In a litigation update to the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) at a July 2 BoCC work session, County Attorney Todd Weaver explained that the county is progressing with cleanup at 284 Piper Place.
He also noted that the county concluded two federal cases, including settling a case filed by Mark Garcia against the BoCC, and the dismissal of a case filed by Jimmy Jones and Nicholas Kazarinoff against the BoCC and the Archuleta County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO).
The case of 284 Piper Place was an object of discussion for the BoCC at multiple previous meetings and work sessions, with the board hearing concerns about the state of the property from neighbors and expressing a desire to move forward with a process that would allow a county contractor to clean up the accumulated items on the property and charge the cost of this cleanup to the property owner.
Weaver explained that the court granted the county an administrative search and entry warrant for the property and the county had hired a contractor to begin cleanup.
He added that he believed that the contractor was at the site and cleaning it “as we speak.”
Mary Helminski, then the county executive assistant, stated that the contractor was going to start by removing accumulated tires from the property and would begin other cleanup after July 4.
Weaver commented that the site had “a lot” of tires piled on the back side of the property.
He added that the expected cost for the cleanup will be approximately $35,000.
Weaver indicated that the property owner would have 30 days to pay this cost or it would be assessed against the property as property taxes.
He stated that the county could also ask the court to enter judgment against the property for the cost associated with the cleanup and then sell the property to recover the cost.
“So, there’s a couple options to recover that money,” Weaver concluded.
At the BoCC meeting that day, the BoCC ratified a contract with Clear View Cleanup to clean up the property, which was signed by BoCC chair Commissioner Veronica Medina on June 27.
Other cases
In his litigation update, Weaver also explained that the county concluded the cases filed by Garcia, and Jones and Kazarinoff.
The case by Garcia concerned his claims that the county discriminated against him due to his race during its 2021 county manager selection process, a process which resulted in the hiring of Derek Woodman, who departed county employment in May 2024.
As covered in the June 8, 2023, issue of The SUN, Garcia alleged that he was not hired for the county manager position despite being the most qualified candidate.
The case also raised concerns about the propriety of the hiring process, including claiming that Derek Woodman’s wife, who was the county human resources director, supervised the hiring process and that executive sessions held by the BoCC as part of the hiring process did not comply with state laws.
In his July 2 update, Weaver explained that the case was settled for a “minimal” amount and is now “basically closed and done.”
The litigation update document Weaver presented to the BoCC adds that discovery and depositions for the case were scheduled for November and December 2023 and that the case was settled following the depositions.
According to the settlement for the case, the county agreed to pay Garcia $5,000 in exchange for him waiving his right to file further complaints about the issue.
Weaver also updated the board on the dismissal of the case by Jones and Kazarinoff, which he explained originated from an incident where Jones was pulled over for driving an unregistered vehicle without a driver’s license.
The Jan. 21, 2022, complaint filed by Jones and Kazarinoff adds that Kazarinoff was a passenger in the vehicle when Jones was pulled over and alleges that the actions of the ACSO constituted wrongful arrest.
Weaver explained that the case was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on March 28, 2024.
He added that he had not heard of an appeal being filed for this decision, so “to me this case is done and over with.”
The district court order upholds a recommendation from a district court magistrate judge by denying the plaintiff’s objections to the recommendation denying the plaintiff’s attempt to amend their complaint.
It adds that the plaintiff’s objection raises no issues that would justify rejecting the lower court’s recommendation.
The order concludes by upholding the recommendation made by the magistrate judge that the motion to amend be denied, the case be dismissed with prejudice and judgment be entered in favor of the defendants.
josh@pagosasun.com
