Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01- Code Enforcement AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/20/2024 Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Charlie Kent /DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3775 Estimated Time: 30 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Provide Financially Responsible and Innovative Government Services ITEM TITLE: CODE ENFORCEMENT NUISANCE AND ADMINSTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTIES CODE UPDATE AND PROGAM MODERNIZATION ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests Council direction through the review and approval of revisions to the Springfield Municipal Nuisance Code and the addition of a new Administrative Civil Penalties (ACP) process. If directed, staff will return to Council with an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code by adopting the proposed Nuisance code revision and ACP section. ISSUE STATEMENT: Code violations are currently enforced through a one size fits all, labor intensive approach. ACP’s provide a more efficient and effective response to community complaints by addressing minor violations through a per se rule. The current Nuisance code is outdated and neglects several current community issues, namely dangerous structures and other public health/safety issues. Additionally, certain language within section 5.002 requires clarification in order to identify specific conditions which create a nuisance. Other minor clarifications have been included to facilitate gaps in the City’s authority to administer enforcement. Staff requests further direction from Council about the proposed changes to the Springfield Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Briefing Memorandum 2. Power-point presentation 3. ACP Code draft 4. Nuisance Code Draft DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: The current approach to code enforcement has led to a significant risk to public health and safety and an ineffective response to community complaints. Initial Council work sessions in June and September of 2023 indicate the support of the DPW leadership, Executive team, and City Council for modernizing the Code Enforcement Program. Central to the code enforcement program modernization is (1) establishing an Administrative Civil penalties Process (ACP), (2) implementing a comprehensive software solution to facilitate adequate tracking and processing of code enforcement cases for a strategic approach, and (3) adoption of nationwide program standards including updating code language. A need for an additional .5 FTE of administrative support has been identified to support this comprehensive and strategic approach. Staff will be reviewing the current budget as well as current staffing allocation to prepare a mid-year proposal to add this position with little to no impact to the adopted budget. In part, it is anticipated that program revenue will help offset the program expense through recoverable revenue source from ACP’s for an immediate return to the general fund, a mid-term revenue source of nuisance and abatement liens (potentially significant), and a long term return of building the tax base by providing a more attractive residential and commercial development environment. M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield Date: 2/20/2024 To: Nancy Newton COUNCIL From: Charlie Kent, Code Enforcement Officer (AIC) Jeff Paschall, Community Development Director BRIEFING Subject: CODE ENFORCEMENT NUISANCE AND ADMINSTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTIES CODE UPDATE AND PROGAM MODERNIZATION MEMORANDUM ISSUE: Code violations are currently enforced through a one size fits all, labor intensive approach. Administrative Civil Penalties provide a more efficient and effective response to community complaints by addressing minor violations through a per se rule. The current Nuisance code is outdated and neglects several current community issues, namely dangerous structures and other public health/safety issues. Additionally, certain language within section 5.002 requires clarification in order to identify specific conditions which create a nuisance. Other minor clarifications have been included to facilitate gaps in the City’s authority to administer enforcement. Staff requests further direction from Council about the proposed changes to the Springfield Municipal Code. COUNCIL GOALS/ MANDATE: Provide Financially Responsible and Innovative Government Services BACKGROUND: As the custodians of Springfield's governance, it is essential to continually review and update municipal codes to ensure they reflect the evolving needs and priorities of our community. The proposed municipal code changes and modernization of the code enforcement program represent a critical step towards enhancing the effectiveness and responsiveness of our regulatory framework. This briefing memo outlines the necessity and benefits of adopting these changes. Need for Municipal Code Changes: 1. Adapting to Contemporary Challenges: The current municipal code lacks clarity and the provisions to address emerging issues and technological advancements. By updating the code, we can better address new industries, technologies, and community practices, ensuring Springfield remains a safe, vibrant, and compliant city. 2. Streamlining Processes: Outdated regulations has led to bureaucratic inefficiencies and hindered economic development and community livability. Streamlining processes through municipal code amendments will promote business growth, facilitate development projects, improve the overall functioning of municipal operations, and maintain neighborhoods. 3. Enhancing Public Safety and Quality of Life: Effective code enforcement is essential for maintaining public safety, preserving property values, and upholding community standards. Developing enforcement mechanisms through updated codes will enable us to address code violations promptly and comprehensively, thereby enhancing the quality of life for all residents. An administrative civil penalty process (ACP) is commonly used within code compliance programs across the state and nation as an effective enforcement tool. The ACP process provides a clearer, more equitable environment for potential forfeiture than judicial alternatives. The process is simpler and more efficient. Staff time is utilized more effectively as a community Attachment 1 Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM Page 2 partner through onsite interactions, educational outreach is prioritized, and the total time to case resolution is dramatically reduced. Effectively, ACP’s prevent long-term or chronic issues by addressing violations in a timely manner when they are relatively minor. On the street, the ACP process will provide for a more individualized and violation-appropriate approach to compliance by removing legal barriers which could be reserved for significant, chronic, or complex violations. There are two differences between a judicial and ACP process. Presumption and procedure. In the civil citation and complaint process (judicial process) the City presents facts and testimony to the Municipal Court Judge who then finds the accused guilty or not guilty based on the judicial interpretation of the code, those facts and testimony presented by the City, and testimony and facts presented by the accused during a legal proceeding. If found guilty, the City recommends an appropriate penalty. In the ACP, it is presumed that the City’s findings are factual, and penalties are unilaterally imposed through a standard violation-specific matrix. Because due process is required for any lawful application of government enforcement, an appeal process is provided. In the judicial process, a guilty party would appeal the Springfield Municipal Courts finding to the Circuit Appellate court, and the City Attorney would represent the City. In the ACP process a party would appeal to a hearing official, similar to a land use decision. The City could contract this service with the Lane County of Governments as it currently does with other programs. It is common to include a fee for a hearing in the recipient’s application for appeal. Because the legal burden of a finding shifts from the Springfield Municipal Court to the individual code officer in the ACP process, a sworn oath of office or other legal mechanism may be required to act with appropriate authority. ACP Procedure: 1. Complaint: A neighbor, resident, community member, or partner agency contacts the city to report a code violation. Administrative staff records the violation, determines jurisdiction, clarifies any required information, and assigns a response priority. Violations are assigned based on priority and a first inspection is scheduled for the next business day. 2. Inspection: Officers investigate, record results on a tablet, determine a responsible person, and issue a courtesy notice on-site if a violation is observed. A standard 3-day deadline is set for minor violations. 