FW: RE: Completed survey and draft agreement
sc410...@gmail.com
John,
For your information:
Below is the email that was sent to the City of Fort Collins as it applies to last and final notification for the illegally placed obstacles on our property. We will be sending a formal letter via certified mail on the 2nd of September.
We will then be contacted a company on the same day to come and remove the illegally place obstacles.
Scott and Christine Fortenberry
6808 East County Road 92
Carr, CO 80612-9506
(970) 568-6434 / (760) 415-4860
From: sc410...@gmail.com <sc410...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2025 08:29
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
This is our third and final notification to have the obstacles (cattle guard and gate) removed from our property as we have received no action or response for more than 30 days since last communications. Upon receipt of this email, we will hire a company to remove the “obstacles” from our northern property and will proceed to have the company bill the City of Fort Collins. We will additionally send this notification via US Postal Service certified mail as official notification of removal as well. We have given the City of Fort Collins several opportunities and ample time to remove the said obstacles since the obstacles have been on our property for over 30 years. We shall now take it into our own hands at your expense.
Scott and Christine Fortenberry
6808 East County Road 92
Carr, CO 80612-9506
(970) 568-6434 / (760) 415-4860
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:
- As for the Survey markers that were observed to be placed by City of Fort Collins personnel on approximately the 6th 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.
- 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 for due to the obstacle and the use of the land without permission for manuy 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).
- Concur
- 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) in July 9 July 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- Halt all human feces / human waste transport across the public ROW/private land as well as along Larimer County East County Road 92.
- Until a agreed upon mitigation can be resolved
- 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.
- 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.
- Must be returned to previous width and can’t be extended
- 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.
- Established, budgeted, and contracted maintenance plan, to include dust control quarterly
- Account for tenant traffic as the easement would only be for City of Fort Collins, thus requiring significant compensation for additional traffic.
- Replace the destroyed southwest corner property marker.
- Require the City of Fort Collins to remove survey markers from our property line.
- 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.
- Signage as a Private Road on corner of public ROW and East County Road 92.
- Ask the City of Fort Collins to repair the utility easement access for the Nunn Telephone Company access panel.
- Add a 35-mph speed limit sign within the public right of way.
- 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 10th 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
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:
- “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.
- 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.
- “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)
- “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.
- Clearly and accurately establish who has ownership of the access road and if the right of way still exists.
- Establish clear and accurate legal record of ownership.
- 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
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 4th 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
sc410...@gmail.com
John,
Additionally for your information:
This is the formal letter that will go out Tuesday 2 September 2025 to the City of Fort Collins Mayor and City Council as the last and final notification.
sc410...@gmail.com
John,
This is how the City “tries to work with us”….This is why I don’t want to work with Mr. Woolf!!!!
Scott and Christine Fortenberry
6808 East County Road 92
Carr, CO 80612-9506
(970) 568-6434 / (760) 415-4860
From: Jeremy Woolf <jwo...@fcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 11:39
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: RE: Completed survey and draft agreement
Mr. Fortenberry,
Thank you for your email. The City of Fort Collins will not accept responsibility for the cost to remove the cattle guard and gate. You do not you have a legal right to impede our access. As an update to your other concerns.
- I’ve spoken with Nunn telephone company to determine if the City is responsible for any damage to their property. They investigated and found no damage to their equipment, and no further action was needed.
- We will not modify or remove the recently placed property markers. These markers are the physical monuments aligned with the recently completed survey now registered with Larimer County.
- We have implemented new procedures to minimize the potential of dropping biosolids on the road. We will continue responding to any reported spills. The cities biosolids operation continues to meet all applicable laws and regulations.
- We continue working to identify all options that will allow continued property access.
- We maintain the position that the existing conditions of access provide mutual benefit. All property owners along this rural road have access. We continue to provide road maintenance services at no cost.
Thank you again for your email. We will notify you as we identify options, or any other related developments.
sc410...@gmail.com
John,
Again, this is why I don’t want to deal with Mr. Wollf and City Management. They are unwilling to take responsibility for anything they do and continue to put out false statements as if they were true. IT is an impossible situation. Our response may be a bit crass, but we are just at our wits end with this.
