Elbert County commissioners decline 2024 code update, approve emergency-fund increase and postpone development pause

The Elbert County Board of County Commissioners on an unspecified date voted not to adopt the 2024 International building and energy codes, approved a $2.5 million increase to county stabilization/emergency funds, ratified appointments to the comprehensive-plan steering committee and postponed final action on proposed moratorium-style rules for certain development applications after extensive public comment.

Why it matters: The board’s actions affect homebuilding costs, county emergency reserves, planning leadership and whether the county will temporarily restrict some higher‑density development. The building-code decision and the development-pause proposal prompted substantial public testimony about housing affordability, water resources and local jobs.

The board’s decision on the 2024 code followed lengthy public comment from local homebuilders and residents who warned the newer code could raise construction costs. Commissioners heard technical comparisons of the codes (including insulation R-values and energy-efficiency thresholds), and builders said any additional cost would likely be passed to buyers.

Commissioner comments and public speakers Commissioner Buck, who introduced the development-pause proposal later in the meeting, told the board he had negotiated language and received suggested edits the morning of the meeting and asked for additional review before acting on that item. Commissioner Schroeder and another commissioner both said they wanted to hear public comment on the development-pause language before deciding whether to continue or an executive session for legal advice.

Homebuilding industry representatives and local residents addressed the board in a lengthy public-comment period. Jack Beckwith, director of land acquisition for Lennar Homes in Colorado, said: “There is a financial burden associated with the changing code from 2018 to 2024. There would obviously have to be a pass through or concession from either the builders involved or, ultimately passing through that cost to the end homebuyer.” Anna Reed of Reed Custom Homes said construction costs are rising and urged delaying adoption: “The codes are to make our homeowners safe, not more expensive. Does this code actually make our homeowner more safe? No, it does not.”

Residents focused comment on water and long-term community impacts. Tori Williams, a county homeowner, urged caution on density because groundwater is finite: “Every single person in this county is dependent on two aquifers below the surface. They’re finite, and they’re non renewable.” Other residents described concerns about traffic, infrastructure and loss of rural character if dense projects are approved without a comprehensive plan.

Votes at a glance - 2024 International codes (building/energy/mechanical/plumbing/fuel and gas): The board voted to not adopt the 2024 International codes as proposed. The meeting record shows a motion and a voice vote that the chair announced as passing; the record does not include a roll-call tally by name. - Ratification of comprehensive-plan steering committee: The board approved a resolution to ratify the committee appointments as presented. A commissioner stated the formal action will appear in the final minutes as a resolution. - Appointment to planning commission vacancy (Ken Madsen): A motion to appoint a candidate was moved but later failed to proceed and died for lack of a second; the board did not fill the planning-commission vacancy at this meeting and discussed returning the item for further consideration. - Revision/amendment to resolutions 17-20 and 18-48 (stabilization/emergency funds): The board approved a resolution to re-designate general-fund balances into committed/stabilization/contingency funds and to increase the stabilization/emergency totals by about $2.5 million. Staff noted prior audit totals showed more than $9 million unassigned; the record cites existing stabilization fund balances of $3,850,000 and $430,000 in the two identified line items. - Board and commissions code of conduct: The board approved the code of conduct with added signature-language stating recipients “have received, read, and understand” the document. - Consideration of strategic pause on certain development applications: After extended public comment and interchange among commissioners, a motion was approved to postpone final action on two proposed resolutions (the “strategic pause”) and to seek further review, including legal counsel review and consideration of alternative language submitted by a local developer. The board directed additional review rather than immediate adoption.

Discussion versus decisions Board members repeatedly separated discussion from formal action. Commissioners invited public testimony on the proposed development pause and then voted to seek additional legal review and public input before taking a final position. The record shows the board approved some items (stabilization fund amendment, steering-committee ratification, code-of-conduct language) and delayed others (planning-commission appointment, strategic-pause resolutions). For the building-code item, the board’s announced action was to not adopt the 2024 code updates.

Clarifying details and next steps - Stabilization funds: Staff reported $3,850,000 in one stabilization fund and $430,000 in another (per resolutions cited). The board directed moving approximately $2.5 million of the unassigned general-fund balance into those designated funds. - Planning and development pause: Commissioners and staff said further review will include legal counsel and a review of alternative draft language provided by a developer; the item will return to a future agenda for follow-up and public input. Several commissioners noted the planning commission’s role in adopting a final comprehensive plan and expressed concern about appointing individuals who would serve on both the steering committee and the planning commission. - Building codes technical notes: Staff explained some 2024 code changes would lower certain insulation R-values compared with 2021 in specific cases; elevation exemptions and other details affect final requirements.

What the board said about process County legal staff advised commissioners they have “unlimited discretion” in how to structure a steering committee and that, statutorily, at least one planning-commission member must be from each commissioner district; the board’s practice regarding district representation is a policy decision rather than a legal requirement. County fiscal staff confirmed that stabilization/committed funds are invested and earn interest consistent with permitted investments.

Where it goes from here The board left multiple items pending additional review: the development-pause resolutions will return for further legal review and public input; the unfilled planning-commission vacancy will be readdressed; and county staff will implement the stabilization-fund designation. The meeting record shows several items (resolutions 17-20 and 18-48) will be reflected in the official minutes as the legal vehicle for those funding actions.

Ending note: Commissioners repeatedly invited additional public input and said they planned to continue discussion and legal review of the development-related resolutions before any final moratorium‑style restrictions would be adopted.