's higher 00:37:57
commissions. 00:38:02
It's just a different set of rules. That was a good point. OK. Any other questions? OK. Thanks, Paul. 00:38:07
Thank you, Commissioners. 00:38:16
We do not believe that the Sheriff's Office violated the RFP process and this. 00:38:18
In this bid, nor did Sergeant Beam go outside the scope of the RFP. In fact, they did the opposite they provided. 00:38:25
All the vendors with the same information. 00:38:35
They provided an answer of questions, all the answers to questions. 00:38:38
Publicly to all the vendors and they went out for a best and final offer to all the vendors. 00:38:43
And then they had four different people evaluated. 00:38:50
And. 00:38:52
Each scored individually, which is the normal process. And then they met to make sure that nothing was off base and went forward 00:38:55
with the vendor who had the highest score and who they believed under the process that is required by the county deserved the bid. 00:39:03
It is not deserved. The award, excuse me, It is not the easier decision for them. This is a difficult transition because it would 00:39:10
have been easier to go with Securus. They are there, they are established. 00:39:18
And so they are going with the more difficult decision, but it is where the evaluation of the proposals came out. 00:39:27
They followed their process. When we received the protests, it was reviewed by Miss Patelli, who also spoke with Sergeant Bean and 00:39:36
they do not, they did not determine that anything was wrong outside the process. And I have Sergeant being here and Captain Turner 00:39:44
to talk about the process that they went through to evaluate these vendors and Captain Turner who was not one of the scorers but. 00:39:53
You know, if he is running our jail and will be involved in all sorts of bids like this, has been involved in all sorts of bids 00:40:02
like this and can kind of. 00:40:07
Let you know what the historical perspective is and answer any questions about the final decision. 00:40:13
Quick question before we move on to Sergeant. So what I want to look back at the information we received as a board. What date was 00:40:18
that when we awarded that? 00:40:23
Which information are you talking about? I'm just looking at the information that we received as a board to vote on this. What 00:40:31
date was that again? 00:40:34
What's your index? October 2nd? Thank you very much. 00:40:38
OK, Captain. 00:40:43
Actually, I'd like to have Sergeant Beanstar. 00:40:45
Sure, I'd like to explain my process when I was can you go ahead and put your name and address? 00:40:47
Oh yeah, Geraldine, I'm a Sergeant Detentions division and the support services. 00:40:52
Your dress as well. 00:40:58
The home address, well, it's 19 gentlemen in Fort Collins. Go ahead. Sorry. 00:41:01
So when I look at this the the score criteria is call, visiting tablet, rating, fees, Commission availability. 00:41:09
The rates to the that the inmates are going to pay their friends and family were identical to Securus. So when I'm looking at the 00:41:16
rates. 00:41:21
Those are quite same. 00:41:26
The way that they're each company put out their Commission availability looks something like phone calls, 83% of $0.20 per minute. 00:41:29
$0.15 per minute at 73% when when I look at those numbers. I don't know what that means so I use an excel spreadsheet to put. 00:41:39
What our last 12 months minutes for phone calls, our last 12 months for video visits look like. 00:41:51
And kind of use that to extrapolate what that means as far as dollars go. 00:41:59
Because when I look at just rates and percentages that that doesn't compute in my mind. 00:42:04
So I use the exact same formula for every single company I each company each of the four that put in. 00:42:10
I use the same formula to grade. 00:42:19
And that's kind of how I came up with the the dollar amounts. 00:42:22
When I look at it, it's very drastic. The difference between Via Path and Securus over three years is almost $870,000. 00:42:28
That to me is a huge cost that now comes to both county. 00:42:39
That would go to help offsetting the cost of running jail. 00:42:44
Umm. 00:42:50
When? 00:42:52
I guess it's important to this is the process that I used. I didn't try to sway any other members of the team. 00:42:55
Actually didn't even present the final numbers until the last meeting until all the scores were tabulated, and then we kind of 00:43:04
discussed what that actually looked like. 00:43:08
And that that that is kind of the process that I. 00:43:15
To grade that category. 00:43:19
Mr. Gibbs, thanks. Thanks. Sergeant. Just I'm going to ask this, this simple question just to make sure it's sad And you applied 00:43:24
this criteria equally with all the bidders. Same criteria, exact same way. 00:43:29
Perfect. OK. 00:43:39
This portion, this call, visiting tablet rate, fees and Commission, that was one of five portions that all vendors were graded on 00:43:39
their criteria. They were all graded on, correct, yes. And I should have mentioned that there's actually the, the largest category 00:43:45
is 30 points for service and support requirements. So the Commission availability wasn't even the number one thing that we were 00:43:50
considering. 00:43:56
I think that's how I when I looked. 00:44:03
The different categories is the. 00:44:07
I think that's huge, and so I think that's where I see the discrepancy where. 00:44:10
The. 00:44:18
Better so. So I think it was a fair process. 00:44:19
Mr. Chair, so looking at what we received as a board, however, the service requirements actually for secures was. 00:44:24
Umm. 00:44:33
Along with let's see customer service if we're concerned about recidivism. 00:44:34
Qualifications. 00:44:40
So. 00:44:42
I am a little confused honestly because back to the point which is. 00:44:44
The Commission availability is the one where we see the the largest job between the two otherwise looks like secure has actually 00:44:50
scored higher than any other vendors. So that to the concern about the bidding process and. 00:44:57
I if. 00:45:06
Was was commissioned availability? 00:45:07
A requirement than the final invest that I mean just just remind me if we did ask us. 00:45:10
Yes, we asked for a best and final offer on the Commission, Correct. OK. 00:45:18
And whether we base that off of as far as your you gave a little bit but you know exactly. 00:45:23
The the e-mail that I sent out to each company asked for the best and final offer specifically for commissions. 00:45:29
And how did you calculate the commissions again? 00:45:39
I use the 12 month data from the jail that Securus actually provided for phones and visiting and then for the tablets. We do not 00:45:41
have tablets so there was not a really great way to do that. What I did, I contacted the Larima County who has a similar makeup, 00:45:48
adjusted their numbers to match our ADP. 00:45:55
And then use that to figure out what the the numbers were for the tablet portion. 00:46:02
It is where my county. 00:46:08
These via path via path. OK, so you currently don't have tablets now, correct? No with with Securus and then you want to go 00:46:10
towards tablets is what I understand. 00:46:15
And scarce did provide a bit on the table. 00:46:23
And the Commission, yes. OK. And that was? 00:46:27
Lower than the one usually. 00:46:32
Mr. Ross. 00:46:39
Well, two things I, I applaud you, right. I mean, anytime you're trying to extrapolate out what commissions. 00:46:41
She's no different than anything you'd ever do on any other financial statement, right? 00:46:47
Past numbers to try and get you to what your current rates would be, to give you a hypothetical or what the future is going to 00:46:51
look like. No one can. 00:46:56
Guess the future, right? Right. To me it's clear inside the bid when I read it, especially here on page 28 submission. 00:47:01
The five different things, the weighted portion of what they all made-up and it says specifically in their best and final offer 00:47:08
shall be given commissions was. 00:47:12
One of those pieces when it says Commission availability. 00:47:18
That should have been considered for best and final offer. So I you know that's where you guys are extrapolating numbers for to 00:47:21
get to. Hearing that you didn't even share your database until after the grading had taken place also gives me faith that the 00:47:28
other three officers involved probably did something similar and trying to get to their. 00:47:35
Commission rates and so I'm not finding anything wrong personally. 00:47:42
And thank you very much for all your time in doing this, but I'm sure it's it's. 00:47:51
Takes a lot of time. 00:47:56
But it seems like there was one individual in particular that scored differently from the last release. Maybe I'm taking that out 00:47:58
of context from what you said in council. 00:48:01
If I may, I would say you did not know that's that's accurate. The Sergeant scored on this criteria as a 7 out of 20 and the other 00:48:06
three scored 15 or 16. 00:48:12
OK. And if I may, I would like to have an opportunity to respectfully respond. 00:48:19
I would say that. 00:48:25
That's exactly, you know, nobody's hiding the ball. 00:48:27
All the facts are out on the table. I you know I have missed respect for Sergeant and captain. 00:48:30
You know, what we're talking about is. 00:48:38
Sergeant had an analysis. 00:48:41
That nobody knew what that was. 00:48:43
And to which we still don't know whether it is going to produce accurate results as to Commission right. 00:48:46
You know he he took two things which are very smart. One is the current, the last 12 months, you know usage and another is. 00:48:55
Our closest county neighbor jail that's already using the tablets. 00:49:07
And but for example. 00:49:12
Tablets will decrease the use of the other phones and so. 00:49:15
I don't know if it's accurate and it but but importantly it wasn't disclosed to theirs. They didn't have an opportunity to look at 00:49:22
that. 00:49:25
And so I, you know, I get it, there's no, it's just a matter of when you're trying to get to Securus received a 7 on that as a 00:49:29
result of. 00:49:33
Sergeants analysis on what he thought commissions would. 00:49:39
That was not part of the RFP. 00:49:43
And there's a lot more than just commissions in that category, right? There's a lot more. There's fees to the inmates. 00:49:46
Reasonable and fair pricing, phone visiting and tablet service to friends and family. 00:49:57
So it's just hard for, you know any better to say we're going to tailor our our. 00:50:01
Proposal to this particular RFP and then and then he get, oh, by the way, it's you got to maximize your Commission. That's the 00:50:08
only way you're going to get a high enough score here. So hold on just a second. Didn't I hear you guys say that the fees were 00:50:12
identical? 00:50:17
Yes. So the things are identical. So the only thing that's left is whatever the Commission is and they certainly need to be 00:50:23
looking at that. 00:50:26
