Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/21/2000 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 28, 2000, AMENDING AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 21 DATE: March 21, 2000 . FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: John Fischbach Steve Roy SUBJECT: First Reading of Ordinance No.28,2000,Amending Chapter 20 of the City Code Relating to Public Nuisance Violations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Council Health and Safety Committee has worked with staff and the community over the past nine months to develop and refine a proposed public nuisance ordinance. Input has been received from more than 500 people via community meetings, e-mail, letters and phone calls. Several revisions to the ordinance have been made to respond to feedback from the community. Staff believes that the current draft of the ordinance achieves the goals of the Health and Safety Committee while addressing many of the concerns expressed by members of the public. However, the issue remains controversial, and concerns exist around the fundamental question of whether property owners should be held responsible for the behavior of tenants and visitors to their property. BACKGROUND: Over the past few years,many people have contacted the City because of nuisance properties in their neighborhoods. These houses are usually described as chronic problems, creating an eyesore and, in many cases,disturbing the peace of others who live nearby.The public nuisance ordinance would add a tool to the City's resources for dealing with these problems.Though the City has existing laws to deal with many of the individual issues which neighbors complain about, it currently has no effective way of dealing with these chronic problems if the occupants of the properties fail to respond to enforcement efforts. In order to address these problems, the City Council included this issue as a priority in its Policy Agenda over the past four years. The Council Health and Safety Committee and staff have considered a number of alternatives during that time and staff has implemented a wide variety of programs to attempt to resolve the issue. This ordinance would add another important tool to this overall effort which targets the most difficult chronic problem properties where enforcement of existing codes has not been effective. Some of the other projects that staff has undertaken during the past 4 years include the following: DATE: March 21,2000 2 ITEM NUMBER: 21 ♦ Education and cooperative efforts with CSU regarding students who live off campus ("Duh" advertising campaign, CSU Student Housing Fair, etc.) ♦ Publication of the "Across the Fence" brochure to provide residents with simple, concise information about ordinances which affect neighborhoods, and what to do when problems arise. ♦ Amendments to the Rubbish Ordinance, i.e. the "Funky Couches" ordinance prohibiting the use of indoor furniture on lawns, roofs and in other exposed areas. ♦ Implementation of a Landlord Education Program to provide property management seminars to rental property owners and managers regarding best practices in managing rental properties. ♦ Neighborhood Resources Program: On-going program to bring neighbors together to improve their neighborhoods by knowing each other and talking about problems when they come up. ♦ Increased enforcement of Health and Safety codes, including increased ticketing of offenders by deputizing officers. ♦ Analysis of violation data through a pilot project to evaluate problem and possible solutions. Significant findings included realizing that property owners didn't always know about problems,and that there are some properties that repeatedly violate all types of codes. ♦ Commitment from the Police Department to review its enforcement practices on parry and noise calls and to look for ways to improve its effectiveness. ♦ Approval of an additional position in the Health and Safety division to work on coordinating enforcement around the chronic problem properties, to act as a resource to neighbors and property owners to deal with problems proactively, and if the ordinance is passed, to coordinate the enforcement. ♦ Expansion of Community Mediation Program to include landlord-tenant disputes. SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM: In order to evaluate the scope of the problem of chronic problem properties, staff has conducted research into the number of violations involving cases of the type which tend to "annoy or disturb neighbors." Statistics were gathered from the Health and Safety Division which enforces the City's rubbish, weeds, snow and inoperable motor vehicle ordinances, and from Police Services, which enforces the City's ordinances dealing with parties and noise. Though there are other types of violations that may "annoy or disturb neighbors," these categories are the most frequent types of violations that contribute to a chronic problem property. DATE: Match 21, 2000 3 ITEM NUMBER: 21 r H�7t�l an afety Cod nforce t5tatlsacs s _ '9 r ' ' rerdbllt A Increase Properties Notified 4,291 5,279 5,201 21% Properties Abated 592 747 760 28% Tickets Issued 2 41 82 4100% Noise Citations 1538 1539 1590 3.4% Issued Though the data regarding the number of violations shows a significant problem community-wide, . it does not illustrate the extent of the problem of chronic problem properties (those with multiple violations of a variety of City codes.) In order to better understand the extent of the problem.in September 1998 the City and CSU began a pilot project to experiment with a stepped up education and enforcement program in two neighborhoods near CSU's campus. The task force carried out projects within the pilot area to determine which actions and programs could be of the greatest benefit in improving the quality of life and appearance in the targeted neighborhoods. The two pilot areas included approximately 600 properties and included a large percentage of rental housing. The area to the north of the campus was bounded by Washington Street, Howes Street, West Mulberry Street, and Laurel Street. East Mulberry Street,Prospect Road,Remington Street,and Peterson Street bound the pilot area east of the campus. Staff found that it was difficult to have effective code enforcement for the full range of nuisance ordinances because there was not a clear picture of where chronic violations exist. Information sharing between the various enforcement arms of the City was needed to make enforcement efforts more effective. The data collection portion of this project was aimed at a small-scale experiment with more detailed information sharing. During the nine month pilot project, staff developed a temporary database that allowed the City to improve the process of notifying property owners and managers when violations occurred. This database combined information from the Police Department,the City's Health and Safety Inspectors,Zoning staff and the Larimer County Humane Society. Though difficult and labor intensive to collect,the committee found that the data provided a helpful way to quantify the frustration that many neighbors feel in dealing with these problem properties in their neighborhood. DATE: March 21,2000 4 ITEM NUMBER: 21 When data from all of enforcement agencies was consolidated, it showed the following: Pilot Project Violation.Data%,*. 600 popertiesmonitored Violations W =Proper iesmith September 1998-May 1999VIIIl le 2 33 3-4 18 5-7 7 8-11 2 Total 60 Nearly l0%ofthe 600+properties in the pilot area had multiple violations of City codes during the nine-month data collection period,with 1.5%having five or more violations. Staff is confident of the validity of the data because of the extensive screening process that was undertaken in the project to eliminate unfounded complaints. Each property owner and known property manager associated with the property received a letter from the City listing the violations that occurred and providing information about the impact on neighbors and possible consequences for repeated violations. Staff s conclusion from the study was that there are a small number of chronic problem properties (1-2% in the study area), which had a large number of violations of various city codes. We also found that, in many cases, the property owners involved were not aware that significant problems existed at their property and that, with the information,most were willing to address the problem. In its June 1999 report to Council on the pilot project, staff made several recommendations, all of which Council accepted. Recommendations included expanding the community mediation program to include landlord/tenant disputes; continuing the cross-functional staff team to work on these issues;adding a code enforcement case manager to the 2000-2001 Budget to coordinate enforcement of chronic problem properties; and developing a draft public nuisance ordinance to provide an additional tool to deal with the most difficult chronic problem properties. Beginning in January 2000 the Community Mediation Program was expanded, in February 2000 the code enforcement case manager position was filled, and now the nuisance ordinance is before Council for consideration. PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE: The proposed ordinance was developed to address two goals: 1. To remedy chronic problems at properties where City Code violations occur that annoy or disturb others. 2. To hold property owners accountable for the condition and use of their properties. Under the ordinance, the City would consider filing a public nuisance action if a property had received three or more separate City Code violations within 12 months or five or more within 24 months. Violations would have to be of the type that"annoy or disturb neighbors or passers by." DATE: March 21, 2000 5 ITEM NUMBER: 21 In order to ensure that the violations included in a public nuisance action are valid, each violation must have resulted in the issuance of a municipal court citation to the person(s)directly responsible for the violation. By requiring that a citation must have been issued for the violation to `count" towards a public nuisance action, the City can be better assured that frivolous complaints will not become part of a nuisance action. Since an enforcement officer would have verified the complaint and citation, abuse of the system should be avoided. The ordinance would require that written notice be sent to the property owner and where applicable, tenants within 30 days of each violation except the last one, and that the last violation must have occurred at least 45 days after the last notice. This 45 day waiting period would provide the property owner with time to either resolve the problem or contact the City to begin to develop a voluntary plan to abate the problem. THE PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE MECHANICS: There would be several steps involved in enforcing the public nuisance ordinance. The process is illustrated in the flowchart, Exhibit A. First,the City would need to become aware that a property might be becoming a public nuisance. This could happen in any of several ways, including complaints from neighbors,a large number of violations which look like a pattern to a staff member, or the police department noticing a chronic problem and calling it to the attention of the code enforcement staff The Code Compliance Case Manager could then collect data about a potential nuisance property and look at the "big picture" to determine how serious and chronic the problem is in comparison to similar properties in the City. If the property has multiple violations, the City Attorney would also help to decide whether a public nuisance action could be proven in Court and should be filed. Any action to enforce this ordinance would be civil in nature, and could only become criminal if a court order were ignored. Notice would be sent to the property owner(and tenants in the case of a rental)when the City begins the process of monitoring a property as a possible public nuisance. This would be the first official notice of the possibility of a public nuisance violation.After receiving the first notice,two additional violations within 12 months(three total)or four additional violations within 24 months(five total) could result in the filing of a public nuisance