3. Administrative Citation (ticket): A ticket is issued for non-compliance following the issuance of the 3-day courtesy notice inspection result. Some tickets may be eligible for a “fix-it” resolution if justifiable reasons exist for non-compliance. Re-inspections occur periodically, and fines increase per a standard penalty matrix. 4. Civil citation: Once the threshold is met, the case transfers to the civil workflow process having already met the burden of “Prior Written Notice”, a statutory determination of the Springfield Municipal Code, section 5.608. The standard civil enforcement process follows, a citation to the responsible person and notification to any other parties with standing in the property. ACP Financial Impact: The financial impact of an ACP procedure is multifaceted. It involves a balance between revenue generation, compliance, enforcement costs, legal expenses, community perception, and economic development. The cost is not just in additional .5 FTE and software, but also represented by loss of revenue generation from decreasing property values and impacts to economic development. Here are some further factors to consider: Attachment 1 Page 2 of 5 MEMORANDUM Page 3 1. Revenue Generation: A positive impact is the generation of revenue for the municipality. ACP’s can contribute to the municipality's budget. This revenue can be used to fund a special abatement program fund and are more apt to be recovered because of their relative small amount. 2. Deterrence and Compliance: ACP’s can serve as a deterrent for property owners and businesses, encouraging them to comply with local codes and regulations. This can lead to improved community aesthetics, safety, and overall quality of life. 3. Cost of Enforcement: Implementing a code enforcement program and the associated procedures requires resources. This includes the salaries of code enforcement officers, administrative staff, and support personnel involved in processing violations and penalties. Training and ongoing professional development for staff also contribute to costs. Additional program FTE could be leveraged from within existing Development and Public Works Department allocations. 4. Legal and Administrative Expenses: There might be legal costs associated with enforcing penalties. Property owners or businesses that receive penalties might challenge them, leading to legal proceedings and associated expenses for the municipality. 5. Impact on Property Values: Consistent and effective code enforcement can lead to improvements in the appearance and safety of neighborhoods. This can positively impact property values, which in turn can contribute to increased property tax revenue for the municipality. 6. Public Relations and Perception: The way a municipality enforces codes and penalties can affect its public image. If the enforcement is perceived as unfair, overly aggressive, or inconsistent, it might lead to negative public relations and community backlash. This could impact the municipality's reputation and potentially deter investment. 7. Economic Development: Overly stringent enforcement and high penalties could potentially deter businesses from starting or expanding within the municipality. Balancing the need for code compliance with creating a welcoming environment for economic development is important. 8. Administrative Efficiency: Efficiently processing violations and penalties requires administrative infrastructure. Any inefficiencies or delays in the administrative process could lead to increased costs and resource allocation. 9. Social Equity Considerations: It's important to consider the potential disparate impact of penalties on different socio-economic groups. Striking a balance between enforcing codes and avoiding undue financial burden on vulnerable populations is a critical consideration. 10. Monitoring and Reporting: Establishing a system to track violations, penalties, and compliance efforts can require technological investments for record-keeping, reporting, and analysis. Benefits of Modernization of Code Enforcement Program: 1. Strategic Approach: Implementing modern software for code enforcement allows for a strategic and data-driven approach to identifying, prioritizing, and addressing code violations. By leveraging technology, we can allocate resources more efficiently and target enforcement efforts where they are most needed, leading to greater compliance and community satisfaction. 2. Community Engagement and Flexibility: The proposed changes include a smaller fine for administrative civil penalties, demonstrating a commitment to fairness and proportionality in enforcement actions. Moreover, the program's flexible response to community needs, such as administering the sanitation grant and staffing the emergency operations center during the recent ice storm, underscores its adaptability and responsiveness to local conditions. 3. Positive Community Impact: Effective code enforcement plays a crucial role in Attachment 1 Page 3 of 5 MEMORANDUM Page 4 preserving neighborhood aesthetics, preventing blight, and fostering community pride. By abating several nuisance properties and addressing longstanding code violations, we not only improve the physical appearance of our neighborhoods but also promote social cohesion and civic engagement. DISCUSSION: • Does Council support the addition of ACP’s to the Springfield Municipal Code? Adopting Modern Best Enforcement Practices for Public Health & Safety and Attractive Nuisance Code: In light of evolving public health and life safety challenges in the Springfield Community and the increasing complexity of public hazards, adopting modern best enforcement practices for the public nuisance code is imperative. In addressing the attractive nuisance code, it is essential to recognize the importance of safeguarding the safety and welfare of our most vulnerable population—our children. Adopting modern best enforcement practices involves not only updating regulations to mitigate common attractive nuisances, such as abandoned buildings, swimming pools, or construction sites but also implementing proactive measures to educate property owners and the public about potential hazards. By emphasizing the principles of risk management, property maintenance, and liability reduction, we can minimize the occurrence of accidents and injuries while promoting responsible property stewardship. Furthermore, fostering community engagement and collaboration will empower residents to identify and address attractive nuisances effectively, contributing to a safer and more secure environment for all. Adopting Modern Best Enforcement Practices for Dangerous, Abandoned, or Derelict Structure Nuisance Code: Given the significant risks posed by dangerous, abandoned, or derelict structures to public safety, adopting modern best enforcement practices for this nuisance code is paramount. These structures not only undermine the aesthetic appeal of our neighborhoods but also serve as magnets for criminal activity, fire hazards, and health risks. By revising and strengthening regulations, we can establish clear criteria for identifying and addressing such properties promptly. Modernizing enforcement practices involves leveraging data analytics and geographic information systems (GIS) to prioritize inspections based on factors such as structural integrity, occupancy status, and proximity to sensitive locations like schools or parks. Implementing proactive measures, such as routine property assessments and targeted outreach to absentee owners, will help mitigate the proliferation of hazardous structures and ensure compliance with safety standards. Utilizing Technology and Collaboration: Embracing technology and collaboration is essential to the effective enforcement of dangerous, abandoned, or derelict structure nuisance codes. By investing in modern software solutions for code enforcement, we can streamline communication between city departments, law enforcement agencies, and community stakeholders. Real-time data sharing and digital documentation will facilitate coordination efforts, enable timely intervention, and track progress towards compliance goals. Furthermore, establishing partnerships with local nonprofits, housing authorities, and redevelopment agencies can provide additional resources and support for property rehabilitation and revitalization initiatives. Through a multidiscipl inary approach that combines regulatory enforcement with community development strategies, we can transform blighted properties into assets that enhance neighborhood vitality and promote inclusive growth. Empowering Residents and Building Trust: Empowering residents to actively participate in the enforcement process is essential for fostering community trust and accountability. Adopting a transparent and accessible enforcement framework, including online reporting mechanisms and public information campaigns, can Attachment 1 Page 4 of 5 MEMORANDUM Page 5 empower residents to report nuisance properties and monitor enforcement outcomes. Recognizing and rewarding proactive