I'm sorry if I may, yes, absolutely. But the difference here is. 00:50:31
How much, how much, how many phone calls are coming in versus video calls versus tablet usage and it makes all the difference. I 00:50:35
mean we do not know whether or not it is accurate that the, that's the Vipath will have a higher Commission. Student county, we do 00:50:43
not know that. Now I I don't think that Sergeant Bean has done a poor job of that. What I'm saying is. 00:50:50
We didn't have that information. The bidders did not have that information to submit to. 00:50:58
Again, these are proposals, not hybrid, and so that the request is to make sure that everybody's on the same. 00:51:03
Path there everyone has the same opportunity to submit. 00:51:11
So so OK Bob I get that is if all of the if all of the applications, all of the submissions were evaluated identically didn't 00:51:16
exactly the same thing on every one of them, then I'm not sure where we're going here. I'm I'm I think that I think we're looking 00:51:23
at a way that that we want to reopen it back up and have an opportunity to. 00:51:30
Return a different bid. That's not best in final offer from the beginning. That's where I struggle. I mean, I think everything is 00:51:38
included here. Everybody, however they judged, it doesn't matter. 00:51:42
However they judged it, every one of them did it exactly the same on all four of bits, right? So whether the Sergeant evaluated it 00:51:45
a little bit different than than the sergeants did, or the whatever the whatever they were lieutenants lieutenants did, sorry, a 00:51:53
military background slipper than my lieutenants did, it doesn't really matter because each of the four evaluated each one of these 00:52:00
goods in the exact same way. So at the end of the day you say best and final offer. 00:52:07
However they evaluated and whether they're correct in the world, it doesn't really matter because we could have four more people 00:52:14
come in and evaluate those same bits and come up with completely different numbers. That's the whole point of of valuation of of 00:52:19
how this works, so. 00:52:24
I I quite honestly I don't see any issue with the way this was handled and what was done. 00:52:30
So, well, I I'm gonna say I do find an issue in the fact that we have something that's that close right? And we have one 00:52:35
individual that scored much differently. Maybe they saw something different. I think it would behoove us in the bidding process to 00:52:42
institute something where if it's that close to the score between the two, then maybe reopen that did process And why, I don't 00:52:48
know why you're shaking your head, because that would be that might actually produce a product that produces more commissions and 00:52:54
therefore is better for the taxpayers. 00:53:01
The end of the day, when you say best and find law for that's the end of it. Commissioner Captain Trump, I shaking my head. 00:53:07
Normally you're the one saying go back and sharpen your pencil and get it right. Exactly what I'm saying. And but that's what 00:53:12
everybody was supposed to do coming into the bid process. So everyone was supposed to come in the 5th best and final. They have 00:53:16
their best and final. This is where it's critiqued. 00:53:20
Everyone of the four that are grading had their limbs, which they're looking through, but they consistently stored all those final 00:53:25
bits. 00:53:29
And or many tables I set out for that matter, but. 00:54:03
I'd like to point out a few things and one of them speaks to that topic. And I have to say, if I seem unorganized today, the the 00:54:09
document that we're speaking about today we received on Friday. I wasn't at work, I didn't see it till this morning. So I'm 00:54:13
pulling off subjective information here. 00:54:18
It's also why Sergeant Beam is here to talk about his part in the process. That way you get the technical aspect of it. 00:54:24
But I'd like to clarify a few things earlier Mr. Cho talked about. 00:54:30
What we're reviewing here. 00:54:35
And labeled it as an investigative investigative tool that we use to monitor inmates. And that is not true at all. 00:54:37
What we're talking about here is a statutory obligation, we. 00:54:45
To provide communication to inmates so that they can communicate with their family and their attorney. 00:54:49
Within a reasonable amount of time. 00:54:54
Upon arrival to a new facility and then keep their families up to date as they go through the legal process and then also have the 00:54:56
mandatory contact with their attorney. This is a very important thing and we take it very seriously for that for that reason. 00:55:03
Another thing that was stated was that inmates pay their way through. This also not true. Their families do. 00:55:10
I know if I weren't inmate and in jail, I don't think I'd be earning any money to pay for anything. 00:55:16
Their families are the people who really do feel the impact of these decisions. 00:55:20
And then the other impact is the community. 00:55:26
While the Commission that the county gets is not the most important thing in that bid, it is a part of it. 00:55:29
Because if there is no Commission, the community members of Weld County will be paying that. 00:55:35
They will, and there's already a push in the legislation to make that happen in the near future. Anyway. DLC is feeling that 00:55:40
impact this year. 00:55:43
We will feel it in the future. 00:55:46
Umm, but it's just one reason why we look at all of this. 00:55:48
The topic that I want to spend a minute talking about is the different perspectives on any bid process. 00:55:54
We actually did a process to look for the next Lieutenant in the Sheriff's Office the other day. 00:55:59
So we did interviews with six candidates. 00:56:06
And there's three of us sitting on that panel. Each of us has a different perspective. We don't really discuss our scores as we 00:56:09
talk. 00:56:12
We hand in a set of papers that has the scores on there and we tally them at the end. 00:56:16
We have discussion. What I generally find is there's usually one person who is. 00:56:20
On the outside and not because of anything bad. 00:56:25
But they bring something different to that conversation. 00:56:27
Whether it's knowledge of a topic or whether it's just they read something differently. 00:56:30
That is why we have multiple people look at these documents instead of one person. 00:56:35
It's the same reason we have multiple people look at a candidate. 00:56:40
Some of these vendors there are 4 vendors. 1 vendor submitted a document that was almost 400 pages long. 00:56:44
It takes me a long time to read 400 pages, much less gather all the information inside of it. Each of us uses our own objective 00:56:50
process. 00:56:54
To look at subjective information. 00:56:58
And and Mr. Cho said, you know, we didn't know the process that that was looked at in this, in this case, there were multiple 00:57:01
because everybody does it different. 00:57:05
I think the only thing here is that Sergeant Beans is on display. 00:57:09
But we never know the process that each person is going to use to rationalize the data inside. 00:57:14
I also say that we wouldn't ask for information if we weren't going to look for it or look at it, excuse me, and analyze it 00:57:19
because it is important stuff. 00:57:22
Umm. 00:57:27
The final thing I'll say is that I I think that why we're here. 00:57:28
Is very important. 00:57:33
And I will say that as the captain of the jail. 00:57:35
When I heard the Securus was not the vendor that was, that was at the top. That freaked me out. 00:57:38
It freaked me out because I don't think anybody has had to rip all that technology out of the jail and replace it before. 00:57:44
No, I I don't. I don't know what that looks like. No one does in our agency. 00:57:49
So that's freaky. 00:57:54
But. 00:57:56
We looked at the bid, we looked at the scores that came out of that and the ethical thing to do. 00:57:58
Is to give the way to those scores. 00:58:03
We did the process. We analyzed the information. Here's the scores. I I think it would actually be contrary to the ethics of our 00:58:06
county if we didn't stick to that process. 00:58:11
That's really all I have to say. 00:58:17
So the concept that we didn't tell everybody what we were looking at, I mean the e-mail that Sergeant being sent says the county 00:58:20
is currently reviewing all bids in order to select the best vendor for Weld County and continuity. By providing A consistent 00:58:26
yearly revenue stream, you're asking your company to respond. 00:58:32
With the best and final offers on commissions. 00:58:38
We were very clear on what we were looking for and all four were, you know. 00:58:42
Submitted responses and they were evaluated on those as well as the rest of the RFP. It wasn't just this, but we were very clear 00:58:47
on what we were looking for in our battle. So to say that we weren't, I think is is an unfair statement. 00:58:54
So back to the cost of working things out, I assume you you put that onto the bed as well as far as how much that would cost? 00:59:03
Yeah, that that's all included. That's all. So the commission's, so basically the deal that you got from Via Path would have paid 00:59:11
off, would have covered the cost of ripping out equipment. 00:59:17
Installing the new equipment and all everything that goes along with it. So they they included that in. I just want to make sure. 00:59:24
So here's the issue that I have, commissioners again, I'll reference the letter that was sent where they asked for a court 00:59:32
request. It wasn't received for a couple weeks. 00:59:36
That really concerns me greatly and the fact that I as much time as this takes and I really appreciate it. I know share frames. 00:59:41
Mr. Patch, now how to run to jail and so there's there's no question of that. I have some concerns about not only the the time it 00:59:50
took for the quarter request, but if we have a bid that's just so very close within a couple of, you know, percentage .25. 00:59:58
And Justice again, trying to think around corners if there is a possibility we could save some more money, not rebound equipment. 01:00:07
I still I'm. 01:00:15
So the opinion it might not be such a terrible idea to maybe resubmit. 01:00:21
Commissioner James and then we're ready for a motion here. 01:00:26
Just to just to confirm the removal of old and the installation of new is inclusive in the bid. Yes OK with that Mr. Chair I move 01:00:30
we deny the appeal of I think it is in the resolution that we deny to be appealed. So simply what I would move to approve the 01:00:36
resolution. 01:00:41
Denying the Deal 2nd and moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Ross to approve the resolution and deny the appeal. 01:00:47
Any further discussion. Roll call about excellent questions. Roll call vote, please. 01:00:53
Scott James, Kevin Ross, what are you saying no for today? I have a lot of questions on this. 01:01:01