action. As soon as the first notice was sent to the property owner.the City would encourage the owner to work with the City,any tenants and possibly neighbors to develop a plan to avoid future problems. VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROPERTY OWNERS: The goal of the ordinance is to resolve chronic problems in the neighborhoods. The focus of the ordinance is on working with the property owner to make improvements. A voluntary action plan could be developed between the City and the owner to both resolve the problem and avoid the need for court orders under the ordinance. At any time after a notice has been sent out,a property owner could enter into a voluntary abatement plan with the City by meeting with staff and working out an agreement. If the property owner and the City reached such an agreement and the property owner did what he or she had agreed to do, no public nuisance action would be filed. REMEDIES UNDER THE ORDINANCE: The City's goal would be to achieve compliance with City ordinances through voluntary agreements. However,if no voluntary abatement agreement was reached,the City could ask the Municipal Court DATE: March 21,2000 6 ITEM NUMBER: 21 to issue an order to the parties causing the nuisance,requiring them to do whatever is necessary to put an end to the nuisance. If the owner was unwilling to resolve the problem through an abatement plan,the City would have the ability to take an owner to court under the ordinance. Remedies would then come in the form of a municipal court order.The Court could order the owner to do whatever is appropriate to resolve the problem. This might include such things as ordering a particular tenant to be evicted,clean-up of the property,or an order that a certain person not engage in a certain kind of behavior. In order to get a temporary order,the City would have to establish, at a hearing, reasonable grounds to believe that a public nuisance exists. (In an emergency, the City could get a temporary order without a court hearing,but that order could remain in effect for no more than ten days, unless it was extended after a hearing.) If the City obtained a temporary order, the persons affected by the order could ask the Court to remove it at any time. To obtain a permanent order,the City would have to prove the existence of the public nuisance, including any underlying violations that had not already been proved in Court. Even without&voluntary abatement agreement,a notice of violation would be stricken(not counted) if a landlord went to court to evict a tenant that had caused the problem, and also did everything reasonably possible to avoid more of the same kinds of problems. The only criminal penalties that could result from the ordinance would occur if someone knowingly ignored or disobeyed a court order. If, for example, someone was ordered by the court to clean up a property and they did not follow the order, that person could be prosecuted for a misdemeanor violation in Municipal Court. All previous notices of violations would be stricken (would not count) if the property was sold, unless it was sold simply to avoid the public nuisance ordinance. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND COMMENTS: The City has received numerous written comments about the proposed ordinance, and hundreds of people attended one or more of the meetings. Staff continues to receive e-mail feedback on a daily basis. Attached is a complete set of all the feedback received. Several themes have emerged in the comments from the community. The following is a brief summary of issues that have come up frequently. For the Ordinance: ♦ Owning a rental property is a business and business owners are responsible for how their business premises are used. Therefore, property owners must be held responsible for activities at their rental properties. ♦ Property values suffer when these problem properties are allowed to exist. ♦ In the case of rental properties it is not the responsibility of neighbors to explain local codes to every new tenant. Property owners need to take responsibility to see that this occurs. DATE: March 21, 2000 7 ITEM NUMBER: 21 ♦ In addition to the Ordinance, CSU also needs to take responsibility for problems that are . created by students. ♦ Even when neighbors try to contact the owner, they are generally not successful in getting cooperation. This ordinance will force owners to get involved. ♦ The Cir% also needs to be more aggressive in enforcing existing ordinances. This may make the use of a nuisance ordinance less frequent and only necessary for worst cases. Opposed to the Ordinance: ♦ This ordinance is too far reaching for the small number of problems that may exist. ♦ The City should enforce existing ordinances instead of adding another ordinance that will be difficult to enforce. ♦ Landlords are not responsible for the actions of the people to whom they rent their property and shouldn't be held accountable for those actions. ♦ Unreasonable neighbors can create a problem for a landlord. ♦ It is difficult for landlords to evict problem tenants, yet the ordinance holds them strictly liable for their bad actions. Sometimes landlords get bad tenants, despite their best efforts to avoid problems. ♦ Property owners should always be notified about police calls at their property so that they can address the problem. Without that information, how can property owners be proactive in solving problems? ♦ Real estate professionals were not consulted in drafting the ordinance. Better solutions could have been created. ♦ Investors will need to raise rental prices and deposits to cover the risk that they will have to assume -, ith the ordinance. ♦ The ordinance will affect housing affordability. A full list of all public outreach conducted by staff and Council Members is attached. ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance Summan B. Communications Program C. Affordable Housing Board Recommendation D. Most Recent Citizen Comments Exhibit A CASE MANAGEMENT EXAMPLE iolations at a Rental Pro June 2000 Jul 2000 September 2000 December 2000 Noise lesion Rubbish Violation Noise Violation Disturbe 1 Police called.warning given Police called,arrest made, Police called,ticket issued Notice sent to owner,tenant Po g g and;operas manager ticket issued to tenant Tenants go to court,receive No response from owner or No further action Tenant goes to court re: fine tenants, property abated by charges the City, bill sent to owner Code Compliance Case Manager notes potential nuisance property December violation represents first"strike"under the ordinance,while other violations show the beginning of a pattern of problems. Case Manager provides property owner with suggested resources for resolving problem. Property owner could take a variety of actions. Actions might include talking to tenants,giving tenants a"warning"about a violation of their lease,talking to the neighbors,seeking mediation, beginning eviction proceedings.refusing to renew the lease,clean up property, etc. May contact City about entering into voluntary abatement plan. Problem resolved. Additional incident occurs. no further City action tenant and/or owner cited f City sends owner second notice of possible public nuisance action Owner takes action. problem(s) Owne r takes no action,or resolved actions ' a uate 45 days pass Additional incident occurs, tenant and/or owner cited.City begins Public Nuisance Action ORDINANCE NO. 28, 2000 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RELATING TO PUBLIC NUISANCE VIOLATIONS WHEREAS, the City Code presently contains various provisions enacted under the police power of the City which are intended to maintain order and promote the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City; and WHEREAS,many such provisions are directed towards the conduct of persons on private property, and are intended to ensure that neither the conduct of such persons, nor the physical condition of such properties,constitutes a nuisance to other residents in the vicinity of the properties or passers-by on the public rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, many of these provisions of the City Code, such as those pertaining to unreasonable noise,litter,disturbing the peace.disorderly conduct and harassment,are enforced by the filing of criminal prosecutions against the persons directly responsible for violations of the same; and WHEREAS,notwithstanding these enforcement efforts,recurring City Code violations on certain parcels of property in the City have resulted in the creation of public nuisances on such • properties which seriously threaten the peace and safety of neighboring residents and undermine the quality of life of the residents of the City; and WHEREAS,public nuisance laws exist under the state statutes,but such laws are enforceable only in the state courts and not in the Municipal Court; and WHEREAS,Section 31-15-401(1)(c),C.R.S.authorizes the City to declare and abate public nuisances; and WHEREAS,Section 16-13-302(1),C.R.S.specifically provides that the state public nuisance laws shall not be construed to limit or preempt the powers of any court or political subdivision to abate or control nuisances; and WHEREAS,the City Council believes that it is necessary and desirable in the public interest to enact a local public nuisance law in order to:eliminate local public nuisances by removing parcels of real property in the City from a condition that consistently and repeatedly violates municipal law; make property owners vigilant in preventing public nuisances on or in their property;make property owners responsible for the use of their property by tenants, guests and occupants; provide locally enforceable remedies for violations of local ordinances; and otherwise deter public nuisances; and WHEREAS,the purpose of this Ordinance is to enact such a local public nuisance law; and • WHEREAS,premises governed by the Colorado Beer Code and Colorado Liquor Code need not be regulated by the provisions of this Ordinance,because regulations promulgated under Articles 46, 47 and 48 of Titlel2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes establish adequate local remedies to address recurring disturbances or other activities occurring on such premises which are offensive to the residents of the neighborhood in which such licensed establishments are located; and WHEREAS, premises owned by the State Board of Agriculture and utilized by Colorado State University for the housing of students or faculty or for other educational purposes need not be regulated by the provisions of this Ordinance, because the condition of such premises and the conduct of persons occupying the same are governed by rules and regulations promulgated and enforced by Colorado State University. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Chapter 20 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new Article VII which shall read in its entirety as follows: ARTICLE VII. ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES See. 20-110. Legislative purpose. The abatement of local public nuisances for the protection of public health, safety and welfare is a matter of purely local and municipal concern. The purpose of this Article is to eliminate public nuisances. The remedies provided in this Article are designed to eliminate public nuisances by removing parcels of real property from a condition that consistently and repeatedly violates municipal law;to make property owners vigilant in preventing public nuisances on or in their property;to make them responsible for the use of their property by tenants, guests and occupants; and to otherwise deter public nuisances. Sec. 20-111. Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this Section. Abate shall mean to bring to a halt,eliminate or,where that is not possible or feasible, to suppress, reduce and minimize. Building shall mean a structure which has the capacity to contain, and is designed for the shelter of, man, animals or property. Building shall include any house,office building,store,warehouse or structure of any kind,whether or not such structure is permanently affixed to the ground upon which it is situated, and any trailer,semi-trailer,trailer coach,mobile home or other vehicle designed or used for occupancy by persons for any purpose. 