HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-16 CEAC MINUTES•
•
•
1. Call to order
Englewood Code Enforcement
Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 16, 2005
Chair Gehr called the regular meeting of the CEAC to order at 6:30 PM .
Roll call: Present were members Gehr , Goodrich, Hoagland, Hendricks, Bleile and Estes, a
quorum. Ex Officio members Councilperson Barrantine and Sargent Condreay attended.
11. Approval of minutes
Chair Gehr asked for corrections to the minutes of the February 16th meeting; since none were
offered , he declared them approved.
111. Public Open Forum
No members of the public were in attendance.
lV. Unfinished Business: Inoperable and Off-Road Vehicles
Chair Gehr offered some comments on the history of the CEA C's previous deliberations and
distributed some samples of ordinances from other municipalities in and out of Colorado. He
noted that our ordinances are not unique and are, in fact , quite similer to those found elsewhere.
He noted that the CEAC was never very excited about rewriting the original ordinances. Member
Goodrich recollected that the CEAC forwa~ded ordinance proposals by the City Attorney's of-
fice three time to City Council with the recommendation that they not be adopted. Council per-
sisted, we worked out the details, Council adopted CEAC's ordinance with minor modifications.
Member Goodrich recommended that the City default to the State minimum standards and place
the responsibility of this type of regulation on homeowners' associations; he noted that only one
was still in existance in the City.
Chairman Gehr asked for a motion that discussion of this issue be tabled at 7:45 pm for contin-
uation next month should the time be needed. Member Hoagland moved, Goodrich seconded,
passe , unanimously.
Chairman Gehr thanked Sgt. Condreay for the memorandum he distributed to the CEAC detail-
ing Code Enforcement Officers' responses to CEAC inquiries at the last meeting. Their input is
important because they are the ones that have to work with our recommendations .
Cp. Barrantine: " ... this Board at the time felt they had enough ordinance in place that they did
not want to do what ended up happening .... "
Sgt. Condreay: "After a y ear, they (the officers ) feel pretty comfortable, they've got a lot of the
stuff solved .... "
f. l ~ ( 0
•
•
•
Councilperson Barrantine: Additional questions and concerns have been brought forward again by
Council that were presented to the CEAC by Council at the CEAC November meeting.
Member Hoagland moved that the committee discuss the comment memo by Sgt. Condreay.
Seconded, passed. Discussion followed .
. Gehr reads question number one from the memo.
Condreay: " ... very rarely do these things we were talking about [queries by the Board in the
memo] were brought forth to the officers as an issue; it was more other things . A very small per-
centage of people would say they can't get in my back yard, don't have an alley , but they some-
how or other would take care of it."
Member Hendricks:"I want to make it easier, not harder, for the code enforcement people to deal
with it because there would be very few that would have that exception. If fifty percent of the
people had some major exception then they would have to constantly sorting that out yea or nay,
right?"
Barrantine: "The one I am concerned about is that they said that there are many properties with
non access to back or side because of insufficient setbacks . Why people, they just didn't have a
choice on their lots , they are just trying to enforce it. Why people, what people excuse whatever
make, I'm just more interested that from their perception they believe there are many properties
having problems coming into compliance with this."
Gehr: "I believe there are three members of our commission all fall on corner lots. It is a reality
for many in fact it is a problem. Paul, you are one of those, ifl am not mistaken. So does Brian,
and I believe there is one other person (Goodrich signals assent.)"
Member Estes : "I have a comer lot but it doesn't really effect me , it's more neighbors that hear
the influence from: it doesn't have a direct effect on myself."
Gehr: "Moving to the second question ... [reads from officers resopnse] ' ... All officers do not
want the decision to fall back on them.' "
Hoagland: "And that is an important point."