property owners who maintain their properties to code standards can serve as positive reinforcement and incentivize compliance among peers. By fostering a culture of collective responsibility and civic pride, we can create safer, more resilient communities where all residents can thrive. Conclusion: In conclusion, the adoption of modern best enforcement practices for public health, attractive nuisance, and dangerous structure codes represents a proactive and forward-thinking approach to regulatory governance. By prioritizing prevention, innovation, and community empowerment, we can create a safer, healthier, and more resilient community that is equipped to address modern challenges. Through strategic coordination, data-driven decision-making, and stakeholder collaboration, we can ensure that our enforcement efforts are targeted, equitable, and impactful, ultimately enhancing the overall quality of life for residents and visitors alike. DISCUSSION: • Does Council support revising existing regulations to address emerging public health and safety threats such as attractive nuisances and dangerous, abandoned, or derelict homes? • Does Council support the strategy of leveraging technology and data analytics to improve the effectiveness of enforcement efforts? RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff on moving forward with: 1. Adopting new municipal code amendments as drafted 2. The purchase of new program software 3. Adding .5 FTE administrative staff to implement the new administrative civil penalties process. Attachment 1 Page 5 of 5 Code Enforcement Program Update Attachment 2 Page 1 of 6 Administrative Civil Penalty Municipal Code revision Create administrative enforcement process Modern software to track and process fines Attachment 2 Page 2 of 6 Code Enforcement Effectiveness ACP Process More effective for minor violations Community outreach oriented Faster intervention, 3-5 day deadlines Can progress to judicial process Judicial Process More effective for complex or chronic violations Provides legal framework Insulates staff Prepares for other legal tools Attachment 2 Page 3 of 6 Municipal Code Revision Chapter 5. Public Protection Addition of ACP’s Clarified Public v. Attractive Nuisance Addition of Dangerous, Abandoned, or Derelict structures as a public nuisance Attachment 2 Page 4 of 6 Tyler Software Solution Modern automated workflow and data collection Analytics based on mapping software Could be cross referenced with CDBG Data to support local demographic data collection Public facing portal streamlines complaint process Same system as used by Springfield Courts Attachment 2 Page 5 of 6 Council Q & A Attachment 2 Page 6 of 6 {00031755:3} Code Amendments to Implement Administrative Enforcement & Penalties Comment: The proposed changes to SMC 5.008 change the process for appealing a notice of administrative abatement from the City Council to the Hearings Officer. This allows for a more timely appeal process than requiring the hearing to be scheduled in fron t of the City Council. An abatement appeal hearing is an evidentiary hearing to review whether abatement is warranted, and the appropriateness of the scope of abatement proposed by city staff. A Hearings Officer is well-suited to conducting this type of hearing. The proposed code also expressly provides that appeal from a hearings officer’s decision is by writ of review to Lane County Circuit Court. 5.008 Abatement By a Person Responsible. (1) Within 10 days after the posting and serving or mailing of the notice required by section 5.006, a person responsible shall remove the nuisance, show that no nuisance exists, or file a written protest in compliance with this section. (2) If the person responsible protests that no nuisance exists, the person responsible shall file with the enforcing officer a written statement specifying the basis for protesting. (3) A person may show that a vehicle is not a nuisance as defined by section 5.002 by submitting current proof of vehicle insurance and current vehicle registration within 10 days of the posting and serving or mailing of the notice to abate. (4) A written protest shall be referred to the hearings officer. The objector shall be given at least seven days prior written notice of the time set to consider the abatement. The council shall take oral or written testimony at the time and place specified in the notice of the hearing. The council shall adopt written findings of fact and conclusions of la w when determining whether a nuisance exists. The council’s determination shall be final. (5) If the hearings officer determines that a nuisance exists, a person responsible shall abate the nuisance within 10 days after the hearings offi cer’s decision becomes final or within another time set by the hearings officer in writing. (6) All appeals from the hearings officer’s final decision under this section shall be by writ of review to the Lane County Circuit court pursuant to ORS chapter 34. Comment: SMC 5.014 provides for the assessment of abatement costs. That section also includes appeal to City Council. This section is not proposed for amendment at this time given that it is a fiscal decision and not a decision to be based primarily upon an evidentiary hearing. Attachment 3 Page 1 of 14 {00031755:3} Comment: The intent of the city’s code enforcement program to encourage voluntary compliance is not changing. The revisions to this section modernize the language and reflect that there are now two alternative means for code enforcement: (1) the civil enforcement program, which is through municipal court, and (2) the administrative enforcement program, which includes assessment of penalties by code enforcement staff and appeal to a Hearings Officer. 5.600 Intent. It is the intent of sections 5.600 to 5.642 to encourage voluntary compliance with certain city ordinances through inspection, notification, and where appropriate, by granting reasonable time for compliance. When voluntary compliance is not obtained or it is not appropriate to grant more time for compliance, sections 5.600 to 5.XXX establish and implement a civil infraction procedure and scheduled forfeitures and administrative civil penalties for violation of certain ordinances. This ordinance is further intended to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Comment: The changes to this section add in definitions for the person res ponsible for a code violation, to match the definition provided in the nuisance section. The changes also remove definitions that are not necessary: an infraction is already defined by SMC 5.604, and penalties and forfeitures are understood by their plain meanings and do not need a special definition.5.602 Definitions. For purpose of sections 5.600 to 5.642, the following shall mean: Person in Charge of Property An agent, occupant, lessee, tenant, contract purchaser, or other person having possession or control of property or the supervision of any construction project. Person Responsible. The person responsible for abating a code infraction includes: (a) The owner. (b) The person in charge of property as defined above. (c) The person who caused a nuisance to come into or continue in existence. Comment: The changes to 5.604 below are not intended to change the overall scope of the code enforcement program. The existing list in SMC 5.604 is outdated and includes some violations that specifically state in the code that they are enforceable as criminal violations (i.e. police tickets), and also excludes some violations that are specifically state in the code are subject to civil or administrative penalti es. Other changes to this section reflect updated code titles. 5.604 Application and Amendment. Attachment 3 Page 2 of 14 {00031755:3} A violation of the following ordinances by any person is punishable as an infraction under these sections 5.600 to 5.642: (1) Springfield Municipal Code (a) Chapter 3, Public Improvements: Streets, sections 3.200 to 3.232 Curbs and Driveways, sections 3.250 to 3.260; Sidewalks, sections 3.300 to 3.306 Sanitary Sewers, sections 3.350 to 3.382; (b) Chapter 4, Utilities: Industrial Pretreatment Program, Public Nuisances, section 4.080; Septic Tanks and Privies, sections 4.300 to 4.308; Illicit Discharge, sections 4.370 to 4.372; Garbage and Refuse, sections 4.410, to 8 and sections 4.426 to 4.432; Public Health and Sanitation, section 4.450; Fountains, section 4.452; (c) Chapter 5, Public Protection: Nuisances in General, sections 5.000 to 5.002; Miscellaneous Particular Nuisances, sections 5.050 to 5.056; Public Safety, Ice, Snow on Sidewalks, section 5.124; Public Safety, Bicycle Operation or Storage within City Hall, section 5.134; General Welfare, sections 5.272 to 5.276; (d) Chapter 7, Business; (e) Chapter 8, Building: Temporary Emergency Shelters for Persons Experiencing Homelessness, sections 8.000 to 8.015; Signs, sections 8.200 to 8.268; Land Drainage and Alteration Program, sections 8.400 to 8.4368; (b) The Springfield Development Code; (d) The state building codes and requirements as administered by the City of Springfield under ORS 455.148, subject to the requirements of ORS 455.157 ; and Attachment 3 Page 3 of 14 {00031755:3} (e) The Oregon Fire Code as amended and adopted by the City of Springfield; Comment: The changes to section 5.606 primarily reflect that there are now two different enforcement procedures: civil enforcement and administrative enforcement. The language below in green double underlined has been moved from other parts of the code for more logical organization. 