Afton reviews nuisance property code

Nuisance properties in Afton have had struggles with notification and enforcement. Following a meeting of the Afton City Council which reviewed nuisance property procedures, the city will have a stronger case against them.

Tuesday’s Afton City Council meeting began with a review on the city’s nuisance property ordinance, led by the city’s attorney, Meggen Weeks.

Confusion in previous meetings over city powers led to this review of the ordinance. Members of city council were looking for how the city could force property owners into action to rectify outstanding issues with their properties.

Weeks led the city through the ordinance and various definitions, answering questions and correcting procedures which did not follow city code. A general theme of the meeting was for the city to rely on letters of intent, which would notify property owners of city action if they did not comply with city ordinances within seven days.

In previous cases, communication between the city and nuisance property owners was done primarily through Afton’s sole police officer, Jake McGuire. As a part of notifying nuisance property owners, a system was created where the city could issue a red tag, which is hung on the front door of a property and describes the violating nuisance.

According to Weeks, the red tag system doesn’t follow any Afton city code, which makes the system unenforceable and wouldn’t count as a proper notification. Weeks said Afton was the only city she’s works with that uses the red tag system, and admitted to be unfamiliar with the system until Tuesday’s meeting.

“Our ordinances don’t say anything about a red tag or anything like that,” Weeks said. “It is a letter, that’s what it is. My other cities use letters.”

The letter of intent is vital for proper communication, as it allows for property owners to respond and request a hearing within 10 days if they believe they are not in violation of city ordinances. No matter the violation, Afton, like any city, must notify property owners with the letter of intent.

Each certified letter will include the attached ordinance the property owner is in violation of and photographic evidence. This avoids additional confusion from property owners. If a property owner doesn’t comply, the city could file a municipal infraction to force action.

Letters of intent should only be sent when the city is fully prepared for action. Weeks said this will assist with informing property owners and winning municipal infractions if it escalates to that point.

The council reviewed different scenarios of nuisance properties to understand the powers of the city. When discussing overgrown lawns, Afton could hire an outside contractor to mow lawns and later bill the property owner, following the letter of intent.

Weeks noted how lawn care wouldn’t be worth the city’s time and money to enforce a municipal infraction. Mowing would be the only case where the city wouldn’t need a court order to enforce.

The same is not applied to other landscaping work such as shrubs or tree removal, which Weeks recommended against, citing the high costs for their removal and value to the property. Certain actions could be taken depending on the danger imposed.

For example, trimming can be enforced if a tree branch is in a line of vision over a public sidewalk. Other action could be enforced if the tree is dead, diseased or damaged. In general, if a tree reasonably poses a danger to the public or another property, the city could enforce action. In emergency situations, removal could be set to be as quick as 24 hours after notice.

Personal property could be removed from nuisance properties by city police (in Afton’s case, Chief McGuire) based on the officer’s authority. The city, if it wins a municipal infraction, could demolish a building, but it can not destroy personal property.

Weeks, in her explanation, said the city shouldn’t consider all personal property as a nuisance, citing potential sentimental value to a property owner.

“Some people’s junk is another person’s treasure,” Weeks explained.

Definitions for junk vehicles were explained, with the city having authorization to move them under various conditions, such as if the vehicle doesn’t run, is missing parts, if it becomes a breeding ground for animals or is a point of collection for stagnant water. Junk vehicles would need to be moved into a garage if the property owner wishes to keep it on their property.

Abandoned properties can have action taken only if the property has not been lived in for six months. If this condition is met, other additional conditions, such as a lack of utilities, no visitors or open to rodents, can help secure a case against the property.

No matter what type of nuisance property the city wants to take action against, the letter of intent and a confident case behind it is needed.