So that was a no yes payback, yes. Mike Freeman, yes, Doctor Red reflected the resolution is approved and the appeal is denied on 01:01:07
a four to one vote with Mr. same voting no. OK, thanks Bob. Thank you for your time commissioners that we'll move on to that 01:01:13
concludes the business we want to plan. 01:01:19
Consider full release of warranty collateral for minor amended use by special review permit in USR. 15.0020 is related to use by 01:01:26
special review permit usr. 01:01:31
1667 Journey Ventures LLC pair of J2 Contracting. 01:01:36
Company, Inc. 01:01:42
Good morning, Commissioners Jasmine Trio, Martinez with Planning Services in Regard to the Improvements Agreement for US R1687 and 01:01:45
MU SR15-020, Journey Ventures, LLC and care of J2 Contracting Company, Incorporated. 01:01:53
I submitted a pass around for your review dated October 18, 2023, and it was accepted by all 5 county commissioners. 01:02:02
We respectfully request the Board release full warranty collateral and the amount of $135,187.35 procured in the form of a general 01:02:09
purpose rider to the original bond number 226-9333 issued by the Swiss Re Corporate Solutions America Insurance Corporation. 01:02:20
The applicant has fulfilled their two year warranty period obligation and the Departments of Planning Services and Public Works 01:02:32
have inspected the improvements and support the full release of the warranty collateral. 01:02:37
We are only requesting the release of the warranty collateral and the terms of the road maintenance portion of the agreement will 01:02:43
stay. 01:02:46
In effect for the life of the USR. Thank you for your consideration. 01:02:50
OK, what are the questions? New to proof or release Warning letter moved like Mr. Ross. Second like Mr. Buck to approve. All in 01:02:53
favor. Opposed motion carries. Thank you #2. Consider certification to Wall County treasurer. Zillion violation penalties and 01:02:58
special assessment for Charlie Simanski. 01:03:04
Good morning, Commissioners Adria Shio, Assistant County. 01:03:14
The first case that we have is owner Charles Szymanski. All of the cases that we have, the 8 cases coming before you today have 01:03:19
been certified before to the board. 01:03:24
As far as this first case goes, and the property is located at 40751 County Road 68 in Griggsville. The case was filed on January 01:03:35
4th, 2022. The violation that includes storage of a mobile home after the building permits have expired. 01:03:44
The court ordered a $10 per day daily penalty to begin underwrite 11/20/22. The board did previously certify this on October 9th, 01:03:54
2022. 01:04:00
Recent inspections do show that the property is still not in compliance with the Wells County code. We would recommend 01:04:07
certification of penalties. 01:04:11
For the period of October 10th, 2022 through October 11, 2023 and announced a 3660 dollars. 01:04:15
OK. Is Mr. Szymanski your representative? 01:04:25
Captain and I'll bring it back. The board go to Certify assessment by Commissioner Ross. Second by Mr. James. Certified all in 01:04:30
favor, Aye. Opposed motion carries #3. Consider certification to organic treasure of zoning violation penalties as special 01:04:36
assessment. 01:04:41
Graciela Quinones and Veronica Gutierrez. 01:04:47
This property is located at 1012 E 16th St. in Greeley. 01:04:52
There were violations of non commercial jump gun and direct vehicles, however the case was closed by the Planning Department on 01:04:58
September 27th, 2023. However, there does remain outstanding penalties in the amount of $3510 if the Board wishes to certify, but 01:05:04
right now the property is in compliance. 01:05:11
OK, we'll do the next certification. So then move back to Mr. James. I'd like to Mr. Ross to not certify all in favor, Aye. 01:05:20
Opposed motion carries #4. Consider certification to locate treasurer, zoning violation, penalties and special assessment. John 01:05:25
prison. 01:05:30
Naza, look, Whatever, chick. 01:05:36
This property is located at 39538 Blvd. B. That is an Eaton. This property is zoned residential. The violations include an 01:05:40
unpermitted manufactured structure. 01:05:47
An occupied camp or an RV? A non commercial junkyard without a primary use. 01:05:53
As well as accessory structures without a primary use, so no primary dwelling on the property. 01:05:59
This case was filed back in August 11th, 2021. 01:06:08
And the court did order a $50 per day penalty to begin back in 2022. 01:06:12
And it is important I think to point out to the board that on August 19, 2023, the property was the scene of a fire and the the 01:06:18
fire department believes that the fire origin was a camper and that fire then extended to a garage structure that was on the 01:06:24
property. 01:06:31
Later on, so recently on October 14th, 2023, the fire department did respond to the property. They found an unattended fire that 01:06:39
was located and the recent inspections have shown what we believe that the properties the RV is still being looked in. 01:06:48
We do have some health safety concerns with this property and penalties were last certified on October 9th, 2022. 01:06:58
We still do believe this property is not in compliance. We recommend certification in the amount of $18,300. 01:07:06
Move to certify here penalties second. Then moved by Commissioner box second by Commissioner James to certify penalties. All in 01:07:16
favor aye opposed motion carries #5. Consider certification to welcome treasurer zoning violation penalties and special Assessment 01:07:22
Vince. 01:07:27
This company is at 22795 on Hwy. 392. This case was filed back in December of 2021. 01:07:35
Violations include storage of a direct mobile home without a permit. 01:07:44
I'm already seeing inspections on October 31st, 2023 found the property still to be in violation. We would recommend certification 01:07:48
in the amount of $2720. 01:07:55
OK. 01:08:02
Moved to certify pen. 01:08:04
Tech then moved by Commissioner Rosset, like Mr. James, to certify all in favor. Aye Closed motion carries number six consider 01:08:06
certification to welcome treasurer, Zoning Violation, Penalties and Special Assessment Louis Lopez. 01:08:12
This property is located at 2717 49th St. and Heaven. 01:08:20
There was $10 daily penalties that started back in December of 2021. Violations include unpermitted detached accessory structures. 01:08:25
Things that be the meaning offset or setbacks, multiple on site, commercial vehicles and equipment. The board did certify this 01:08:36
back in October of 2022. 01:08:41
And Miss Cynthia, I know that is here. They, the property owners have attempted to contact us multiple times, but the property is 01:08:47
still not. 01:08:52
In compliance with code. As you can see, it's a rather large structure that is not meeting offset requirements. 01:08:58
We are asking that the board certify daily penalties. 01:09:07
In the amount of $3660. 01:09:12
Questions. Quick question if I could. Yeah, you say that the owners have attempted to contact us many times if we had 01:09:17
conversations with them. What is their intent? 01:09:21
The intent last time I spoke to them was actually in June of this year and they were to submit a. 01:09:27
The permit for the structure and we talked about the North set back leading and they have not. 01:09:34
To certify all in favor, Aye opposed Motion #7, consider certification to work on treasure, Zoning violation. Families of Special 01:09:43
Assessment Andres Fernandez, Junior. 01:09:50
This property is located at 11523 Christian St. in Fort. 01:09:58
The violations include a visible, non commercial junkyard. 01:10:03
And this also is within a floodplain. 01:10:07
This was certified through October 9th, 2022. 01:10:11
We still receive multiple complaints about this property. 01:10:18
There's so many things that is actually spilling onto another property owners parcel. 01:10:22
We're asking that the board certify. 01:10:30
And in the penalties in the amount of $14,640. 01:10:33
I was moved to Certify. 01:10:39
To certify all in favor, Opposed Commission carries #8 consider certification to architect, treasurer, Building violation 01:10:44
Families, Special Assessment Orlando and Alyssa Castilla. 01:10:50
Property is at 8588 County Road 21 in Fort Lupton. During the penalties of $25 per day were ordered by the court in October of 01:10:58
2021. We have a non commercial junkyard too many animal units on. 01:11:06
And electrical work completed without a permit. And as you can see from these photos, they have built a fence, so it's hard for us 01:11:13
to see what's going on in the property. 01:11:18
It was last certified on October 9th, 2022. We do recommend certification. 01:11:24
And there has not been a permit for electrical work ever submitted in the amount of $9150. 01:11:31
OK, move. 01:11:40
10 and moved by Commissioner Buck, second by Commissioner James to certify. 01:11:42
All in favor aye Opposed motion occurs #9. Consider certification to workout treasurer's learning violation Penalties and Special 01:11:47
Assessment Bruce Brookmark. 01:11:51
This property is located at 1708 County Road 32 in Platinum. 01:11:58
The penalties are $50 per day began in January 2020 violations including non commercial junkyard multiple occupied campers among 01:12:03
these. This was all certified October 9th, 2022 and we would ask the board to certify daily penalties in the amount of $18,300. 01:12:15
Good questions. We're just certified. 01:12:27
Moved by Commissioner Ross, second by Commissioner Buck to certify all in favor Aye opposed motion carries #10 consider 01:12:31
certification of what kind of Treasurer's loan violation penalties and Special assessment model Hernandez. 01:12:36
This final case, the company is located at 15125 Good Ave. in Fort Repton, $25 daily penalty was. 01:12:43
Began back in June of 2022. 01:12:52
The violations are accessory structures that were built without permits. 01:12:56
And it was originally for exceeding maximum allowed lot coverage, but that has changed in our code. 01:13:02
But there are still in violation of the accessory structures, but without permits. 01:13:09
We're asking the board to certify this in the amount of $9175. 01:13:14
OK, questions. 01:13:20
No to certify. 01:13:23
Second move by Commissioner James, second by Mr. Ross to certify. All in favor. Aye, opposed. 01:13:25
Motion carries. Thank you. That concludes planning. We will move to public comment. Is there anybody in the in the public that 01:13:30
wish to come up and speak to the commissioners for up for three minutes on anything that's not on our agenda? 01:13:36
Let's see. No public input. We will close that and we will adjourn at 1006. Thanks everybody. 01:13:42
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed

* you need to log in to manage your favorites

My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Unable to preview the file.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Unable to preview the file.
