HOPE – Hope Town Council members have approved amendments to an ordinance with tougher penalties for residents who have junk-filled yards.
The amendments passed by a vote of 4-1. Although council member Ed Johnson voted in favor of the changes in July, he cast the only vote against the changes on second reading. Johnson wanted a special council meeting to discuss the proposed changes.
Town manager Jason Eckart told the council last May he did not believe existing penalties are enforceable with the current hearing and appeal process. The town manager also expressed a desire to make provisions in the local code more enforceable by giving them more teeth and an easily enforceable fine.
The first time the town has to intervene to clean up a private yard, only the actual clean-up costs will be charged, Eckart said. While that’s the same as it is now, those costs will be higher because the town had decided to hire a private firm to do the clean-up work, instead of relying on town employees.
But if the same yard has to be cleaned twice within a 12-month period, there will be a fine of $200 in addition to the clean-up costs. If it has to be cleaned up more than twice over a 12-month period, the fine rises to $400 and the clean-up expenses.
In addition, the town can send certified letters allowing it to pursue a civil action for ordinance violations that might hold defendants liable for any or all costs of action, as well as all attorney fees. If the payment is not made within 30 days of receiving the statement, a certified copy of the expenses and fines will be filed with the county auditor to be added to the owner’s property tax bill.
While there were no question from the council regarding owner-occupied residences, the topic of responsibility of rental properties was considered by council members.
Town attorney Scott Andrews was not present in July as council members Clyde Compton and Ohmer Miller said they felt the responsibility of cleaning up exteriors of rental properties, as well as the payment of penalties, should be the joint responsibility of the tenant and landlord. Making both parties equally responsible would serve as a checks and balance for ensuring the property’s upkeep, they said.
To that end, Compton asked that the phrase “landlord and/or tenant” that appeared seven times in the revised amendments be changed to ‘landlord and tenant.’ His request was part of the first-reading approval in July.
But when the document came up for a second and final reading this month, six of the seven mentions of landlord and/or tenant simply read ‘landlord’, Compton said. The only place that states the phrase “tenant and landlord” is where the fines are listed, the councilman said.
“I personally appreciate the ‘and/or’,” Andrews said. “You just don’t know what situation will arise. You might want to go after one or the other, or after both.”
But Compton said revisions from July only make the tenant and landlord equally responsible when it comes to the municipal fines.
“Everything else is landlord, landlord, landlord,” Compton said.
In addition, the August changes don’t make the cost of hiring an outside firm to clean up the property, as well as court costs and attorney fees, equitable to both tenant and landlord, he said.
Compton specifically mentioned a landlord in Florida who received a letter stating she had 14 days to clean up the property. However, the letter did not reach her until the 14 day period was up, and the landlord knew nothing about the problem.
In the end, the council gave final approval to the amendments as they were presented in July.
