News
Elbert 7-4-13
Elbert County
July 4, 2013
75 cents
A Colorado Community Media Publication
ourelbertcountynews.com
Elbert County, Colorado • Volume 118, Issue 23
Spending limits rise for county departments Officials get more leeway to make some purchases By Deborah Grigsby
dgrigsby@ourcoloradonews.com
Body language seemed to mirror the frustration felt by many at a June 26 Elbert County commissioners’ meeting. John Dorman, one of the volunteers who helped draft and edit the county’s proposed oil and gas regulations, tries to clarify the officials’ position on “coupling” the proposal with a standard memorandum of understanding. Photo by Deborah Grigsby
Oil, gas rules remain unsettled Anticipated decision fizzles amid disputes over big picture, wording By Deborah Grigsby
dgrigsby@ourcoloradonews.com Landowners and gas and oil producers held their breath June 26, awaiting a vote from the Elbert County commissioners amending the county’s zoning regulations for oil and gas exploration. The decision is perhaps one of the most important issues to come before the county in decades. But when the daylong meeting ended with a vote to continue discussions, many stakeholders discovered the devil
was, indeed, in the details. “In my opinion, this document is simply not ready,” said District 2 Commissioner Kurt Schlegel. Quarrels over grammar, syntax and whether or not a memorandum of understanding should be “coupled” with the new zoning regulations raised hackles and left many feeling there was some sort of underlying agenda. District 3 Commissioner Larry Ross tried twice to clarify that the land use amendment and the memorandum of understanding that would be offered to gas and oil producers were not one and the same. “These are two separate documents,” said Ross. “One is a regulation that covers land usage and the other is a contract.” Memorandums of agreement, or MOUs,
are often cited in land use regulations, noted Ross, but they have no place beyond that. In this case, land use regulations would govern the use of county land by gas and oil producers. By statute, they must complement, but not exceed, laws set forth by the state. Producers must apply for and be granted a permit before any drilling or exploratory operations may begin — a process that can take months. However, many counties and municipalities offer MOUs as part of a voluntary administrative process to speed the permitting process along. Those producers that opt not to agree to county requirements in the MOU would be required to Rules continues on Page 7
Elbert County is still not out of the financial woods, but easing restrictions on spending by department heads is in the county’s best interest, according to County Commissioner Robert Rowland. In a 2-1 vote June 26, the Board of County Commissioners increased spending limits for all county department heads from $2,000 to $10,000, with the exception of public works, which would be increased to $15,000. Rowland said the move does not affect strict budget control measures put into place earlier this year, but rather increases county efficiencies. “We hire our department heads to make the day-to-day things happens,” explained Rowland. “A $2,000 limit really handcuffs these folks from doing their jobs.” Before, purchases that exceeded the county spending limit of $2,000 would have to be held and brought before the commissioners for a vote. Rowland said large-ticket items such as fuel regularly exceed the limit, and departments such as public works could operate more efficiently without so many administrative encumbrances. “This doesn’t affect the strict budget control measures we’ve put into place,” Rowland said. “Each department head is required to sit down with the financial director for a monthly budget review — to micromanage our department heads is counterproductive.” District 3 Commissioner Larry Ross disagrees. He underscored the county’s frail financial situation, suggesting that a county purchase order system would be more appropriate. The measure was passed by a 2-1 vote, with Rowland and Kurt Schlegel in favor and Ross dissenting.
Child-health law proves toothless Proposal was intended to spur increased physical activity By Kevin Vaughan I-News Network
A 2011 state law requiring 30 minutes of physical activity a day for elementary students was supposed to mark a new tool in the fight against childhood obesity — but in reality it did little more than reinforce the status quo, an I-News examination found. The reason: The measure was so gutted during the legislative process that it has meant virtually no meaningful changes in
the way elementary schools are operated. The standard imposed by the law — which allows recess to count as physical activity time — was already being met by districts across the state. Two years later, the school day looks exactly the same for students across the state as it did before the law was passed. “We didn’t change anything because we were already meeting it to begin with,” said Dave Eichman, director of athletics and physical education for Colorado Springs School District 11. That sentiment was echoed over and Health continues on Page 7
POSTAL ADDRESS
Printed on recycled newsprint. Please recycle this copy.
Elementary-school students play during recess at Hutchinson Elementary in Lakewood earlier this year. A 2011 state law written to incorporate physical activity into the daily schedule of elementary schools to help fight against childhood obesity has had little effect, according to an I-News examination. Photo by The I-News Network at Rocky Mountain PBS