Overview of Abatement Regulations and Process

With the Code Enforcement process, City Staff meet with the property owner to explain the violation with a verbal warning followed up by a letter with the deadline for compliance.  A follow-up inspection then occurs and if it is found to be non-compliant, a second letter is then issued.  If still no compliance, an administrative citation (fine), a court citation, and/or an abatement of the nuisance is possible.  An abatement is where City Staff (and often a City-hired contractor) cleans up the property and removes the public nuisance.  

The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss the current abatement process and how the City can better streamline it. This will help reduce the cost for the community, in both staff time and fees associated with abatements. We will also streamline those who oversee the abatement process to ensure expeditious action and create an opportunity to appeal those actions in a more community-orientated fashion. 

Notification is not required for a discussion topic.

City Staff have observed instances where the ability to remove public nuisances could be streamlined in a more efficient way, effectively costing less money, less staff time, and more easily understood by our community.  In doing this, we will allow for a more streamlined appeal process that allows our residents to ultimately appeal these decisions to Council.

Currently, the City of Ramsey places the Chief of Police as the administrator of the abatement process and the one responsible party to ensure appeals are heard in a timely manner, although the Community Development Department investigates, addresses, and ultimately abates public nuisances. Changing the code will allow the Community Development Department to oversee the abatement and appeal process and remove the Chief of Police from this process altogether. This will allow residents to work directly with the staff that oversee the code enforcement processes to address any appeal concerns.  

We will also be changing the requirement to obtain a hearing officer. Currently, when used, hiring an outside attorney as a mediator costs more than the $250.00 obtained as a hearing fee. One of the concerns of using a hearing officer is that that officer is paid by the City and that it may be biased in the decisions.   

The new process would essentially require the subject to request a conference with the Planning Manager and/or Community Development Director to go over the violations, if the resident feels like the violation determination was wrongful. If a case cannot be resolved during the conference, the subject can then escalate to the City Council through a public hearing to determine the validity of the case through their appeal. This enables the resident to be heard by elected officials about code concerns, and provides an opportunity for elected officials to potentially change or correct codes they believe to be unfair to our residents.    While using a hearing officer, if the decision is disliked by the resident, they would have the option to appeal through the City Council. By changing the code, we eliminate the cost of a hearing officer and create an opportunity to resolve code matters in-house. 

With the code change, we are looking for the ability to post notice on the primary door of residences as this will streamline service of any abatement notice. Currently, mail is increasing in the length of time for services and some notices arrive, only providing a few days to remove a violation. 

We are also looking at allowances for the immediate removal of hazardous conditions, or long grass through administrative action versus a City Council process. Many cities surrounding us allow for the abatement of nuisance weeds and grass through processes to expedite the remediation versus waiting several weeks. Instances where long grass or noxious weeds will grow or regrow within the time frame of a notice or instances where we have rotting carcasses, chemical hazards, or public health emergencies that warrant immediate action and not a delayed response.

This case is being handled as part of normal staff duties.

Please offer feedback on the attached Code Amendment and provide recommendation to move forward with a Public Hearing before City Council.

Recommend staff to bring forward the proposed ordinance to City Council for a Public Hearing.