Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Swalchick said that every community has habitual offenders and the result of this is <br />administrative penalties and abatements; this part does not change. Education is the first line of <br />defense. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley asked about those people who state that they need more time to comply with <br />the code enforcement and it is normally approved with the idea that work will be progressing. He <br />asked if this changes. He also asked about putting notices on front doors and added that they should <br />also be also put on the back door as some people do not use their front door. <br /> <br />Mr. Swalchick believed the allowance for a City official is only granted for a primary entrance. <br />The notices can still be mailed or placed on the garage door. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell asked about the high dollar amount of work done to remove these items. <br /> <br />Mr. Swalchick said those costs are what the company charges for everything involved in removals. <br />He added that in some cases reaching out to Habitat for Humanity can help remove cost burdens <br />for residents. <br /> <br />City Administrator Hagen added that part of this Code has a provision that if the owner wants to <br />get rid of the removed item they can do so and not store it for 15 days. <br /> <br />Mr. Swalchick said there is also an option for disposal onsite by bringing a dumpster to the home <br />and removing the item right away rather than having to pay to haul it off, store it, and then dispose <br />of it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked about entry onto public and private places and if it should be <br />added that these would not take place on weekends and holidays. <br /> <br />Mr. Swalchick said absolutely. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked about the abated property storage and when the items are <br />reclaimed by the property owner and are found to be in violation of the article and should be abated <br />immediately by the City without the need to begin a new abatement process. She asked if a new <br />abatement process does not begin, are there costs that would be recovered. <br /> <br />Mr. Swalchick explained that once the abatement is approved, the City is allowed to continue to <br />remove these items and the fees have already been charged. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked if the $750 charge continues even with these habitual offenders. <br /> <br />Mr. Swalchick stated these would be cited. He added most items actually get disposed of. He <br />shared that if they take the items back and they are in violation again, he would not start another <br />abatement process, rather he would just start the court process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked if it would be of value to add that verbiage. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / October 11, 2022 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br /> <br />