Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Assistant COmnlunity Development Director Frolik indiCated there <br />enforcement activity and this ordinance should be much simpler to follow and interpret. <br /> <br /> <br />Police Chief Way stated staff took a lot of notes at the meetings where this was discussed and <br />Ms. Frolik's department has worked hard on this ordinance. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik indicated staff plans to discuss the types of <br />violations that administrative ticketing would be used for at a future meeting. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig verified with Ms. Frolik that this ordinance includes the jurisdiction to <br />address administrative ticketing. <br /> <br />Police Chief Way explained there are things to work out like drafting tickets, whether the tickets <br />would be mailed, if people could drop them off, whether checks will be accepted, etc. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated from the people he is hearing from he is pleased with where this is <br />going. . <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Coimcilmember Jeffrey, to introduce an <br />ordinance to amend Chapter Five. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Dehen stated on page 215, he would like to see language <br />after the first sentence to identify with specificity those issues the property owner deems <br />aggrieved by. That is to give the City an opportunity to respond to the complaints. Police Chief <br />Way requested clarification that the individual would have to respond to the City's letter with' <br />what their issues. are. Councilmember Dehen replied yes, rather than just a broad appeal. If the <br />Council or any reviewing body will try to address. the issues that the property owner is <br />complaining aboutit is only fair that those issues are identified for everyone's benefit. He asked <br />if there is anything in the enforcement that allows progressive ticketing. He stated if the City has <br />a problem with a particular property owner it has always been his thinking that if the City has to <br />repeatedly go out to specific properties to ticket, there should be progressive ticketing so there <br />really is adisincentive for continued violations. Ms. Frolik indicated abatement would have an <br />extra $100 penalty if it is the second violation within 12 consecutive months. The third violation. <br />would. go up to $300. She is not aware if that is planned with administrative ticketing. Police <br />Chief Way stated the rates and fee schedule will need to be amended and brought before the <br />. Council for administrative ticketing; the fees have not been determined yet. Councilmember <br />Dehen explained his question may be more akin to the abatement. If the City issues an <br />~batement ticket and the individual cleans' up the property before the City does. it, his <br />understanding is that the property owner does not pay anything, and this can go on repeatedly. <br />Ms. Frolik replied this would be the case if they continue to use the abatement option. . They <br />have the alternative' to use the administrative ticketing where if the property owner does this <br />multiple times the City could use the ticketing process. The ordinance is written to give an <br />option to do any of the three, whichever is deemed appropriate and necessary. Police Chief Way <br />indicated he envisions that someone other than the City would go in and cleanup the property <br />and it would be put on the property owner's taxes. City Attorney Goodrich indicated this istp.e <br />introduction of the ordinance; the requested changes will be included for the final adoption. <br /> <br /> <br />City Council I August14,2007 <br />, Page 18 of 32 <br /> <br /> <br />:':'1 <br />