Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Summary of Proposed Changes: <br /> <br />Previously, the typical administrative fine was $25 for many of the non-abatable offenses. <br />Council felt this was not a disincentive to keep people from becoming repeat offenders. Staff is <br />now proposing an escalating scale per Council's direction to develop a scale that would be more <br />ofa deterrent. The initial offense would be $75.00, the 2nd offense within twelve months would <br />be $250.00 and the 3rd offense within twelve months would be $500.00. Staff would also <br />recommend adding language that would allow the history of the property owner's prior <br />violations to be deemed relevant and admissible evidence at any administrative hearing. This <br />would help address the issue with repeat offenders. <br /> <br />Additionally, there would be a $250.00 filing fee for an administrative hearing. It would be <br />refundable to the petitioner if they are the prevailing party. Prior to the administrative hearing all <br />petitioners would be required to attend a settlement conference. The settlement conference <br />would be held between the City and the property owner to encourage a resolution prior to a <br />hearing: In previous cases, we have also had an unreasonable delay waiting for the hearing <br />examiner to render a decision. Staff is proposing the hearing examiner shall affirm, repeal or <br />modify the order the same day as the hearing. They would then ,have two weeks in which to <br />deliver their written findings to the City. If either party disagrees with the decision, they would <br />have twenty four hours to file notice of appeal. <br /> <br />Once the property has been abated and the items have been removed Staff would impose a limit <br />on the length of time they would have to be held in storage, with a fifteen days maximum. If the <br />property owner would like to retrieve any items they would either pay the City the cost for <br />storage on the items retrieved or the entire storage bill before being allowed to retrieve any <br />items. Staff is proposing the property owner would pay all fees prior to retrieval. Additionally, <br />any abated items that are reclaimed and returned to the prop~rty by the property owner that are <br />found to be in violation of 5.20 would be immediately abated by the City without having to go <br />through the entire process again. <br /> <br />Staff is currently in the' process of looking at compensation for the Hearing Examiner. Council' <br />expressed a concern for these costs in the past and staff is looking at other communities to see <br />how they are handling this issue. <br /> <br />A revised code is attached for your review. <br /> <br />Attachments: <br /> <br />a. City Council work session minutes dated July 8, 2008 <br />b. Table of Common Non-Abatable Violations <br />c. Proposed revised 5.20 <br />d. Existing 5.20 <br />e. Costs of abatements to date <br /> <br />-2- <br />