Committee backs city study of chronic nuisance property ordinance after months of staff research

City staff presented a draft “chronic nuisance property” ordinance during the Oct. 15 Code Enforcement Advisory Committee meeting and the committee voted to support continued work and a return presentation with a refined draft.

Assistant City Attorney Jackson Higgins described the draft as a tool, not an official recommendation. “This is, not an official recommendation. This is a tool, that we have researched and we provided you an example of here in this draft for, bill for an ordinance,” Higgins said. He summarized how other Colorado municipalities define chronic nuisances and the typical remedies used — abatement agreements, civil actions, cost recovery and liens.

City Manager Sean Lewis told the committee staff had returned to the topic after members asked for additional options. Lewis outlined the staff view that binding registration-and-fee approaches considered earlier were too burdensome and that the new draft aimed to balance property rights with remedies for properties that generate repeated problems for neighbors.

Higgins highlighted key design choices in the draft: (1) thresholds for designation (for example, multiple nuisance incidents within 60–120 days or one year, with different bars for single-family and multiunit properties); (2) a distinction between physical nuisances (housing, sanitation, blight) and behavioral nuisances (criminal activity); (3) carve-outs to avoid penalizing crime victims (domestic violence, stalking, or other protected circumstances); and (4) mechanisms for cost recovery, including the city abating nuisances and billing the responsible party or placing liens on property.

Committee members raised concerns about evidence standards, the treatment of behavioral incidents that result in criminal cases (which may take months to adjudicate), the definition of ‘‘responsible party’’ when title-holders use property management companies or shell entities, and possible unintended consequences for businesses and public facilities. Several members emphasized the need for clear safeguards so that victims of crime are not penalized because of repeated calls for service from their properties.

Higgins said the draft includes options such as higher thresholds for drug-related activity and interior flexibility for multiunit properties. He also noted that courts and municipal staff must be able to verify nuisances beyond mere complaints and that code and police records would be used to document incidents.

After discussion the committee moved and seconded a motion asking staff to continue work on the draft, tighten definitions, and return with a revised proposal and specific questions for committee review. The motion passed by voice vote.

Staff and committee members agreed on next steps: city attorneys will prepare a second draft that incorporates feedback from the committee (including clarification on multiunit and commercial properties, evidence standards, victim carve-outs and proposed public registry rules) and return to the committee for further review before the matter goes to city council.

Public comment during the meeting included a resident who described “speculative buyers” scraping homes, leaving vacant lots and recurring dumping; that testimony was cited by members as an example of the property problems the ordinance seeks to address.