Thank you for the Pledge of Allegiance. 00:07:28
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, 00:07:31
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 00:07:36
Good morning, Monday, November 13th, Colorado, Boyd County Commissioners roll call please. 00:07:47
Scott James Kevin Ross, Lori saying Perry Buck Mike Freeman Reflect all five county commissioners are present minutes approval of 00:07:53
minutes of October 30th, 2023. Second like Mr. Ross to approve all in favor opposed motion carries amendments agenda We have any 00:08:00
amendments? No. No. 00:08:07
Consent agenda. We'll be approved. Consent agenda second moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Ross to approve the 00:08:15
consent agenda. All in favor, opposed motion shows proclamation. We do have one proclamation. 00:08:20
The previous week, November 13th through the 19th, 2023. 00:08:27
And I will read this into the. 00:08:31
Good morning, commissioners. Tina Grant, Deputy Director of the Department of Human Services, Thank you for allowing us to have a 00:09:38
few minutes this morning on your agenda. This morning we just wanted to recognize National Apprenticeship Week as an opportunity 00:09:44
to help strengthen the local workforce and economy through an ear and learn model to build our talent pipeline. National 00:09:49
Apprenticeship Week is a time to celebrate the individual role that apprenticeships play in developing and honing in skills for a 00:09:55
wide range of industries. 00:10:01
In Colorado, the variety of apprenticeship and opportunities available have really expanded and include sectors such as 00:10:07
technology, healthcare, construction, manufacturing and many more. 00:10:13
There are currently over 6000 active apprenticeships in Colorado. I should say apprentices in Colorado. 90% of apprentices who 00:10:20
complete or registered apprenticeship retain employment with an average annual salary of $80,000. 00:10:28
A new apprenticeship that has been developed through a strong team here with employment Services is with Wayne's Electric and Fort 00:10:37
Lupton. 00:10:41
Through this collaboration, Employment Services has supported for new apprentices and helping to support their tuition and 00:10:46
independent electrical contractors through Rocky Mountain. 00:10:52
To start their friendship program, Employment Services has also worked in strong partnership with our Sheriff's Department. 00:10:58
And that is obviously to support our local law enforcement, the apprentices with the initial items such as work boots and other 00:11:06
forms of equipment that are necessary to start that work. 00:11:13
Through graded funding and other things that our team is able to leverage and support, offsetting those initial startup costs for 00:11:21
our local apprentices. 00:11:26
Tomorrow night there's a regional, actually an afternoon, a regional business recognition and informational session at the Blue 00:11:32
Arena in Loveland from 3:00 to 4:30. The event will actually help recognize local and regional employers that are leveraging 00:11:39
apprentices to build their talent and also feature resources for businesses who are interested in learning more and potentially 00:11:47
expanding apprenticeship opportunities further to date the Workforce Center. 00:11:54
Underemployment Services of World County has supported 47 apprentices. 00:12:02
And we're just really excited to have this recognition and to have the strong collaboration in the room with us today. 00:12:07
Just wanted to take a minute to recognize. 00:12:13
The team and board members who are here, we have Karina, Amaya, Raglan. 00:12:17
Cece Mccroskey, Ruth de Boer, Carla Masters. 00:12:22
Troll Escobedo, Greg Cordova, Andrew Chadwick. 00:12:27
Cecil. 00:12:32
Robert Rig. 00:12:34
And Shawn? 00:12:35
And this is part of the team that makes all of this work. 00:12:39
Mr. James, any comments? Yes, I am so thrilled first of all that the success of our workforce development program and the people 00:12:49
that are involved, thank you for the hard work that you do. But secondly and more importantly undone today and this proclamation 00:12:54
is just the fact that we. 00:12:59
As Americans are again realizing there's more than just one pathway to a career, more than just one one educational pathway and 00:13:04
apprenticeships is just so darn important to that. So thank you for what you do. Continue to enlist in those folks who who want to 00:13:10
go through the urban model that's that's so good and and let's celebrate those apprenticeships because it shows that that 00:13:16
alternative pathway to a very fulfilling career. Thank you for what you do. 00:13:23
Well Tammy, I know that workforce development has always been near and dear to your heart. But I look out there and there is quite 00:13:30
the team Andrew and Greg and Karina and Cece. I have to tell you honestly I'm out in the community and I hear about you all and 00:13:37
the phenomenal job that you are doing to help these kids getting these apprenticeships. And I just can't thank you enough and I'm 00:13:44
so proud to be a part of well County and and to see all that you're you're doing you guys walk. So thank you so much. 00:13:51
Excellent job, guys. This is how I mean, this is the gateway into getting some cool jobs going, right? Inspiring youth. Inspiring 00:14:00
others. 00:14:04
To really find their path. Traditional methods don't always work for everybody and I think it's important that they have other 00:14:10
alternatives and ways to find a way to be successful. Find something that they find passionate and and get their toes in it and 00:14:17
say yes for me where this isn't for me. So great job to the entire team. I appreciate all the work you do. You're actually. 00:14:24
Helping out well, carrying a great way as we strengthen our workforce. So thank you very much. Great job. 00:14:32
Thanks for helping people cross that gap and our use and some adults as well because we've heard from just about everyone I know 00:14:38
in the energy industry as long as along with the construction industry in particular how they are #1 concern is they can't find 00:14:46
people to do the work and these are great jobs and they build things of value here in Weld County and elsewhere. So it's it's 00:14:54
important for our workforce, our next generation and for the economic well-being of of Wells County. So I thank you so much. 00:15:02
Everyone who participates in that and and is is has the heart of a teacher. 00:15:10
And. 00:15:14
And thank you so much up here every day. What don't you do for long time? 00:15:16
The Department of Human Services is pretty vast. 00:15:23
OK. Well, thank you and thank you to the team for what you guys do. You know, maybe we're going on this, maybe I'll come see you 00:15:28
in a year. 00:15:31
Congratulations on what you guys do. You know, it is really an important role. There's so many, there's so many opportunities out 00:15:38
there and this is just one more opportunity for to figure out a way to be successful in the workforce. So thank you very much for 00:15:43
what you guys do every day and if that would come take a picture quick. 00:15:48
Oh. 00:15:57
Good job, everybody. Yeah. 00:16:13
Alright, everybody ready? 00:16:21
123. 00:16:24
Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. 00:16:29
Thank you. 00:16:32
Hey, thanks so much again. 00:16:36
That first paragraph. 00:16:39
OK, that will move on to once general ones November 8th and 9th 2023 move to approve words moved by Commissioner Ross, seconded by 00:17:03
Commissioner Buck to approve all in favor OPP. 00:17:08
Motion carries new business. Consider extension of temporary closure of County Road 43 between County roads 42 and 44. 00:17:14
Good morning, Commissioners, Amy Muchi, Public Works. Public Works is requesting to extend this closure through December 1st. This 00:17:25
was originally closed back in April due to some of the flooding events that we had and it's remained closed. Been working with 00:17:32
FICO Ditch Company to get that ditch cleared out. All the property owners are now done receiving water. So we have that window to 00:17:38
complete. The work detour route has not changed. 00:17:45
And we're asking for your approval today. Good quest. 00:17:52
Move to approve the resolution. 00:17:55
Thank you. 00:18:01
#10 Consider Appeal of decision by Chief Financial Officer Denied protest of award of contracted Global Tel Link Corporation DBA 00:18:04
via Path Technologies Forbid 2300 one 33 inmate communication services Secures Technology LLC. Good morning. 00:18:12
Good morning, commissioners. Karen McDougal, Deputy County Attorney, We are here to consider the appeal of the decision by the 00:18:21
Chief Financial Officer to deny the protest of Securus technology. 00:18:27
Of the award to be attacked for the bid for inmate communication services. 00:18:35
Since this is an appeal of a denial, I believe that Securus technology who it has representation here today. 00:18:42
Is will present their. 00:18:49
Position 1st and then we can respond. 00:18:51
So for representing, yes, come on up. 00:18:55
Good morning, Commissioners. Good to see you again as always. 00:19:02
For the record, my name is Bob Cho. 00:19:07
And I am a local counselor for a ventive Securus. 00:19:10
And Securus is as you may know the the current provider of inmate communication services in the jail. You awarded a bid to another 00:19:15
firm to provide these services a little over a month ago and secures filed an appeal within that time frame, that five day time 00:19:22
frame and then submitted a records request which Mr. Barker provided. And based upon that you know what happened is these were the 00:19:29
the scores were very, very close. 00:19:36
The winning bid by the company I called GTL. 00:19:44
Was 90.5 out of 100 and secure as the current provider was 90.25. 00:19:48
So 1/4 of 1% low, right? And when it's that close, it's nearly equal. 00:19:57
And so upon a review of the. 00:20:03
Of the documents that were created as as part of the review of the proposals, we were able to identify what we think is a pretty 00:20:07
significant error. No bad faith, no bad actors, just a very just an error that can be corrected. And that's why we're here in 00:20:14
front of you today to request that. 00:20:22
So I don't want to I don't want to be preaching to the choir. I'll give you a quick background of the inmates communication 00:20:32
services. It will used to be just jail phone calls by inmates right. You pay for the call and and it's it's a a proper long 00:20:38
standing investigatory tool of law enforcement to be able to look at those to be able to review those calls, right. You want to 00:20:44
know if they're talking to Co defendants and things like that. 00:20:51
The system has evolved over the years and now includes modern technology like tablets. Secure tablets that do the same thing, 00:20:58
right? And unlike many other services that are provided to the county, doesn't cost the county any money. It's it actually results 00:21:05
in commissions off of those fees charged to inmates being brought back to the county in a certain amount. 00:21:13
What's interesting, you know, and with the proposal an IFP as opposed to an RFP, it's not just a matter of what's the most money 00:21:22
we get back or what's the least amount of money we have to pay for a truck if we're buying something for public works, as an 00:21:26
example. 00:21:30
It's really it's if it were a bid, it would be what's the most money we can get back and. 00:21:36
But this is a proposal that includes a lot of different things, and the Commission that is received is one of those things, right? 00:21:42
And all over the country this is the model for provision of these services to inmates in in jails and prisons. 00:21:51
And so it's the inmates kind of pay their own way. 00:21:58
But when? When this is being offered in a request for proposals. 00:22:03
It needs to say. 00:22:09
