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was rescinded at the urging of Elbert County Sheriff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The rescinded resolution, existing state statutes, and Elbert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Also rescinded was the Elbert County Noise Resolution,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.
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