FW: RE: Completed survey and draft agreement_Fortenberry

[sc410...@gmail.com]

Mr. Kefalas,

 

Below is the most recent email that the City sent me, Mr. Woolf, and my response to that same email for your updated information.

It would appear that the City Management isn’t willing to accept the County’s recent legal lot review of my property and the jurisdictional decision by the County that my property is owned by me and that the current public ROW is only an interest.  It seems the City will be providing some sort of Title Company review with the expectation of the public ROW being owned by the County outright as they provided a select number of documents to the title company and again didn’t consult the County who holds jurisdiction.

 

When I receive the City’s title company review information, I will pass it along as well for your records.

 

Thank you again.

 

Scott and Christine Fortenberry

6808 East County Road 92

Carr, CO 80612-9506

(970) 568-6434 / (760) 415-4860

sc410...@gmail.com

 

 

From: sc410...@gmail.com <sc410...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 15:22
To: 'Jeremy Woolf' <jwo...@fcgov.com>
Cc: 'Christina Schroeder' <cschr...@fcgov.com>; 'Jennifer Ward' <JW...@fcgov.com>; 'David Gorlin' <dgo...@fcgov.com>; 'Jonathan Piefer' <jpi...@fcgov.com>; 'John Von Nieda' <JVon...@fcgov.com>; 'Ralph Campano' <rcam...@fcgov.com>
Subject: RE: RE: Completed survey and draft agreement

 

Mr. Woolf,

 

I can’t speak as to whether the City owns the property to southern portion of the same former U.S HWY 87 access road and adjacent to Fort Collins (the city) property (east and west) under the sole ownership of the city.  I did not request nor pay to have a legal lot description completed by the County for the City’s properties, but an assumption could possibly be inferred but would have to be verified by the County Planning; I can only speak to my property.  My “belief” is based off of a legal binding document provided by the County through a legal lot description due to the false assertion by the City a few months back stating we didn’t own the property.  My concern was I no longer possessed a legal (35 acre) lot and all the potential financial and legal issues that go along with that assertion by the City, as I originally purchased and have been paying taxes on 35 acers for more than 30 years.  Thus, I paid the county to investigate and was confirmed that my property was established as a legal 35-acre lot in 1992, again per County records.

 

The document the County referenced was the Title Deed from 9 Sep 1992 when our property was established as a 35-acre parcel and a lot can’t be sold / divided that is less than 35 acers.  The Legal description also has no reference to the book and page numbers either and should not have been carried forward on our title or any other legal documents as well as the survey as it falsely implies that the land is not owned by us due to the 1936 Quitclaim Deed.  The 1936 entry also states for establishment of a right of way only and not property ownership.  At least that is how it was conveyed to me from the County in our letter.  You would have to take any dispute as to ownership up with the County Planning office. 

 

As for the listed prerequisites/demands before going forward:

 

1. As for the Survey markers that were observed to be placed by City of Fort Collins personnel on approximately the 6^th of June 2025, just don’t understand why they were placed and why they are needed.  It would have been nice to be notified of such activity as it is a shared property line.  If they were placed, with the only assumption we can come up with, was to identify the assumed (incorrectly after legal lot review) 75 foot offset from previous property markers/lines due to assumed  / asserted City of Fort Collins stating the County owned the property and ROW, I can at least understand the southern placed survey marker, but this would or should not have had any bearing on placing a marker on the northern property line as the ROW that was in question doesn’t extend to the northern property line and shared City southern property line; the 1936 established ROW falls ten (10) feet short of the property lines, unless the City’s survey team also placed a marker ten feet into my property and I don’t know about it.  As the markers were placed by the City, just not sure if the City has the authority to do so (not stating, I really have no idea who is allowed to place survey markers at will and is a question I have with the County). If they marker recently placed have some need, please advise as to why because they currently hold no significance for land ownership, and not sure if ROW’s rate having a marker placed.
2. We would and continue to request that the City’s obstacles (to include the gate, cattle guard and in-ground concrete base) be removed.  We would also request that when the obstacles are moved that there is sufficient room for a turn out within/on the City’s property as would be required for establishment of a private easement/vacating of the public ROW.  We also would have to address the issue that I have been blocked access to my land due to the obstacle placement and the use of the land without permission for many years.  Again, the current ROW does not extend to the property line, it falls ten feet short.  My property that extends beyond the obstacle (gate/cattle guard) has been blocked from my use and it has been used without my consent and there is no approved easement (private or public).   
3. Concur
4. Concur to a degree.  Speaking to Sydney McLeod after the most recent spills on 5 June and again twice (one reported and one observed and cleaned up by City personnel) on July 9 and getting into our tires again needing cleaning of the vehicle, we would want some sort of daily (end of day) route inspection by City personnel, they seem to be efficient in doing this when observed).  As I stated to the County, we are not actively monitoring spillage and trying to find spills at all hours of the day, we just report to Jennifer Ward, when we do encounter it.  We have seen City personnel on a couple of occasions, stop and self-police and clean up spills along the road, so we are good with that combined approach of self-monitoring and possible daily route inspection with covering trucks.