Scott and Christine Fortenberry
6808 East County Road 92
Carr, CO 80612-9506
(970) 568-6434 / (760) 415-4860
From: sc410...@gmail.com <sc410...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 12:54
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>; 'Sydney McLeod' <mcle...@co.larimer.co.us>; 'Nicole Poncelet-Johnson' <nponcele...@fcgov.com>; 'City Council' <CityC...@fcgov.com>; jar...@fcgov.com
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Completed survey and draft agreement
Mr. Woolf,
I don’t know how to be clearer for you to seemingly understand the most very basic points.
We are not impeding you in any way; that is a pure blasphemous statement and absolutely un-called for. The impeding of property access is the other way around completely and you full well know that as fact pure and simple. You keep using pseudo stalling tactics in an attempt that I can only imagine is hope that this ongoing trespass issue will magically go away. You seemingly take me and my wife as fools to be bullied at your whim. You will not acknowledge that there is TEN FEET of our property that is not under any easement. I have stated that you have made no movement to acknowledge or provide recommended course of action for use/mitigation/compensation for use of that property that we as the owners are blocked from our own use, so tell me then, what am I supposed to do, just take it and be ongoingly bullied by you, please let me know, I am waiting for a full and honest discussion for once vice your way or the highway “this is the way it’s going to be or else”. We have been more than accommodating and beyond patient for more than 30 years and counting. As you continue to use ten feet of our private property that has no known established private or public easement/ROW and is blocked from our own use as stated in several communications over the years and is backed by our provided legal survey and also from the most recent legal lot description performed by Larimer County. Per our last known communications on 14 July 2025 one of the requirements and you state/acknowledge as a demand is number 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.” I then returned additional details that outlined a request to allow enough space to move the obstacles from our private property and allow for a turn-out that is required for a locked/blocked private or public easement for turnaround of private or emergency vehicles per Larimer County Road construction requirements. We have given two formal certified mailings requiring the obstacles be moved from our property just this year in March and again no action other than to state a false assertion that we somehow didn’t own our own property that was found to be false by the legal authority for this area and that being Larimer County and not the City of Fort Collins and at our undue cost yet again. We have reputedly and patiently waited for years for these obstacles to be moved off our privately owned property. As it was obvious you had no intent to proceed further in any corrective action or adjudication after more than 45 days of no response or acknowledgement, we will be taking action to remove the trespassed illegally placed obstacles from our privately owned property. You can state whatever you want and we gave the City of Fort Collins ample opportunity and time to remove the obstacles, and the City will be provided a bill for the removal and take responsibility for their deplorable actions once and for all. You have until Saturday, 6 September 2025 to use your own resources to have the obstacles removed under your own control, if not, then cost will fall on the City of Fort Collins for not complying with several requests to remove illegally placed items from our property.
As for spills, they continue seemingly weekly as evidence by the waste noted just today on our property just north of the cattle guard when reviewing removal of the illegal obstacles with our contractor that will be at the City’s expense due to lack of compliance regardless of your statement. IF you are spilling, you are not complying, again false statement. Picture provided yet again for your non-compliance with regulations and laws, your welcome.
Mutual benefit, simply false and laughable at best. NO maintenance is done to our portion of the road or 6950 segment. It would seem through observation that you actually stop north of the cattle guard grading your own road and then purposely DO NOT provide any maintenance from south of the cattle guard to County Road 92, FACT! Also patching and maintaining the southern easement (former U.S HWY 87 / south of County road 92) adds credible credence that you the City are purposely and spitefully not performing road maintenance as our entire road floods every time it rains on both sides of the bridge and the continued washed out portion of my property to the north of our driveway entrance is proof you are not providing any maintenance whatsoever, so please place your false statements to rest. That coupled with no dust control continues to damage our property and is an added health concern with the continued spillage of ongoing weekly human waste
Lastly, do not refer to “mutual benefit” again. Nothing in the horrible predicament is mutual. WE are the ones that have to deal with flooding roads, potholes, and human waste on our property. This whole senecio and your stalling tactics only benefits you and the City of Fort Collins. WE are the utterly burdened estate in every possible way!!
sc410...@gmail.com
Mr. Woolf’s only response and only addressing his ongoing non-compliance of local, state, and federal rules, regulations, and laws as it applies to spillage.
He seemingly wants us to manage his personnel and property as he is unable to effectively do so. They don’t pay us a salary to perform their job, I only report the very few times I go to the mailbox or town during the week, I don’t have the ability to drive the road every day at the conclusion of City Biosolids Operations to check for spillages of human waste.
