San Miguel County delays final vote on deed-restriction reversion; staff directed to refine plan

San Miguel County commissioners spent the bulk of a July 23 special meeting on a proposed resolution to correct and offer reversion options for deed-restricted affordable housing covenants. Commissioners did not adopt the proposal that day; they directed staff to address legal and implementation questions and to return with a refined timeline and forms.

The draft resolution prepared by county staff and the San Miguel Regional Housing Authority (SMRHA) would give current owners of deed-restricted properties a one-time choice in many cases: to remain on their current covenant, revert to the version of the deed restriction that applied at the time of their purchase, or revert to a standard 2010 covenant template attached to the resolution. "For those properties that have been sold or transferred on or since 06/01/2022...the county will offer the owners of the property the option to either 1) stay on their current covenant, 2) revert to the version of deed restriction that applied to the property at the time of purchase, or 3) to revert to the 2010 covenant," Maura, a county staff member, told the board.

Key numbers presented by staff during the meeting:

- 117 total properties are currently on some version of a covenant (between the 2010 and the current 2023 covenant). - 32 of those properties were sold or transferred on or after 06/01/2022 and therefore fall into the three-year comparison window set out in the draft resolution. Of those 32, staff said 17 would be able to revert to an earlier version of the covenant and 15 would have the option to revert to the land use code deed restriction that applied at their purchase. - The remaining 85 properties outside the three-year window would have the option to revert only to the 2010 covenant template.

The proposed policy includes several limits and clarifications: properties subject to site-specific covenants (for example, Pinion Park and Rio Vista) would not be included; documents completing any reversion or termination would be recorded with the county clerk and recorder; and the resolution proposed excluding properties owned by Commissioners Anne Brown and Lance Waring and their spouses from the offered reversion to avoid a perceived conflict of interest.

During discussion, commissioners and staff identified several open legal and administrative questions staff must resolve before returning with a final recommendation. Staff flagged a potentially substantive difference among 2010 covenant templates: a provision in section 11 referencing a price-appreciation cap (a county right to recapture or affect resale price under certain conditions) appears in some 2010 templates but was removed from later templates and is possibly inconsistent with subdivision declarations in some neighborhoods. "That provision is a benefit or a right conferred on the county only rather than the property owner," a county attorney said. Staff proposed investigating whether to remove or revise section 11 from the 2010 template before offering it as part of a reversion option.

Commissioners also agreed staff should treat properties that have provided a notice of intent to sell or are under contract as a priority for immediate action; staff recommended that such transactions be addressed as they arise, rather than waiting for the full reversion rollout. The board discussed holding to a one-time offer concept so that the 2010 covenant would not be available to future purchasers unless the specific property originally contained that covenant.

Public comment at the meeting was extensive and strongly engaged. Dozens of current and former deed-restricted homeowners and several title and housing professionals urged the board to expand the resolution in different ways. Some speakers asked that owners who had been offered a covenant in the past but purchased later be allowed to revert to the original plat-based land-use restriction; others argued that the most equitable fix is to offer all affected owners the same opportunity. Representative public comments included:

- Ginny Gordon, a Lawson Hill property owner who said she participated in creating the 2010 covenant, warned a price-cap provision in section 11 could conflict with Lawson Hill's subdivision declarations and advised the board to clarify the template before offering it.

- Shelly Duplan, Aldisaro homeowners association, urged the board to restore choice to property owners and to ensure the reversion process accounts for the original plat notes and the history that led to the creation of covenants.

- Jake Matig, an Aldisaro property owner, advised the board that the county should "go back to the plat" for clarity, and warned that unilateral imposition of more restrictive covenants raised legal and fairness concerns.

- Annalisa Reebel, a title professional, urged that current owners be offered the same choices and warned that imprecise compliance language such as "physical presence" should be tightened to avoid future disputes.

Board members and staff said they would not rush a decision. Commissioners asked staff to compile a more detailed implementation timeline, develop clear template language for the 2010 covenant (with any agreed edits to section 11), and return with specific draft offer letters, communications and process maps. The board also discussed a likely amendment under consideration that would give owners currently governed by the land-use-code deed restriction an option to sign the 2010 covenant as a one-time offer.

Ending: The commissioners did not vote on the draft reversion resolution on July 23. Staff was directed to refine the draft resolution and contract templates, investigate the section 11 price-appreciation language, prepare a proposed timeline for implementation, and expedite offers for properties under contract or with notices of intent to sell. The board will revisit the item at a future meeting after staff reports back.