Laserfiche WebLink
abatement was not paid by the landowner the County could put a lien on the property; <br />however there were limits to the County's ability to collect on these types of liens if they <br />were on a homestead property or in the event of a bank foreclosure. <br />Attorney Reingold advised the proposed Ordinance would allow the County to <br />put abatement costs onto the tax roll so if they were not paid the taxes would be <br />considered delinquent and the property could potentially be sold through the tax deed <br />application process. He reviewed the amendment with the proposed language to <br />Section 973.06(5) and Section 403.08(3) of the Draft Ordinance. <br />Chairman Zimmerman felt this was a very strong remedy and was a meaningful <br />expansion of government power. He wondered if the problem of uncollected fines was <br />so great that we would hand over to the government the power to be able to take <br />property if the grass was not mown to someone's liking and was not comfortable with <br />the idea that the government should have the power to take a person's property, except <br />under the most serious set of conditions. <br />Attorney Reingold explained the primary mechanism would still be through the <br />lien process and noted any action, if taken, would require a super majority vote for the <br />process to move forward and would involve only the most serious of violations. He <br />stressed a property owner would have at least two years before a tax deed sale could <br />occur, so there would be a lot of time to comply. <br />Mr. Boling stated the BCC had looked at the question of whether the taxpayers <br />should pay for the cost of removing dangerous structures when the owner had been <br />given plenty of opportunity to do so or secure the property. He advised from 2009 to the <br />present a total of $173,490.15 had been paid to contractors for demolition, and the <br />County had recovered $28,294.55 or roughly 16% of that cost. Mr. Boling gave a brief <br />PowerPoint presentation showing properties that had been approved for abatement. <br />Chairman Zimmerman maintained it was an expansion of the power of the <br />government to be able to take a person's property in order to force them to pay a fine, <br />and he did not agree with the confiscation of private property to resolve what he <br />considered was essentially a $50,000 per year problem. <br />Discussion ensued. <br />Mr. Roland DeBlois, IRC Chief of Environmental Planning and Code <br />Enforcement, described the code enforcement process that would take place before <br />abatement action would be proposed. <br />Mr. Bill DeBraal, IRC Deputy County Attorney, related the County currently had <br />the power to foreclose a code enforcement lien on any property except homestead after <br />90 days. He explained this Ordinance would extend the County's power to collect <br />against a homesteaded property; however it was no more of threat than currently <br />existed as far as taxes was concerned for a person who did not want to pay paving and <br />PZC/Unapproved <br />ATTACHMENT 3 <br />March 27, 2014 <br />54 <br />