CC Minutes - 09/14/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson said it would be helpful to make sure everyone understands the lengths to which the City will go through to get compliance. She said that often the City's delay in enforcing the code has angered other citizens who are deprived of a healthful, aesthetic environment because of violators. Ms. Nathanson raised the issue of abatement due to suspected criminal activity or structural problems and wondered how it related to this section of the code. She said that if these types of problems are not fixed, the City contributes to the loss of entire blocks or neighborhoods to deterioration in terms of quality of life. She asked how the City handled the problem before this section went into effect in 1991. Mr. Gassman said the City sued people in Municipal Court, and termed it a very inefficient process. Ms. Nathanson suggested a combination of this and a judicial process. Mr. Klein clarified that the City did not repeal the judicial process when it adopted the administrative/civil penalties process, but the penalty options open to the Municipal Court are limited for civil violation; criminal violations may result in a jail sentence but given the jail's capacity dilemma, violators can be expected to matrixed out in less than 24 hours. Addressing a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Gassman said some situations requires immediate action (refrigerator outside) but most are given 30 days or more. Penalties can be from $30 to $500 per day depending on the circumstances. In response to a follow-up question, Mr. Gassman said the City has the ability to negotiate settlements or arrange a payment plan. He clarified that in order to place a lien on property, the owner has to be the violator; in the case of renters, staff might pursue action in Small Claims Courts or some other method of collection. Mayor Torrey said if the City refuses to foreclose, the council must change the code. Ms. Taylor said the City must address the stray cat problem, which was also a nuisance. She expressed concern with the City's contributing to homelessness. Ms. Swanson Gribskov noted that the people in this category are one or two percent of the total population. She suggested that prior to foreclosure, a session with the council detailing the action pending be held to avoid negative public backlash, adding she wished to retain foreclosure as the ultimate sanction. Mr. Gassman addressed the concern with the length of time it takes staff to get to the ultimate sanction, saying staff prefers compliance because voluntary compliance promotes understanding and there is less of a chance that there will be repeat violations. Mr. Farr agreed that foreclosure should be retained as the ultimate sanction. He asked what happens in foreclosure with the amount above and beyond the amount of the lien. Mr. Klein responded that the balance goes to the property owner. Addressing a question from Mr. Tollenaar, Mr. Klein said that even after the property transfers hands, there is a one-year redemption period during which the owner may redeem the property by paying the penalties. Ms. Taylor said a public hearing is a good idea that will educate people about the process and create awareness. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to hold a public hearing on the zoning and nuisance liens process. Several councilors expressed concern that the hearing might cause more confusion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1998 Page 6 5:30 p.m.