Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br />APPROVED <br />45 with in that manner; option of requesting the court to bring a civil actions (probably not <br />46 this situation but best when there could be an issue of value of property later); and there is <br />47 the option of abatement by the City. Mr. Squires noted the internal hearing process <br />48 included in the abatement option. The council would receive a recommendation from a <br />49 hearing officer that they choose. An abatement process administered by staff would most <br />50 likely have a quicker action timeline and outcome. Mayor Rafferty suggested there is a <br />51 situation here, the council is aware of the problem and staff is being asked to solve the <br />52 problem. He would like to see information coming to the council. Regarding the <br />53 hearing officer process, Mr. Squires suggested that probably more than not, it isn't an <br />54 option in other cities. The code allows for decisions to be made by the council and that <br />55 in itself is process where people can be heard. <br />56 <br />57 The council discussed if this is a typical issue that staff deals with and how long this <br />58 situation has lasted. Staff discussed that these can be perpetual problems whereby things <br />59 are cleared up and then issues reappear very quickly. <br />60 <br />61 Councilmember Lyden remarked that he is focusing on the language in Chapter 903 and <br />62 some of its definition is subjective, especially when making a determination of a threat to <br />63 health and safety. City Attorney Squires said that is a valid question and it is important <br />64 to have a balanced view in consideration of the situation and also how it impacts others, <br />65 and that's why it's a decision left to the council. The mayor noted that neighbors can be <br />66 impacted and the City sees this. Councilmember Stoesz asked if the City is allowed to <br />67 use it's website to keep people updated on a problem property such as this, to provide <br />68 information for concerned residents. Community Development Director Grochala <br />69 remarked that complaint data is basically not public; he feels like the publicity element <br />70 could be seen as shaming. <br />71 <br />72 Mr. Grochala noted that most of these situations go back to the City's regulations, be it <br />73 zoning, environmental, etc. He again noted that the court has indicated they will deal <br />74 with this in July. Mayor Rafferty remarked that the court is typically not going to act <br />75 severely against the property owner and so it tends to stretch out the process. <br />76 <br />77 The council discussed the current status of the matter in court. Councilmember Ruhland <br />78 suggested he likes the idea of having something in place for the City to get. action. <br />79 <br />80 City Attorney Squires offered to prepare information for the council on what other cities <br />81 do in the area of administrative enforcement. It was clarified that the City's legal costs <br />82 could be assessed if they involve dealing with a specific case but not discussing the code <br />83 in general. <br />84 <br />85 Mayor Rafferty asked Attorney Squires for an update on the St. Clair Estates matter. Mr. <br />86 Squires explained that the developer was not in compliance with the City's requirements <br />87 and therefore work was ordered by the City and would be funded by the developer's letter <br />88 of credit. Mr. Squires said he wouldn't wish to discuss the details of the work. The <br />89 process is working itself out but in the meantime the developer has expressed his <br />2 <br />