5.606 Infraction Procedure. (1) Except where explicitly provided otherwise in this code, all reports of infractions covered by this ordinance shall be made to the city manager. When an infraction is of a continuing nature, a separate infraction will be deemed to occur on each calendar day the infraction continues to exist, and a separate citation may be filed for each such infraction. (2) The civil enforcement procedures described by sections 5.600 to 5.6SXX and the administrative enforcement procedures described by sections 5.6XX to 5.6XX are alternative procedures for enforcing the laws and ordinances of the City as provided in section 5.604. No person shall be cited for the same infraction under both procedures simultaneously, nor shall any person be subject to forfeitures and administrative penalties for the same infraction. However, nothing in this section prohibits the City from electing to use to different procedures for continuing or subsequent infractions by the same party, or arising from th e same property. Furthermore, this section shall not be read to prohibit in any way any other alternative remedies set out in any other section of the code or in any other applicable law that is intended to abate or alleviate violations of city ordinances ; nor shall the city be prohibited from recovering, in a manner prescribed by law any expense incurred by it in abating any infraction or nuisance pursuant to the code.Comment: This section adds prior written notice for administrative enforcement when the penalty is not more than $100. Other changes to this section are for clarity and organization. There is no substantive change to the notice requirements for the civil enforcement process. 5.608 Prior Written Notice. (1) When the infraction of an ordinance or code listed in section 5.604 is brought to the attention of the city manager, the city manager may determine that the responsible party be given written notice of the infraction. The notice shall contain the following information: (a) Sufficient description of the activity in violation to identify the recipient of the notice as being a person responsible for the alleged infraction ; (b) A statement that the activity in question has been found to be an i nfraction with a brief and concise description of the nature of the infraction ; (c) A statement of the action required to remedy the infraction and a date by which the remedy must be completed; and (d) A statement advising that if the required abatement of the infraction is not completed within the time specified, a civil citation may be issued for the person to appear in court, that a complaint may be issued and filed with the municipal court, and that a forfeiture in Attachment 3 Page 4 of 14 {00031755:3} the maximum amount scheduled could be imposed. Alternatively, the notice may include a statement that if the infraction is not completed within the time specified, it may be subject to an administrative penalty under 5.630, and the maximum amount of administrative penalty that could be imposed. (2) The city manager may dispense with the requirement of written notice under this section under any of the following circumstances: (a) If successive or ongoing violations occur at the same site, or the same party is responsible for more than one violation even if at different sites, such that the responsible party was previously provided notice of the nature of the infraction and remedy required; (b) If public health, safety, or welfare require immediate citation or assessment of a civil penalty; (c) If the city manager otherwise has reasonable cause to believe that the person responsible knowingly or intentionally caused the infraction.; or (d) If the amount of forfeiture or administrative penalty imposed is no greater than $100 per infraction. Comment: The changes to SMC 5.612 are minor revisions for clarity. 5.612 Civil Enforcement – Warning Citation. In addition to, or as an alternative to the prior written notice allowed by section 5.608, the city manager may issue a warning uniform infraction citation prior to filing a complaint under section 5.614. The warning citation may be issued together with, or separate from, the notice contemplated by section 5.608. Failure to provide a prior written notice or a warning citation will not invalidate the uniform infraction citation and complaint. The warning citation shall include the information set forth in section 5.608 and must impose a deadline for compliance or abatement of the violation. Comment: The changes to SMC 5.612 are intended to remove duplicative code language, and provide greater clarity by listing the complaint/citations requirements in one place in the code. 5.614 Civil Enforcement – Uniform Infraction Citation - Filing. (1) Upon expiration of the time provided for compliance or abatement of a violation as provided in section 5.608 or 5,612, or when no prior written notice is required under section 5.608(2), the code enforcement officer may file a uniform infraction citation with the municipal court, charging the person responsible with a civil infraction and setting a date for the person to appear before the municipal court to answer the charge. (2) The uniform infraction citation must include a complaint that contains at least the following: (a) The name of the person being cited as the person responsible for the infraction; Attachment 3 Page 5 of 14 {00031755:3} (b) A statement or designation of the infraction that can be readily understood by a person making a reasonable effort to do so and the date, time, and place at which the infraction is alleged to have been committed; (c) A certificate signed by the enforcement that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe, and does so believe, that the person cited is the person responsible for the cited infraction; and (d) The date and time at which the person cited is directed to appear before the municipal court as provided in section 5.618(1), or else file a written answer as provided in section 5.618(2) or (3). (3) The city manager shall prescribe the form of the uniform infraction citation. Additional parts may be inserted for administrative purposes by the code enforcement officer or as ordered by the presiding judge of the Springfield Municipal Court. Coment: The changes to SMC 5.616 are minor revisions for clarity. 5.616 Civil Enforcement – Service. Service of the warning citation or of the uniform civil infraction citation may be made cited by personal delivery to the person cited, or by certified mail return receipt requested and simultaneously by regular mail at the last known address of the person cited. Where service by certified mail is not accepted by the person cited, notice shall be deemed received on the date of attempted delivery. In addition, service in any manner provided for service of summons in Rule 7 of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure shall be deemed adequate. Comment: The changes to SMC 5.618 are minor revisions for clarity. 5.618 Civil Enforcement – Answer. (1) A person cited shall answer by personally appearing to answer at the time and place specified therein; except an answer may be made as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section by mail or personal delivery within 10 days of the date of the receipt of the citation. (2) If the person cited desires to avoid that court appearance the person may within 10 days of the date of receipt of the citation admit the infraction, complete and sign the appropriate answer on the back of each citation and forward the citation to the municipal court together with check or money order in the amount of the forfeiture for the infraction alleged as shown on the face of the citation. The citation and forfeiture must reach the court prior to the scheduled court appearance. Upon receipt of the citation and forfeiture, an appropriate order shall be entered in the municipal court records. The burden of insuring delivery of the citation and forfeiture to the court pursuant to this subsection is entirely and exclusively upon the person cited. (3) If the person cited denies part or all of the infraction prior to the time set for appearance, he or she may request a hearing by completing the appropriate answer on the back of the citation and forwarding to the municipal court the citation, together with bail in the amount of the scheduled forfeiture. Upon receipt, the answer shall be entered and a hearing Attachment 3 Page 6 of 14 {00031755:3} date established by the municipal court. The municipal court shall notify the person cited by return mail of the date of the hearing. Any such application must be submitted to the co urt within 10 days of receipt of the citation. The burden of insuring delivery of the application to the court pursuant to this subsection is entirely and exclusively upon the person cited. Comment: The changes to SMC 5.620 are minor revisions for clarity. 