2 . Leasehold interest shall mean a lessor's or lessee's interest in real property under a verbal or written lease agreement. Legal or equitable interest shall mean and include every legal and equitable interest, title, estate, tenancy and right of possession recognized by law or equity, including but not limited to freeholds, life estates, future interests, condominium rights, time-share rights, leaseholds, easements, licenses, liens, deeds of trust, contractual rights, mortgages, security interests, and any right or obligation to manage or act as agent or trustee for any person holding any of the foregoing. Municipal Court or Court shall mean the Municipal Court of the city as established in Article VII of the Charter. Notice of violation shall mean a written notice advising the owner(s) and tenant(s) or occupant(s) of a parcel that the parcel, such persons, and other affected persons may be subject to proceedings under this Article if the remaining number of separate violations needed to declare the parcel a public nuisance under this Article occur in or on the parcel within the required period of time. Such written notice shall be deemed sufficient if sent by certified mail to the parcel,addressed to the owner(s) by name and to "all tenants and/or occupants" and to the owner(s) by name at any different address of the owner(s)as shown in the records of the Larimer County Assessor or of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. Each notice of violation shall be limited to one (1) separate violation. Nuisance Abatement Officer shall mean a person appointed by the City Manager to coordinate the enforcement efforts of the city related to the provisions of this Article. Ownership interest shall mean a fee interest in title to real property. Parcel shall mean any lot or other unit of real property, including, without limitation,individual apartment units.or any combination of contiguous lots or units owned by the same person or persons or entity or entities. Parcel shall not include premises for which a license has been issued under §3-71 of this Code and shall not include premises owned by the state Board of Agriculture and utilized by Colorado State University for the housing of students or faculty or for other educational purposes. Person shall mean any individual, corporation, association, firm, joint venture, estate, trust, business trust, syndicate. fiduciary, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company. and body politic and corporate,and all other groups and combinations. 3 Public nuisance shall mean the condition or use of any parcel within the city limits, on or in which three (3) or more separate violations have occurred within a twelve(12)month period or five(5)or more separate violations have occurred with a twenty-four(24) month period, if, during each such violation, the conduct of the person(s) committing the violation was such as to annoy or disturb the peace of the residents in the vicinity of the parcel or of the passers-by on the public streets, sidewalks, and rights-of-way in the vicinity of the parcel; provided. however, that: (1)within thirty(30) days of each such separate violation, except the final separate violation needed to prove a public nuisance under this Article, the city has sent by certified mail to the owner(s) and tenant(s) or occupant(s)of the parcel, a notice of violation: and(2)the last separate violation needed to prove a public nuisance under this Article occurred no less than forty-five(45)days after the date of mailing of the last notice of violation. _Real property or property shall mean land and all improvements, buildings and structures, and all estates, rights and interests. legal or equitable, in the same, includine but not limited to all forms of ownership and title, future interests, condominium rights, time-share rights, easements, water rights, mineral rights, oil and gas rights, space rights and air rights. Relative shall mean an individual related by consanguinity within the third degree as determined by common law,a spouse,or an individual related to a spouse within the third degree as so determined, and includes an individual in a step or adoptive relationship within the third degree. Separate violation(s) shall mean any act or omission that constitutes a misdemeanor violation of the Code,provided that: (1)an ongoing and uninterrupted violation shall be deemed to have been committed only on the last day during which all the necessary elements of the violation existed; and (2) multiple violations committed within any twenty-four(24)hour period of time on or in the same parcel shall be considered a single separate violation,irrespective of whether the violations are otherwise related to each other by some underlying unity of purpose or scheme. See. 20-112. Nature of remedies. Notwithstanding the provisions of§1-15 of this Code,the remedies provided in this Article shall be civil and remedial in nature except that, if any person knowingly fails or refuses to abide by a temporary or permanent abatement order issued by the Municipal Court under the provisions of this Article,such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and,upon conviction, shall be punished by the penalties provided in §1-15. 4 See. 20-113. In general. (a) No person having an ownership or leasehold interest in any parcel, or having a contractual obligation to manage such parcel, or occupying such parcel, shall commit, conduct, promote, facilitate, permit, fail to prevent or otherwise let happen, any public nuisance in or on such parcel. Such persons shall abate any public nuisance upon the parcel and prevent any public nuisance from occurring on the parcel. (b) The Nuisance Abatement Officer, or any other city code enforcement officer or police officer may, without a Court order, take reasonable steps to abate a public nuisance and prevent it from recurring as long as the same may be accomplished without entering any enclosed building upon the parcel. Sec. 20-114. Procedures in general. (a) Pursuant to Article XX, Section 6, and Article VI , Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution,and Article VII Section 1 of the Charter,the Municipal Court is hereby granted the jurisdiction, duties and powers to hear and decide all causes arising under this Article, and to provide the remedies specified herein. (b) Any civil action commenced under this Article shall be in the nature of a special statutory, proceeding. All issues of fact and law in such civil actions shall be tried to the Court without a jury. No equitable defenses may be set up or maintained in any such action except as provided in §20-116(a) below. Injunctive remedies under this Article may be directed toward the parcel or toward a particular person. (c) Public nuisances under the provisions of this Article shall be strict liability violations. No culpable mental state of any type or degree shall be required to establish a public nuisance under this Article or to obtain Court approval for the remedies provided under this Article except that,if a separate violation used by the city to establish the existence of a public nuisance has not been previously adjudicated,all of the elements of such separate violation(s),including any culpable mental state required for the commission of such separate violation(s), must be established by the city by a preponderance of the evidence at the trial on the merits of any civil action commenced under this Article. (d) Proceedings under this Article shall generally be governed by the Colorado Rules of County Court Civil Procedure unless this Article provides a more specific rule,provided,however,that with respect to the rules related to injunctions, Rule 65 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure shall control rather than Rule 365 of the Colorado Rules of County Court Civil Procedure Where this Article. the . 5 Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Colorado Rules of County Court Civil Procedure fail to state a rule of decision, the Court shall first look to the Public Nuisance Abatement Act, Section 16-13-301 et seq., C.R.S., and the cases decided thereunder. (e) Actions under this Article shall be filed by the Office of the City Attorney for the city. (f) In the event that the city pursues any criminal penalties provided in any other section of this Code, any other civil remedies, or the remedies of any administrative action, the remedies in this Article shall not be delayed or held in abeyance pending the outcome of any proceedings in the criminal, civil or administrative action,or any action filed by any other person,unless all parties to the action under this Article so stipulate. (g) Actions under this Article may be consolidated with another civil action under this Article involving the same parcel of real property. Actions under this Article shall not be consolidated with any other civil or criminal action except upon the stipulation of all parties. No party may file any counterclaim,cross-claim,third- party claim or set-off of any kind in any action under this Article. Sec. 20-115. Commencement of public nuisance actions; prior notification. (a) Notification before filing civil actions under this Article. (1) At least ten (10) calendar days before filing a civil action under this Article, a notice shall be posted at some prominent place on the parcel. A notice shall also be mailed to the owner(s) of the parcel. The mailing of the notice shall be deemed sufficient if mailed by certified mail to the owner(s)at the addresses shown of record relating to the parcel for such owner(s) in the records of the Latimer County Assessor or of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. The posted and mailed notices shall state that the parcel has been identified as the location of an alleged public nuisance and that a civil action under this Article may be filed. (2) Agents of the city are authorized to enter upon the parcel for the purpose of posting these notices and to affix the notice in any reasonable manner to buildings and structures. (3) The city shall not be required to post or mail an), notice specified herein whenever it determines that any of the following conditions exist: 6 . (I) the public nuisance poses an immediate threat to public safety; (ii) notice would jeopardize a pending investigation of criminal or public nuisance activity, confidential informants, or other police activity; or (iii) any other emergency circumstance exists. (b) An action under this Article shall be commenced by the filing of a verified complaint or a complaint verified by an affidavit, which may be accompanied by a motion for a temporary abatement order,through the Office of the City Attorney. No such action shall be commenced unless each of the separate violations asserted in support of such action has resulted in the issuance of a summons and complaint charging at least one person responsible for such separate violation with the commission of the same. (1) The parties-defendant to an action commenced under this Article and the persons liable for the remedies in this Article may include the parcel of real property itself any person owning or claiming any ownership or leasehold interest in the parcel, all tenants and occupants of the parcel, all managers and agents for any person claiming an ownership or leasehold interest in the parcel,any person committing, conducting, promoting, facilitating or aiding in the • commission of a public nuisance, and any other person whose involvement may be necessary to abate the nuisance,prevent it from recurring, or to carry into effect the Court's orders. None of these parties shall be deemed necessary or indispensable parties. Any person holding any legal or equitable interest in the parcel who has not been named as a party-defendant may intervene as a party- defendant. No other person may intervene. (2) The parties-defendant shall be served as provided in the Colorado Rules of County Court Civil Procedure for other civil actions except as otherwise provided in this Article. (3) The summons, complaint and, if applicable, temporary abatement order shall be served upon the real property itself by posting copies of the same in some prominent place on the parcel. (4) The Nuisance Abatement Officer or any other city code enforcement officer or police officer may serve the summons, complaint and. if applicable,the motion for temporary abatement. • 7 Sec. 20-116. Effect of abatement efforts; defense to action. (a) If a person named as a party-defendant is the owner of a parcel of real property and is leasing the parcel to one or more tenants, or the person named has been hired by the owner of the parcel to manage and lease the parcel,and the separate violations which constitute the alleged public nuisance were committed by one or more of the tenants or occupants of the parcel,it shall be a defense to an action under this Article that said person has: (I) evicted,or attempted to evict by commencing and pursuing with due diligence appropriate court proceedings, all of the tenants and occupants of the parcel that committed each of the separate violations that constitute the alleged public nuisance, and {ii) has, considering the nature and extent of the separate violations, undertaken and pursued with due diligence reasonable means to avoid a recurrence of similar violations on the parcel by the present and future tenants or occupants of the parcel. (b) If,in the judgment of the Nuisance Abatement Officer,a person who has received a notice of violation has established sufficient grounds to assert a defense to an action under subsection(a)above,the separate violation which was the subject of the notice of violation shall no longer be considered a separate violation within the meaning of this Article. