The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-05-13 CEAC MINUTES• • • CODE ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES ROLL CALL Present ... Todd Allen Todd Boyer Katherine Fischback Ruth Hansen Donna Johnson Don Roth Jerry Stankorb Tim Tucker Llomar Warren Absent ... Melanie Crawford Barbara Fout Ex-Officio Members ... John Collins Bob Moore Ann Nabholtz Jo yce Parsons Byron Wicks Tricia Langdon Guests ... Dan Brotzman Dugan Comer CALL TO ORDER ... MAY 13, 1998 The Meeting was called to order at 7 :00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ... The minutes were approved with the following corrections: OLD BUSINESS (Page Two , line 5) ... he understands both sides of situation. Neighoorliood and Business Develo men will try to work through it with City Council. OVERVIEW OF CITY CODE (Page Five , 2"d paragraph, line l) ... Iii the .earl~ 95's, the Code ... 1 The sub-committees have been revised as follows: Graffiti Chair -Don Roth Todd Boyer Jerry Stankorb Tim Tucker (Consultant) Ruth Hansen Internal Operations Committee Chair -Donna Johnson Tim Tucker Llomar Warren Ann Nabholz Education/Communications Chair -Barb Fout Todd Allen Katherine Fischback Douglas Garrett OLD BUSINESS ... Todd Allen asked about the participation in Good Neighbor Days. Tricia Langon advised that all the funds have not been used but if the funds are depleted , Clean Green and Proud will pick up the balance . Cinderella City demolition is to start this summer. INTRODUCTION ... Director Chris Olson introduced Lieutenant Wicks. Division Chief Moore described Wicks ' duties to include: Overseer of Community Policing and Code Enforcement. Director Olson then introduced Tricia Langon, Neighborhood and Environmental Specialist, with the Neighborhood Business Development. Tricia has been asked to be a part of the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee. NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDINANCE ... Todd Allen asked if everyone received a draft and had a chance to review it. Todd then asked Brotzman & Dugan to begin their process. 2 • • • • • • Brotzman asked ... The committee to review the powers and duties of the committee, ensuring that everyone has a copy of the ordinance. The committee to start a flow chart of how the tickets & policy issues are actually going to work. The flow chart first issue is the calls/complaints coming through the council members. This issue always comes up and needs direction/recommendation of the code enforcement committee. This issue will go to the director and is actually going back to the powers of this commission. This committee reports to two different groups: • City Council (recommendations on changing ordinances & policy matters, go directly to City Council); • City Manager's designee , the Director of Safety Services (the administration side of what this committee does) The far right-hand column (first page) goes directly to CHRIS OLSON. Skipping down to the ordinances that actually effect the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance ... How long does it actually take to go out and begin the process? Also, Whom Should Be Notified? Whomever is present? The tenant? The owner or both. BROTZMAN is asking the committee 's opinion. Currently the ordinance is drafted to include everybody (anybody can be cited). The committee is to give direction. Ordinance is currently set forth , once there is a complaint, a notice is issued if a violation is noted . There is no informal conversation. The Abatement ordinance itself gives a person thirty days to fix the violation. One question is it too long ... to short? The way the ordinance is drafted, it gives 30 days, however, there is an appellate process along with the hearing officer process which takes about 14 days . This committee should decide whether this process should come back to the committee rather than a hearing officer. The next two involve a process , assuming the notice is issued, that the hearing officer advises it is a good complaint and to clean up the property . If they do not comply, there is a choice. The city can clean up the property and place a lien on the property for the cost incurred to the city; or, there is the opportunity for criminal process (new ordinance). The criminal process provides for a fine of $500.00, 180 days in jail or both. The new ordinance brings the municipal court judge into the abatement process. He can now order exactly what the code enforcement officers did before . 3 One of the issues to resolve is when should the city clean up the property and not pursue the criminal side, etc. This ordinance is the opposite side of the coin of the informal procedure. Code Enforcement Officers can go out immediately and issue a summons & complaint -no prior notice, with an immediate court date. This ordinance anticipates a notice is issued, 30 days given, then after 30-day period, there is the option of cleaning it up or proceeding with the criminal process . The court process takes about three months. BROTZMAN asked for clarification from the committee. A graffiti ordinance is currently being worked on. Business owners were formerly given separate procedures. They were to clean up the property within 24 hours. In looking at the main idea of the abatement ordinance, this would standardize all of the processes ifthe city used to abate -one procedure for anything under Title 15. All of the procedural issues were taken out of that particular ordinance. The violations would all be treated the same including a business owner that has graffiti on the building. Brotzman advised if this is not agreeable, that section would be moved out of Title 15 and a new procedure would be set up. Brotzman recommended, though, to modify that section so it would look like the others. Brotzman recommended since this is a procedural ordinance, the graffiti section in the back will be left as is but the committee should address it. If another procedure is to be followed , it will be placed under a different title. Brotzman explained there was a civil abatement built into the ordinance. Clean up and lien the property; elect to abate the nuisance or court process; or put it into what is currently the criminal system. The problem rendered here is there are actually two summonses being issued which lends to an administrative nightmare, electing for a longer process. Brotzman advised there is nothing informal about the process. It is very standardized -someone has committed a violation, they get a notice. Olson prefers the Code Enforcement Officers are given some leeway . It would help if the officers were first allowed to talk to the violators in an attempt to accomplish getting the situation rectified (example: senior citizens). Olson stated this is an important issue to resolve. Stankorp would like more feed back from City Council. Stankorp suggested sub- committees because of time factor. Parsons explained about the education flyer given with notices, explaining the rules. People aren't always aware. The Code Enforcement Officers keep records. Most homeowners are receptive to compliance. 4 • • • .... ' ,. • • • Wicks stated this allows the people to "feel good about compliance." Olson asked for discretion. Would like the opportunity to work with the community first. Moore stated we could leave the ordinance as is , however, add one paragraph essentially to read as follows ... Upon initial or first contact, Code Enforcement Officers have a seven day period in order to attempt, at the Code Enforcement Officer 's discretion, attempt to resolve the issue informally. After that period, the Code Enforcement Officer either assesses that the problem has been resolved or at that point the Code Enforcement Officer shall ... Langdon summarized what Moore did as stating he formalized the informality. Tucker made a motion to put procedures in place using discretion and listening to the people on the street (7 day leeway). Motion approved. Changes to Sections 7, 8 & 10 were approved. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M . Next meeting June 17th @ 7:00 P .M . 5