5.620 Civil Enforcement – Municipal Court Hearing. (1) A hearing requested under section 5.618(3) shall be held before the municipal court without a jury. (2) The hearing shall be limited to production of evidence only on the infraction alleged in the complaint. (a) Oral evidence shall be taken only on oath or affirmation. (b) Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing, or explaining any direct evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions in courts of competent jurisdiction in this state. (c) Irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be exclu ded. (3) The person cited shall have the right to present evidence and witnesses in his or her favor and to cross examine witnesses who testify against him or her. (4) If the person cited desires that witnesses be ordered to appear by subpoena, the person must so request in writing from the court by mail at any time at least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing. A deposit for each witness to be subpoenaed shall accompany the request, such deposit to be refunded if no forfeiture is assessed by the court. The deposit shall be in the amount of equal to the witness fee allowed by statute for witnesses in circuit court. Subject to the same 10-day limitation, thecode enforcement officer may also request the court that certain witnesses be ordered to appear by subpoena. In addition, subpoenas may be issued by the city prosecutor or the city attorney. If a forfeiture is ordered by the court, the order shall also provide that the person ordered to forfeit shall pay all witness f ees incurred by the city in connection with the hearing. (5) The defendant may be represented by counsel, but counsel shall not be provided at public expense. Counsel must file a notice of representation of the person cited with the municipal court five business days prior to the hearing date. (6) The city shall have the burden of proving the alleged ordinance civil infraction by a preponderance of the evidence. (7) After due consideration of the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, the court shall determine whether the civil infraction as alleged in the complaint has been established. When the infraction has not been established, an order dismissing the complaint shall be entered in the municipal court records. When a determination is made that the civil infraction alleged has occurred, an appropriate order shall be entered in the municipal Attachment 3 Page 7 of 14 {00031755:3} court records. A copy of the order shall be delivered to the person named in the order personally in open court, or the order may be sent to said person by mail. When a civil infraction has been determined established, and upon written request by a party to the hearing, the order shall include a brief statement of the necessary findings of fact to establish the infraction alleged. The written request for findings must be presented to the municipal court prior to trial. (8) Upon a finding that a civil infraction has occurred, the court shall assess a forfeiture pursuant to the schedule established in accordance with sections 5.600 to 5.642, plus court costs and witness fees. (9) The court shall maintain a transcript of its proceedings. The transcript must contain a copy of all material entries relating to the proceedings together with all the original paper relating to the proceedings filed with the court. (10) The determination of the municipal court shall be final. Any party to the litigation may appeal the court’s order in accordance with ORS 221.350 and ORS 53.010 through ORS 53.130 to the district court within 30 days of entry of the municipal court ordering the forfeiture. If no appeal is taken to the district court within the 30 day time limit as required, the court may purge its record of all exhibits. 5.622 Civil Enforcement – Judgment and Forfeitures. (1) If a cited person fails to answer the citation or appear at a scheduled hearing as provided in sections 5.600 to 5.624, a default judgment shall be entered for the scheduled forfeiture applicable for the alleged civil infraction. In addition, the court shall assess costs and witness fees, with any security posted to be credited first to costs, then to witness fees and the balance, if any, to the forfeiture. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit in any way the contempt powers of the municipal judge granted by the Springfield city charter or state law, and the judge may exercise those powers deemed necessary and advisable in conjunction with any matter arising under the procedures set forth in sections 5.600 to 5.624. (2) Any forfeiture assessed is to be paid no later than 10 days after the is suance of the court’s order declaring that forfeiture. The period maybe extended upon order of the municipal judge for good and substantial cause supported by clear and convincing evidence. (3) Delinquent forfeitures, whether resulting f rom a default judgment or otherwise, which were assessed for infractions which occurred on real property or for improper use of real property, shall constitute a lien against the real property that shall be imposed on the real property pursuant to Section 5.640 (imposition of nuisance liens). When posted in the city lien docket, nuisance liens may be collected in the same manner as other docketed lien debts owing to the city. (4) Nothing in this section shall limit the city from revoking or denying any city license or permit held or desired by a person owing a forfeiture to the city. Comment: The changes to SMC 5.624 are minor revisions for clarity. For the purpose of assessing whether a violation is repeating, the reference to a bail forfeiture has been removed Attachment 3 Page 8 of 14 {00031755:3} and replaced with reference to a prior administrative penalty. No bail is charged for civil code violations or administrative penalties. 5.624 Civil Enforcement - Schedule of Forfeitures. (1) Civil infractions are classified for the purpose of determining forfeitures under a uniform infraction citation into the following categories: (a) Class 1 civil infractions. (b) Class 2 civil infractions. (2) Class 1 Civil Infractions. The following are Class 1 civil infractions: (a) Failure to comply with any term of any voluntary compliance agreement as provided in section 5.610(5). (b) If any person violates section 5.604 more than once in any 365 day period, the second violation, and each subsequent violation occurring within any 365-day period, constitutes a separate Class 1 violation. (c) If section 5.604 is violated on any tax lot more than once in any 365-day period, the second violation, and each subsequent violation occurring within any 365-day period, constitutes a separate Class 1 violation. (3) Class 2 Civil Infractions. The first violation in any 365-day period of section 5.604 by a person, or on any tax lot, constitutes a Class 2 violation. (4) An assessment of a forfeiture for a civil infraction is an assessment to pay an amount not exceeding: (a) $1,000.00 for a Class 1 civil infraction; (b) $500.00 for a Class 2 civil infraction. (5) For purposes of determining whether a person or property is a repeat violator for purposes of subsections (2)(b) and (c), the following shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption of a prior violation of section 5.604, which presumption may be overcome only by a showing of clear and convincing evidence: (a) A voluntary compliance agreement; (b) An order assessing an administrative penalty; (c) A prior order entered by the municipal court assessing a civil infraction forfeiture; or (d) Any civil judgment or criminal verdict entered in a court of competent jurisdiction which in the judgment of the judge of the municipal court reflects a violation of section 5.604. In making the determination, the judge may take into consideration any competent and relevant explanatory information, including but not limited to taking judicial notice of the court file and any record of the proceeding. Attachment 3 Page 9 of 14 {00031755:3} Comment: SMC 5.630 is a new section of code that provides the procedures and requirements for issuing an administrative citation, in lieu of pursuing enforcement in municipal court. Prior written notice will be required similar to civil enforcement in municipal court, under SMC 5.604. Exceptions to providing prior notice are for minor violations less than $100, and for conduct that is clearly intentionally in violation (e.g. repeated citations). 