Maximum Commission to the county results in maximum points. 00:22:12
And that's not what this proposal said. This proposal was more holistic, right? They want low fees to the inmates. 00:22:18
Over the inmates also serves additional law enforcement purposes by ensuring that they're continuing to meet with their family on 00:22:28
video calls and things like that, which reduces recidivism when they get back and then through the community. 00:22:35
Also, they're used to doing that when they're outside the jail, so it keeps keeps them happy in the jail, results in less problems 00:22:42
in the jail, and I'm not the expert on this. 00:22:46
But Securus knows that this is how it works, and certainly Sheriff's Office knows this is how it works. 00:22:51
But if you want to maximize commissions, you can absolutely do that. But that's not what the RFP said. And So what we're trying to 00:22:57
do is make sure. 00:23:02
You know the RP. 00:23:07
And everybody sticks within the rules. 00:23:09
And when when looking at this now. 00:23:11
If you know me, you know I have immense respect for our law enforcement. I I have immense respect for all public service. 00:23:16
Public servants, especially law enforcement. Again, you know that action here, no bad actors, but it is very important that 00:23:22
everybody. 00:23:26
Follows the same rules as listed in the RFP, and these RFP's are different all over and so the companies. 00:23:32
Tailor their financial package based on what has been presented. 00:23:39
And so there were four people from from the Detentions staff that were on the Scrollers team. 00:23:43
That we're reviewing. 00:23:53
Right, four people. That's pretty standard for a proposal. 5 categories, each category worth up to 20 points, for a total of 100 00:23:55
points. 00:23:59
Take everybody's average them out on a section by section basis and you get up and you get a number right? And that's where we 00:24:04
came up with where the team, the detentions team, came up with 90.5 and 90.25. 00:24:11
If you look at. 00:24:18
So, so that's what was presented to you for the bid award and and and on the surface makes sense, a word to the highest score. 00:24:20
When you look at, there's really only one particular primary error that we've been able to identify, which is a big one because it 00:24:30
was actually results in a change in the overall score. 00:24:36
Which therefore presumably would change in the recommendation. 00:24:43
And changing who gets the contract. 00:24:46
And there's one of the One of the five categories is called Call, Visiting Call, Visiting Tab, Tablet rating, fees and Commission 00:24:49
accountability. 00:24:55
It states, provided Full disclosure. This is the criterion. 00:25:01
Provide a Full disclosure about how revenue is generated. 00:25:05
Method used to calculate Commission's offer to the county call and visiting rate based on RFP requirements and FCC rules. 00:25:09
Reasonable and fair pricing of phone visiting and service to family, friends and inmates met all requirements as stated in the. 00:25:16
So that is the criteria upon which the concern has arisen, because one of the four scholars. 00:25:25
Use this criteria to. 00:25:34
Score the firms based on what they believed was the maximum Commission that would be returned to the county. 00:25:37
It did not for otherwise, for example. 00:25:44
Take into account lower fees to the inmates for example, or the other items that are listed there. 00:25:47
And so that in itself becomes an issue because three out of four, and just for Clary when there was a Sergeant and three 00:25:55
lieutenants, 3 lieutenants. 00:26:00
Appeared to have applied this this criteria criterion correctly. One of them appeared to be the Sergeant appeared to be 00:26:06
maximizing. 00:26:10
Commissions and above all else. 00:26:14
So that in itself is an issue. The other part of that is the methodology used to determine those maximum commissions. 00:26:18
Is unknown. We don't know where that came from and we haven't been able to look back and say this is how that was because we don't 00:26:26
know it's. 00:26:30
You know, $10,000 or $10 million, it's. 00:26:35
A certain percentage of phone calls and a certain percentage of video calls and things like that. 00:26:39
And so we don't know how those numbers were came around. 00:26:46
It does appear. 00:26:51
That some of those. 00:26:55
Some of those numbers, some of those presumptions. 00:26:56
Were inaccurate, at least in retrospect. Right, if you. 00:26:59
Say I'm going to give you 85% or 83% Commission on all phone calls and we're going to presume that there's this many phone calls, 00:27:03
but we know that once you introduce video calling. 00:27:08
Phone calls dropped down to 10% what they were, so you're not going to get the correct numbers. 00:27:14
The point here is not that they are incorrect, although that does appear to be the case. 00:27:22
Suppose that that's not what the RFP called for, right? We didn't, We don't know what the methodology was to. 00:27:27
To do that and if it had been included in the RFP, we could, we could say OK and they were and all of the firms would have 00:27:34
tailored their bid, their financial package based upon that. 00:27:39
Even if it was wrong. Even if they. 00:27:44
It doesn't make sense. You have so many phone calls after you have video calls. We've seen this all over the country. It's still 00:27:47
doing the same thing and everyone would be submitting the same thing. 00:27:51
In this case, we have what appears to be inaccurate, inaccurate information. 00:27:57
But it's outside the scope of this criterion. 00:28:02
And we're talking about. 00:28:07
22 The highest 2 scores were virtually identical. 00:28:09
And that result from the one score of the Sergeant on that one category gave him the seven, whereas the three lieutenants gave him 00:28:15
a 15 or 16. 00:28:20
And so we're talking about at least a two point difference in the overall total score based upon this. 00:28:25
Potential this error, right? And again, it's not that it's wrong, it's not certainly a bad faith, it's not that it's wrong, it's 00:28:31
just something that that's not what the RFP said. 00:28:36
And so based upon these, this is, This is why we're here, this is an opportunity for you. 00:28:42
To correct the error, right. And this is one of those cases where security has been providing this service in the jail for I think 00:28:50
18 years, is my understanding right. It's not one where they've been put out because it's bad service. 00:28:56
It's good government to send it out for proposal every few years to make sure you're getting the best either pay for your taxpayer 00:29:04
buck or service to service to the Sheriff's Office in this circumstance. 00:29:10
And so if security, if you were to for example vacate the award to GTL and send it to Securus. 00:29:17
It's going to continue on and you're still going to get better than what you had last year because you did the RFP. 00:29:27
Right. You got new proposals, new technology, all of it, but what we're asking for and certainly you can do that because if you 00:29:33
take out that. 00:29:37
One score on that category for all bidders. 00:29:42
Securities is clearly the highest bidder but in but in the alternative and I do think as at a minimum I I absolutely suggest that 00:29:46
you you resubmit this forbid for proposal and and go through the process again to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to 00:29:52
submit. 00:29:58
Information proposals that are tailored to exactly what? 00:30:05
The county wants, and if you want to maximize commissions, put it in there if you. 00:30:10
Minimize fees. Inmates put it in there. It can be done, and it is done all over the country. And securities does it. 00:30:15
And they get a copy of everybody's bid that they lose all over the country, just like GTL and every other bidder here. This is a 00:30:22
very like open industry. They know what everybody's doing. 00:30:26
In this circumstance. 00:30:31
It just resulted it was a good faith error that resulted in an actual change to who won the bid. 00:30:33
And so. 00:30:40
Given that it's a significant error that resulted in the total score change and can be corrected. 00:30:41
I'm. I'm respectfully requesting that you do so and. 00:30:50
Umm Securus, I am authorized to say is that council are willing to allow the extension of the current contract which ends at the 00:30:55
end of the year, however much time the county needs to make that to make this happen if you want to submit it for rebid. 00:31:02
It is an error. It can be. 00:31:10
I respectfully request that you do so, and I'm happy to answer any questions. 00:31:12
More than any questions. 00:31:16
Yeah, actually this. 00:31:19
Bothers me, especially on page. 00:31:22
Regarding, no, absolutely no documents received during Quora, is that correct? Is that still correct? Is it today? That was at the 00:31:26
beginning and I apologize for that. No, I think looking back on that, I think that it was a miscommunication. I can't speak to 00:31:32
what happened internally, but we did get the the records. 00:31:38
Oh, you did get the records, Yes. I apologize if I didn't say that clearly. We did get the records. 00:31:45
Alright 'cause it just says in this paragraph ensure the county is not allowed any sunshine to the public regarding how it 00:31:50
rewarded awarded this contract because I've not provided security, any required documents required RFP process you're saying that 00:31:54
has changed between. 00:31:58
The state of life, Yeah. I think that when we put that together, it was. 00:32:03
I should have taken that out. I apologize because it was correct. We did get that and I think it was just a delay internal, but. 00:32:09
I don't, you know I can't. Again, I can't say that we got everything. I think we did. How long was the delay? 00:32:16
I don't know, a few weeks. 00:32:24
OK. 00:32:26
So I guess just to dialogue, Mr. Chair? 00:32:30
So one of the requests that you had was to. 00:32:34
Rebid the process. Am I saying that correctly? That's the request of secures. 00:32:39
Certainly because we're still, it sounds like what you just said you're still not sure about. 00:32:44
How? 00:32:50
About the transparency of the process. 00:32:52
I'm asking questions of the applicant because he's still at the area. 00:32:58
Thank you very much. You know, I just this representative district three loss coordinatorships after pointing out transparency 00:33:02
issues and open meetings law violations. 00:33:06
Pardon me if I'm a little. 00:33:11
He got the documents. 00:33:15
And it's about a couple weeks, is that correct, between when you receive the documents and the request? I think so. I was not 00:33:16
involved at the time that the court request was submitted. 00:33:21
I was brought on after that occurred, so by the time that I received, I was brought on to review and assist with this. As a local 00:33:25
council, I already had the documents in hand, so I apologize I don't have the time frame. That's OK. I I. 00:33:32
I appreciate that because just to the contrary what I'm reading here so. 00:33:39
Any other questions, Mr. Davis? Thanks. Mr. Jeffer, could Bob help me understand I get to the crux of your beef so to speak, it is 00:33:44
you believe that the the RF in this place PR RFP process, was it was incorrect or you believe that the scoring was not applied as 00:33:51
was stated in the RFP? 00:33:58
The second option, the second prescription, OK, OK. And so are you are you mentioned the Sergeant a couple of times. Was it do you 00:34:06
believe the Sergeant to be unfair in in his scoring that it did not match the RFP and was the Sergeant consistent in his scoring 00:34:12
of the other of the other RFP? 00:34:18
I would say that. 00:34:26
The Sergeant. 00:34:28
Is again, I'm not throwing mud. I don't want it to come out that way. You're just saying the East German judge is tough, is what 00:34:31
I'm wondering, you know, I mean. 00:34:34
