03/14/15
At their March 11 regular meeting, Elbert County Commissioners unanimously voted to rescind two long-standing resolutions.

Animal Control
Elbert County's 1999 Animal Control Resolution (#99-44) was rescinded at the urging of Elbert County Sheriff Shayne Heap, who, along with County Attorney Wade Gateley, cited rules partially inconsistent with updated state statutes. Actually, the only difference they mentioned was that the county uses the term "vicious animal" while the state uses the term "dangerous animal". The county will now be using state statutes when applying and enforcing animal control complaints. Elbert County does not have the funds or the need for a full time animal control officer due to the low number of complaints, according to officials. The state gives the county authority to develop pet licensing and control rules; Elbert County is opting out. During the study session later, Commissioner Dore stated she felt the need for some type of policy, but voted to rescind the current resolution before requiring an updated policy. Complaints are taken by the sheriff's office by calling 303-621-2027 or by calling the dispatch center at 303-660-7500 to report stray, loose, or nuisance animals.
The rescinded resolution, existing state statutes, and Elbert County Sheriff's Office Animal Control information page may be found here:

http://www.elbertcountysheriff.com/ord/Resolution%2099-44.pdf
https://www.animallaw.info/statute/co-dogs-consolidated-dog-law s
http://www.elbertcountysheriff.com/animalcontrol.html

Noise Control
Also rescinded was the Elbert County Noise Resolution, (#2000-81). Again, citing county rules out of synch with updated state statutes, the sheriff and the attorney both urged rescinding the county resolution. Commissioners unanimously voted in agreement to rescind the resolution. Commissioner Rowland, stating he had been involved in noise abatement issues during his professional career, claimed it was virtually impossible to accurately measure noise to determine a violation, and therefore virtually impossible to enforce rules. Citizens may acquire fairly accurate sound measuring devices for their mobile devices, so perhaps that would hold up in a court of law, if needed. Currently the State defines the maximum permissible noise levels as:
25-12-103 Maximum permissible noise levels
(1) Every activity to which this article is applicable shall be conducted in a manner so that any
noise produced is not objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency, or shrillness. Sound
levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of twenty-five feet or more therefrom
in excess of the db(A) established for the following time periods and zones shall constitute prima
facie evidence that such noise is a public nuisance:

25-12-103 Maximum permissible noise levels
(1) Every activity to which this article is applicable shall be conducted in a manner so that any noise produced is not objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency, or shrillness. Sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of twenty-five feet or more therefrom in excess of the db(A) established for the following time periods and zones shall constitute prima facie evidence that such noise is a public nuisance:
In other news:
Two financial agreements were unanimously approved by the BOCC. The Colorado Water Conservation Board Grant Agreement and the U.S. Geological Survey Joint Funding Agreement will be administered by County Manager Ed Ehmann and secondarily by County Attorney Wade Gateley. These funding agreements are required for administration of funds granted from the State for the county well-monitoring and water study programs that were recently obtained by the WAC (Water Advisory Committee).

County Manager Ed Ehmann reported that the first installment of property tax revenues has allowed for the repayment of $350,000 to the county public works fund which earlier loaned that amount to the general fund to cover the balance due on the Wells Fargo Justice Center loan contingency requirements. Ehmann announced this is the first time the county has been compliant with all requirements of the loan. Ehmann also stated that with the new Sage and Eagle software programs, the January ledgers reconciled and the February ledgers were off by only $70.

Brandon Lenderink, Director of the Office of Emergency Management, provided a summation of that department's recent CODE RED testing which he said went smoothly. He also announced there will be an area slash burn event on May 2. Details will be announced soon.
Following the BOCC meeting, the county held a study session to discuss new Fair Board by-laws, animal control issues, the county firearm discharge resolution and rescinding the county zoning regulations for firing ranges.

There was high praise for the Fair Board by-laws, which will be brought to a vote by the BOCC at their next meeting on March 25.

Commissioner Dore was interested in having some type of animal control officer program for the county or contracted to another county. No consensus was reached after discussing the number of filed complaints in 2014 and the lack of funding.

It was decided to leave the 1990 Firearms Discharge Resolution (#99-20) in place for now. All agreed more study was needed. The county zoning regulations for firing ranges ties in with this. It was not clear if there is a desire to rescind or rewrite the county resolution. The applicable state statute which was revised in 2014 is C.R.S 30-15-301-304. Chapter 302 governs county commissioner powers in designating shooting spaces in unincorporated areas. Please read and then determine your own interpretation and consider possible enforcement scenarios. The current state and county rules may be found here:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/?app=00075&v iew=full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=C .R.S.+30-15-302

http://www.elbertcountysheriff.com/ord/Resolution%2090-20. pdf

Following the study session, the county officials went into executive session for a litigation update regarding a lawsuit brought against the county by a former employee who was fired while on county approved leave via the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act).

Editor's Note: Is it possible the county is looking for ways to not have to waste the time of law enforcement on things that don't generate revenue (noise, nuisance animals, and firearms discharge complaints) so that they can focus on much greater revenue generation via traffic citations? (You know - Revenue Driven Law RDL). It does cost the county to deal with these complaints, but it's called a service paid for by the taxpayers.
The applicable state laws are contained in Colorado Revised Statute (35-12-101 et.seq.) Title 25 (Health), Article 12 (Noise Abatement), Chapters 101-110 and summarized here:
https://www.noisefree.org/stateord/colorado.pdf

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/?app=00075&view =full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=C.R.S.+ 25-12-101

The rescinded county noise resolution may be found here: http://www.elbertcountysheriff.com/ord/Resolution%2000-81.pdf
BOCC Meeting 3/11/2015
County Rescinds Animal Control and Noise Resolutions;
Approves Financial Agreements for Voluntary Well Water Monitoring
Zone
Maximum Sound Level dB(A)
7 am to 7 pm ---- 7pm to 7 am
50
55
65
75
55
60
70
80
Residential
Commercial
Light Industrial
Industrial