Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council begins review of enforcement remedies, municipal code gaps and building‑inspection options
Summary
Council reviewed a staff chart of Bluff Municipal Code enforcement remedies, discussed inconsistent remedies and the need to spell out penalties in individual ordinances, and reviewed county building‑inspection arrangements after recent procedural problems. Council asked staff to identify code gaps and coordinate with planning and zoning.
Bluff Town Council members reviewed a staff chart that maps enforcement remedies across the Bluff Municipal Code and discussed inconsistencies, missing language and enforcement burdens for the town.
Town staff said many existing ordinances reference a separate municipal code citation for remedies rather than including explicit remedies in each ordinance. Council members supported spelling out remedies within individual ordinances so residents and enforcement staff do not need to search multiple code sections to determine available penalties or remedies.
Council and staff identified common enforcement remedies in current ordinances: injunctive relief, civil penalties with dollar amounts, withholding future permits or certificates of occupancy, and monetary damages. Members discussed the town—s master fee schedule and whether civil penalties are currently reflected there; staff said some penalties are autonomous and may not appear in the fee schedule and that the town will audit the alignment.
Councilors also reviewed draft or proposed ordinances that overlap — for example, an RV ordinance and an off‑street parking ordinance that could conflict. Staff said the RV ordinance will go to the town—s attorney for review and that the town must reconcile any contradictions before final adoption.
On building inspections, councilors described recent changes at San Juan County that affect how municipal projects receive inspections and permits. The county—s building inspector took a new position with the sheriff—s department, and the county briefly circulated draft contracts to hire inspectors; council members said those contracts were emailed to commissioners as draft documents and not approved at the county meeting. Staff told the council the county may rely on private firms such as Jones & DeMille for inspections while contracting arrangements are unsettled.
Council members discussed whether Bluff should pursue a town contract for inspections or rely on the county/private firms. They noted the statutory requirement for inspections to occur within a limited number of days and that if the county cannot meet inspection deadlines, permit applicants can contract with other inspectors outside the county process. Members said that approach can undermine local plan compliance and creates administrative burdens for the town.
Next steps included: staff preparing a clearer enforcement chart with specific remedies and references, coordinating a joint work session with planning and zoning to identify code conflicts and enforcement gaps (including off‑street parking and RV rules), and continuing to monitor county inspection arrangements and potential local options for contractual inspection services.