 

Here is what we sent to the County as it applies to our requests so everyone is on the same sheet of music for demands.

1. Removal of the obstacle within the public right-of-way (ROW) easement of Larimer County (also known as old/former U.S. Highway 87/185), which also includes our private land.
1. Move and leave adequate room for a legal turnout on City property for emergency vehicles and transient vehicles that come to the dead end due to the City not wanting to control traffic from county road 92 (We don’t want “trespassing vehicles” turning around on our property and killing grass and leaving trash, which is done often).
2. Halt all human feces / human waste transport across the public ROW/private land as well as along Larimer County East County Road 92.
1. Until a agreed upon mitigation can be resolved
3. Require the City of Fort Collins to return the public right of way, that was U.S Highway 87/185, to its former asphalt base before being destroyed/altered by the City of Fort Collins.
1. Includes design approved by County with all-weather use and slope for proper run-off of rain/snow melt so it doesn’t destroy our driveway and also to stop continued erosion to slope and dying off of grass from road material being pushed into pasture.
2. Must be returned to previous width and can’t be extended
3. New Easement can’t extend more than 5 feet wide within my property boundary, this is based on going forward with restricted single use, single restricted lane easement.
4. Established, budgeted,  and contracted maintenance plan, to include dust control quarterly
5. Account for tenant traffic as the easement would only be for City of Fort Collins, thus requiring significant compensation for additional traffic.
4. Replace the destroyed southwest corner property marker.
5. Require the City of Fort Collins to remove survey markers from our property line.
6. Request that our portion of the current interest of Larimer County’s public right of way easement along our private land that is approximately 1,857 feet be vacated.
7. Signage as a Private Road on corner of public ROW and East County Road 92.
8. Ask the City of Fort Collins to repair the utility easement access for the Nunn Telephone Company access panel.
9. Add a 35-mph speed limit sign within the public right of way.
1. I haven’t observed City personnel driving very fast (above 35 mph) in personal or City vehicles, but many times I have seen tenant and service trucks driving well above 55mph (and yes I have some of it on video of tractor trailers absolutely driving recklessly due to speed).

 

As for going forward with a private easement with the above conditions is one option.  Also, we have no interest in establishing a vague open-ended multi-use private easement if the public ROW is vacated.  There is no reason for our new westerly neighbor (not the City) to use or have assess across our private land?  It needs to be clear that the westerly property owners have connected land and already established driveway to East County Road 92, they don’t need a second easement across a portion of my property as a second driveway as they are NOT landlocked. 

 

The second option would be to establish no easement at all with me as the burden estate and have the City establish an easement with only the western neighbor as we believe there is sufficient room along the westerly neighbor’s property to maintain a safe, single lane road.  With the lack of road maintenance and the run-off destruction along our side and danger from erosion along the sloped portion of the current road, the road is essentially a single lane as it is.  It would be best if we simply moved our fence (at 50% shared cost) along the westerly property line and returned the current owned land that is the road to much needed pasture grass and we would maintain our own private driveway from our current driveway opening to a locked gate at our southern property line.  We would then only require a private access easement across the southern City property road as we are land-locked.  This would also still require movement of the obstacles in this plan and prevention of solid waste biosolids from being spilled.