5.630 Administrative Enforcement – Citation (1) In lieu of filing a citation and complaint with the municipal court on the conditions provided in section 5.614(1), the code enforcement officer may serve the person responsible with an administrative citation under these sections 5.600 to 5.642. (2) The administrative citation shall either be served by personal service, posted at the location of the code violation in a clear and conspicuous location, or by certified mail return receipt requested. (3) The administrative citation shall include: (a) The name of the person being cited as the person responsible for the infraction; (b) A statement or designation of the infraction that can be readily understood by a person making a reasonable effort to do so, and the date, time, and place at which the infraction is alleged to have been committed; € A certificate signed by the enforcement officer that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe, and does so believe, that the person cited is the person responsible for the cited infraction; and (d) The date on which prior written notice of violation was issued under section 5.608(1), and the date by which correction was to be made; or, if the citation is issued without prior written notice under section 5.608(2), a sufficient description and statement of the evidence supporting the citation ; € The amount of the administrative penalty that is assessed; (f) When applicable, a statement that abatement is required and that failure to abate the infraction may result in continued administrative penalties, accruing daily, at the stated amount until proof of abatement is received; and (g) A statement that the person cited has the right to appeal the administrative citation to a hearings officer for the City of Springfield; and Comment: This section establishes the standards for imposing administrative penalties. Unlike the civil enforcement process through municipal court, the amount of penalty is determined at the time the administrative citation is issued. The penalty is due two weeks after the citation date, unless the person cited protests the citation and asks for a hearing with the hearings officer. 5.632 Administrative Enforcement – Penalties. Attachment 3 Page 10 of 14 {00031755:3} (3) When assessing an administrative penalty under this code, the City Manager or code enforcement officer shall consider the following factors: (a) The past history of the person cited in taking all feasible steps or procedures necessary or appropriate to correct the infraction or failure to comply; (b) Any prior violations of or failures to comply with statues, rules order and permits, by the person cited or arising upon the same property; (c) The gravity and magnitude of the infraction; (d) Whether the infraction was inadvertent, negligent, or an intentional act; (e) The cooperativeness of the person cited, and any efforts correct the infraction; and (f) Whether the infraction involves commercial or financial gain, or avoidance of a financial detriment, by the person cited. (2) The City Manager may adopt guidelines for the assessment of administrative penalties, provided that the City Manager reserves the right to modify the assessment of penalties considering the factors provided in subsection (1) above. (3) Unless a Notice of Protest is timely filed pursuant to section 5.6XX, all penalties assessed by administrative citation are due to the city no later than 5:00 p.m. local time, 14 days from the date of the administrative citation. (4) Delinquent penalties that were assessed for infractions that occurred on real property or for improper use of real property, shall constitute a lien against the real property that shall be imposed on the real property pursuant to Section 5.640 (imposition of nuisance liens). When posted in the city lien docket, nuisance liens may be collected in the same manner as other docketed lien debts owing to the city. Comment: This section requires a person cited to file a notice of protest if they want to appeal their administrative citation. 5.634 Administrative Enforcement – Notice of Protest Any person who is issued an administrative citation may protest the citation and penalty. The Notice of Protest shall be in writing and specify each and every reason for the protest, and provide accurate information. A Notice of Protest is timely only if received by the city no later than 5:00 p.m. local time, 14 days from the date of the administrative citation. Comment: This section provides the process for a hearing in front of the hearings officer, including how the hearing will be scheduled, who has the right to appear and what kind of evidence can be introduced, and the hearings officer’s authority to uphold or dismiss the citation. If the hearings officer dismisses a citation, the city cannot issue another citation for the same violation (e.g. same person, same property, same day/time). If the hearings officer upholds a citation, the penalty is due within two weeks of the hearings officer’s decision. 5.636 Administrative Enforcement – Protest Hearing (1) Referral of Protests to Hearings Officer. Attachment 3 Page 11 of 14 {00031755:3} (a) Upon receipt of a timely and complete Notice of Protest under section 5.634, the City will refer the protest to a hearings officer designated by the city manager, who shall conduct a hearing and make all decisions concerning the protest. An untimely protest shall be summarily dismissed. (b) The hearings officer shall set a date and time for the hearing at the earliest possible opportunity. The city shall promptly notify the person requesting the hearing, using the contact information provided in the Notice of Protest, of the time and place for hearing. Notice may be by any means of giving actual notice. Notice may also be given to any person determined to be an interested party in the matter. (c) The hearings officer may reschedule the hearing for good cause shown. A request to reschedule must be in writing and received by the hearings officer no later than three business days prior to the scheduled hearing date. In deciding whether to reschedule a hearing, the hearings officer may consider medical necessity; the potential harm caused by a delay in the hearing; the number of requests made to date; and such other matters as the hearings officer deems relevant. If the request is granted, the hearings officer shall set a new hearing date and notify the city. The city shall notify the person requ esting a hearing as provided in subsection (b). (2) Conduct of Hearing. (a) The code enforcement officer and the person requesting the hearing may submit testimony, cross-examine witnesses, submit rebuttal evidence on the pertinent issues, make arguments, and may choose to be represented by an attorney at their own expense. (b) The hearing shall be recorded in a manner that allows for written transcription to be made; the city shall retain all materials submitted at the hearing as required by state law. (c) The City bears the burden of proving the cited infraction(s), by preponderance of the evidence. (d) If the person cited fails to appear at the hearing or rescheduled hearing, the person cited waives the right to a hearing. (3) Final Decision. (a) If the hearings official concludes that the City has not met its burden of proof, the hearings officer shall dismiss the administrative citation with prejudice. (b) If the hearings officer concludes that the City has met its burden of proof, the hearings officer shall uphold the administrative citation and assess the administrative penalty. The hearings officer shall further direct the person cited to correct the infraction(s) and pay any monetary amount owed within 14 calendar days after the hearings of ficer issues the order, or another period of time ordered by the hearings officer . (c) If the hearings officer determines that the basis for protest was unreasonable or designed only for purposes of delay, or the person cited does not appear at the scheduled hearing, the person requesting the hearing may be assessed the costs of the hearing, including Attachment 3 Page 12 of 14 {00031755:3} the cost of the hearings officer. Any such costs imposed by the hearings officer shall constitute a cost of abatement and collectable under subsection (3)(b) herein. (d) The hearings officer shall mail or otherwise delivery a copy of the order stating the hearings officer’s decision to the person cited, and to the city manager, care of the code enforcement officer. (3) Finality of Decision, Appeals. (a) The hearings officer’s decision is the final decision of the City. (b) Judicial review of a decision of the hearings officer shall be on the record by writ of review pursuant to ORS Chapter 34 and not otherwise. Comment: This section provides optional authority for the City Manager to temporarily waive enforcement action in certain situations, which would suspend code enforcement for a specific period of time. 5.638 Adjustments to Penalties. (1) The city manager or designee may establish criteria to grant a temporary waiver of enforcement action, which will give a period of time, but no longer than six months to correct the violation(s) cited without being subject to enforcement action. The criteria shall include factors such as the extent and cost of repairs, seriousness of the condition, medical condition of the person, financial capacity of the person, the time of year, or other mitigating factors. (2) The manager may revoke the waiver if any of the conditions that allowed the owner to qualify for a waiver change. The waiver is not transferable. Comment: There are no changes to SMC 5.625 and 5.626 below, except renumbering, but they are provided here for context. 