Yeah, so, but there's multiple parts of why it didn't work right and if you had, if the county had had submitted a request for 00:34:39
proposals that said. 00:34:45
Maximize maximum Commission to the county results in maximum points. 00:34:50
Then that would take care of. Then what you would also do is say this is how we will judge that right. 00:34:56
Remember, you know, per the Commission, per phone call, the per the Commission per video call, things like that. It didn't include 00:35:04
any of that And so we don't know the methodology to decide whether or not. 00:35:10
You know, basically the Sergeant. 00:35:16
I want to maximize. 00:35:19
And give highest points for that, which is the one issue. The other part is I don't know how that was done. I don't know the 00:35:21
methodology to determine that Securus would have lower Commission. I think that there's. 00:35:28
Pretty significant likelihood that if new RFP's go out that it'll show securities has a pretty High Commission. But again, we 00:35:35
don't, we don't know that. 00:35:39
Thanks, Commissioner. I guess I got a problem with a few things you're stating here, Bob. I feel like you're contradicting 00:35:45
yourself and I apologize. You say you don't know what goes into it, but it's pretty clear on the application that applicants are 00:35:52
supposed to get their best and final offers at the time of submission. Would you agree with? Oh, absolutely. So that would mean in 00:35:59
all matters inside of the contract. So appears to me and and I'm waiting to hear from staff. 00:36:07
Right, that now that we found out maybe our offer wasn't the best it could be in a certain area and you're wanting to change what 00:36:15
you're able to submit. And so that's kind of where I'm struggling with here, Bob, is because now that you've gotten the data back, 00:36:21
now that you know what the others have scored, it's an area for you to retweet when everyone's coming forth with their best and 00:36:28
final offer, right so. 00:36:35
Why should we be considering allowing you to now change what you're offering? That seems to me like you don't come in with your 00:36:43
best and final offer. 00:36:46
On the original. 00:36:49
That's a very fair question, Commissioner. I what I would say is. 00:36:52
I don't know. 00:36:57
What the best offer is here? 00:36:58
I I don't think any of us can look at that and say this is the best offer. 00:37:01
And the reason is because it's not a bid. It's not like. 00:37:05
You know 100 is better than 90, right? It's not a bid. It's not like money on the table, highest number of money wins, right? And 00:37:12
that or or in the case of buying a vehicle lowest amount of money wins, right. It's that's not the way this was designed and so. 00:37:20
What I'm saying is if you wanted to do that and say the highest Commission. 00:37:28
To the county wins this criteria criter. 00:37:36
You could say that, but it doesn't say that, right? It's it doesn't say that. That's not what it says. So judging it in that 00:37:41
capacity is is an error. 00:37:45
If you wanted it to say, you could say that. So it's it's. It's like if you decide to rebuild and don't change it. 00:37:51
I would also suspect, I would expect that you also wouldn't have a score base that's higher just because there's higher 00:37:57
commissions. 00:38:02
It's just a different set of rules. That was a good point. OK. Any other questions? OK. Thanks, Paul. 00:38:07
Thank you, Commissioners. 00:38:16
We do not believe that the Sheriff's Office violated the RFP process and this. 00:38:18
In this bid, nor did Sergeant Beam go outside the scope of the RFP. In fact, they did the opposite they provided. 00:38:25
All the vendors with the same information. 00:38:35
They provided an answer of questions, all the answers to questions. 00:38:38
Publicly to all the vendors and they went out for a best and final offer to all the vendors. 00:38:43
And then they had four different people evaluated. 00:38:50
And. 00:38:52
Each scored individually, which is the normal process. And then they met to make sure that nothing was off base and went forward 00:38:55
with the vendor who had the highest score and who they believed under the process that is required by the county deserved the bid. 00:39:03
It is not deserved. The award, excuse me, It is not the easier decision for them. This is a difficult transition because it would 00:39:10
have been easier to go with Securus. They are there, they are established. 00:39:18
And so they are going with the more difficult decision, but it is where the evaluation of the proposals came out. 00:39:27
They followed their process. When we received the protests, it was reviewed by Miss Patelli, who also spoke with Sergeant Bean and 00:39:36
they do not, they did not determine that anything was wrong outside the process. And I have Sergeant being here and Captain Turner 00:39:44
to talk about the process that they went through to evaluate these vendors and Captain Turner who was not one of the scorers but. 00:39:53
You know, if he is running our jail and will be involved in all sorts of bids like this, has been involved in all sorts of bids 00:40:02
like this and can kind of. 00:40:07
Let you know what the historical perspective is and answer any questions about the final decision. 00:40:13
Quick question before we move on to Sergeant. So what I want to look back at the information we received as a board. What date was 00:40:18
that when we awarded that? 00:40:23
Which information are you talking about? I'm just looking at the information that we received as a board to vote on this. What 00:40:31
date was that again? 00:40:34
What's your index? October 2nd? Thank you very much. 00:40:38
OK, Captain. 00:40:43
Actually, I'd like to have Sergeant Beanstar. 00:40:45
Sure, I'd like to explain my process when I was can you go ahead and put your name and address? 00:40:47
Oh yeah, Geraldine, I'm a Sergeant Detentions division and the support services. 00:40:52
Your dress as well. 00:40:58
The home address, well, it's 19 gentlemen in Fort Collins. Go ahead. Sorry. 00:41:01
So when I look at this the the score criteria is call, visiting tablet, rating, fees, Commission availability. 00:41:09
The rates to the that the inmates are going to pay their friends and family were identical to Securus. So when I'm looking at the 00:41:16
rates. 00:41:21
Those are quite same. 00:41:26
The way that they're each company put out their Commission availability looks something like phone calls, 83% of $0.20 per minute. 00:41:29
$0.15 per minute at 73% when when I look at those numbers. I don't know what that means so I use an excel spreadsheet to put. 00:41:39
What our last 12 months minutes for phone calls, our last 12 months for video visits look like. 00:41:51
And kind of use that to extrapolate what that means as far as dollars go. 00:41:59
Because when I look at just rates and percentages that that doesn't compute in my mind. 00:42:04
So I use the exact same formula for every single company I each company each of the four that put in. 00:42:10
I use the same formula to grade. 00:42:19
And that's kind of how I came up with the the dollar amounts. 00:42:22
When I look at it, it's very drastic. The difference between Via Path and Securus over three years is almost $870,000. 00:42:28
That to me is a huge cost that now comes to both county. 00:42:39
That would go to help offsetting the cost of running jail. 00:42:44
Umm. 00:42:50
When? 00:42:52
I guess it's important to this is the process that I used. I didn't try to sway any other members of the team. 00:42:55
Actually didn't even present the final numbers until the last meeting until all the scores were tabulated, and then we kind of 00:43:04
discussed what that actually looked like. 00:43:08
And that that that is kind of the process that I. 00:43:15
To grade that category. 00:43:19
Mr. Gibbs, thanks. Thanks. Sergeant. Just I'm going to ask this, this simple question just to make sure it's sad And you applied 00:43:24
this criteria equally with all the bidders. Same criteria, exact same way. 00:43:29
Perfect. OK. 00:43:39
This portion, this call, visiting tablet rate, fees and Commission, that was one of five portions that all vendors were graded on 00:43:39
their criteria. They were all graded on, correct, yes. And I should have mentioned that there's actually the, the largest category 00:43:45
is 30 points for service and support requirements. So the Commission availability wasn't even the number one thing that we were 00:43:50
considering. 00:43:56
I think that's how I when I looked. 00:44:03
The different categories is the. 00:44:07
I think that's huge, and so I think that's where I see the discrepancy where. 00:44:10
The. 00:44:18
Better so. So I think it was a fair process. 00:44:19
Mr. Chair, so looking at what we received as a board, however, the service requirements actually for secures was. 00:44:24
Umm. 00:44:33
Along with let's see customer service if we're concerned about recidivism. 00:44:34
Qualifications. 00:44:40
So. 00:44:42
I am a little confused honestly because back to the point which is. 00:44:44
The Commission availability is the one where we see the the largest job between the two otherwise looks like secure has actually 00:44:50
scored higher than any other vendors. So that to the concern about the bidding process and. 00:44:57
I if. 00:45:06
Was was commissioned availability? 00:45:07
A requirement than the final invest that I mean just just remind me if we did ask us. 00:45:10
Yes, we asked for a best and final offer on the Commission, Correct. OK. 00:45:18
And whether we base that off of as far as your you gave a little bit but you know exactly. 00:45:23
The the e-mail that I sent out to each company asked for the best and final offer specifically for commissions. 00:45:29
And how did you calculate the commissions again? 00:45:39
I use the 12 month data from the jail that Securus actually provided for phones and visiting and then for the tablets. We do not 00:45:41
have tablets so there was not a really great way to do that. What I did, I contacted the Larima County who has a similar makeup, 00:45:48
adjusted their numbers to match our ADP. 00:45:55
And then use that to figure out what the the numbers were for the tablet portion. 00:46:02
It is where my county. 00:46:08
These via path via path. OK, so you currently don't have tablets now, correct? No with with Securus and then you want to go 00:46:10
towards tablets is what I understand. 00:46:15
And scarce did provide a bit on the table. 00:46:23
And the Commission, yes. OK. And that was? 00:46:27
Lower than the one usually. 00:46:32
Mr. Ross. 00:46:39
Well, two things I, I applaud you, right. I mean, anytime you're trying to extrapolate out what commissions. 00:46:41
She's no different than anything you'd ever do on any other financial statement, right? 00:46:47
Past numbers to try and get you to what your current rates would be, to give you a hypothetical or what the future is going to 00:46:51
look like. No one can. 00:46:56
Guess the future, right? Right. To me it's clear inside the bid when I read it, especially here on page 28 submission. 00:47:01
The five different things, the weighted portion of what they all made-up and it says specifically in their best and final offer 00:47:08
shall be given commissions was. 00:47:12
One of those pieces when it says Commission availability. 00:47:18
That should have been considered for best and final offer. So I you know that's where you guys are extrapolating numbers for to 00:47:21
get to. Hearing that you didn't even share your database until after the grading had taken place also gives me faith that the 00:47:28
other three officers involved probably did something similar and trying to get to their. 00:47:35
Commission rates and so I'm not finding anything wrong personally. 00:47:42
And thank you very much for all your time in doing this, but I'm sure it's it's. 00:47:51
Takes a lot of time. 00:47:56
But it seems like there was one individual in particular that scored differently from the last release. Maybe I'm taking that out 00:47:58