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the introduction of evidence of said separate violation at a subsequent court proceeding. if a public nuisance action is commenced on the basis of additional separate violations, for the purpose of determining whether the defendants named in such action have undertaken and pursued with due diligence reasonable means to avoid a recurrence of similar violations on the parcel of real property by the present and future tenants or occupants of the parcel. (c) Except as provided in subsection(a)above,the fact that a defendant took steps to abate the public nuisance after receiving the notice specified in §20-115 above or any other notice shall not constitute a defense to an action under this Article. See.20-117. Abatement orders. (a) Issuance and effect oftemporary and permanent abatement orders. The issuance of temporary or permanent abatement orders under this Article shall be governed by the provisions of Rule 65 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, pertaining to temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions, except to the extent of any inconsistency with the provisions of this 8 • Article. in which event the provisions of this Article shall prevail. Temporary abatement orders provided for in this Article shall go into effect immediately when served upon the property or parry against whom they are directed. Permanent abatement orders shall go into effect as determined by the Court. No bond or other security shall be required of the city upon the issuance of any temporary abatement order. (b) Form and scope of abatement orders. Every abatement order under this Article shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be reasonably specific in its terms;shall describe in reasonable detail the acts and conditions authorized,required or prohibited; and shall be binding upon the parcel, the parties to the action, their attorneys, agents and employees, and any other person named as a party-defendant in the public nuisance action and served with a copy of the order. -(c) Substance of Abatement orders. Temporary or permanent abatement orders entered under this Article shall he narrowly tailored so as to address the particular kinds of separate violations that form the basis of the alleged public nuisance. Such orders may include orders: (1) requiring any parties-defendant to take steps to abate the public nuisance; • (2) authorizing the Nuisance Abatement Officer or any other city code enforcement officer or police officer to take reasonable steps to abate the public nuisance activity and prevent it from recurring,considering the nature and extent of the separate violations; (3) requiring certain named individuals to stay away from the parcel at all times; (4) reasonably necessary to access, maintain or safeguard the parcel; and/or (5) reasonably necessary for the purposes of abating the public nuisance or preventing the public nuisance from occurring or recurring; provided,however,that no such order shall require the seizure of,the forfeiture of title to. or the temporary or permanent closure of, a parcel, or the appointment of a special receiver to protect, possess, maintain or operate a parcel. • 9 (d) Temporary abatement orders. (1) The purpose of a temporary abatement order shall be to temporarily abate an alleged public nuisance pending the final determination of a public nuisance. A temporary abatement order may be issued by the Court pursuant to the provisions of this section even if the effect of such order is to change, rather than preserve, the status quo. (2) At any hearing on a motion for a temporary abatement order,the city shall have the burden of proving that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a public nuisance occurred in or on the parcel and, in the case of a temporary order granted without notice to the party- defendants, that such order is reasonably necessary to avoid some immediate, irreparable loss, damage or injury. In determining whether there are such reasonable grounds, the Court may consider whether an affirmative defense may exist under §20-116(a) above. (3) At any hearing on a motion for a temporary abatement order or a motion to vacate or modify a temporary abatement order,the Court shall temper the rules of evidence and admit hearsay evidence unless the Court finds that such evidence is not reasonably reliable and trustworthy. The Court may also consider the facts alleged in the verified complaint or in any affidavit submitted in support of the complaint or motion for temporary abatement order. (e) Permanent abatement orders. (1) At the trial on the merits of a civil action commenced under this Article,the city shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a public nuisance occurred on or in the parcel identified in the complaint. At such trial,the city must also prove.by a preponderance of the evidence, any separate violations asserted as grounds for the public nuisance action that have not been previously adjudicated. The Colorado Rules of Evidence shall govern the introduction of evidence at all such trials. (2) Where the existence of a public nuisance is established in a civil action under this Article after a trial on the merits, the Court shall enter a permanent abatement order requiring the parties-defendant to abate the public nuisance and take specific steps to prevent the same and other public nuisances from occurring or recurring on the parcel or in using the parcel. 10 • Sec. 20-118. Motion to vacate or modify temporary abatement orders. (a) General. At any time a temporary abatement order is in effect.. any party-defendant or any person holding any legal or equitable interest in any parcel governed by such an order may file a motion to vacate or modify said order. Any motion filed under this subsection (a) shall state specifically the factual and legal grounds upon which it is based, and only those grounds may be considered at the hearing. The Court shall vacate the order if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that a public nuisance was committed in or on the parcel. The Court may modify the order if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that such modification will not be detrimental to the public interest and is appropriate, considering the nature and extent of the separate violations. (b) Continuance of hearing. The Court shall not grant a continuance of any hearing set under this section unless all the parties so stipulate. (c) Consolidation of hearing with other proceedings. If all parties so stipulate, the Court may order the trial on the merits to be advanced and tried with the hearing on these motions. • Sec. 20-119. Civil judgment. In any case in which a public nuisance is established. in addition to a permanent abatement order,the Court may impose a separate civil judgment on every party--defendant who committed,conducted.promoted,facilitated.permitted,failed to prevent,or otherwise let happen any public nuisance in or on the parcel that is the subject of the public nuisance action. This civil judgment shall be for the purpose of compensating the city for the costs it incurs in pursuing the remedies under this Article. Sec. 20-120. Supplementary remedies for public nuisances. In any action filed under the provisions of this Article, in the event that any one of the parties fails,neglects or refuses to comply with an order of the Court,the Court may, upon the motion of the city, in addition to or in the alternative to the remedy of contempt and the possibility of criminal prosecution. permit the city to enter upon the parcel of real property and abate the nuisance, take steps to prevent public nuisances from occurring,or perform other acts required of the defendants in the Court's orders. 11 See. 20-121. Stipulated alternative remedies. (a) The city and any party defendant to an action under this Article may voluntarily stipulate to orders and remedies, temporary or permanent. that are different from those provided in this Article. (b) The Court shall make such stipulations for alternative remedies an order of the Court and they shall be enforceable as an order of the Court. Sec. 20-122. Remedies under other laws unaffected. Nothing in this Article shall be construed as: (a) limiting or forbidding the city or any other person from pursuing any other remedies available at law or in equity,or(b)requiring that evidence or property seized,confiscated,closed,forfeited or destroyed under other provisions of law be subjected to the special remedies and procedures provided in this Article. Sec. 20-123. Limitation of actions. Actions under this Article shall be filed no later than one (1) year after the public nuisance or the last in a series of acts constituting the public nuisance occurs. This limitation shall not be construed to limit the introduction of evidence of separate violations that occurred more than one(1)year before the filing of the complaint for the purpose of establishing the existence of a public nuisance or when relevant for any other purpose. Sec. 20-124. Effect of properhy conveyance. When title to a parcel is conveyed from one person to another, any separate violation existing at the time of the conveyance which could be used under this Article to prove that a public nuisance exists with respect to such parcel,shall not be so used unless a reason for the conveyance was to avoid the parcel being declared a public nuisance under this Article. It shall be a rebuttable presumption that a reason for the conveyance of the parcel was to avoid the parcel from being declared a public nuisance under this Article if: (1) the parcel was conveyed for less than fair market value: (2) the parcel was conveyed to an entity or entities controlled directly or indirectly by the person conveying the parcel; or (3) the parcel was conveyed to a relative(s) of the person conveying the parcel. Sec. 20-125. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Article is declared to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions of this Article 12 • shall be upheld and enforced unless the remaining provisions would create an unreasonable or unjust result. Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published in summary form this 21 st day of March.A.D.2000.and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of April,A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of April, A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: • City Clerk • 13 • ATTACHMENT A SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE I. PURPOSE • To remedy chronic problems at properties where City Code violations occur that annoy or disturb others. • To hold property owners accountable for the use of their properties. 