San Miguel County debates tougher code enforcement, asks staff for metrics and staffing options

San Miguel County staff used a Jan. 28 special meeting to outline limits and options for enforcing land-use and building codes across the county. County code enforcement staff, the county attorney and the sheriff’s office described a largely complaint-driven process and multiple statutory routes to seek compliance or pursue court enforcement.

"We operate as a complaint based, like, enforcement program," Matt (county code staff) said, describing the intake steps, public-portal use (SmartGov), and typical enforcement letters. He reported "we have currently 24 cases open in our case management… 14 of those are unique cases," and explained most cases are unpermitted uses, material storage or unpermitted structures used as residences.

Staff summarized administrative steps: intake and jurisdiction review, aerial and records checks, lawful drive-by observations, a first notice of violation with cure steps and timelines, a second notice if unresponsive, and a final notice before court. Matt said statutory timelines can be short (statutes cite 10-day notice windows) but that the department routinely places 30 days in letters and exercises discretion where owners are cooperating.

County Attorney Maura reviewed court avenues and statutory constraints, including county-court civil penalties under CRS 30-28-124.5, civil-infraction procedures that require sheriff involvement, injunction authority for district court filings, and administrative-warrant provisions applicable only when a local ordinance exists for weeds/junk/unsafe buildings (CRS 30-15-401). She warned that the county rarely pursues court enforcement because it is time- and resource-intensive, the evidentiary standard can be difficult to meet, and judges may be unfamiliar with these cases.

Staff told the board it typically takes a full day of staff time for initial investigation and several hours for follow-ups. Practical barriers include large lots and limited line-of-sight from public rights-of-way, evidence gathered by neighbors on private property (not always admissible), and limited dedicated enforcement staff. "It takes we're just a full day, per case, basically, to investigate a complaint," Matt said.

Commissioners and staff discussed possible remedies: a low-cost contracted 'spotter' to document haul-truck movements and provide probable cause to law enforcement; a full-time dedicated code-enforcement officer; deputizing staff; or contracting operations with a third party. Board members estimated a spotter pilot could cost around $20,000–$30,000 a year; a full-time county code officer with vehicle and benefits would be a materially larger investment (rough estimates cited above $120,000 to $200,000 per year).

After extended discussion, the board gave three specific directions: (1) continue using SmartGov to track and report enforcement metrics and bring a dataset to the board; (2) staff should generally follow enforcement through three notices before escalating unresolved cases to the board for direction; and (3) return with a staffing and budget recommendation in approximately six months (target July) that will include estimates for a spotter pilot and for a dedicated enforcement position.

The county attorney said she could pursue court enforcement on high-priority cases when capacity allows but emphasized that pursuing multiple actions would require additional legal and sheriff resources.

Ending: Commissioners stopped short of changing the complaint-based model immediately but signaled they wanted more objective data and costed staffing options before committing to broader policy or a dedicated enforcement program.