City officials grapple over how to deal with nuisance properties

Ritzville City Council members, Mayor Gary Cook and other city officials had a contentious discussion at the July 2 council meeting on how the city should address properties that have been found to be not in compliance with the city's nuisance ordinance.

The council received an update from compliance officer John Hunt on two of the properties that had been granted an extension at a prior city council meeting. The extensions were essentially a good-faith gesture from the council to the owners of the property, allowing them more time to become fully in compliance with the nuisance ordinance. According to Hunt, both properties were now sufficiently in compliance.

The discussion then turned toward the five properties that the city found to not be in compliance during the May 7 council. Resolutions at that meeting were adopted that ordered the abatement of the nuisance on behalf of the city, at the cost of the landowner.

As of the July 2 meeting, the five properties each owed a total of $230; a flat $25 administrative fee, plus $5 per day (41 days had passed at the time of the meeting) that the property is not in compliance with the nuisance ordinances.

After 60 days, if the property has not been abated, the matter will be turned over to Armada Corporation, a regional debt collection agency. All told, the city would be able to collect a total of $1,625 in fines from the five properties.

Ritzville Police Chief Dave McCormick asked how many days it would take for the property to be abated if the property owners will not do it themselves. Councilmember Dennis Chamberlain responded by saying that the city would keep billing the owners and send them to the collection agency.

NUISANCE PROPERTIES continued on Page A-6

"Why don't you send somebody to clean them up?" asked McCormick. Chamberlain said that it costs the city money to do that, while imposing fines on property owners does not. McCormick contested though that the problem, which is that the properties are still in violation of the nuisance ordinance, isn't getting solved.

"No, but we fine people-just like you do as an officer-for wrongdoing," said Chamberlain. McCormick clarified that officers don't fine people, they issue notice of infractions, give citations and book people into jail.

"If we clean it up, Dave, we haven't fixed the problem," said Mayor Gary Cook.

"Well, the property gets cleaned up and neighbors don't have to look at the squall and the mess and the garbage piling up and the weeds that are three, four and five feet tall that are a fire hazard right next to their beautiful property, or come out their front door and look at the crap right across the street," responded McCormick.

Cook said he totally understood those concerns, but questioned how it is incumbent upon the city to clean up the property. McCormick replied that he believed the city wasn't taking the steps toward enforcing the ordinance and getting the properties cleaned up. He added that he didn't think it was fair to the property owners that live near the nuisance properties.

"I kind of have a problem with using the public's money to clean up personal property on property that we know nobody is going to keep it up or fix it up themselves," said Cook. "They are not going to maintain it. Why are we having taxpayers' money pay it and then hope we can collect? I don't think that's a good investment."

Councilmember Mike Schrag interjected and asked if the fines collected by the city can be used in efforts to help clean up the properties. Cook said that they could.

There was also a discussion about whether the city could increase the daily fine-currently at $5-imposed on the nuisance properties. Cook noted that they could theoretically impose a fine of up to $500 a day, but that it would make no sense. Not even $10 a day would make sense, Cook said, because the property owners likely don't have the resources to pay the actual fine, and the goal of the daily fines isn't to punish them, but to motivate them and ultimately get the properties cleaned up.

Councilmember Michelle Plumb asked if the Adams County Health Department could be contacted if the nuisance in question was malodorous. McCormick said trying to contact the health department would be "a waste of energy, a waste of postage stamps for us and a waste of two phone calls of about 20-30 minutes." McCormick clarified that he's been told by health department officials that the department doesn't have any enforcement ability.