2. DEFINITION OF"PUBLIC NUISANCE" • Three or more separate City Code violations at the same property within 12 months or 5 or more within 24 months. • Written notice must have been sent to the property owner and tenants within 30 days of each violation, except the last one. • The last violation must have occurred at least 45 days after the last notice. • Each complaint about a separate violation must have resulted in the issuance of a Municipal Court citation if it is to be used to support a public nuisance action. 3. COMMENCEMENT OF NUISANCE ACTION • Another notice must have been posted at the property and mailed to the property owner at least 10 days before filing the action. • After that ten-day period, the City could then file the public nuisance action in Municipal Court and serve the summons and complaint on any property owner, property manager or occupant of the property that the City believes should be responsible for abating the nuisance. 4. VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT At any time after a notice is sent out, a property owner could enter into a voluntary abatement plan with the City. • A notice of violation would be stricken(not counted) if a landlord went to court to evict a tenant that had caused the problem and had also undertaken reasonable • measures to avoid more of the same kinds of problems. 5. CITY'S REMEDIES • If no voluntary abatement agreement is reached, the City could ask the Municipal Court to order the parties to the public nuisance action to do whatever is reasonably necessary to put an end to the nuisance. • In an emergency, the City could get a temporary order without a court hearing; otherwise, a hearing would be held. • If the City obtained a temporary order, the persons affected by the order could ask the Court to remove it at any time. • To obtain a permanent abatement order, the City would have to prove to the Court at a trial that a public nuisance had occurred at the property;the City would also have to prove any underlying violations that had not been separately proved earlier. • At no time could the City seek or obtain a court order that would take away or close the property or place the property into "special receivership". • A person who knowingly disobeys an abatement order issued by the Court could be prosecuted for committing a misdemeanor criminal offense. Otherwise, the public nuisance would be a civil action,rather than a criminal action. 6. EFFECT OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY • All previous notices of violations would be stricken(would not count)if the property was sold unless the property was sold simply to avoid the public nuisance ordinance. March 15, 2000 ATTACHMENT "B" . Public Nuisance Ordinance Public Communications Activities Items Completed—March 15, 2000 What By Whom When Initial Public Meetings Tess Heffernan 9/28/99 Approximately 75 residents Ann Turnquist 9/29/99 Council Study Session Council 10/12/99 Council Health and Safety Committee Meeting Committee 10/21/99 Staff Greek Forum Mayor Martinez 11/11/99 Meeting with student members of Greek Houses Ann Turnquist Direct mail letters/E-mail and press release Included most recent draft of ordinance, cover letter Steve Roy 113/00 and summary of key points; 300 sent to: John Fischbach Tess Heffernan • Anyone who had sent letter or email Ann Turnquist • Participants from previous public meetings • Property management companies • Board of Realtors • People who asked for next version of ordinance • Neighborhood group representatives • Apartment Association • National Association of Residential Property Managers • Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce • ASCSU • Local newspapers (Coloradoan, Collegian, Fort Collins Forum) Greek Life Articles in City publications John Fischbach • January/February issue of Neighborhood News Tess Heffernan 12/15/99 (1,350 distribution) • January issue of City News (50,000 distribution) 12/17/99 Speaker support Steve Roy 12/9/99 • Provided summary of key points for: Ann Turnquist • Mayor Martinez appearance on Phil Walker Tess Heffernan 12/14/99 • Mayor Martinez online chat 12/21/99 • Communication Program, page 1 Attachment A What By Whom When District meetings conducted by Council members As directed by Council members • Staff support for reserving facility, publicizing, with staff support facilitating and presenting, 7:00-8:30 p.m. at: • The Farm at Martinez Park Chuck Wanner 1/26/00 ■ Ben Delatour Room, Main Library Bill Bertschy 1/31/00 • John XXIII University Center, 1220 University Mike Byrne 2/3/00 League of Women Voters "CrossCurrents" Ann Turnquist 1/27/00 Program • Live discussion featuring proponents and opponents Mayor's Stop and Chat Mayor Martinez Foothills Mall Tess Heffernan 2/5/00 City Council Health and Safety Committee review Committee 2/17/00 Staff Major Employer meetings: Mayor Martinez Hewlett-Packard, sponsored by Mayor Martinez Tess Heffernan 2/9/00 Agilent, sponsored by Mayor Martinez 3/9/00 Greek Forum Mayor Martinez 2/17/00 Meeting with student members of Greek Houses with Tess Heffernan presentation and Q&A ASCSU-sponsored activities Lead: Scott ■ Article in Collegian regarding changes, what it Wilkinson (ASCSU) might mean to students • Ongoing discussions with attorneys, realtors, property managers, Council members • Community-wide forum 3/ 2/00 Communication Program, page 2 Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning Department ATTACHMENT "C" Citv of Fort Collins March 2, 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council FM: Kay Rios, Affordable Housing Board Vice-Chain.' "G1 RE: Proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance The Affordable Housing Board has had the opportunity to review and discuss the proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance on several occasions. At the Board's regular monthly meeting on February 3, 2000, the Board voted unanimously not to support the proposed ordinance in its current form. • While the Board agrees with the principle of the proposed ordinance, the Board believes there are sufficient ordinances currently in the City Code to deal with nuisance issues. The Board supports the addition of a City staff member to act as a coordinator to maintain files on reported problems and complaints. If, and only if, the existing code and better coordination prove to fail in sufficiently dealing with nuisance issues should the proposed ordinance be revisited. The Board believes property-owners of rental units must be given an opportunity to take responsibility for dealing with issues instigated by their tenants. A copy of the Board's minutes is attached. • 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6376 FAX (970)224-6111 • TDD(970)224-6002 • E-mail: aplanning@ci.fort-collins.co.us Affordable Housing Board • February 3,1999 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Mr. Croissant moved to approve the proposal. No second. Mr. Martin moved to call a special meeting. Ms. Overton seconded. Motion passed unanimously. New Business Mr. Browning said that the board will be required to review the housing applications and make recommendation to the CDBG Commission around the first of April. Mr. Waido explained that the proposals will be handed out at the meeting in March, and the April meeting will be extended in order to review the applications and complete a list of priorities and concerns. The CDBG Commission will start their deliberation process on April 121n Old Business Follow-Up on the Proposed Nuisance Ordinance Linda Hopkins, of the Fort Collins Board of Realtors expressed her belief that this ordinance increases risk to property owners, landlords, and mortgage lenders. She stated that if the ordinance as currently written were applied to the test case area, there would be no nuisances, which seems very ineffective. She suggested looking for an ordinance that addresses the problems, and identifies the cost implications. Carrie Gillis, a property manager with 470 rental units in Fort Collins expressed her concern that the additional risks involved for landlords raises the qualifying bar for tenants and causes housing costs to rise. Ms. Garity pointed out that under the City's remedies it states, "Only in an emergency can the City get such an order without a court hearing." She was concerned as to what defines an emergency. It was discussed that the City can't seek or obtain a court order that would put the property under receivership, but that the municipal court can. Also, under Effect of sale of the property it reads: "All previous notices of violations will be stricken (will not count) if the property is sold unless the property is sold simply to avoid the public nuisance ordinance." Ms. Garity wondered how that could be proven. Mr. Danforth asked it there is a real estate law that prohibits psychological predisposition when selling a property, for example, if someone was murdered in a house, the realtor is not allowed to make that a factor. Ms. Hopkins said that this puts realtors in an awkward position because this category requires disclosure. Mr. Danforth felt that this is contradictory. Mr. Brownino said that if landlords want to profit, they need to take the responsibility for their properties. Mr. Danforth feels that this is a case of common violations that are covered by common ordinances already. Mr. Browning said the problem is that there is Affordable Housing Board February 3,1999 Meeting Minutes Page 5 no central clearinghouse to keep track of the violations, and the information doesn't get back to the landlords. Mr. Croissant described how he remedied a situation himself by contacting the owner of a problem property and making them aware of the situation. Ms. Hopkins pointed out to staff that there were no violations in these test properties with the application of the nuisance ordinance and asked how it would be handled, staff responded that the existing laws would be enforced. She suggested trying to coordinate these violations and enforce the existing laws before trying an ordinance like this. She viewed the coordination and notification of the tenant as well as the property owner as a valuable step. Mr. Browning stated that after this coordination goes into effect, landlords would be compelled to remedy the problems in a way that other ordinances wouldn't accomplish. ,He also believes that the rights of the people in the surrounding areas are as important as the people who are causing the problems. Ms. Garity stated that there are so many safeguards with this ordinance, that it's only after several violations and several chances have been given to remedy the situation that it would finally progress to more severe actions. Mr. Danforth expressed his view that City policy is being based upon a small minority of students. Ms. Rios would like to see an ordinance that serves the people who want to preserve a particular lifestyle of their neighborhood, but that does not encourage discrimination. She supports the intent, but does not agree with the ordinance as written and would like to look at another way of doing this. Mr. Martin felt that the ordinance is a good intentioned document, but that it is the wrong vehicle to remedy this problem, and could create a way for tenants to be spiteful toward their landlords Mr. Martin moved not to support the ordinance as written. Mr. Danforth seconded. Ms. Garity acknowledged that a considerable amount of time and effort has gone into creating this ordinance and the board needs to be specific about what they would like to see done. After further discussion, Mr. Martin amended the motion to include agreement with the principle of the ordinance, but to first try enforcing the existing ordinances, hiring a coordinator to track the offenses, and revisit the ordinance at a future date to allow time for the property owners to show that they can take responsibility for their investments. Ms. Overton seconded. Motion passed unanimously. • ATTACHMENT "D" Citizen Comments Public Nuisance Ordinance November 1999 through March 159 2000 Ann Tumquist FW' Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 • From: "BYRNE,MIKE (A-Loveland,exl)" <mbyme@agilent.com> To: "Tumquist, Ann' <atumquist@ci.fort-collins.co.... Date: Tue, Mar 14, 2000 8:00 AM Subject: FW: Public Nuisance Ordinance Hi, Best letter I've received on the PNO to date. Mike B. —Original Message— From: kathy graybill [maifto:kgraybll@lamar.colostate.eduj Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 9:18 PM To: mbyme@ci.fort-collins.co.us Subject. Pubfic Nuisance Ordinance Council Member. I am interested in the proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance that will be in front of the Council on March 21. 