The City has experienced ongoing situations at specific addresses in the city relating in particular to houses used repeatedly for illegal drug transactions and houses used repeatedly for disturbances of the peace and provision of alcohol to minors.  In many instances, offenders are charged and released, only to continue the same activity.  This activity creates a public nuisance in neighborhoods that affects the health and safety of neighbors.

State statute provides a remedy for such public nuisances at C.R.S. 16-13-301 to 16-13-316.  The statute provides a mechanism in state court for forfeiture of the nuisance property in serious circumstances, or for closing the property (boarding it up) for a period of time for less serious circumstances.  The statute envisions a civil action brought by the District Attorney.  The Alamosa Police Department has not had success in working with our local District Attorney to invoke this statute, and so the community has experienced instances of recurring nuisances that are not being addressed.

Other cities have enacted municipal level ordinances to address the public nuisance created by such use of houses and other property within their boundaries in municipal court.  This ordinance is modeled on the provisions of the state statute, and on Aurora's public nuisance code, sections 62-60 to 62-67 of the Aurora Code of Ordinances.  The City of Aurora has informed staff that they have successfully used their ordinance repeatedly to address such issues.  It does not give the City the authority to pursue forfeitures, but does provide the ability to pursue closing a nuisance property for up to 364 days through the Municipal Court processes.  Other communities have similar ordinances including Denver and Monte Vista.

Notices of violations will be provided to property owners since many times they may not know that their tenants are operating the property in a nuisance manner.  If the property owner declines to initiate any action to remedy the situation, the Chief of Police can then direct the City Attorney to file a petition for an order to close the property into Municipal Court, where the Judge will take into consideration evidence presented by the Chief of Police and property owner before issuing a judgement.

A few changes were made by staff between first and second readings:

1. Making clear that if the owner is diligently pursuing cure, and it is taking longer than 30 days, the City recognizes that some situations may take longer to cure, and will not seek closure so long as cure is diligently pursued.

2.  Eliminating the provisions including repeated disturbance of the peace and furnishing liquor to minors from the definition of what constitutes a nuisance, as well as mere possession (as opposed to manufacture, sale, distribution) of illegal drugs.

3. A few other minor changes were made addressing manner of serving the notice and changing the period of notice to 30 days (consistent with having 30 days to cure - a housekeeping change).

A redline showing the changes between first and second reading is attached.