Tag Archives: IBC Building Code

September 2017 BOCC Meeting

Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)

September 20, 2017

Wetmore, CO

The meeting started at 9:00 with the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call.  Introductions of the public in attendance followed.

Public comments:

A citizen asked about when the Reverse 911 will be fixed.  She thinks it is a mapping problem. She stated that Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEM) Cindy Howard had told her for the last six months that she’d made sure it was fixed and it still isn’t fixed.  Commissioner Hood assured her that she would make sure the mapping issue was fixed as soon as Chuck Ippolito (IT) was back from vacation.

A citizen reported that there are still issues outstanding on the Wetmore Community Center.  Commissioner. Printz made notes.

A citizen read a prepared statement to the Board, noting ongoing vitriol and racism on Mr. Printz’s Facebook page in light of the Recall.

Commissioner Reports:

Mrs. Hood has completed all the employee reviews she had to do.  She reported on the day the BOCC spent with the Forest Service touring various parts of the county.  She also reported on the presentation of the report from the UC Denver architect students on three of the buildings in the county.

Mr. Printz had nothing further than what Mrs. Hood had stated.

Commissioner Kattnig was at these same meetings as well.  He also met with UACOG on recycling and landfills.

Attorney Items:

Attorney Smith requested again that action be taken to pick up the files from John Naylor’s office.  Mr. Kattnig said he’d have some of the Road and Bridge employees take his trailer down and get them.  There was no further decision on where they’d put them once they did so.

Mr. Smith reported that after a conversation with Kelley Camper and the Secretary of State, the Board had two options regarding the ballot issue for the November ballot and one would require a slight revision to the proposed language.  The Board could allow the residents of Silver Cliff and Westcliffe to vote on the issue, in which case the current language would be sufficient.  Or, the Board could limit the voters on the issues to be limited to only people living in the unincorporated county.  After discussion, a vote was taken.  Mr. Kattnig and Mr. Printz voted to limit the electors to those living in the unincorporated county with Mrs. Hood voting to allow the towns to take part.  The measure passed 2-1.  The revised language for the ballot can be read here: Revised Building Codes Ballot Language.

New/Old Business

Three RETAC grants were brought before the Board by EMS manager Beth Archuleta.  Only one of the three was present in written form – the other two not having made it in the email.  The board approved the one that was before them and conditionally approved the other two when the paperwork was transmitted.  These are no-match grants.   Also, there was a discussion on filling seats on the RETAC board.   Ms. Archuleta suggested putting two more people from the ambulance corps that live in Pueblo on, as she does for ease of attending meetings.  County Health Nurse Elisa Magnuson would like to be on that board, citing her living and working in Custer County.   The Board requested this issue be put on a future agenda.

Elisa Magnuson requested that grant money from the Child Fatality Fund that has not been used for the last three years and is sitting in the General fund be reallocated.  She proposed that $3,400 of the $5,571 go to the Sources of Strength program at the school and the rest be used  for the teen driving programs from the sheriff and for car seats.  The board approved her request.

The SECOM contract for broadband for the courthouse was approved.

The letter of support for the marketing matching grant for the Tourism board was approved.

The IGA for participation in the Central Front Range Transportation Planning Region Regional Planning Commission was approved.

The Board read a letter from Jan Emory requesting they waive the 3X penalty assessed to her for a “temporary” horse shed on her property for which she did not pull a building permit.  She contested that she needed a permit for the shed.  The Board consented and waived the penalty, but kept in place her need for the permit.

Deputy Mike Halpin brought a proposal to the Board regarding vehicles in the sheriff’s fleet that need repair.  He proposed trading an older non-working vehicle to Aztec Transmission in exchange for approximately $1,000 in work on two other transmissions.  The Board approved.

A citizen brought up an ongoing issue on CR129 where some pipe was put in a trench across the road and the trench has never been properly filled in.  Mr. Printz attempted to answer her, but was reminded by Mr. Kattnig that he was in charge of Road and Bridge and that the road would be fixed as soon as the department got more asphalt in.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:35a.m.

September 6, 2017 BOCC: Building Code Ballot Wording Presented

Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC)

—September 6, 2017
by Jackie Bubis
The meeting started at 9 a.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call. Introductions of the public in attendance followed. The crowd overflowed into the hallway.
There were no public comments.
There were no commissioner items.
Attorney Items:
Attorney Clint Smith brought Resolution 18-18 (to put the building codes question on the ballot) to the Board for final approval.
The wording for the ballot is as follows:

Continue reading September 6, 2017 BOCC: Building Code Ballot Wording Presented

BOCC on Proposed Building Code May 17, 2017

If There’s a Compelling Reason…You Can
Restrict or Take Away Someone’s Personal Rights”

Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC)

-May 17, 2017


by Jackie Bubis

The meeting was held in the Wetmore Community Center despite the ongoing work.  The meeting started at 9 a.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call. Introductions of the public in attendance followed.

Public comments: One citizen brought a report to the Commissioners of the perceptions out in the public.  While he personally had nothing against them, he did say that the community was in turmoil about the Board insisting that CSU fire Robin Young.  He also stated that there was a firestorm in the blue collar and construction arena about the decision to require insurance for the perc-test techs and suggested that the Board, especially Commissioner Kattnig, would suffer the repercussions at the ballot box.   Commissioner Printz told him that the insurance requirement would be addressed later in the meeting.  All three Commissioners continued their “we didn’t fire her” story and again stated that they didn’t insist on her removal.  Mr. Kattnig also, again stated that they had already talked to Young’s supervisors (a “fact” still in question) before driving to Ft. Collins.