1 have attended several meetings and have spoken personally to the Mayor about this ordinance. I would like to comment on some of the issues I have heard stated in the meetings inciuding the recent public forum on the CSU campus. . 1 have lived in Fort Collins for 40 years. I currently own and live in an older home near the old FCHS. I don't live here merely because I can't afford to live.elsewhere, although it is one factor. I live in this part of town because I like the historical, eclectic atmosphere. It is the part of town that has character as well as natural amenities. I strongly support protecting and preserving the historic homes and buildings in this area. I have had problemswith neighbors, mostly renters,during the 8 years I have owned my home. I have worked with them and through the system with varying degrees of success. I know what neighbors have to go through in order to try to maintain some quality of life in areas of town where there are a number of renters. Although there area number of aspects to this issue that I would like to discuss, for brevity's sake, I will focus on the two that seem to be the most prevalent. One has to do with communication.The other has to do with the aspect of holding property owners accountable for the actions of their tenants. In the last few years the City has devised some fine programs to help neighbors solve, abate and prevent problems in their neighborhoods. These programs have as their foundation the belief that a higher level of communication can solve most problems. I totally agree with this and commend the City on this endeavor. However, occasionally these communication techniques do not work. This ordinance provides an additional tool to use when these strategies fail. • At the meetings I have attended,the people who have voiced opposition to the ordinance are renters, rental property owners,or rental property Ann Tumquisl- FW: Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 2' managers. Many have argued that this ordinance would not be necessary if there were better communication among the affected parties, implying that neighbors are not making an effort to communicate when problems occur.The use of communication to problem solve is always preferred. However, it is disingenuous, not to mention insulting, for renters and rental property owners to criticize and blame the neighbors for lacking the willingness to communicate in order to solve problems. We neighbors communicate with our rental neighbors every day.Most of us have talked from time to time with rental neighbors about problems. However, we also communicate every day in a non-verbal sense. We see each other every day, live in the same general space, drive the same street,shop at the same stores, listen to the same sounds,smell the same smells. We are the ones who communicate and who try to establish a sense of community and quality of life in the neighborhoods. Rental property owners, on the other hand, don't use communication in order to deal with their renters. How many of them say to the prospective renters: *We don't need a legal,written binding contract (lease). I trust you. We can just communicate if we have problems and all will be solved without the need for legal interference'. Instead, they insist on legally binding leases that cover their financial interest. Neighbors, on the other hand, don't have the luxury of getting a legally binding contract before they*decide*who will live next door. In addition, how many rental property owners say to their prospective renters: `I don't need to get a damage deposit from you. I trust you.We can just communicate if we have problems and all will be solved.What a sense of community we will form!' Instead,they insist on covering their financial rear ends by demanding money to cover their expenses in case their renters act inappropriately. Neighbors, on the other hand, don't have the luxury of getting money from their next door neighbors in order to cover their financial as well as quality of life losses. For rental property owners,the whole process is win twin.They have the luxury of selecting the people they are contracting to use their property.They can get references, interview the people, and make a selection. Rental property owners are able to sign a legal contract with the renters and are able to specify what renters can and cant do on the property.This covers their financial interest. In addition,the rental property owners are allowed to collect money from the renters, again to cover their financial interests and possible losses. Then rental property owners have the luxury of living someplace else.They leave us, the neighbors,to`manage`their property for them.Every day we monitor their renters. We talk to them when there are problems, call the policy and/or other city offices when there are problems. But more often than not we endure the nuisances(parties,dogs, bad smells,trash, and general deterioration of property). it seems to me that the neighbors rely on communication more than the rental property owners do. r The issue concerning holding rental property owners ultimately responsible for chronic nuisances that adversely impact the neighbors is, 1 believe,the aspect of this ordinance that is both essential and at the same time highly contentious.Both renters and rental property owners have vociferously objected to the notion that landlords should ultimately be brought into the dispute and should be held responsible Ann Tumquist FW Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 3 . for a large part of solving chronic problems at the property they own. I personally think rental property owners should be held more accountable and should be brought into the issue much earlier than the ordinance dictates. None of us lives in a vacuum. Each of us lives in a neighborhood, a city, a county, a state, and a country.And with this comes certain responsibilities. When we buy a piece of property, we do not just buy a piece of dirt and a structure. We buy into an area, a neighborhood. And with this chase come certain responsibilities to 9 >� the neighborhood, etc. If we decide to rent the property,then the renter(s) also have certain responsibilities to the neighborhood. But this should not absolve the owners from having ultimate responsibility for the property they own. The owners, not the neighbors,should monitor the property.The owners, not the City officials should monitor their*clients*who are at their *business*. That will never happen, even with this ordinance in effect. Neighbors will continue to be on the*front line*,will continue to monitor the*clients*of the property owners. And we all will continue to pay to have City officials monitor these*clients*. But at least, when City officials have identified a chronic problem and have tried to work out solutions with the renters,the rental property owners should be notified and required to resolve the problem. They have made the contract with the tenant.They should ultimately be responsible for working out chronic problems caused by their tenants at their property. Of course rental property owners are against any ordinance that makes • them more responsible for what happens on their property. It will cost them time and money.And their main concern is time and money. This is a purely financial issue for them. However,for neighbors, the issue is not merely financial. It is primarily a question of the erosion of the quality of life in their neighborhoods. it is their home. it is the one place in this ever-burgeoning city where they should be able to take refuge,to have peace,to control sights and smells and noise and other invasive intrusions. There should be a higher standard of intolerance when it comes to the sanctity of a person*s home. We should be able to expect a higher level of peace and respect for maintaining property and a neighborhood. Most people understand this, agree with this and respect this. But for those few instances of chronic problems, the city should step in.There must be an ordinance that can effectively deal with these chronic problems. The City has various separate tools and laws to deal with individual nuisance problems. However,there is no effective way of dealing with properties that exhibit chronic, repetitive problems.Most neighbors are willing to deal occasionally with a nuisance. However, a neighbor should not have to repeatedly deal with these nuisances. The City needs an ordinance that allows it to combine these nuisances, look at the property as a whole and then take action if the property has had chronic nuisance problems. And this action should involve the owner of the property. • Please support the Public Nuisance Ordinance. it will be a start toward providing some relief for the innocent neighbors who must bear the brunt Ann Tumquist- FW: Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 4 of the nuisance problems in their neighborhoods. Ps Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association 1800 Wallenberg Dr. na M Fort Collins, CO. 80626 Leadmq the way... March 14, 2000 RECEIVED To'.lvlembers of Ft. Collins City Council MAR 1 5 2000 From: Board of Directors, PSNA CITY MANAGER Subject: Public Nuisance Ordinance The PSNA strongly supports enactment of a public nuisance ordinance closely comparable to your revised draft dated February 2, 2000. We believe that this ordinance can be an effective tool for eliminating; mitigating, preventing and appropriately penalizing the most egregious violators of the City's public nuisance laws. Our neighborhood has a long history of violations of the kind this ordinance is designed to control, and we have found past remedies largely ineffective. As a result, many neighborhoods with such conditions are in a progressive and alarmingly rapid state of decline - in terms of living conditions, property values, and a sense of community. Without more effective ordinances and enforcement, neighborhoods like ours face a continuing exodus of owner-residents and a growing . number of uncontrolled rental housing units. We know from hard experience that these conditions produce a preponderance of short-term occupants who have little stake in the neighborhood's stability or preservation. Some, but certainly not all, of these highly mobile occupants or unresponsive landlords lack a sense of responsibility toward their neighbors, often resulting in unacceptable behavior and poor property maintenance. This ultimately turns neighborhoods into semi-slums with all of the attendant social and financial costs to their residents and the City as a whole. The elements of the proposed ordinance that we perceive to be most critical to its success are: l. Recognition that owners of rental housing should be held accountable for the use made of their property, as well as the lessees and tenants,just as other owners of business property are. 2. Recognition that agents assigned control of rental housing by owners should similarly be held accountable. 