This is yet another reason we would offer as evidence as to why the County should revoke/and or suspend both their permit for operation of the biosolids facility based on inability to not meet basic rules and laws for operation and they continue an ongoing health exposure to the public through their actions and lack thereof. Also, additional credence to why the administrative oversight that is the Public ROW should be brough to vote in front of the board of county commissioners and at least have our portion vacated for several reasons but most noteworthy is the endless spillage and health issue posed to me and my family and the public at large.
Scott and Christine Fortenberry
6808 East County Road 92
Carr, CO 80612-9506
(970) 568-6434 / (760) 415-4860
From: Jeremy Woolf <jwo...@fcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 14:36
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>; 'Sydney McLeod' <mcle...@co.larimer.co.us>; Nicole Poncelet-Johnson <nponcele...@fcgov.com>; City Council <CityC...@fcgov.com>; Jeni Arndt <jar...@fcgov.com>
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Completed survey and draft agreement
Mr. Fortenberry,
Our spill log shows the last reported spill response was on July 9th. I would greatly appreciate information about when these spills were reported, and whether an adequate cleanup was performed. I will follow up with the team to re-emphasize my expectations for recording and responding to spills. I will also be sure there is a clear understanding and strict adherence to the new procedures intended to minimize the potential for spills.
Thank you for letting me know about this.
sc410...@gmail.com
John,
Sounds great and we really do appreciate all your help in this matter and the toward the ROW vacating.
I left you a similar voice-mail. In short, it appears we made some forward progress as I was called by Nicole Poncelet-Johnson and she seems to be willing to have an honest an open dialog going forward.
As for additional details, She acknowledged the complete lack of communications buy the City for more than 45 plus days was an issue and plans for bi-weekly meetings going forward with her and her supporting staff. I stated if she has a legitimate course of action by this Friday (5 Sept 2025) by close of business (1730/5:30 pm) that we would consider stopping the contractor’s removal of the gate and cattle guar. It appears the Mr. Woolf made yet another false assertion to her and his additional leadership that we would rip the cattle guard out and leave a gapping hole and prevent access and cause potential harm to workers. I informed Ms. Poncet-Johnson that is the furthest thing from the truth and was never communicated and we understand fully we have no right to block the City’s current access as we will back-fill using the stolen dirt pile from when the City removed it from our property whenever the cattle guard was initially placed on our property.
Hopefully we hear something positive by COB this Friday.
Again, we thank you for your on-going assistance and it is very much appreciated.
Scott and Christine Fortenberry
6808 East County Road 92
Carr, CO 80612-9506
(970) 568-6434 / (760) 415-4860
From: John Kefalas <kefa...@co.larimer.co.us>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:38
To: sc410...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: FW: RE: RE: RE: Completed survey and draft agreement
Thank you for all this additional information, and at this point the county will focus on ensuring that the city and county attorneys are working collaboratively to address the ROW vacation issue. I've done my best to be helpful with this situation.
| John Kefalas (he/him) County Commissioner, District 1 |
Commissioners' Office 200 W Oak St | 2nd Floor PO Box 1190, Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190 Cell: (720) 254-7598 |
sc410...@gmail.com
John,
We have been working with Mrs. Nicole Poncelet-Johnson for the City of Fort Collins and were / are making some limited progress.
However, it was incorrectly reported to us and Nicole that the meeting between City and County Officials on 10 September 2025 yielded that the City conceded that our legal lot description was in fact correct. However, it came to light this week that that was the opposite in that the City still refuses to acknowledge the County’s legally binding jurisdictional authoritative decision.
So, it seems we are right back to square one. Do you have any updates and or expected meetings scheduled between the City and County to attain a resolution on vacating this seemingly administrative Public right-of-way.
Our other question is on requesting vacating the right-of-way. If we go and pay for a right of way vacating on our own (based on a legal document we receive from the county and any party (specifically the City) challenges that for whatever reason, what happens. Are we just out $1,200 and stuck? How does the County board of County Commissioners handle such an issue?
Scott and Christine Fortenberry
6808 East County Road 92
Carr, CO 80612-9506
(970) 568-6434 / (760) 415-4860
From: sc410...@gmail.com <sc410...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 13:00
To: 'John Kefalas' <kefa...@co.larimer.co.us>
