On Sept. 16, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) discussed the county’s procedures for investigating potential public health nuisance complaints, and a moratorium that was put in place regarding code enforcement.
Interim County Manager Mike Torres explained that in the process of investigating properties, “Right now, how it sits for the county is they need to have a report made by a resident in the area. From then, they take photos of the violation, fill out the necessary documentation, and send that documentation and notice to the resident who is out of compliance.”
If nothing is completed, then a letter of abatement is sent to the property and the matter goes back to the county’s legal department, with potential property liens at that point, Torres explained.
As for the moratorium that was approved by a previous BoCC, Torres said, “We are still looking for that,” explaining he has been unable to find a record of the moratorium, but that he believes it was approved in August 2023.
He then mentioned that, according to the county’s current codes, enforcement officers designated by the county “may actively investigate any complaint when provided with information by law enforcement, health services or other governmental quasi-public entities, and/or where there is reasonable information to believe that violation affecting public health, safety or welfare exits,” or while in their normal process of duties the enforcement officer becomes aware of a violation.
Torres commented that this reiterates what the county is already doing.
County Attorney Cathleen Giovannini asked for an explanation of what the idea of the moratorium was for members of the public, with Commissioner Veronica Medina explaining that the BoCC that approved it was composed of herself, Commissioner Warren Brown and former commissioner Ronnie Maez.
Medina explained the moratorium was “really more about the enforcement officer not — when they are driving by — that they were not able to address things that they saw,” but that if a complaint from residents, those were the things they were supposed to take action on.
She mentioned that the BoCC was told that the moratorium did not preclude enforcement officers from having a conversation with a property owner about a potential issue on their property.
“It didn’t necessarily need to be a written warning,” she said, adding that the moratorium was “strictly” that “if they saw something, they couldn’t just go and write it.”
Brown commented that he recalled the moratorium, and “it was pretty similar to that.”
Brown explained the moratorium disallowed code enforcement officers from “acting on their own accord.”
Brown further explained that it was required for a complaint to be filed by a neighbor of the property, “so a passerby couldn’t see a potential violation and report it.”
Torres indicated there were members of the public in the audience with concerns over potential nuisance properties and asked the BoCC if they could be given the chance to speak.
Medina explained that she typically does not have an issue with members of the public wanting to speak, but that the work session is for staff to give reports before turning to her fellow commissioners asking if they were “willing.”
Brown explained that a constituent had been in his office a few weeks ago trying to address a property with a number of violations that they thought were significant, noting the constituent was frustrated they couldn’t do anything.
He added that it is important for the county to get a contextual understanding of what folks are going through and how families are being affected.
The constituent was then invited to speak.
He explained that his son lives “next door” to where the Oak Fire started earlier on Aug. 10.
The man explained that two complaints had been filed and that code enforcement officers came out to his son’s property and took pictures there before taking photos of the property in question.
“And nothing ever happened,” he said, adding that trash is still there.
He went on to claim that people on the property were defecating in buckets and that “to this day, he has no water, cistern or anything,” along with no electricity.
The man also mentioned that the property has a burn barrel out back and there has been burning during restricted times.
“And it causes a problem,” he said, mentioning that he worked for a county in California for a number of years that faced similar issues and the main problem was that the county’s departments did not work together.
“We are taking steps to make that department better all around,” Torres said, explaining the county is bringing in people who want to help and make a difference.
The man acknowledged Torres’ statement, but expressed frustration due to people in the community being told a similar sentiment for years now.
“And they’re not seeing any progress,” he said.
Medina explained that last year the county contributed $50,000 to cleaning a private property.
“That takes a lot,” she said, “Because we’re spending taxpayer money cleaning up personal property.”
“Spent millions fighting the fire because of it,” the man replied.
Medina went on to mention that the code enforcement officers’ hands “are not tied” and that “there are things that could have been done, should have been done.”
She added that the moratorium was put in place not to prohibit code enforcement officers from doing their job; “it was about acting on the complaints that were called in.”
Medina then commented on the claim of residents defecating in buckets, noting, “That should have been reported to public health so that could have been addressed.”
She explained that complaints typically do not rise to the BoCC level until “somebody absolutely had it with staff and are not getting the response or the answers that they need.”