Gehr: "They should not be placed in that particular situation. We give them the law, they enforce
it. II
Barrantine: "Any more than this Council should have been placed in this position of having to redo
an ordinance that was not working at the time, for that period of time. Brian made a good point,
it was inappropriate. I wasn't on the Council at the time, I think it was inappropriate, I think the
ordinance was inappropriate, and I am having problems with it. So , you're right. There is a politi-
cal piece of this that falls on your guys' shoulders that was difficult to deal with when they said
well , this isn't working, so fix it so that it works. But we still want it. Same as the frustration that
the Code Officers feel when they are asked to do something where there is concerns."
Gehr: "Why did City Council want this so bad?"
Barrantine: States she wasn't on Council at the time, but attended all the Council meetings and
•
•
•
study sessions four months prior to the election . "The feeling that I got for it is , like a Jot of other
issues, you have a few people that come and they have horrendous awful problems, and one gen-
tle man in ·particular has had a problem for seven years ... and have a horrible situation with a nei-
ghbor .... " Doesn't believe new ordinances will deter people who are already ignoring existing ord-
inances. Politics motivates lawmakers to add laws for constituants when existing laws are ig-
nored. Is hearing a lot more complaints about this ordinance."I have never been in favor of this,
. I think it is onerous , it costs a lot of money , I agree with this Board's position, the way it has been
on this issue the entire time. There were already enough ordipances in place that needed to be en-
forced." These ordinances place an undue burden on most law-abiding citizens while not dealing
with scofflaws .
Gehr: "Is there something in particular we can address?"
Barrantine: Cites an example of a property owner who has had a boat in his drive since 1958 who
is not a blight.
Estes: Are these some form of "canned" or uniform ordinances the City is importing?
Gehr: City Attorney Brotzman surveyed other municipalities in developing these ordinances , as I
did in the packet I distributed; our ordinances are similer to others.
Hendricks: There are a lot of municipalities in the country; it's not really hard to find some that
have similer ordinances. How about a survey of cities that don't have any?
Goodrich: Brotzman was asked by CEAC to develop this; we needed guidance. Enforcement
officers had issues , so City put moratorium on initial enforcement. Enforcement officers distrib-
uted educational fliers and talked with violators . We still don't have it right. Kick the whole thing
out and go back to the State minimum.
Gehr: Why was the ordinance created in the first place?
Barrantine: We get an exaggerated idea that the City has problems because that's all we hear.
When she drove the City with complainers , they were not able to identify specific problems that
necesitated Council action. Real problems are minimal. We went from annoyance with blue tarps
to requiring invisibility .
Gehr: What are the State minimum standards refered to by Goodrich?
Condreay: I don't know.
Discussion of previous ordinance ensued.
Gehr: Is not offended by trailers ; problem is derelict vehicle nuisance attracting vermin, dangerous
for kids.
Goodrich: Changes in the zoning ordinances necessitated new nuisance ordinances because they
were complimentary.
Gehr: Returning to Condreay's memo , I would like to skip items three and four, and go to five and
SIX .
•
•
•
Hoagland: Question for Barrantine: in November, it was my understanding that we were only to
examine issues relating to "ORV's" , not inoperable vehicles. What, exactly, does Council want us
to be examining specifically?
Barrantine: I am not representing City Council's position on this. "I understand you would like this
. to be clean cut, but that's not the way that it works." People keep bringing complaints; even people
who were supporters recognise that there are problems. "I announced in January that [was going
to do the best job that I could to try to get this ordinance changed." I have asked objectors to not
testify before Council or this committee until I have had the opportunity to do what I can.
Member Bleile: There are two issues: what the ordinance should be, and how it is to be enforced .
Our job should be to state what the ordinance should be as representatives of people who live in
the City. What offends us? Who is our customer base and how do we appease them? We have to
write an ordinance based on our beliefs as representatives of the citizenry " ... come up with a law
we think is amicable to us as their representatives in the City, provide it to City Council, and see
what they want to do with it."
Barrantine: He is absolutely right. "There has been so much energy and effort put in to trying to
decide what City Council wants, how City Council feels, how City Council views ... that the
Board never really took ... the responsibility of saying we're representing the community and
we're going to look at this issue as community representatives ... " and give feedback to City
Council and not try to second guess them.