 

Either approach above is a significant undertaking and significant drain on all parties associated. This is why we were willing to negotiate the selling of our portion of former U.S. Highway 87 (about 1-3 acers, depending on negotiation) as we have and still own the property below it, as per the County’s recent legal lot review.  We were willing to provide you a private / unhindered road (former highway 87) to your facilities and land that would not require moving anything at your cost or repair / return to asphalt road, etc.).  We would have moved the westerly fence to the edge of the current road (after selling it to the City) or possibly negotiate the full 75 feet for more of 6950 East County Road 92 (all approximate 33 acers minus the well (approximately 10^th of an acre to include a private access easement for the water line maintenance) and former Highway 87 westerly boundary that the City would keep) and build our own private driveway across the newly owned 6950 property and re-fence at our expense.  We would have been open to even some portion of 6950 (say 10 or 20 acers of it), so we could have our own private road to our property You would have had all that you needed for true private access and no concern for spillage, dust mitigation, road repair, returning the road back to asphalt / maintenance, moving the obstacles, repairing / removing survey markers, signage, compensation for tenant activities, compensation for denial of property access, etc.; however, you are not interested.

 

Scott and Christine Fortenberry

6808 East County Road 92

Carr, CO 80612-9506

(970) 568-6434 / (760) 415-4860

sc410...@gmail.com

 

 

From: Jeremy Woolf <jwo...@fcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 12:52
To: sc410...@gmail.com
Cc: Christina Schroeder <cschr...@fcgov.com>; Jennifer Ward <JW...@fcgov.com>; David Gorlin <dgo...@fcgov.com>; Jonathan Piefer <jpi...@fcgov.com>; John Von Nieda <JVon...@fcgov.com>; Ralph Campano <rcam...@fcgov.com>
Subject: RE: RE: Completed survey and draft agreement

 

Mr. Fortenberry,

 

Thank you for the additional information provided in your most recent email. To our understanding, you believe the access road adjacent to your property (on the west side)  is under your sole ownership. This assumption would also place the southern portion of the same access road and adjacent to Fort Collins (the city) property (east and west) under the sole ownership of the city. The excerpt you referenced from your legal lot description indicates, “Larimer County holds right-of-way interest in easement, not fee simple ownership…” Based on this information you have indicated a preference not to proceed with negotiated access terms at this time, and demanded the following:

 

1.  “Have the survey markers removed labeled LS 31169 placed on our southern and northern property lines approximately 75 feet within our westerly property line from the June 6th observed City of Fort Collins personnel survey placement. (Email correspondence from 7/9/2025)

The city is evaluating whether this request is appropriate under applicable survey standards.

2. Relocation of the cattle grate on the northern part of the access road. The cattle grate should be moved 23 feet to the north and in alignment with the northern portion of your property line.
3. “Address and newly identified issue in that when the previous asphalt-based road was ripped up and widened (easement) on our western property line without permission by the City of Fort Collins, the property markers seem to be have been damaged/destroyed.” (Email correspondence from 4/29/2025)
4. “I am willing to accept the mitigation of covering the spreader trucks as long as some form of practice is completed / updated / incorporated in whatever Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) or whatever you use that governs your facility to address spills/tracing and that it will be cleaned up to include proper quarterly  road maintenance that includes grading from a proper road grader and watered/mag-chloride or similar added dust control)/ and compacted as is County Road 92.” (Email correspondence from 4/11/2025)

 

Please let us know if you have any additional demands, or if I’ve misinterpreted or misunderstood anything above.

 

The City’s position—based on a review of the recorded title documents and surrounding conveyances—is that the 1936 Quitclaim Deed conveyed fee title to Larimer County. While we understand that there may be differing views, we have not located any recorded documents indicating that Larimer County ever vacated or conveyed this interest.

 

We have provided the title company our opinion, the supporting documents and requested a review of the title commitment. We will provide you their determination when we receive it.

 

I would also like to reiterate the intent of the city.