The man commented that the issue was not reported directly to environmental health, and that by reporting to code officials, they should “take the extra step.”
Brown then referred to Public Health Director Ashley Wilson for what a potential process would be going forward for the county to handle these types of complaints, asking what the health department’s role in the matter would be.
Wilson explained that work on a public health nuisance ordinance had “stalled out,” but that a public health nuisance ordinance would probably be needed.
She explained that the county had talked about having code enforcement officers going out assessing the situation and collecting evidence. Then, if the issue rose to the level of a public health problem, it would come to the Public Health Department, where the evidence would be looked at and then brought to the Board of Health (BoH) or to the code enforcement with the idea that code enforcement would follow its procedure, with a parallel process in place in the Public Health Department.
She explained that if it is a water issue, then the matter would go to the Water Quality Department to determine the level of risk.
Wilson also expressed the importance of having a clear procedure in place as the Public Health Department is the health authority for the entire county, including the Town of Pagosa Springs.
She added that the commissioners were not pleased with San Juan Basin Public Health “because it seemed like they never actually took action.”
As for defining a clear process for the BoH to approve, Wilson indicated that Archuleta County will be “forging” the way as there is no standard to go on throughout the state.
Medina asked what could be done in the meantime in regard to the complaint about residents of a property defecating in buckets, to which Wilson said, “for the board to take action, it would have to be substantial evidence.”
Wilson noted that the Water Quality Department and code enforcement would need to work together on how to make those assessments.
“Some of those things can be relatively hard to determine,” Wilson said.
Commissioner John Ranson offered some comments on the matter, indicating he was bothered by the situation.
He explained that he sat in on BoCC meetings last year about how it took eight years to have one property cleaned up.
“And then hearing this, that potentially a staff member made a decision not to follow what the commissioners desired, is just totally uncalled for, in my opinion,” he added.
Ranson commented that if he was understanding correctly, a neighboring resident called in and made a complaint.
“But a staff member decided not to do it … that just really bothers me,” he said, adding, “I want to put some teeth into this.”
Brown commented that the concern is that there was miscommunication between what the desired response was from the commissioners that supported the change.
He went on to describe the situation as an “injustice to our community members,” noting the county is not in that position now as there are specific and explicit expectations being set out.
Brown noted that he anticipates vast improvements in multiple areas of the county and to “expect that this be no different.”
BoH meeting
The matter was discussed later that week during the BoH meeting held on Sept. 18, with Wilson explaining that “there have been a couple of things that have come up,” explaining the BoH needs to “think through and solidify our process for what things come before the [BoH].”
Wilson explained she wanted to open up the conversion to the BoH to see what things needed to be concentrated on before bringing another draft of a public health nuisance ordinance to be put in place.
She indicated that the ordinance would have to be presented to BoCC for more suggestions, and then be presented for a public reading, noting that the whole process could take “months.”
BoH president Jon Bruss commented, “I think we need a real definition as to what constitutes a public health nuisance,” noting generally nuisances might have a public health component and non-public-health component to them.
“And the third thing is actual enforcement,” he added, explaining that under previous directorships in the county, nuisance complaints were put in a file and never acknowledged that the complaint was received.
He explained that nuisances are “important in keeping harmony within our community,” noting that people file complaints because they are really bothered by something they are seeing and the impacts.
He explained that if there is going to be a public health nuisance ordinance, the county needs to have an enforcement mechanism.
Wilson explained that state statute defines to some level what the enforcement could be with fees and fines, and, “sort of, process.”
She explained that original conversations up until the draft of the ordinance were that nuisance complaints would have to come into the county or the town, be investigated by the enforcement officer, with evidence then presented to her to determine whether or not it meets the criteria to come before the board.
Wilson went on to explain that, concurrently, the county nuisance process would be happening if it rose to the level of a public health nuisance, noting the BoH could potentially hear pieces of a complaint if it doesn’t all meet the merits defining a nuisance ordinance.
“But I think … These are where things get sticky and where we ran into trouble as we had conversations last time,” in regard to what the BoH considers a public health nuisance “versus something somebody just really doesn’t like.”
Wilson explained she would like very clear parameters as to what gets elevated to the BoH, so that it is not a judgment call.
She noted the goal is to have a draft ordinance sent out for the BoH to have time to review before its next meeting in November.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>