Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/02/2007

Home

In the newly adopted abatement program, the burden of proof is on the property owner. If the property owner requests a hearing with the Hearing Examiner, then the property owner must prove to the Hearing Examiner that the vehicle(s) in question are operable and in compliance with City Code. City Staff would like to take this opportunity to provide some background information regarding the City Council action to adopt an abatement program. Currently, when City Staff receives a complaint, an inspection ofthe property is made to verify that a violation of City Code exists. If a violation exists, City Staff notifies the property owner of the violation and requests correction of the violation within 30 days. A follow up inspection is performed at the end of the 30 day period. If the violation has not been corrected, a second letter is sent to the property owner granting 7 additional days to correct the violation and also noting that if it is not corrected, the matter will be turned over to the City Attorney's office for prosecution. The legal procedure for resolving city code violations can be a very long and drawn out process. In addition, the court system does not place a high priority on zoning violations. Over the past 6 months, City Council and City Staff have been exploring procedures that would make our code enforcement efforts more efficient and effective. One option was implementing an administrative hearing process to resolve code violation issues more expeditiously than the criminal justice system. Another option was to implement an abatement program. On July 10, 2007, the City Council amended Chapter 5 of the City Code to implement an abatement program that included provisions for an administrative hearing process. The abatement program gives the City authority to correct the public nuisance or other code violations deemed appropriate for abatement action, if the property owner does not do so within a 14-day time frame. The City would then bill the property owner for the costs incurred to correct the violation. Failure on the part of the property owner to reimburse the City for costs incurred in correcting the violation will result in those costs being certified to the property taxes for that parcel. . If a property owner feels that the violation cited is not warranted, they do have the right to make an appeal to a hearing officer at the local level. If the hearing officer finds that the violation is non-existent, then no corrections are required. However, if the hearing officer upholds the fmding of a violation, the property oWner is required to correct the violation within the specified time frame. There are more amendments necessary to Chapter 5 to clarify and update what constitutes a 'public nuisance'. City Council has also requested the incorporation of administrative fines as an additional enforcement option for code violations. City Staff will be prepared to present a draft ordinance for additional amendments to Chapter 5 at the August 10 Council meeting. (Amendments to Chapter 5 do not require a public hearing or action by the Planning Commission.) 150