3. Establishment of a fair and consistent City process to recognize, track and adjudicate persistent nuisance violations. We believe that these elements are crucial and must be retained if the Proposed ordinance is to be effective. • 2 While we strongly support the proposed ordinance, we recognize that more is needed to stem neighborhood deterioration related to rental housing. Further clarification, revision and timely enforcement of existing ordinances is required to control less persistent nuisances. While we appreciate the City's increasing efforts to mitigate lesser nuisances, timely and effective action is still a big problem It appears that City officials, tenants, property owners and neighborhood citizens lack a common expectation as to what health, safety and other nuisance ordinances exist and how they are enforced. More education by example is needed, and unenforceable ordinances should either be rewritten or stricken from the Code and replaced by effective remedies. If failure to enforce ordinances is due to a lack of City resources allocated for this purpose, the City must place a higher priority on budgeting for this critical service. The alternatives of allowing neighborhoods to decay due to poorly managed rental housing ultimately brings much higher costs to individuals and the City. Unfortunately,'these problems stemming from rental housing have been largely cast as a"student problem." While we recognize that much of the City's rental housing is occupied by students, we believe it is both inaccurate and unfair to saddle students with all the blame. In our experience, the common denominator among problem renters is their itinerancy and the lack of responsibility this engenders. Included among irresponsible residents are dysfimctional families, unrelated workers, and even owner occupants, as well as students. One common practice that encourages irresponsible rental occupancy is leasing or renting to multiple individual occupants of a given living unit, which results in no occupant having clear responsibility for what goes on in the unit or in its maintenance. This practice makes it extremely difficult to determine who is responsible for violations pertaining to the property as a whole. Further regulation of lease and rental contracts could help resolve this problem and should become a matter for the City's consideration. It is extremely gratifying to those of us who have struggled so long with rental housing concerns to have the City actively and seriously working to solve the problems. For this reason, we wholeheartedly endorse the proposed public nuisance ordinance now before Council. We further believe there are additional steps that should be developed to protect both tenants and landlords fairly and at the same time provide the tools neighborhoods need to avoid deterioration caused by irresponsible residents and property owners. Thank you for your consideration, John T. Roehrig. Ph.D. President, PSNA CC: COUNCIL/JOHN FISCHBACH MIKE SMITH/BOB SMITH (INCLUDED IN 3/14 INFO TO COUNCIL) • RECEIVED March 7,2000 CITY 1 0 2000 Council Member Mike Brine CI t/ MANAGER City Dfanagei s Office P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins CO 80522 Dear Council Member Mike Byrne, I amnt to urge you and the rest of the of the Coundl to vote for thr Stormtvater Sta,j re vwmendatlau and for the Pubhc Nuisance Ordinance. Poudre River Floodplain Regulations The night of the Spring Creek Flood I was watching the water rise in the New Mercer Ditch. It was early evening and ahe water was touching the bottom of the bridge on Springfield Street. Later that night a car floated like an ice cube three houses down from me on Constitution Avenue. Several people could have been lost on my street,if they hadn't been pulled from their cars and helped from the strong current going down the street. I have never felt so helpless as the water rose higher and higher. It stopped just short of running in my front door. I feel we must use the very best judgment in setting restrictions for the use of floodplains. The swamps and open areas used to provide space and slowed the flow rate for the run-off water to be held before returning to the ditches and then the river. The price for letting other motives influence our decision is paid in lives and property,and this price is paid on demand. There is no postponement or avoidance of this payment. After studying the Stormwater Staff's Cache La Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Options,I feel confident . that we have a knowledgeable and dedicated group with the Stormwater Staff,especially Suzan Hays. Proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance I was born in Fort Collins at 511 S.Mutcomb St. It was a beautiful house in a clean and quiet neighborhood. My folks rented the basement apartment to college students. We usually had a married couple,but one year, my favorite,we had seven football players. The neighborhood remained very nice,like a fifties sitcom. Since the ordinance has been getting so much attention with the landlords on one side and the neighbors on the other,I have thought why did it used to work so well If you look at the house at 511 S.Whitcomb now,you would think it is a slum. The whole block is unbelievable to me. I realized,the difference is the landlord no longer lives in the same house He is not there to work with the renters to maintain the property and the neighborhood. Without the landlords taking responsibility for guiding their renters in maintaining the property and being respectful of other property,there is no reason for the new renters to do so. The only exception is neighbors in the neighborhood itself,who cue My new neighborhood is around 1236 Constitution.Avenue. I have been there for 32 years and I am 58 years old now. The college students,especially since the Spring Creek Flood,are renting half the houses in my present neighborhood. Several members of the neighborhood have expressed a desire to remain and work with the new renters. If we have the Ordinance,I can see a chance that we could maintain the neighborhood as a nice place to live. It will not be the same,but it will not be a slum either If not,my new neighborhood will look like the old one,and we will have to move to another neighborhood. Sincerely ' Lain J Scrivuer and Sally J Scrivner LAIRIE SCRIVNER PO BOX 1241 FORT COLLINS CO $0522-1241 'Li4d6'Gula% PERSONAL PLEADING FOR PASSAGE AND ENACTMENT OF THE NUISANCE'ORDINANCE Page 1 From: michael anderson <merlin_80525@yahoo.com> . To: FC1.Exec_Net(LGULA) Date: Thu, Mar 9, 2000 4:23 PM Subject: PERSONAL PLEADING FOR PASSAGE AND ENACTMENT OF THE NUISANCE ORDINANCE To the City Council, and fellow residents: Greetings! My letter this afternoon as about the absolute necessity of the passgae and enactment by law of the nuisance act with regards to rental properties within the City of Fort Collins. We moved here as a family from another state in August of 1999 to help stabilize my chronic pulmonary condition. We rented in a quadroplex at 1629 Azalea here in Fort Collins, and from the start, have had nothing but problems. These problems ranged fromvendalism of our vehicles, to harrasment and to problems with newer residents. We also brought a letter to our attorney describing the situation in which the existence of the nuisance ordinance would have afforded us more protections, and empower law enforcement and the city attorney legal grounds to bring rental management firms into . accountability and compliance. In our experience, Police Officers have told us that they are aware the building we reside in has always been a problem, and that the management does not care, that they only care about the money. Now it is time for us to all care, and to make the requisite changes required not only to change the situation for us, but many others whom may have the same reality ongoing in their particular situation. It is time to empower our city to guarantee a better quality of living for all residents of this fabulous city. Passage and enactment of the nuisanced ordinance will bring rental managment to the carpet with regards to problem tennents and issues of health, safety, and accountability. We have peronally had management tell us they can't do much about our problem with resident neighbors, but they did put them in here. There is something dreadfully wrong with this picture. Where is the accountability? We need to give residents, law enforcement, and the city attorney the authority to step in and correct long term problems that never seem to end. Today, I was taken to the emergency room due to a • event that occurred with problem neighbors. I should Linda Gula- PERSONAL PLEADING FOR PASSAGE AND ENACTMENT OF THE NUISANCE_ORDINANCE Page 2 not have to sacrifice my health and my being present for my wife and children simply for the right to live peacefully and with the covenant of quiet enjoyment in Fort Collins. Since moving here in August of 1999, we and I have had immense stress, and my health has been affected by the lack of management accountability and problem neighbors in our particular situation. That is why I strongly, and without reservation, support the nuisance ordinance for all the residents of Fort Collins, and ask that you unanimously approve this ordinance for the well being and future of our city. Let us together make the city of Fort Collins the trend setter and an example of progressive community decencey with the passage of this ordinance Thankyou Michael, Catherine, Freyja, Gabriel, and Rekyjanes Anderson 482-9053 Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com CAA Fort Collins Position Statement The Fort Collins Chapter of the Colorado Apartment Association is strongly opposed to any law, •regulation or ordinance, including the proposed Fort Collins city "nuisance" ordinance that includes: 1. Language that attempts to hold one person responsible for the actions of another individual including holding property owners,or managers responsible for the actions of tenants,tenants guests, or any unknown or unknowable third party. 2. Language that attempts to hold one person responsible for the illegal actions of another where there has been no proof, trial, and conviction of the person alleged to have committed the action. 3. Language that attempts to hold one persoan responsible for the actions of a second person where there has is no proof of notice or legal service to the first person. We do believe that there are cases where public nuisances have, and do, exist. However, we contend that 1. The city of Fort Collins, by its own admission, has failed to enforce the existing laws. .2. The city has adequate existing regulations and ordinances to govern and control any and all nuisances. 3. The number of properties where repeated nuisances,3 or more within a year, have occurred is extremely small. We are citizens of the city of Fort Collins who want peaceful and quiet enjoyment of our property and our City for ourselves and for all our residents. Therefore, we propose that: 1. The City would immediately institute a policy of"zero tolerance"for violations of the existing nuisance, noise, and disturbance ordinances. 2. The City designate a coordinator to document violations of our existing laws and coordinate enforcement between various departments and agencies within the City as well as work with owners and property managers to solve nuisance problems. 3. The City would use part of the fine income provided by enhanced enforcement of existing ordinances to upgrade the existing systems to notify enforcement agencies,property yowners, and managers of violations and repeat offenders. • RECEIVED FEB 1 2000 CITY MANAGER RECEIVED IMarch2000 MAR 0 3 2000 CITY MANAGER Karen Weitkunat Fort Collins City Council P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 Dear Karen, Please allow me to take a quick moment to thank you for representing District 2 on the Fort Collins City Council. I want to thank you for taking time out of your day and taking time away from your family to help run this great city of ours. Indeed you are a wonderful server. I understand that there is an ordinance that has been proposed regarding public nuisance that will come to a vote on 21 Mar00. I'm sure that you have spent many hours thinking about the ordinance,and how the people you represent would wish you to vote. And as a public figure,I'm sure that any feedback you can get from those whom you represent would also be greatly appreciated. In that light,I would like to express to you why I do not believe the proposed ordinance should be passed, and also suggestions as to what could be done in lieu of the proposed ordinance. First,I believe the ordinance to be too general in wording;covering too many contingencies,and not outlining enough definitions. For example,the ordinance defines differences between apartments,houses, duplexes,and condos,but does not differentiate between houses where two people live,and houses where ten people live. Secondly,I envision rental rates and security deposits increasing exponentially if this proposal passes, creating an even more difficult situation for those who are trying to rent property. Not only would that affect the student population of your District,but also the population that desire to live close to their employers such as HP, Woodward,and LSI. Thirdly, I understand that this is already a law at the state level,and has only been used six times for Fort Collins situations. If the property is to be considered