Larimer County gives first reading to rubbish ordinance rewrite tied to new state law

Larimer County commissioners on Monday gave first reading to a proposed rewrite of the county’s rubbish ordinance. The update would align county rules with House Bill 26-1239, a new state law expanding county enforcement authority. County staff said the ordinance is set to be published for 10 days and return for a second reading on Aug. 10.

Amy White, the county’s code compliance supervisor, said the state bill was signed May 29 and takes effect Aug. 12, prompting amendments to the county’s recently revised rubbish rules. She said the proposal would extend the deadline to execute an entry and seizure warrant for rubbish removal from 10 days to 30 days, broaden the county’s authority to require cleanup of rubbish in public rights-of-way immediately next to a property when the debris was caused by or originated from that property, and increase the county’s administrative recovery from 5% to 10%.

White also told the Board of County Commissioners that the ordinance would add stronger court enforcement options. Those include allowing the county to seek civil penalties of $100 to $2,650 per day for ongoing violations, pursue injunctive relief, and use local zoning enforcement personnel to serve summonses rather than relying only on the sheriff.

During questions from the board, Chair Pro Tem John Kefalas asked whether the new language had been proofread and requested an explanation of what first reading means for the public. White said the ordinance will be published for 10 days in a newspaper of general circulation and, if it proceeds, will come back for a second reading on Aug. 10. She said that if approved at second reading, it would then be published for 30 days before taking effect.

Commissioner Kristin Stephens said documents like the ordinance typically receive multiple rounds of review so the public understands that proofreading is standard procedure. Chair Jody Shadduck McNally later said the county has authority under state statute to adopt the ordinance.

A public commenter questioned the county’s authority and asked what benefit the ordinance would provide residents, arguing that he did not feel the county should be able to “act that way.” After the discussion, commissioners moved on to the next agenda item.