Continue reading BOCC on Proposed Building Code May 17, 2017

June 26th: a Meeting on Building Code Folks Need to BE THERE

June 26th: a Meeting on Building Code
Folks Need to BE THERE

To the Editor;

On Monday, the 26th of June, the County Planning and Zoning Advisory Board, not the Planning Commission nor the Board of Zoning Adjustment, will hold a meeting so that they can recommend adoption of a building code to the County Commissioners. The meeting is at 7 p.m. in the Courtroom. It is possible, though unlikely, that opposition to adopting a building code will be heard.I have included the Letter to the Editor I wrote regarding the Pro’sand Con’s document submitted by Commissioner Jay Printz and his cabal. It doesn’t address the building code as much as debunk their assertions. It is unknown if the push will be for International Residential Code or if Printz’s push includes the commercial code. Given that Printz wants the proposed county inspector to also cover the town’s inspections, we can assume he will push for adoption of the commercial code disregarding the fact that there is not a commercial zone in the county. Unless they designate AG as commercial as they have done elsewhere. Show up before you lose another right.  Here’s my LTE, in case you missed it a few weeks ago:

Weighing in on the Push for a Building Code

Liberals in Custer County have been pushing a building code for a long, long time.  And now we have the latest iteration, a la Progressive Printz.Apparently the Printz has been holding secret meetings to implement a building code for the County. And as usual he shows a complete contempt for both the law and his subjects. Rather than discuss this major character flaw, I’d like to discuss his proposal. He starts with the unanimous consent of those secret conspirators and states that they are requesting, in their capacity as surrogates for the Board of County Commissioners, that the Planning and Zoning Committee, apparently another new group, write some building and fire codes that mirror the codes of the towns. It is unknown what building code has been adopted by the Town of Westcliffe. It might be the Uniform Building Code (UBC) or the International Building Code (IBC). It is also unknown when the building code was adopted. The reason that it is unknown is that there doesn’t seem to be a record of this adoption.Regardless, the secret cabal allegedly identified the pros and cons of adopting a building code. Obviously the pros outnumber the cons. That would be a foregone conclusion of such a secret meeting. Let’s go through the pros and see if they are valid conclusions.

First is “Better product produced”. Of course, there isn’t any evidence cited but the truth is that this claim is false on its face. The reality is that all the good builders in the county build better than code and that a building code protects bad builders and fly-by-night builders. That is the main purpose of the code, to provide cover for builders from lawsuits. They can claim that the structure was “built to code” so they aren’t responsible.

Second “Reduce/eliminate inappropriate or dangerous shortcuts and cost saving activities”. This is just a ridiculous statement. Who is supposedly doing this? Hired builders or homeowners? And what are these alleged shortcuts? Building with straw bale or tires? As though any responsible individual is actually going to take dangerous shortcuts. But even if a builder did, responsible homeowners and lenders inspect the work being performed.

Third “Higher resale value”. A completely specious claim.  What causes the higher resale value is the higher cost to build because of all the regulations and inspections. It also isn’t a function of government to increase the monetary gain of select groups.

Fourth “Easier mortgage (lower debt/equity ratio)”. See above but also when someone builds their own house they either have sweat equity and don’t need a mortgage or they manage costs so that their mortgage requirements are much lower.I haven’t even gotten to the really stupid pros yet.

Fifth “Lower insurance costs”. Can’t imagine where they pulled this from. Insurance is based on the value of the property. Perhaps what they mean is lower fire insurance but this is also not true. That insurance would be based on the likelihood of a fire destroying the structure and as we have seen from fires like Black Forest experienced, the insurance companies required all trees and brush within 100 feet of a structure be removed.

Sixth “Health and safety of occupants” (including fire/construction) safety (sic). Stop laughing. We all know that where there is a building code, construction workers never get hurt and homeowners always are protected against the ravages of nature. When there is a building code, winds never drive debris through walls, trees never fall on homes, snow never crushes a structure, carbon monoxide never builds up.  Well you get the picture.

Seventh “Equitable – Level field – One code for everyone”. So does that mean Kommissar Printz wants to regulate the minimum size of structures in the County and Silver Cliff like he has done in Westcliffe? Then it isn’t about safety at all is it? And exactly which code has Westcliffe adopted? And when? And does the Town of Westcliffe follow the same regulations as Silver Cliff with regard to modular homes? And will alternative building materials be disallowed?

Eighth “Eliminate property tax evasion schemes”. I guess the assessor’s office doesn’t do their job and never check out structures. But a different government agency will do better than the existing one. Are there any County employees doing their job?Ninth “Protect buyers not familiar with proper building standards and adherence thereto”. Another way to say this is remove personal responsibility from people and protect them from being STUPID.  Maybe that’s too harsh.  Still, if you don’t know what you’re doing, hire someone who does. There are lots of building inspection firms that guarantee their findings and warn of problems where a bureaucrat just stamps “built to the lowest common denominator”.

And the final pro, and my all-time favorite, “Reasonable flood insurance availability”. Flood insurance has nothing to do with adopting some arbitrary building code. It has to do with becoming a FEMA participating county and producing flood maps. The HUD flood maps are not only half a century old, their scale is pathetic. The smallest amount of homework would have revealed this. And I personally know of residents that have flood insurance for about $100 per year. And that’s through Lloyd’s of London.

My favorite con is “3. Restricting Class of people (tent dwellers, makeshift housing, etc)”. Notice the wording – class of people. We certainly don’t want the riff-raff living here. How can we make this Vail or Aspen if those kind of people are allowed to live here?The closing statements say that the 2006 International Building Code is “Not over restrictive.  But that code is over 650 pages. How could that NOT be overly restrictive?But government is here to protect us from our own decisions – right or wrong.  And these current commissioners are the “class of people” who think they know what’s best for us.

Dan Bubis
Rural Custer County