In February, the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners heard a first reading of a proposed ordinance that requires the removal of unsafe buildings.The purpose of the ordinance, as stated in the draft, is “to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens and residents of El Paso County, Colorado, by compelling the repair or removal of unsafe buildings which, if not repaired or removed, can result in negative visual impacts, fire hazards, ‘attractive nuisances,’ rodent infestations and other hazards.”Lori Seago, the county attorney who presented the ordinance, said the county has already adopted an unsafe building code as part of the regional building code. “Its provisions are in effect in the unincorporated parts of the county and are enforced by the regional building department,” Seago said.The proposed ordinance would give property owners concerned about an unsafe building on a neighboring property an alternative to resolve any problems. Seago said the ordinance “would be enforced by the development services department as opposed to the regional building inspectors.””The No. 1 thing that kept coming to me is that this is a solution looking for a problem that I don’t believe we have,” said El Paso County Commissioner Amy Lathen.”When we have a real issue – a dilapidated trailer with all the windows out and it’s boarded up and it’s a mess and we’ve got some transient people – a real cause for having something like this available to us – don’t we have enough teeth in what we have existing already to be able to enforce getting rid of that?”Seago said there are concerns that regional building inspectors are not as responsive to the issues with structures in the county. “In the three years that I’ve worked in this office, I have only dealt with one enforcement action under the unsafe building provisions of the regional building code,” she said.Commissioner Jim Bensberg said the regional building department issues permits and inspects work done under those permits. “I don’t believe it’s their business to be in the code enforcement business,” Bensberg said.”I haven’t had any person come to me and say ‘I’m concerned for our safety.’ I have great concerns for the people in the eastern part of the county,” Lathen said. “I think this would be far too burdensome for them.”However, Commissioner Dennis Hisey said that he’s received complaints. “We’ve had the rodent infestation. We’ve had roofs partially blown off. We’ve had places frequented by trespassers,” Hisey said. “We need something to protect the neighbors.””When your home is next door to an abandoned building, it does bring down [property values],” said Commissioner Sallie Clark. “I think our county assessor would attest that they actually reduce the values of homes in an area next to an abandoned building.”I do think there’s a role for us in this to protect everyone’s property rights and to keep our citizens safe. If there is a rodent infestation, that’s obviously a health issue and that’s a concern.”Lathen expressed concern about the use of the term “negative visual impact” in the ordinance’s statement of purpose. Seago offered to delete “negative visual impact,” but Clark disagreed.”Sometimes, you can’t tell what’s inside, but you can certainly see what’s on the outside,” Clark said. “There are visual impacts that are negative to your surrounding neighbors.”Hisey said he would like to see mobile homes included in the ordinance. “Just because they’re not attached to a foundation, they still need to comply, maybe more so,” Hisey said.John McCarty, director of the county’s transportation department, said he had recently driven in the south central area of the county with Maria Jindra, a Colorado highway advisory commissioner.”As we drove approximately 20 or 30 miles, she pointed out case after case of abandoned, dilapidated, vacant mobile homes that were left on, presumably, 35 acre parcels,” McCarty said. “I would guess we saw one to two dozen, primarily mobile homes – no windows, no doors, roofs falling in, no skirting.”McCarty said Jindra said she investigated getting them removed and was told that the county has no authority to ask the property owner to clean up the premises.Williams said the ordinance currently on the table covers unsafe buildings that impact neighbors.”The fact that it has no windows, no doors and a roof caving in and is sitting in the middle of a vacant parcel, it would not be covered by this ordinance,” Seago said. “If it became an area where children or teenagers congregated, that would be covered … but if it’s just sitting there and no one ever goes near it, my interpretation is that it would not be covered.”Seago added that the problem McCarty described should be addressed by the zoning ordinance and land use provisions.William Louis, acting El Paso County attorney, said that under the proposed ordinance the board retains total control as to whether something would move forward to the removal stage.”You also control the purse strings,” Louis said. “The county does not have one penny budgeted and appropriated to go in and remove hazards from property. In my 10 and a half years with the county, I have seen the county attempt to physically go on a property and remove [rubbish] violations once. This is the type of ordinance that will sit on your books in case you need it. My prediction is that you won’t see a lot of these.”Clark expressed concern about enforcing the ordinance.Seago said failure to comply with the proposed ordinance is a criminal violation – a petty offense punishable by a fine only. “If the county were to expend its own funds to remove the building, we could ask that restitution be imposed as part of the criminal sentence,” Seago said. “If it’s not paid, it’s entered as a judgment against the defendant.”The proposed ordinance also includes civil remedies. At the direction of the BOCC, the county could institute civil action against property owners, who would be required to remove the structure. The county also would have the authority to remove the structure and bill the costs to the property owner. If the owner doesn’t pay, the county can then assess a lien on the property, Seago said.Louis said the ordinance gives the board several options, including an injunction process, which threatens a contempt of court citation.”Obviously we have to be here to protect the property owners,” Lathen said. “I think we’re on the right track. The concern is how this will affect people where there truly is not a hazard or a safety issue.””I don’t see this ordinance being used except in very extreme cases,” Clark said. “The property owner is able to have a hearing before this board. I just want to make sure it has the teeth we would need to enforce it.”The board voted unanimously to publish the revised draft, which includes a stronger definition of an unsafe building. The commissioners will hear a second reading on March 17.
