01142002 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10. Regular Meeting January 14, 2002 Page 10 reach them. Mr. Mayhew and the Council stated they were glad to see this partnership. Ms. Hughson stated the City should not wait until there are three complaints to notify property owners, and she thinks they should be notified right away. Several property owners have requested this option. Ms. Hughson asked how the City could ascertain when there is a property manager and would want them notified early on if there are any problems. Chief Griffith stated they would be notified the following morning via email through an automated process. Property owners must notify him to take advantage of this system. Ms. Hughson stated she would like the Ordinance to state they will be notified with the first occurrence but the voluntary system will suffice. Ms. Hughson stated when a hearing is scheduled, she would like the neighborhood representative to be notified. Chief Griffith stated that could be built into the process. Mr. Mihalkanin stated he would like to see the same type notification as for potential rezonings. Ms. Hughson asked about the timing of notices to property managers and property owners, and Sherri Russell, Assistant City Attorney, stated the notices will go out at the same time. Mr. Mihalkanin asked that there be clarification in the Ordinance that there may be property owners and not necessarily property managers and wanted the wording shown property owner and/or property manager, and Ms. Russell stated that could be added. Ms. Hughson stated on the top of Page 5, it should reflect owner, not manager and Ms. Russell agreed that would be changed. Ms. Hughson stated we should not wait six months to fix a problem. Ms. Hughson moved to amend the Ordinance in Section 34.094(a), Page 3, to "within sixty days~ if "two" complaints and Mr. Mihalkanin seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Ms. Hughson inquired about wording that a property owner has ten days to arrange a meeting, and Ms. Russell indicated there needs to be some time allowed for the notification. Ms. Hughson indicated she would be interested in a meeting within a shorter period of time (Page 5). It was consensus of Council to leave the wording as is. Mr. Mihalkanin stated if there is no ceiling it could take six months to occur and indicated it was too open ended to not set a deadline. Mr. Mihalkanin requested the City Attorney's office offer a reasonable deadline at the next meeting (Sections 34.096[c] and 34.097[c]). Mr. Mihalkanin asked the City Attorney about the definition of Residence on Page 2 including sidewalks and streets, and Mr. Taylor advised that the concept with broad language of large parties are not just on private premises, but usually spill over to sidewalks and street areas. Ms. Hughson inquired about the fee in Section 2 and was advised we cannot charge more than what it costs us since this is not a fine, but a cost of service. We know the actual costs of calls and Chief Griffith stated it is $100.00 and we can provide hard figures of the actual costs. Mr. Cox asked if the City could legally set any fee, and Ms. Russell stated the fee must be actual. Mr. Taylor stated we could make fines punitive, and a fine assessed only after the full right of trial. Ms. Tatum asked Chief Griffith if he was comfortable with the fee of $100, and Chief Griffith stated yes. Mayor Chiu asked if the disconnection of service could be a liability issue, and Mr. Taylor stated when they are advised the service will be disconnected unless they respond, that would be their choice. The Council voted unanimously for approval of the Ordinance on second reading.