1. Clearly and accurately establish who has ownership of the access road and if the right of way still exists.
2. Establish clear and accurate legal record of ownership.
3. Develop clear and legally binding conditions allowing access for property owners along the access road.

 

We appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention. We are eager to resolve the issues caused by a lack of clarity in the record.

 

Thank you,  

 

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jeremy Woolf
Pronouns: he/him
Sr Director, Water Operations

M: (970)397-6761
City of Fort Collins
UTILITIES SERVICE CTR - BLDG C (700 WOOD)
jwo...@fcgov.com

 

From: sc410...@gmail.com <sc410...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 6:20 PM
To: Jeremy Woolf <jwo...@fcgov.com>
Cc: April Silva <asi...@fcgov.com>; Christina Schroeder <cschr...@fcgov.com>; Jennifer Ward <JW...@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Completed survey and draft agreement

 

Mr. Woolf,

 

Unfortunately, your draft agreement and surveys are based on your previous and completely false assertion by your own legal department that we do not own the property.  We attained a completed legal lot review as of 24 June 2025 by Larimer County Planning and your previous assertion that we do not own the property and that Larimer County owns the property was found to be utterly false.  

 

This is the exert from our legal lot description:  “Larimer County holds right-of-way interest in easement, not fee simple ownership, therefore the land within the right-of-way easement is not owned by Larimer County…”

 

Thus, we own the property in question and all previous requests still hold.

 

Also as previously stated, the current public right of way doesn’t take up the entire portion of our legal lot westerly property that is old highway 87/185.  The 1936 deed establishing a right of way only and not ownership of our property falls ten feet short of the blocked portion of our private owned property again by your placed obstacles.  There is no established easement private or public for your continued use of that privately owned property and thus you are using it without permission.

 

You are welcome to speak to Ms. Danielle Reimanis, Planner, Larimer County Community Development to verify stated above information.

 

Scott and Christine Fortenberry

6808 East County Road 92

Carr, CO 80612-9506

(970) 568-6434 / (760) 415-4860

sc410...@gmail.com

 

 

From: Jeremy Woolf <jwo...@fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 17:15
To: sc410...@gmail.com
Cc: April Silva <asi...@fcgov.com>; Christina Schroeder <cschr...@fcgov.com>; Jennifer Ward <JW...@fcgov.com>
Subject: Completed survey and draft agreement

 

Mr. and Mrs. Fortenberry,

 

I hope you are enjoying the summer weather and looking forward to the 4^th of July holiday. I wanted to let you know that the survey of the land tracts has been completed and registered with Larimer County (Reception No. 20250030115). The unregistered copy of the survey is attached. I don’t expect the registered copy will be any different, but I have not received it yet.

 

Also attached is a rough draft of an agreement that would be needed for Larimer County to consider a vacation of the right of way. Please provide your input on what else you would like to have included. If we can agree on acceptable terms, we would then approach your neighbor to the west for their input and agreement. Once all parties agree, we would then approach Larimer County with a vacation proposal and move forward from there.  

 

If we are unable reach an agreement that is acceptable to all parties, I expect the status quo would remain. Larimer County is now aware of their interest, so they may have some rights they would like to exercise. I do not know what their interest might allow them to prescribe though.

 

I look forward to hearing back from you, and hope you enjoy the holiday weekend.

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jeremy Woolf
Pronouns: he/him
Sr Director, Water Operations

M: (970)397-6761
City of Fort Collins
UTILITIES SERVICE CTR - BLDG C (700 WOOD)
jwo...@fcgov.com

 

[Scott Fortenberry]

Sounds good John and look forward  to hearing from you.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025, 15:17 John Kefalas <kefa...@co.larimer.co.us> wrote:

Scott, I’ll call you tomorrow after I read your email and collect my thoughts based on the county’s interaction with the city. I’m actually heading to a memorial reception now. Thank you. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 18, 2025, at 1:47 PM, sc410...@gmail.com wrote:



<image001.png>

<image004.png>

 

[Scott Fortenberry]

John,

Received a call from the Nunn Telephone Company Monday. Apparently the City submitted a trouble ticket for the reported buried access cover and potential damage, but that is the only indication I have of any progress. Still observe the uncovered spreader truck last week and no other progress.