5.640 Imposition of Nuisance Liens. (1) The finance officer or his/her designee shall provide a notice of the imposition of a nuisance lien to the property owner, by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by regular mail. Where service by certified mail is not accepted by the property owner, notice shall be deemed received on the date of attempted delivery. In addition, service in the same manner as provided for service of summons in Rule 7 of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure shall be deemed adequate. The notice shall state: (a) The facts supporting the delinquent forfeiture; (b) The total cost of the delinquent forfeiture, including any assessment for administrative overhead; (c) That the cost as indicated will become a lien against the property unless paid within 30 days from the date of the notice; (d) The date and time of the city council hearing to impose the lien; Attachment 3 Page 13 of 14 {00031755:3} (e) That the property owner may submit written objections to the finance director by 5:00 p.m. the day of the hearing or by oral or written objections at the city council hearing. (2) The property owner may be heard at the city council hearing. The city council shall not consider protests that no nuisance or delinquent forfeiture exists. The city council shall enact a resolution that the delinquent forfeiture shall be imposed as a lien on the real property where the violation occurred. (3) The finance officer or his/her designee shall communicate the city council’s resolution in writing to the property owner in the same manner as set forth in subsection (1). (4) The lien shall become effective immediately. 5.642 Other Relief Preserved. Nothing in sections 5.600 to 5.642 shall be construed as limiting the right of the city to seek damages, injunctive or other appropriate relief under Oregon law for the termination of conduct in contravention of the code or ordinances of the city. N othing herein shall be construed as limiting the rights of the city to pursue its abatement procedure as set forth in sections 6.105 to 6.120, sections 5.000 to 5.018, or any other applicable law. Attachment 3 Page 14 of 14 5.000 Definitions. For the purposes of sections 5.000 through 5.012 the following mean: Enforcing Officer. The city manager or his or her designee. Person in Charge of Property. An agent, occupant, lessee, tenant, contract purchaser, or other person having possession or control of property or the supervision of any construction project. Person Responsible. The person responsible for abating a nuisance includes: (a) The owner. (b) The person in charge of property as defined above. (c) The person who caused a nuisance to come into or continue in existence. 5.001 Public Nuisances (1) No person shall cause or permit on public or private property a nuisance affecting the public health, safety or welfare. Such public nuisances include but are not limited to the following listed nuisances. (2) Solid Waste. A public nuisance includes an accumulation of debris, rubbish, junk or other refuse that is not removed within a reasonable time and that affects the health or livability of adjacent residents. All househol d or solid waste shall be managed in accordance with the following: (a) All household waste shall be stored in leakproof containers with close-fitting covers. (b) Every person who generates or produces wastes shall remove or have removed all putrescent wastes at least every seven days. More frequent removal may be required to protect the public health. (c) Subsection (2)(b) of this section does not apply to waste removed through a City- approved waste removal program that is less frequent than seven days. (3) Water Contamination. A public nuisance includes the following sources of contaminated water: Attachment 4 Page 1 of 7 (a) Stagnant water that affords a breeding place for mosquitoes and other insect pests. (b) Pollution of a body of water, well, spring, stream or drainage ditch by sewage, industrial wastes or other substances placed in or near the water in a manner that will cause harmful material to pollute the water. (c) Drainage of liquid wastes from private premises. (d) A privy, vault, cesspool, septic tank or drain which emits a noisome and offensive smell, or which is prejudicial to public health. (4) Keeping of Animals. Maintaining premises or keeping animals in such a state or condition as to cause an offensive odor or that are in an unsanitary condition. (5) Conditions Attracting Vermin. Conditions upon a property or any premises that allow, attract or are likely to attract, feed or harbor rodents. (6) Odors. Premises in such a state or condition as to cause an offensive odor or in an unsanitary condition. (6) Vegetation. A public nuisance includes any vegetation on public or private property that: (a) Is a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular use of a sidewalk or street by obstructing free passage or vision. The hazards include but are not limited to: i. Vegetation that encroaches upon or overhangs a pedestrian way or adjacent curb strip. ii. Vegetation which obstructs motorist or pedestrian view of traffic, traffic signs and signals, streetlights and name signs, or other safety fixtures or markings placed in the public way. (b) Is a hazard to the public or to persons or property on or near the property where the vegetation is located. (c) Is an obstruction of access to and use of any public facilities. (dee) The roots of which have entered a sewer, lateral sewer or house connection and are stopping, restricting, redirecting, or retarding the flow of sewage therein.(7) Structure interiors. A public nuisance includes failing to maintain the interior of a structure in a clean and sanitary condition and free from any accumulation of debris, rubbish, or garbage so as not to breed insects and rodents, produce dangerous or offensives gases, odors and bacteria, or other unsanitary conditions, or create a fire hazard. (8) Parking and Vehicle Storage. A public nuisance includes any of the following: Attachment 4 Page 2 of 7 (a) Parking or storing any motor vehicle, recreational vehicle, or trailer on a non -parking or non-driveway portion of any residential property between the front of the most prominent primary structure and the street. (b) Except where gravel driveways and parking surfaces are allowed under the Springfield Development Code (including any lawful nonconforming use), parking or storing any motor vehicle or recreational vehicle on an unpaved surface. (c) In a residential land use district, parking or storing any vehicle or trailer that requires a commercial license to operate. (9) Other. Any other thing, substance, condition, or activity prohibited by state law, common law, this code, other ordinances, or which is determined by the council to be in jurious or detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the city. 5.002 Attractive Nuisances (1) No person shall permit an attractive nuisance on public or private property. (2) The following conditions are a per se attractive nuisance, if accessible to children and posing an unreasonable risk of injury: (a) Unattended machinery, equipment, or other devices. (b) Lumber, logs, pilings, or materials placed or stored in a manner so as to be dangerous. (c) An excavation that remains open for an unreasonable length of time without adequate barriers. (d) A cistern, well, or any other similar type of hole. (e) An abandoned refrigerator or other appliance with an air-tight door that has a space large enough that a child or infant may be enclosed. (3) This section shall not apply to permitted construction projects with reasonable safeguards to prevent injury or death to children. 