Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Septic Systems topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Custer County health officials weigh stricter penalties for contractors after repeat septic failures
Summary
Custer County Board of Health discussed repeated septic-system failures and a proposal from the county sanitarian to restrict contractors who repeatedly fail installations, and directed staff to seek legal guidance on whether the county can suspend contractors or remove them from county lists.
CUSTER COUNTY, Colo. — County health officials on Nov. 19 discussed tightening rules for septic-system contractors after the county sanitarian reported a recent failed installation and noted the same contractor had failed previously.
The county sanitarian told the Board of Health that a septic system failed inspection, was rechecked after repairs in San Isabel and ultimately passed inspection. She said the paperwork had been submitted to the state under what was described in the meeting as the ALTS regulations. “I failed my first septic system this month,” the sanitarian said, adding that the contractor had been failed in a previous instance.
The sanitarian proposed a three-strikes approach: after three failed installations a contractor would face a one-year suspension and be required to reapply for county certification. “I mean, I would say 3 times … and then put them on a year suspension, and with them having to reapply,” she said. Board members discussed the idea but raised legal and practical questions, including whether the county has authority to remove a contractor from a county list or must rely on state certification processes. One board member noted financial penalties already borne by contractors who must redo work, while others stressed the need for a clear policy to prevent repeated substandard installations.
Members also debated who must sign septic permits and whether the director must personally inspect systems. Staff explained that licensed inspectors must be the signatory on permits and that the director need not personally conduct every field inspection; the example of an inspector named "Shania" was discussed as the qualifying signature on permits. Staff said they would consult with county legal counsel and state contacts to confirm how to proceed and to draft any regulatory changes for a future meeting.
The sanitarian also reported a separate enforcement matter: an RV without septic on private property. She said she documented the situation, began the 90-day zoning-clock when she observed the RV, and gave the property owner until December to remove it in line with the county’s 90-day rule.
Votes at a glance: The board approved minutes for Aug. 27, Sept. 8 (special) and Oct. 27 (special) by voice vote; no numeric tally was recorded in the meeting transcript.
Next steps: Staff will follow up with legal review and the state on enforcement and permitting questions before drafting any formal county regulation or policy change for board consideration.