Hoagland: Query to Barrantine: has your constituency complained about the inoperable vehicle or
ORV ordinances?
Barrantine: Both.
Bleile: Attended meetings where citizens were nine to one against these ordinances. This is an es-
tablished community. Why the change?
Gehr: Impression that objections are primarily related to "ORV's", not inoperable vehicles.
Bleile: We can address these separately.
Hoagland: I don't represent anyone. I wasn't elected, [don't have a constituancy.
Bleile: It's up to us: you can represent yourself, your wife, your neighbor, twenty neigfibors,
put your personal feelings aside, how you approach this committee.
Hoagland: "People don't call me if they have a problem with an ordinance, they call their City
Council Person. I have to rely on the City Council Person to tell me what specifically what the
complaints are."
Bleile: City Council has their ideas. The general public may disagree. They have their represen-
tation in the members of this committee. We are here to critique Council.
Hendricks: Whatever we do here goes to City Council: that's where citizen input takes place .
p.0
•
•
•
Barrantine: The moratorium was put on because of problems with enforcement. This committee
had a very close vote' on whether they should scrap the whole thing.This committee forwarded the
ordinance to Council not because the they supported it, but because they were frustrated by the
process of trying to appease Council.
Gehr: I like Brian's thought ; we need to get out of that box to try to figure out how to make it
. work.
Hendricks: "Lets scrap it."
Goodrich: We can't; the enforcement officers have a job to do. We can ask Council to invoke
another moratorium until we come up with something we can be comfortable with. Blue tarps are
ok, "screening" is unreasonable, hard surfaces for vehicles is ok because of drips, trailers on pre-
pared surfaces ok. We're here tonight to tell Council that we have a problem that we're willing to
work at and to give enforcement direction.
Hendricks: "How thick is the Code Book?"
Condreay: We have a cheat sheet; one page front and back, three columns.
Hendricks: So you woulden't miss two items; you'd still have plenty to do.
Condreay: There's always stuff to do.
Hendricks to Bleile: When you cited 90% opposition to these ordinances, did you mean they didn't
like the law or did they want to find a way to make it work .
Bleile: They didn't like it.
-·
Gehr: It isn't the derelect vehicle part; people. don't like being told what to do with OR Y's
Barrantine: My objection is to the whole thing.
Goodrich: I object to the City interfering with my right to use my property as I see fit.
Gehr: We need to separate OR V's and inoperable vehicles where there are public safety and
health concerns . I would regard a disabled vehicle as a blight.
Barrantine: I assume that the original ordinance is still in place.
Condreay: No, it 's not. The original ordinance was replaced by the current one.
Barrantine: Can we go back to the original ordinance while a moratorium is in place?
Goodrich: Right now we have an opportunity to redo everything we've done in the last four years.
Bleile: Under a moratorium, the current ordinance would remain in place, it would simply not be
enforced. We can break out parts.
Barrantine: Piecernealing this problem will cause unintended consequences .
•
•
•
Gehr: Ifthere is a mdritorium, we effectively don't have an ordinance to protect the citizens.
Goodrich: There are other laws to protect public health and safety.
Gehr Reiterated concerns about public health and safety issues of derelict vehicles.
Goodrich: City Manager can direct enforcement to situations causing personal harm.
Barrantine: How did enforcement officers handle the last moratorium?
Condreay: They went door to door handing out the informational fliers.Gave violators notice that
they had three months to come into compliance.
Barantine: The moratorium was in effect before the ordinance was passed .
Hoagland: No, the ordinance was in effect.
Gehr: How do we safeguard the safety and health of the public if we have a moratorium? I'm on-
cemed with derelict vehicles, not OR V's .
Condreay: This is the ordinance we use to handle all of these issues.
Gehr: That's my concern. If we put a moratorium on, they can't enforce that part of the law.
What do we have in place to replace it?
Bleile: We need to examine the law. We can suspend it if it has nothing to do with public safety.