5.003 Dangerous, Abandoned, or Derelict Structures (1) Definitions. The definitions in the Oregon State Building Code apply to terms not defined in this section. The words dwelling unit, dwelling, premises, structure, or building shall be construed as though they were followed by the words “or any part thereof.” For the purpose of this section, the following shall mean: Abandoned means an unoccupied structure that is in a state of attractive nuisance or is used for unlawful activity. Attachment 4 Page 3 of 7 Boarded building means an unoccupied building that has been secured against entry by material such as plywood, boards, or other similar material placed over openings that are designed for and/or are required for windows and doors, and which is visible off the premises and is not both lawful and customary to install on an occupied structure. Occupancy means the purpose for which a building is used or intended to be used. Occupant means any person living or sleeping in a building or having possession of a space within a building or premises. Owner means any legal owner or any person having charge, care, or control of a premises. Partially constructed means a structure that has been left in a state of partial construction for more than six months or after the expiration of any building permit or tha t has not had a required permit inspection within any six -month period. Person means any individual or entity. Pests means animals detrimental to humans or human concerns including but not limited to insects, rodents, rats, and vermin. Premises means an area of land including any structures on the land. Skilled manner means executed in a manner that is generally plumb, level, square, in line, undamaged, without marring adjacent work and completed in conformance with generally accepted construction and maintenance practices. Unfit for Human Habitation applies to any premises for which the City Manager finds that such premises is in disrepair, lacks maintenance, is unsanitary, is pest infested, contains filth and contamination, or lacks ventilation, illuminati on, sanitation or heating facilities to the extent that habitation would be injurious to the health and safety of the occupants. Unoccupied means not being used for a lawful occupancy. (2) Dangerous, Abandoned, or Derelict Structures Prohibited. No structure shall be occupied if it is a boarded building, partially constructed and abandoned, unfit for human habitation, or an imminent hazard to public health, safety, or welfare as determined by the City Manager. (3) Closing of Structures. The City Manager may order that a structure in violation of this chapter be vacated, in the manner provided for abatement of public nuisances in sections 5.006 to 5.018 of this code. No person shall occupy or allow another to occupy a structure if th e City Manager has ordered vacation of the structure. (4) Dangerous, Abandoned, or Derelict Structure Registration. The owner of a structure ordered vacated shall register the structure within 10 calendar days of the posting of the order by submitting a completed City registration form. The registration form shall include information relating to the location and ownership of the structure, the expected period of its vacancy, a plan for regular maintenance during the period of vacancy, and a plan for its re-occupancy and Attachment 4 Page 4 of 7 use, or its demolition. Any change in the information provided pursuant to this section shall be given to the City Manager within 30 days. When all violations have been corrected, the owner shall contact the City Manager or designee and request an inspection to determine compliance. (5) Dangerous, Abandoned, or Derelict Structure Fees. (a) Every owner of a registered dangerous, abandoned, or derelict structure shall pay a nonrefundable quarterly fee for each identified structure. The fee is for each calendar quarter or portion of a quarter. The fee for the current quarter shall be paid with the submission of the registration form. Any payment of the fee that is more than 30 days past due is subject to a penalty of $100.00. The fee per quarter shall be $250.00 or other higher amount set by Council resolution. (b) Dangerous, abandoned or derelict structure fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of any permit for the demolition, alteration, or repair of a structure. (c) The City may initiate a proceeding in municipal court to recover registration fees that remain unpaid 90 days after they are due and to compel registration. The registration fee that was required but not registered when registration was required, shall be a year’s worth of registration fees. A municipal court order requiring payment of the fee shall be filed as a lien against the property in the City lien docket. This remedy is in addition to any other legal remedy available to the City. (6). Waiver of Dangerous, Abandoned, or Derelict Structure Fees. The City Manager may waive all or a portion of the fees imposed under this chapter, if the following conditions are met: (a) All delinquent fees and penalties have been paid in full; (b) A timetable for the repair or demolition of the structure has been submitted by the legal owner and approved by the City Manager; (c) All appropriate permits have been obtained for the repair or demolition of the structure; (d) The manager is satisfied that the repairs or demolition of the structure are being undertaken and will be prosecuted to completion in a timely fashion; and (d) The legal owner provides written authorization for the City to enforce all applicable trespass and illegal camping ordinances and laws. (7) Abatement by Demolition. (a) In addition to the abatement remedies provided for in sections 5.006 to 5.018, the City Manager may request a hearing before the Municipal Court for the purpose of seeking authority to order the demolition of a dangerous, abandoned or derelict structure. (b) Upon receipt of a demolition request from the City Manager, the Municipal Court Clerk shall set the matter for prompt hearing before the Municipal Court and give the owner(s) and occupant(s) notice by personal delivery or certified mail of the date and time set for Attachment 4 Page 5 of 7 hearing. Notice shall also be posted on or near the dangerous, abandoned, or derelict structure. Failure of the owner(s) or occupant(s) to receive such notice or an error in the name or address of an owner(s) or occupant(s) shall not render the notice void. (c) The Municipal Court may authorize the demolition of the structure if the City shows by a preponderance of the evidence that demolition would be in the public interest. The burden of proof shall be upon the City. (d) In determining whether a structure is so derelict as to require its owner to demolish the structure, the Municipal Court may consider the number and extent of the following factors: i. Dilapidation; ii. Disrepair; iii. Structural defects noted by the Building Official or fire hazard noted by the Fire Marshal; iv. Defects increasing the hazards of fire, accident or other calamity, such as parts standing or attached in such manner as to be likely to fall and cause serious damage or injury; v. Uncleanliness; vi. Lawful operation of sanitary facilities; vii. The presence of a public nuisance; and viii. The history of unlawful activity in or around the derelict structure. (8) Failure to Follow Order to Demolish. (a) Whenever a demolition is not commenced by the owner within 30 days after an order to demolish, the City Manager may file with the Municipal Court a request to authorize the City Manager to have the demolition performed and the cost of demolition assessed as a lien against the property where the structure is located. (b) The Municipal Court Clerk shall set the request for prompt hearing, and cause notice of the hearing to be served via certified mail to the owner(s) and occupant(s). Failure of the owner(s) or occupant(s) to receive the notice or an error in the name or address of a owner(s) or occupant(s) shall not render the notice void. (c) At the hearing, the owner(s) and occupant(s) shall have an opportunity to show cause why the demolition should not be performed and the cost assessed as a lien against the property. (d) The cost of demolition and 10 percent charge for administrative overhead will be assessed in the manner provided in 5.014. 5.004 Inoperable Vehicles, Automobile Wrecking, and Storage Yards. (1) The Springfield Development Code prohibits automobile wrecking or storage yards in all zones excepting the heavy industrial zoning district and where a discretionary use approval has been granted. No person, firm or corporation, not being duly licensed by the state of Oregon, shall engage in the business of wrecking, dismantling, permanently disassembling or substantially altering the form of any motor vehicle within the city. Attachment 4 Page 6 of 7 (2) No person, firm or corporation shall dismantle or wreck, in whole or in part, any motor vehicle body, or portions thereof, to remain upon any public or private property, and leaving of such dismantled motor vehicle body upon any public or private property within the city. (3) This section shall not apply to: licensed motor vehicle wreckers who are not otherwise in violation of this code or the development code; or motor vehicle bodies stored or kept in a garage so that the bodies cannot collect water, cannot be accessible to children, and cannot otherwise become a public nuisance.(4) No person shall store or permit the storing of an inoperable, abandoned, or discarded vehicle, or parts thereof, on private property unless it is completely enclosed within a building or behind a 6 foot fence, or unless it is in connection with a business enterprise, lawfully licensed by the city, and properly operated in the appropriate business zone, pursuant to the Springfield Development Code. Attachment 4 Page 7 of 7