of context from what you said in council. 00:48:01
If I may, I would say you did not know that's that's accurate. The Sergeant scored on this criteria as a 7 out of 20 and the other 00:48:06
three scored 15 or 16. 00:48:12
OK. And if I may, I would like to have an opportunity to respectfully respond. 00:48:19
I would say that. 00:48:25
That's exactly, you know, nobody's hiding the ball. 00:48:27
All the facts are out on the table. I you know I have missed respect for Sergeant and captain. 00:48:30
You know, what we're talking about is. 00:48:38
Sergeant had an analysis. 00:48:41
That nobody knew what that was. 00:48:43
And to which we still don't know whether it is going to produce accurate results as to Commission right. 00:48:46
You know he he took two things which are very smart. One is the current, the last 12 months, you know usage and another is. 00:48:55
Our closest county neighbor jail that's already using the tablets. 00:49:07
And but for example. 00:49:12
Tablets will decrease the use of the other phones and so. 00:49:15
I don't know if it's accurate and it but but importantly it wasn't disclosed to theirs. They didn't have an opportunity to look at 00:49:22
that. 00:49:25
And so I, you know, I get it, there's no, it's just a matter of when you're trying to get to Securus received a 7 on that as a 00:49:29
result of. 00:49:33
Sergeants analysis on what he thought commissions would. 00:49:39
That was not part of the RFP. 00:49:43
And there's a lot more than just commissions in that category, right? There's a lot more. There's fees to the inmates. 00:49:46
Reasonable and fair pricing, phone visiting and tablet service to friends and family. 00:49:57
So it's just hard for, you know any better to say we're going to tailor our our. 00:50:01
Proposal to this particular RFP and then and then he get, oh, by the way, it's you got to maximize your Commission. That's the 00:50:08
only way you're going to get a high enough score here. So hold on just a second. Didn't I hear you guys say that the fees were 00:50:12
identical? 00:50:17
Yes. So the things are identical. So the only thing that's left is whatever the Commission is and they certainly need to be 00:50:23
looking at that. 00:50:26
I'm sorry if I may, yes, absolutely. But the difference here is. 00:50:31
How much, how much, how many phone calls are coming in versus video calls versus tablet usage and it makes all the difference. I 00:50:35
mean we do not know whether or not it is accurate that the, that's the Vipath will have a higher Commission. Student county, we do 00:50:43
not know that. Now I I don't think that Sergeant Bean has done a poor job of that. What I'm saying is. 00:50:50
We didn't have that information. The bidders did not have that information to submit to. 00:50:58
Again, these are proposals, not hybrid, and so that the request is to make sure that everybody's on the same. 00:51:03
Path there everyone has the same opportunity to submit. 00:51:11
So so OK Bob I get that is if all of the if all of the applications, all of the submissions were evaluated identically didn't 00:51:16
exactly the same thing on every one of them, then I'm not sure where we're going here. I'm I'm I think that I think we're looking 00:51:23
at a way that that we want to reopen it back up and have an opportunity to. 00:51:30
Return a different bid. That's not best in final offer from the beginning. That's where I struggle. I mean, I think everything is 00:51:38
included here. Everybody, however they judged, it doesn't matter. 00:51:42
However they judged it, every one of them did it exactly the same on all four of bits, right? So whether the Sergeant evaluated it 00:51:45
a little bit different than than the sergeants did, or the whatever the whatever they were lieutenants lieutenants did, sorry, a 00:51:53
military background slipper than my lieutenants did, it doesn't really matter because each of the four evaluated each one of these 00:52:00
goods in the exact same way. So at the end of the day you say best and final offer. 00:52:07
However they evaluated and whether they're correct in the world, it doesn't really matter because we could have four more people 00:52:14
come in and evaluate those same bits and come up with completely different numbers. That's the whole point of of valuation of of 00:52:19
how this works, so. 00:52:24
I I quite honestly I don't see any issue with the way this was handled and what was done. 00:52:30
So, well, I I'm gonna say I do find an issue in the fact that we have something that's that close right? And we have one 00:52:35
individual that scored much differently. Maybe they saw something different. I think it would behoove us in the bidding process to 00:52:42
institute something where if it's that close to the score between the two, then maybe reopen that did process And why, I don't 00:52:48
know why you're shaking your head, because that would be that might actually produce a product that produces more commissions and 00:52:54
therefore is better for the taxpayers. 00:53:01
The end of the day, when you say best and find law for that's the end of it. Commissioner Captain Trump, I shaking my head. 00:53:07
Normally you're the one saying go back and sharpen your pencil and get it right. Exactly what I'm saying. And but that's what 00:53:12
everybody was supposed to do coming into the bid process. So everyone was supposed to come in the 5th best and final. They have 00:53:16
their best and final. This is where it's critiqued. 00:53:20
Everyone of the four that are grading had their limbs, which they're looking through, but they consistently stored all those final 00:53:25
bits. 00:53:29
And or many tables I set out for that matter, but. 00:54:03
I'd like to point out a few things and one of them speaks to that topic. And I have to say, if I seem unorganized today, the the 00:54:09
document that we're speaking about today we received on Friday. I wasn't at work, I didn't see it till this morning. So I'm 00:54:13
pulling off subjective information here. 00:54:18
It's also why Sergeant Beam is here to talk about his part in the process. That way you get the technical aspect of it. 00:54:24
But I'd like to clarify a few things earlier Mr. Cho talked about. 00:54:30
What we're reviewing here. 00:54:35
And labeled it as an investigative investigative tool that we use to monitor inmates. And that is not true at all. 00:54:37
What we're talking about here is a statutory obligation, we. 00:54:45
To provide communication to inmates so that they can communicate with their family and their attorney. 00:54:49
Within a reasonable amount of time. 00:54:54
Upon arrival to a new facility and then keep their families up to date as they go through the legal process and then also have the 00:54:56
mandatory contact with their attorney. This is a very important thing and we take it very seriously for that for that reason. 00:55:03
Another thing that was stated was that inmates pay their way through. This also not true. Their families do. 00:55:10
I know if I weren't inmate and in jail, I don't think I'd be earning any money to pay for anything. 00:55:16
Their families are the people who really do feel the impact of these decisions. 00:55:20
And then the other impact is the community. 00:55:26
While the Commission that the county gets is not the most important thing in that bid, it is a part of it. 00:55:29
Because if there is no Commission, the community members of Weld County will be paying that. 00:55:35
They will, and there's already a push in the legislation to make that happen in the near future. Anyway. DLC is feeling that 00:55:40
impact this year. 00:55:43
We will feel it in the future. 00:55:46
Umm, but it's just one reason why we look at all of this. 00:55:48
The topic that I want to spend a minute talking about is the different perspectives on any bid process. 00:55:54
We actually did a process to look for the next Lieutenant in the Sheriff's Office the other day. 00:55:59
So we did interviews with six candidates. 00:56:06
And there's three of us sitting on that panel. Each of us has a different perspective. We don't really discuss our scores as we 00:56:09
talk. 00:56:12
We hand in a set of papers that has the scores on there and we tally them at the end. 00:56:16
We have discussion. What I generally find is there's usually one person who is. 00:56:20
On the outside and not because of anything bad. 00:56:25
But they bring something different to that conversation. 00:56:27
Whether it's knowledge of a topic or whether it's just they read something differently. 00:56:30
That is why we have multiple people look at these documents instead of one person. 00:56:35
It's the same reason we have multiple people look at a candidate. 00:56:40
Some of these vendors there are 4 vendors. 1 vendor submitted a document that was almost 400 pages long. 00:56:44
It takes me a long time to read 400 pages, much less gather all the information inside of it. Each of us uses our own objective 00:56:50
process. 00:56:54
To look at subjective information. 00:56:58
And and Mr. Cho said, you know, we didn't know the process that that was looked at in this, in this case, there were multiple 00:57:01
because everybody does it different. 00:57:05
I think the only thing here is that Sergeant Beans is on display. 00:57:09
But we never know the process that each person is going to use to rationalize the data inside. 00:57:14
I also say that we wouldn't ask for information if we weren't going to look for it or look at it, excuse me, and analyze it 00:57:19
because it is important stuff. 00:57:22
Umm. 00:57:27
The final thing I'll say is that I I think that why we're here. 00:57:28
Is very important. 00:57:33
And I will say that as the captain of the jail. 00:57:35
When I heard the Securus was not the vendor that was, that was at the top. That freaked me out. 00:57:38
It freaked me out because I don't think anybody has had to rip all that technology out of the jail and replace it before. 00:57:44
No, I I don't. I don't know what that looks like. No one does in our agency. 00:57:49
So that's freaky. 00:57:54
But. 00:57:56
We looked at the bid, we looked at the scores that came out of that and the ethical thing to do. 00:57:58
Is to give the way to those scores. 00:58:03
We did the process. We analyzed the information. Here's the scores. I I think it would actually be contrary to the ethics of our 00:58:06
county if we didn't stick to that process. 00:58:11
That's really all I have to say. 00:58:17
So the concept that we didn't tell everybody what we were looking at, I mean the e-mail that Sergeant being sent says the county 00:58:20
is currently reviewing all bids in order to select the best vendor for Weld County and continuity. By providing A consistent 00:58:26
yearly revenue stream, you're asking your company to respond. 00:58:32
With the best and final offers on commissions. 00:58:38
We were very clear on what we were looking for and all four were, you know. 00:58:42
Submitted responses and they were evaluated on those as well as the rest of the RFP. It wasn't just this, but we were very clear 00:58:47
on what we were looking for in our battle. So to say that we weren't, I think is is an unfair statement. 00:58:54
So back to the cost of working things out, I assume you you put that onto the bed as well as far as how much that would cost? 00:59:03
Yeah, that that's all included. That's all. So the commission's, so basically the deal that you got from Via Path would have paid 00:59:11
off, would have covered the cost of ripping out equipment. 00:59:17
Installing the new equipment and all everything that goes along with it. So they they included that in. I just want to make sure. 00:59:24
So here's the issue that I have, commissioners again, I'll reference the letter that was sent where they asked for a court 00:59:32
request. It wasn't received for a couple weeks. 00:59:36
That really concerns me greatly and the fact that I as much time as this takes and I really appreciate it. I know share frames. 00:59:41