Gehr to Hoagland: Do you think we are moving in a concensus direction here?
Hoagland: I want to get back to my original contention: we don't know what the exact, specific
problem is. I think we've got to ask City Council exactly what negative feedback they've gotten.
Gehr: I think what I'm hearing is that the problem lies with the inclusion of items not related to
public health and safety in this ordinance such as R V's, offioad trailers , etc. These are possibly
asethetic issues, not blight.
Barrantine: "And I appreciate your interpretation of that. Speaking for myself, on Council, if we
had the answer, we would have given it to you . You are looking to us to go ahead ancftell you
what to do and if we had that answer [interrupted]."
Hoagland: "No. I just want you to tell us what you're hearing from your constituents. There must
be some specific things the people have said."
Bleile: Ninety percent of the constituents I've listened to are against the entire ordinance, in-
operable, the whole ordinance.
Gehr: They don't mind inoperable on their property?
Bleile: Derelict and inoperable are the same thing in the public's mind .
•
•
•
Goodrich: We once ttied to differentiate, and got into a mess.
Gehr to Hoagland: If you could stand in front of City Council, what would you want them to tell
ou?
. Hoagland : Cite citizen complaints, ask for recommendations on repealing the ordinance.
Gehr: Data's good; love data. If complaints are specific, our job is easy . Would it be prudent then
to seek out the data that already exist s as to the specific complaints made: if it is specific to off
road vehicles , recreational vehicles , that makes it easy. Or derelict or inoperable. Under our new
law enforcement computer system, would you be able to gather that information? Would they
complain to Code Enforcement or to Council? How many people actually have a problem with the
ordinance?
Barrantine: There were forty five people at the May community meeting; not all of one mind, but
all have concerns about different parts of the ordinance.
Hendricks : If I had a problem like this , I would complain first to the officer, second to City Coun-
cil , and finally , to several of my neighbors .
Laurette: It is a general marketing principle that one out of ten people with a problem will com-
plain, whether it is a consumer item, or whatever.The others won't complain for a variety of rea-
sons.
Bleile : I interviewed twenty five people at the last open forum meeting at City Council. Of these ,
six were at the meeting to voice their displeasure with the ordinance.
Gehr: What were their specific complai.11ts (,
Bleile: Two trailers , myself with a boat, one car, one guy with atv's.
Gehr: Most were related to recreational type vehfoles. To Barrantine: Were most of your meeting
attendees concerned with recreational vehicles ?
Barrantine: The vast majority. Trailers , jet skis , campers, stuff like that.
Estes : All of the people I have talked to addressed recreational vehicles.
Gehr to Hoagland : How does that sound?
Hoagland: That's very helpful and it is an important distinction ; from what I've understood , the is-
s ue has emanated from people who have a boat, jet skis or snowmobiles on a trailer, and they
want to park it in thgeir driveway.
Gehr : Why woulden't they. Its their property, their stuff, their home. So you're pretty much in line
with a possible separati on of inoperable and OR V's ?
Hoagland: Yes. If th a t's what's upsetting people, then that's what we s hould be examining .
•
•
•
Hendricks: I recommend a moratorium on the enforcement of the whole category of recreational
vehicles. That avoids ' health and safety issues. Deal with the rest later.
Bleile: Agrees . We should declare a moratorium, separating recreational from inoperable vehicles.
Gehr: It sounds like we are close to an unanimous agreement here to send a motion to Council.
Goodrich: We can send it to Council via the minutes of this meeting. Also we should ask Council
to instruct the Enforcement Division to enforce on inoperable vehicles upon complaint onJy.
Gehr: That would be inequitable, and cause more problems. It's time to close discussion. Can I
have a motion for a CEAC communication to City Council?
Bleile: Ifwe put a moratorium on, it would be for the whole ordinance: 15-9-l, inoperable, and
15-9-2 off road vehicles.
Motion to extend discussion, seconded , passed.
Gehr: We still want to enforce the inoperable vehicle ordinance.
