My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-28-16
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2016
>
11-28-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2017 10:35:40 AM
Creation date
12/13/2016 1:22:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Council Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
11/28/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING <br />NOVEMBER 28, 2016 <br />Councilmember Scott responded that the County seeks to keep things simple. He explained that <br />he had proposed at the time a third for an educational fund for Fire, a third for Police, and a third <br />for Code, but that it was shot down early on. This ordinance is not targeting tenants so much as <br />those who own the properties and are making a profit off these properties, and using the Police <br />Department as their management system. Councilmember Scott explained that in 2013, <br />Courtyard Place on 260' and Jefferson was on -pace for 1,000 calls a month. He stated, That's not <br />EMS, that's not Fire, that's not Code that was Police alone. It was going to be cheaper for us, <br />in terms of taxpayer dollars, to put three cops there full -time instead of responding to the calls. <br />The property manager was making money off the eighty (80) or so apartments there but was <br />using the Police to manage their property. Councilmember Scott stated that it was unsafe, but <br />that as of the last few months the average number of calls has been roughly three (3). He stated, <br />So, we went from three (3) a day to three (3) every three (3) months. <br />Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, Those I understand in terms of those big complexes. <br />She explained that she did not see how the ordinance could currently parse between a Police call <br />regarding matters such as neighbors being noisy or selling drugs and a Code Enforcement issue <br />where someone has a leaky roof and needs to be directed to resources to help them be within <br />Code. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, So, that's my fear. How do we parse that out, <br />other than saying, "Well, come to me, and we'll work with you, we'll talk about it "? How can we <br />build something in, or already have something that is in place that says if this is the situation — <br />instead of slapping them with a penalty or sending them mean letters —these are specifically the <br />things we are going to do to divert funds or support them in renovating their home, etc. <br />Councilmember Scott stated that he considered it two (2) different issues, to which <br />Councilmember Williams- Preston agreed. He further stated, I agree that we need to look at the <br />separate issues within Code. It's just like Speed Limit signs out there for everybody —it isn't <br />blanket. He stated that he had been pulled over and given a warning as opposed to writing a <br />ticket, though the opposite has happened as well —that there was an amount of discretion <br />involved in these processes. Councilmember Scott stated that he believes that good government <br />has a face and is willing to communicate, and discuss and work with the citizens within the City. <br />The beauty of this ordinance, he argued, is that there are lawyers that are willing to sit down and <br />talk with individuals to work out a plan; that there is Code that is willing to work out a plan; that <br />there is Officer Keenan Lane. If there is a Human Rights issue, Officer Keenan Lane can refer <br />tenants to Human Rights. There is protection for tenants. Victims of domestic abuse have been <br />helped by officers showing up for a nuisance call because those officers will ask questions before <br />doling out fines. <br />Councilmember Williams- Preston repeated that she understood, but that her concern rested <br />solely in the blanket nature of the ordinance and the fact that there would be individuals caught <br />in its net. She expressed a desire to see codification of a way to separate the two (2) issues. <br />Councilmember Scott responded, If you found someone that got caught up —that might be a <br />mistake within Chronic Nuisance —I would love to talk them, and so would Keenan, and so <br />would Ashley. If it is Code, then Randy Wilkerson, as well. <br />Councilmember Williams- Preston asked to how much a Public Nuisance service call fee <br />amounts. <br />Ms. Rodriguez responded, Say, Code Enforcement has gone to a house and they have a Code <br />Enforcement issue —that they have gotten a citation from Code Enforcement—that is a separate <br />fee. Now, if they are put on the Chronic Nuisance List or given a Nuisance violation, that is a <br />separate fee. What they are saying is that the fees for Code Enforcement are going to be separate, <br />because that is just Code Enforcement. There is a separate fee for Public Nuisance issues. <br />Councilmember Williams- Preston responded that she wanted clarification in the ordinance <br />between cases like calling the police because of problematic neighbors and a resident not having <br />the funds to fix a house in violation of Code. She also stated that the included language, "valid <br />complaint," was too subjective. <br />Ms. Rodriguez responded that that was why there was an attempt to keep the language as clear as <br />possible so that there would be no ambiguity as to what qualifies as a valid complaint, and so as <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.