Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING JUNE 22, 2015 <br />work. Let's get this going and provide an economic incentive for people to stop the nonsense <br />and get moving. I don't care where people live, if they own a property here, they better be <br />responsible for it. As far as the ordinance and the capacity of the department, I'm sure the <br />department is stretched and worn out. Methodically administrating these ordinances very non - <br />emotionally using some common sense when it is waist high, that's what our officers out in these <br />neighborhoods should be looking at, and to be addressing it in a very non - emotional, uniformed <br />method. Those who don't take care of their property as they should, then they should come back <br />as they need to be fined. If the city does not have the capacity to go out and collect, then at least <br />we have hired a company to take care of it, and we should issue liens. If there is a management <br />problem where they don't have the capacity to take care of the problems, then let's look at <br />outbidding a company that will do some of the work. I would think that six (6) inches would be <br />better but the nine (9) for now is fine; let's at least start getting this done. <br />Tony Trinca, 139 Camden Street, South Bend —This proposal, I believe simplifies the problem. <br />Collection and enforcement is a different subject. This law simplifies what needs to be enforced. <br />I say get it passed and then go after the enforcement part. I like the idea of the nine (9) instead of <br />the twelve (12), and the continuous enforcement penalties that will take care of the guy who is at <br />two (2) ft. instead of twelve (12) inches. If we can collect the $250, it is more about what it is <br />costing the city. In the past we were probably losing money on some properties and not making <br />anything on others. If we have to enforce this, let's not cost the city any more money to enforce <br />it. I think this should be passed, then we should go after the enforcement which is another <br />subject. If someone cannot afford $250, if you are a property owner in this city you should be <br />able to; if you're not able to then that's your problem. If you can't you need to take care of it <br />yourself, that's your responsibility. If not than you need to go to somebody else or pay someone <br />less than $250 to take care of it. It is not the cities responsibility to go out and mow your lawn. <br />Let's get this law passed then go after enforcement. <br />Abe Washington, 1120 N. Brookfield St., South Bend — I am in agreement with the committee <br />who has addressed the need of fees to those who need to keep their property clean. There is a <br />corner lot that is a vacant lot that is over two (2) ft. tall, for the appearance of community it needs <br />addressing. Someone falsely informed me that volunteers can cut grass and turn in a form on <br />that and collect a fee for it, unfortunately I was clarified on that. I agree with working with code <br />enforcement officers working with the Councilman and their districts to address those needs, and <br />they can't let those things slide by. A few years ago there was a real disproportionate slide in <br />fees that were applied to people. There were some people that have continuously be on the list <br />passed by and those were considered to be favors. Favors are something that Councilmembers <br />should not allow to be given. As it is disproportionate and unfavorable to everyone. I agree that <br />Code Enforcement should be here tonight to answer questions. When we have the next meeting <br />they should be there to address management, and that there is action suitable to everyone <br />involved. <br />Randy Wilkerson, Director of Code Enforcement, 13' floor of this building — I will keep it brief. <br />One of the questions was your neighbor having a $250 fine and the fine being disproportionate. <br />One of the things that came up over the years that there was no path to continuous enforcement, <br />it was only done during hearings, vacant & abandoned, or demolitions. We now create a path <br />which is legal, once they get three (3) citations we bring them in for a hearing for continuous <br />enforcement to get them to step up to the plate. We have been having some technical problems <br />with our software. We have been citing things on paper, most of the properties are currently <br />cited that have continuous enforcement orders on them and are working on other properties in <br />the area that have not complied at this point. We have a 44% compliance so far. Mentioning <br />door hangers, we discussed that in our staff meeting where we will be getting yard signs to place <br />in the yard that will signify a violation with the timeframe to comply. Everything that we are <br />doing in the department is proactive. I know there has been disappointment in the past, and I <br />understand that. The way we are moving forward is to hold people accountable. As far as the <br />nine (9) inches versus the twelve (12) inches, I always thought that was crazy to have two <br />different ordinances for properties. If a lot is vacant next door we have to wait a week to come <br />back to do enforcement. This makes it more consistent, which helps us to go out and cite on a <br />continuous basis by cleaning up our time in the field, and allows us to properly cite people, <br />automatically putting a fine on it. This makes our job a little easier and faster for the code <br />enforcement officers. Last thing about property owners, there were some concerns about fines <br />11 <br />