Laserfiche WebLink
<br />In the newly adopted abatement program, the burden of proof is on the property owner. If the <br />property owner requests a hearing with the Hearing Examiner, then the property owner must <br />prove to the Hearing Examiner that the vehicle(s) in question are operable and in compliance <br />with City Code. <br /> <br />City Staff would like to take this opportunity to provide some background information regarding <br />the City Council action to adopt an abatement program. Currently, when City Staff receives a <br />complaint, an inspection of the property is made to verify that a violation of City Code exists. If <br />a violation exists, City Staff notifies the property owner of the violation and requests correction <br />of the violation within 30 days. A follow up inspection is performed at the end of the 30 day <br />period. If the violation has not been corrected, a second letter is sent to the property owner <br />granting 7 additional days to correct the violation and also noting that if it is not corrected, the <br />matter will be turned over to the City Attorney's office for prosecution. The legal procedure for <br />resolving city code violations can be a very long and drawn out process. In addition, the court <br />system does not place a high priority on zoning violations. <br /> <br />Over the past 6 months, City Council and City Staff have been exploring procedures that would <br />make our code enforcement efforts more efficient and effective. One option was implementing <br />an administrative hearing process to resolve code violation issues more expeditiously than the <br />criminal justice system. Another option was to implement an abatement program. On July 10, <br />2007, the City Council amended Chapter 5 of the City Code to implement an abatement program <br />that included provisions for an administrative hearing process. <br /> <br />The abatement program gives the City authority to correct the public nuisance or other code <br />violations deemed appropriate for abatement action, if the property owner does not do so within <br />a 14-day time frame. The City would then bill the property owner for the costs incurred to <br />correct the violation. Failure on the part of the property owner to reimburse the City for costs <br />incurred in correcting the violation will result in those costs being certified to the property taxes <br />for that parcel. If a property owner feels that the violation cited is not warranted, they do have <br />the right to make an appeal to a hearing officer at the local level. If the hearing officer finds that <br />the violation is non-existent, then no corrections are required. However, if the hearing officer <br />upholds the finding of a violation, the property owner is required to correct the violation within <br />the specified time frame. <br /> <br />There are more amendments necessary to Chapter 5 to clarify and update what constitutes a <br />'public nuisance'. City Council has also requested the incorporation of administrative fIDes as an <br />additional enforcement option for code violations. City Staff and Council continue to work on <br />those changes in Chapter 5. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />City Staff recommends that the Commission review the ordinance, give direction to Staff with <br />respect to modifications to the proposed ordinance, and recommend City Council approval. <br /> <br />92 <br />