Also, how is it that the County also uses the road as well (water truck) during the couple weeks of attempting to grade County roads 5 and 92 and does nothing to maintain the road (old highway 87)?

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025, 15:17 John Kefalas <kefa...@co.larimer.co.us> wrote:

Scott, I’ll call you tomorrow after I read your email and collect my thoughts based on the county’s interaction with the city. I’m actually heading to a memorial reception now. Thank you. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 18, 2025, at 1:47 PM, sc410...@gmail.com wrote:



Mr. Kefalas,

<image001.png>

<image004.png>

 

[sc410...@gmail.com]

John,

 

I have to say I am a bit surprised in that the county is using our easement to gain access to the City’s and Volt’s (westerly neighbor’s) property to continually fill the County’s water truck for the once, yearly maintenance to County Road 5 and 92 over the last several weeks.  What is surprising is that today we observed the County’s personnel actual grade, water and compact the City’s access road that leads to the Volts property and the pound they fill the water truck from.  But never attempted any effort to maintain the easement that is old highway 87, they actually made sure they didn’t provide any maintenance to the road…..  So, more wear and tear on our easement road and a lot of dust and the county maintenance crew couldn’t be troubled to improve a road they are using extensively….I am at a loss for words.  

[Scott Fortenberry]

That is what we always understood until Mr Woolf falsely aserted it is a public owned and operated right of way and is seemingly not willing to bend on his aserted point. I don't know how to work with Mr. Woof when all he wants to do is try and bully us based on how one sided view point. I have heard nothing from him in well over a month and still see weekly spilling of human waste and uncovered trucks..... it seems we are on out own. 

Based on your statements, how do we proceed with a final legal termination of the ROW when it would appear that the Citu will not agree and we are stuck between their wretched view point of their way or the highway and what is seemingly an oversight of the counry not terminated the pending ROW?

On Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 13:23 John Kefalas <kefa...@co.larimer.co.us> wrote:

Good afternoon Scott,

I encourage you to work with Jeremy Woolf as it is my understanding that they want to work collaboratively to address the agreed-upon issues. 

With regard to road easement and the county road grading, as we have shared before, our County's Engineering staff researched the status of this road and have spoken to you and City staff.  The road in question is former State Hwy 87/185. In a nutshell, the County acquired the right-of-way for the road back in the 1930’s for the express purpose of a State highway.  Although it's not clear why the County would have acquired the right-of-way on behalf of the State, we think that it may be as simple as that's just how it was handled in 1930's Colorado.  CDOT built and operated State Highway 87/185 until the mid-1960’s when it was abandoned after I-25 opened.  The State adopted a resolution formally abandoning the highway in 1965.  

Our research didn't find any records indicating that the County has ever operated the former State highway as a County road.  We also didn't find any road maps showing the former State highway as a County public road. Our Road and Bridge director has also confirmed that former State Highway 87/185 was not recognized as a County road, the road was never maintained or managed by the County, and he does not believe it has ever been a public County road. Although the County was the named entity that acquired the right-of-way in the 1930's, it was in reality held, managed, and ultimately abandoned by CDOT in 1965, and the County never established a County public right-of-way. As a result, we don't have any authority over its use, gates, speed limits, condition, maintenance, or repair. Thank you.

	John Kefalas (he/him) County Commissioner, District 1
	Commissioners' Office 200 W Oak St | 2nd Floor PO Box 1190, Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190 W: (970) 498-7001 Cell:  (720) 254-7598 jkef...@larimer.org | www.larimer.org

[Scott Fortenberry]

We still require a formal vacation from the county before we can do anything formally, without it we have no leverage or ability to adjudicate anything with an out of control City Government 

On Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 15:24 John Kefalas <kefa...@co.larimer.co.us> wrote:

I honestly don't know, and I encourage you to call Jeremy to resolve this roadway matter. I and our county manager have done our best to engage with the city, and this is where we are. Perhaps, the City's Land Survey Plat needs to be updated to remove the reference to a non-existent county right of way to clarify things, but I am not an attorney, and I do not know if this is the proper course of action.