Mr. Patch, now how to run to jail and so there's there's no question of that. I have some concerns about not only the the time it 00:59:50
took for the quarter request, but if we have a bid that's just so very close within a couple of, you know, percentage .25. 00:59:58
And Justice again, trying to think around corners if there is a possibility we could save some more money, not rebound equipment. 01:00:07
I still I'm. 01:00:15
So the opinion it might not be such a terrible idea to maybe resubmit. 01:00:21
Commissioner James and then we're ready for a motion here. 01:00:26
Just to just to confirm the removal of old and the installation of new is inclusive in the bid. Yes OK with that Mr. Chair I move 01:00:30
we deny the appeal of I think it is in the resolution that we deny to be appealed. So simply what I would move to approve the 01:00:36
resolution. 01:00:41
Denying the Deal 2nd and moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Ross to approve the resolution and deny the appeal. 01:00:47
Any further discussion. Roll call about excellent questions. Roll call vote, please. 01:00:53
Scott James, Kevin Ross, what are you saying no for today? I have a lot of questions on this. 01:01:01
So that was a no yes payback, yes. Mike Freeman, yes, Doctor Red reflected the resolution is approved and the appeal is denied on 01:01:07
a four to one vote with Mr. same voting no. OK, thanks Bob. Thank you for your time commissioners that we'll move on to that 01:01:13
concludes the business we want to plan. 01:01:19
Consider full release of warranty collateral for minor amended use by special review permit in USR. 15.0020 is related to use by 01:01:26
special review permit usr. 01:01:31
1667 Journey Ventures LLC pair of J2 Contracting. 01:01:36
Company, Inc. 01:01:42
Good morning, Commissioners Jasmine Trio, Martinez with Planning Services in Regard to the Improvements Agreement for US R1687 and 01:01:45
MU SR15-020, Journey Ventures, LLC and care of J2 Contracting Company, Incorporated. 01:01:53
I submitted a pass around for your review dated October 18, 2023, and it was accepted by all 5 county commissioners. 01:02:02
We respectfully request the Board release full warranty collateral and the amount of $135,187.35 procured in the form of a general 01:02:09
purpose rider to the original bond number 226-9333 issued by the Swiss Re Corporate Solutions America Insurance Corporation. 01:02:20
The applicant has fulfilled their two year warranty period obligation and the Departments of Planning Services and Public Works 01:02:32
have inspected the improvements and support the full release of the warranty collateral. 01:02:37
We are only requesting the release of the warranty collateral and the terms of the road maintenance portion of the agreement will 01:02:43
stay. 01:02:46
In effect for the life of the USR. Thank you for your consideration. 01:02:50
OK, what are the questions? New to proof or release Warning letter moved like Mr. Ross. Second like Mr. Buck to approve. All in 01:02:53
favor. Opposed motion carries. Thank you #2. Consider certification to Wall County treasurer. Zillion violation penalties and 01:02:58
special assessment for Charlie Simanski. 01:03:04
Good morning, Commissioners Adria Shio, Assistant County. 01:03:14
The first case that we have is owner Charles Szymanski. All of the cases that we have, the 8 cases coming before you today have 01:03:19
been certified before to the board. 01:03:24
As far as this first case goes, and the property is located at 40751 County Road 68 in Griggsville. The case was filed on January 01:03:35
4th, 2022. The violation that includes storage of a mobile home after the building permits have expired. 01:03:44
The court ordered a $10 per day daily penalty to begin underwrite 11/20/22. The board did previously certify this on October 9th, 01:03:54
2022. 01:04:00
Recent inspections do show that the property is still not in compliance with the Wells County code. We would recommend 01:04:07
certification of penalties. 01:04:11
For the period of October 10th, 2022 through October 11, 2023 and announced a 3660 dollars. 01:04:15
OK. Is Mr. Szymanski your representative? 01:04:25
Captain and I'll bring it back. The board go to Certify assessment by Commissioner Ross. Second by Mr. James. Certified all in 01:04:30
favor, Aye. Opposed motion carries #3. Consider certification to organic treasure of zoning violation penalties as special 01:04:36
assessment. 01:04:41
Graciela Quinones and Veronica Gutierrez. 01:04:47
This property is located at 1012 E 16th St. in Greeley. 01:04:52
There were violations of non commercial jump gun and direct vehicles, however the case was closed by the Planning Department on 01:04:58
September 27th, 2023. However, there does remain outstanding penalties in the amount of $3510 if the Board wishes to certify, but 01:05:04
right now the property is in compliance. 01:05:11
OK, we'll do the next certification. So then move back to Mr. James. I'd like to Mr. Ross to not certify all in favor, Aye. 01:05:20
Opposed motion carries #4. Consider certification to locate treasurer, zoning violation, penalties and special assessment. John 01:05:25
prison. 01:05:30
Naza, look, Whatever, chick. 01:05:36
This property is located at 39538 Blvd. B. That is an Eaton. This property is zoned residential. The violations include an 01:05:40
unpermitted manufactured structure. 01:05:47
An occupied camp or an RV? A non commercial junkyard without a primary use. 01:05:53
As well as accessory structures without a primary use, so no primary dwelling on the property. 01:05:59
This case was filed back in August 11th, 2021. 01:06:08
And the court did order a $50 per day penalty to begin back in 2022. 01:06:12
And it is important I think to point out to the board that on August 19, 2023, the property was the scene of a fire and the the 01:06:18
fire department believes that the fire origin was a camper and that fire then extended to a garage structure that was on the 01:06:24
property. 01:06:31
Later on, so recently on October 14th, 2023, the fire department did respond to the property. They found an unattended fire that 01:06:39
was located and the recent inspections have shown what we believe that the properties the RV is still being looked in. 01:06:48
We do have some health safety concerns with this property and penalties were last certified on October 9th, 2022. 01:06:58
We still do believe this property is not in compliance. We recommend certification in the amount of $18,300. 01:07:06
Move to certify here penalties second. Then moved by Commissioner box second by Commissioner James to certify penalties. All in 01:07:16
favor aye opposed motion carries #5. Consider certification to welcome treasurer zoning violation penalties and special Assessment 01:07:22
Vince. 01:07:27
This company is at 22795 on Hwy. 392. This case was filed back in December of 2021. 01:07:35
Violations include storage of a direct mobile home without a permit. 01:07:44
I'm already seeing inspections on October 31st, 2023 found the property still to be in violation. We would recommend certification 01:07:48
in the amount of $2720. 01:07:55
OK. 01:08:02
Moved to certify pen. 01:08:04
Tech then moved by Commissioner Rosset, like Mr. James, to certify all in favor. Aye Closed motion carries number six consider 01:08:06
certification to welcome treasurer, Zoning Violation, Penalties and Special Assessment Louis Lopez. 01:08:12
This property is located at 2717 49th St. and Heaven. 01:08:20
There was $10 daily penalties that started back in December of 2021. Violations include unpermitted detached accessory structures. 01:08:25
Things that be the meaning offset or setbacks, multiple on site, commercial vehicles and equipment. The board did certify this 01:08:36
back in October of 2022. 01:08:41
And Miss Cynthia, I know that is here. They, the property owners have attempted to contact us multiple times, but the property is 01:08:47
still not. 01:08:52
In compliance with code. As you can see, it's a rather large structure that is not meeting offset requirements. 01:08:58
We are asking that the board certify daily penalties. 01:09:07
In the amount of $3660. 01:09:12
Questions. Quick question if I could. Yeah, you say that the owners have attempted to contact us many times if we had 01:09:17
conversations with them. What is their intent? 01:09:21
The intent last time I spoke to them was actually in June of this year and they were to submit a. 01:09:27
The permit for the structure and we talked about the North set back leading and they have not. 01:09:34
To certify all in favor, Aye opposed Motion #7, consider certification to work on treasure, Zoning violation. Families of Special 01:09:43
Assessment Andres Fernandez, Junior. 01:09:50
This property is located at 11523 Christian St. in Fort. 01:09:58
The violations include a visible, non commercial junkyard. 01:10:03
And this also is within a floodplain. 01:10:07
This was certified through October 9th, 2022. 01:10:11
We still receive multiple complaints about this property. 01:10:18
There's so many things that is actually spilling onto another property owners parcel. 01:10:22
We're asking that the board certify. 01:10:30
And in the penalties in the amount of $14,640. 01:10:33
I was moved to Certify. 01:10:39
To certify all in favor, Opposed Commission carries #8 consider certification to architect, treasurer, Building violation 01:10:44
Families, Special Assessment Orlando and Alyssa Castilla. 01:10:50
Property is at 8588 County Road 21 in Fort Lupton. During the penalties of $25 per day were ordered by the court in October of 01:10:58
2021. We have a non commercial junkyard too many animal units on. 01:11:06
And electrical work completed without a permit. And as you can see from these photos, they have built a fence, so it's hard for us 01:11:13
to see what's going on in the property. 01:11:18
It was last certified on October 9th, 2022. We do recommend certification. 01:11:24
And there has not been a permit for electrical work ever submitted in the amount of $9150. 01:11:31
OK, move. 01:11:40
10 and moved by Commissioner Buck, second by Commissioner James to certify. 01:11:42
All in favor aye Opposed motion occurs #9. Consider certification to workout treasurer's learning violation Penalties and Special 01:11:47
Assessment Bruce Brookmark. 01:11:51
This property is located at 1708 County Road 32 in Platinum. 01:11:58
The penalties are $50 per day began in January 2020 violations including non commercial junkyard multiple occupied campers among 01:12:03
these. This was all certified October 9th, 2022 and we would ask the board to certify daily penalties in the amount of $18,300. 01:12:15
Good questions. We're just certified. 01:12:27
Moved by Commissioner Ross, second by Commissioner Buck to certify all in favor Aye opposed motion carries #10 consider 01:12:31
certification of what kind of Treasurer's loan violation penalties and Special assessment model Hernandez. 01:12:36
This final case, the company is located at 15125 Good Ave. in Fort Repton, $25 daily penalty was. 01:12:43
Began back in June of 2022. 01:12:52
The violations are accessory structures that were built without permits. 01:12:56
And it was originally for exceeding maximum allowed lot coverage, but that has changed in our code. 01:13:02
But there are still in violation of the accessory structures, but without permits. 01:13:09
We're asking the board to certify this in the amount of $9175. 01:13:14
OK, questions. 01:13:20
No to certify. 01:13:23
Second move by Commissioner James, second by Mr. Ross to certify. All in favor. Aye, opposed. 01:13:25
Motion carries. Thank you. That concludes planning. We will move to public comment. Is there anybody in the in the public that 01:13:30
wish to come up and speak to the commissioners for up for three minutes on anything that's not on our agenda? 01:13:36
Let's see. No public input. We will close that and we will adjourn at 1006. Thanks everybody. 01:13:42
scroll up