Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning & Development Services

TO:	Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager Scott McCullough, Director Planning & Development Services
FROM:	Brian Jimenez, Code Enforcement Manager
CC:	Margene Swarts, Assistant Director Development Services
Date:	September 10, 2008
RE:	Ordinance 8280 – Trash Abatement

Introduction

During a meeting in the fall of 2007 with City Staff and City Commissioners, the Oread Neighborhood Association asked that the City consider changing the Environmental Code to address the length of time a person is allowed to remove items from their property that are considered junk and/or refuse.  As a result of that meeting, along with a follow up discussion with the City Commission on April 29, 2008, it was determined that staff should discuss further possibilities to amend the code to address the length of time a person is allowed to comply in these situations.

In discussions with Diane Stoddard, Toni Wheeler and Scott Miller regarding our current code provisions and how those provisions might be amended to better serve the citizens of Lawrence, it was determined that our main focus would be to provide staff a method of taking accelerated enforcement and abatement action against owners of properties where junk or refuse had accumulated.

Current Code Provisions

Under the provisions of Section 9-607 of the City Code, a notice of violation must be sent to the property owner or other responsible party by certified mail 15 days prior to the initiation of enforcement by staff.  Many of these violations consist of junk, refuse or other items of little to no worth.  Over time, it has become the normal procedure to send a courtesy letter to the owner asking for compliance in situations of minor violations or for non-habitual violations.  The ordinance requires that a notice of violation be sent certified therefore sending a courtesy letter creates an additional 15 days for compliance resulting in a minimum of 30 days after the initial inspection is completed before any enforcement action or potential abatement of the violation is considered.

Conclusion

It was determined that items of little to no worth, such as junk and refuse, should be treated differently than personal items of worth as these items can often be displaced to neighboring properties creating additional blight that should be removed in a more timely manner than current practice.   The following amendments (also see draft amended ordinance) are proposed for adoption:

• Notice may be served by placing the notice of violation on the property in a conspicuous place creating a situation of immediate notification.
• The notice shall also be sent by mail but is not required to be sent certified resulting in a savings of $5.32 per mailing.
• Reduction of compliance time period of 15 days to 7 days from the date of the service of the notice of violation for exterior conditions that consists of junk or refuse.
• Reduces time period to appeal exterior yard violations involving junk or refuse from the current 15 days to 7 days thus creating a more timely enforcement protocol.

These changes to Chapter 9, Article 6 of the City Code will address situations of accumulating junk and refuse by cutting the compliance time in half for these violations.  A major voice of concern from citizens is that the current code provisions are too lenient regarding cases involving junk or refuse.   The impact on staff is minimal as staff will still be required to re-inspect all of the properties but now it will be a shorter time period for cases involving items of little to no worth.

Scott Miller recommends in his memorandum (attached) to Toni Wheeler that the courtesy letter be eliminated and the notice of violation be redrafted to incorporate much of the language of the courtesy letter.  Although there is merit in the courtesy letter and allowing staff the discretion to use it, the overall benefits of using only one violation letter creates a more streamlined code enforcement approach resulting in an overall improvement in compliance.