Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners defer enforcement decision on state wildfire building code, agree to revisit monthly
Summary
Dolores County commissioners discussed adopting the state's wildfire building code but expressed concerns about enforcement capacity and funding; they decided to keep the item on the agenda for monthly updates while awaiting state guidance.
At a special meeting, the Dolores County board of county commissioners debated whether to adopt the state wildfire building code now or to treat adoption as a recommendation while awaiting clarity and resources from the state. Commissioners voiced concern that adopting the code without enforcement capacity could create requests for county property assessments the county lacks authority or funding to perform.
One commissioner framed the dilemma bluntly: "I don't know what's worse adopting and not enforcing or not adopting," illustrating the board's legal and practical uncertainty about immediate adoption versus delay. Commissioners discussed that the state had signaled an April 1 adoption deadline and a July 1 date for enforcement but emphasized the county does not yet know what enforcement support, if any, the state will provide.
Commissioners explored options short of immediate full adoption. Suggestions included creating a lighter, scaled version of the code for rural counties with limited infrastructure and appointing a local adviser—such as an emergency services manager or a fire-department representative—to guide property owners through mitigation steps during construction. Several speakers stressed that many property owners currently do not involve the county in their building process and that much mitigation work (defensible space, material choices) remains the owner’s responsibility.
Board members also asked about the positions of the town and the fire district on mandatory measures; speakers said those local jurisdictions’ stances were not clear in the meeting record. Commissioners agreed to hold the item as ongoing business and to revisit it monthly to track any new guidance, funding options, or model solutions adopted by other counties.
The discussion concluded with no formal motion to adopt the code; the board left the item on the agenda for further consideration and updates from state guidance and local stakeholders.