Condreay: In talking with Code officers and Sanchez, we are happy with the status quo. We will
work with you, but don't welcome any changes. Most of our enforcement is with inoperable ve-
hicles. Compliance is accomplished by one, registration, two, getting rid of them, or, rarely . putting
them in the back yard.
Gehr: So we can leave 15-9-1 in place, which is the majority of what you do .
Hoagland: 15-9-1 doesn't have to be touched. If you want a moratorium on ORV's, address
15-9-2 .
Condreay: I rarely deal with complaints with reference to these issues. Maybe a handful. The one
that I know of that spurred this discussion was the boat in the driveway that was there for 20
years. They can't get it in the back yard , and they don't have an alley . I know that it was this par-
ticular point that spurred this discussion .
Gehr: This is only a recommendation to Council , where there are different opinions. It would be up
to yo u [Barrantine] and the other members to discuss this.
Hendricks: When you are discussing this , please mention we are also considering postponing in-
definitely 15-1.
Barantine: You are say ing that you are willing to go back and look at this and try and make this
work as a whole piece.
Gehr: Asks for motion. Discussion on the exact wording ensues.
Bleile : Moves that CEAC recommend City Council place a twelve month moratorium on enforce-
ment of 15-9-2, or until such prior time CEAC offers modifications to the ordinance.
Seconded by Goodrich; passed unanimously .
,..
·-'
• V. New Business
•
•
There was no new business .
Vl. Monthly Activity Report
· Condreay: We've been out there really hustling. Inoperable vehicles, we had 102 last month. It's
double most of the other activities. We are rnnaking a lot of contacts on this. The majority is inop-
erable as opposed to off road. The 916 total is down from previous months; we spent a lot oftime
in training. In the last six weeks we had the new Trackit System installed on our computers and
we have spent a lot of time learning that. They have been doing dual entry on this and their daily
field activity reports as before. We went live on the system on Tuesday, yesterday. It is a fab-
ulous system.
Gehr : What is "administrative?" Is it uniformly reported by different officers?
Condreay: A miscellaneous category: lunch, court, fueling, potty breaks, miscellaneous. Different
officers tabulate differently. This and public relations, extra patrol are not on the new system and
won't be on reports from the new system . We know the officers are out there working hard, we
don 't need a minute-by-minute report of activity. The new system will be different.
Gehr: What is "public relations ?"
Condreay: A miscellaneous category. For example, Larry Medina shovels old ladies' sidewalks.
In regard to uniformity , tomorrow we will have another training where we will be reviewing th~
entire system item by item to make sure everyone uses it the same. Activity is going to drop
dramatically now. Previously , officers could maintain their records as they were doing their jobs
in the field. Now when they see a violation , they are going to have to return to the office to enter
each event on the computer, print the documentation, return to the violation and post. In three to
six months , we 'll have notebooks in the car. We will only have one more month with the report in
this format. After that, the system will generate the report.
Gehr: Please extend our gratitude to the officers for taking the time to answer our questions on
your memorandum.
Barrantine: I appreciate the respect the officers have for our citizens that is reflected in their re-
sponses to the questions.
Condreay: The officers enjoy their jobs a whole lot more as a result of the shift to voulentary com-
pliance I education from writing tickets for everything a few years ago.
Vll. Topics for Future Meetings
Estes: Graffitti , particularly along light rail from the Oxford station toward Littleton on the east.
We need a good plan of attack.
Hoagland: Don't we have an ordinance requiring businesses to remove graffitti? Yes.
Gehr : We still need to focus on 15-9-1 and -2 .
-
•
•
•
Hoagland I think we should concentrate on 15-9-2 since we are asking City Council to put a
moratorium on it until we come back with some great ideas . At that point in time we then look
at 15-9-1. Gehr agreed. General agreement.
Vlll. Adjournment
Hoagland moved to adjourn, seconded by Estes; unanimous.
Submitted by Chris Hoagland, acting secretary. (LA-\ 0--'1 -"2--OS-
~I l 0