as a potential"Public Nuisance",isn't this enough evidence to bring it before the state? I understand that the District Attorney of Fort Collins wilt refuse most cases,but if the problem is large enough for a Public Nuisance to be warranted,then why not leave it in the state s hands? Does not this also provide a much needed check for this situation,where there are no checks or balances in the proposed ordinance? Lastly,can we not enforce the existing laws that govern this situation? Do we really need another law in this litigious society when we already have those laws in place? Specifically I recall Mr.Martinez speaking about 1993,when the existing laws regarding public nuisance were enforced to a high degree,and ticketed offenses dropped from 1200 to 500 the following year. I know that you have spent a considerable amount of time more than I pondering this proposed ordinance, and I know that you have unanswered questions as well. I implore you to seek out all the answers to your queries,and if you do not find sufficient answers then you do not pass the proposal. Again,thank you for your time,and continue to do a wonderful job representing our city. Yours Sincerely, Bob Dabkowski 2837 Adobe Drive 970-266-1492 RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2000 • February 16, 2000 CITYMANAGER Mr. Scott Mason, City Council Member 300 Laprote Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mr. Mason, I am writing you in regard to the Public Nuisance Ordinance that is under consideration by the City Council. I am very interested in this matter because I live in an older neighborhood, which does not have a covenant or a homeowners association. Therefore we must rely on the city's ordinances. In my view the Public Nuisance Ordinance is the best thing that has happened for the neighborhoods in the city for a long time. This Ordinance is the result of careful study by the city staff on how to deal with chronic nuisance properties. I want to thank the city for doing a good job. It will definitely improve the quality of life for residents, enhance the property value, and reduce crime rate. I know there has been a lot of complaints to this Ordinance. On the other hand, I have attended several meetings to educate myself on the topic, and I cannot help but notice that neighborhood residents usually are very supportive of the Ordinance, while the landlords and realtors ivho do not live in the neighborhoods are opposing it. I have also not heard any complaints from other sectors of business owners. All the hoopla raised by the realtors drives • home to me that these people have the power and the money to sway City Council. I certainly hope that this fine city is not run by realtors, but sometimes I wonder. I also strongly support the city to have a public nuisance coordinator. Right now the enforcement of existing ordinances is too fragmented, and this person will provide the needed coordination between different departments. I heard complaints about the city spending money to deal with a small sector of troublemakers. If that logic holds, we shouldn't have policemen either, because only a small sector of the population are criminals. The biggest complaint seems to be that the property owners and property management companies should not be responsible for what the tenants are doing. This may sound reasonable at first, but it is patently unfair to others. What we are talking here are the incredibly irresponsible owners. I have heard and read a lot of comments by people who think that existing ordinances and better enforcement of them would solve the problem. Well, if everyone is a responsible citizen and we live in an ideal world,that would be the case. Right now the city has no means to deal with the few percent of chronic nuisance house owners that generate the majority of the problems. Asking the neighbors to "deal with it" is unfair to those of us who first of all, have no authority to deal with it, and secondly, have to suffer through hell and see our lifetime investments go down the drain. Come live in my neighborhood, and then talk. I have lived in my neighborhood for 18 years. Right now there are 6 rentals and 14 owner occupied houses on my street. There is one particular rental house that I would put in the • chronic nuisance category, and this one house has basically ruined our quality of life and our property values. Usually we first tried talking to the tenants, but to no avail. Sometimes the tenants get downright abusive. We tried talking to the landlord, and the standard response is: Don't bother me, talk to the tenants. (For example, one time the drunken tenants decided, at 3 in the morning, to start a bonfire in their front yard to see if they could bum down a tree. We called the fire department, then the landlady, and her response was: This is 3 in the morning, couldn't you people just take care of it?) Existing ordinances only solve the problem temporarily. The tenants would get cited, and after a few tickets, they move out. Then the next group of tenants move in, and the cycle repeats. It is always the same house, year in and year out. Since no tenants had ever stayed in that house for more than one year, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that the chronic nuisance problem is not tenant specific, rather, it is house specific. The common denominator of the problem house is the landlord. An irresponsible, inconsiderate landlord (or management company) attracts irresponsible and inconsiderate tenants. When tenants would consent to rent a dump of a house, by definition these tenants could care less about cleaning up their trash or treating their neighbors with respect. How can we as neighbors or the city deal with a chronic nuisance problem when one does not address the foot cause of the problem, i.e., the landlords that see the rentals as cash cows and won't do anything to fix up the property or try to find good tenants? As for the business community, I think business owners are already required to be responsible for other people's (e.g., their customers') action. Can business owners (such as MacDonald's) use the excuse that because it is the customers who litter, they are not responsible for cleaning their premises? What about a business whose customers habitually cause nuisances and wreck havoc on the neighboring businesses? That business owner is required to take steps to prevent such nuisances from happening again. A rental house is a business, the landlord is a business owner, and the property management company is the business manager. So why is it that the landlords and realtors think that they are above the law, and should not have to take any responsibility for their customers', i.e., tenants', actions? It is not surprising that you do not hear from business owners other than the realty sector. A business owner would have the same concerns as a resident. If there is a nuisance business, it affects the neighboring businesses. The thing is that the city has laws and regulations to deal with nuisance businesses. All we are asking for is that the same kind of protection is provided for the residents in a neighborhood. I urge you to support the Nuisance Ordinance. Please,please help to preserve the quality of living in the older neighborhoods. I like my neighborhood. I like the convenience of old town. I don't want to be forced to move because of some irresponsible owners. A deteriorating city center is never a good thing. If responsible residents abandon the center of town because the City Council refuses to take action to protect these neighborhoods, it will not just impact negatively to the old town businesses and neighborhoods, but to the city as a whole. Sincerely, A09�6 14e, Siu An Lee 939 Pioneer Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 • REALTOR" FORT COLLINS BOARD OF REALTORSO 110 West Harvard Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-2142 (970) 223-2900 Fax (970) 223.2904 Mayor and Members of the C' Council March 1, 2000 City City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Mayor Martinez and City Council members: The attached letter submitted to the Council outlines the concerns of our members and requests additional community participation prior to adopting the proposed nuisance ordinance. . City staff has been helpful and receptive to our questions and concerns about this proposal. Minor amendments were made after our Board position was formally passed, however, we feel it is important to reiterate our position. To address the issues of condition and maintenance of properties and other neighborhood conflicts, the Council now has the opportunity to utilize the information from the recent community forums, the willingness of the CSU students to participate actively in seeking resolutions, and the coordinated information to property owners provided by your newly hired staff. These are useful, practical approaches that should, in our opinion, be given a due and reasonable test before layering additional governmental regulations. Respectfully submitted, Kurt Faulkner Fort Collins Board of Realtors • EQUAL muuwunNa PROFESSIONAL OneOniU..'v SERVICE ruluYN+b wbc,Maban,iq GawMEMiFYamFnev MIM NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REITORb . February 17, 2000 The Fort Collins Board of Realtors on behalf of their 713 members and affiliates offer the following statement and recommendation regarding the proposed Municipal Nuisance Ordinance. 1. We acknowledge problems with neglected properties, where either owners or residents violate existing municipal standards for property maintenance and/or violate municipal laws. Neighborhood meetings and the data collected by the Task Force confirm the variety and complexity of this community issue. Fort Collins' increasing population, residential density and diverse lifestyles; frequently results in conflict frustrating for neighbors and ultimately diminishes property values. It is our belief that such community problems warrant Community wide effort to achieve a full compliment of options for viable long-term solutions. . The City, neighbors, neighborhood organizations and ASCSU have all taken steps to promote communication, education and mediation opportunities. We particularly are impressed by the willingness of the student population to participate in problem solving. Their contributions are useful and meaningful and should be fully utilized. The Board supports the opportunity to take advantage of the momentum and discussions surrounding the current proposal to increase participation and support for a broader set of solutions. 2. Coordination of information was the primary need identified by the Task Force. The approved and funded Coordinator staff position will identify frequent, varied, and ticketed nuisance offenses. A system of information collection, coordination and notification to residents, owners and managers warrant a fair test. Meetings with community members attentive to these problems have all indicated that such coordination and information is helpful for owners and may result in resolution of some problems. The Board supports the hiring of the Coordinator and a minimum 1-year test . of the impact and effectiveness of coordinated data collection, notice and remedies. 3. Frequently residents voiced complaints about frustrating situations that will not be covered by the proposed nuisance ordinance —weeds, more than 3 unrelated residents, parking on the lawns. There seems to be demand for increased enforcement of existing ordinances. The Board supports more rigorous enforcement of existing municipal ordinances. Again coupling enforcement and information coordination to seek resolution of neighborhood problems prior to layering of additional municipal ordinances and further regulation. 4. The City's Neighborhood Resource Office has recently adopted a series of additional educational and marketing campaigns targeting a proactive approach to neighborhood issues. The newest program offering tenant/landlord mediation should be helpful, particularly when coupled with current problem identification from the Coordinator. Again the full impact of these programs should be given a reasonable test. Data collection, similar to the task forte's, should indicate the combined effectiveness of these measures. In summary, the Fort Collins Board of Realtors opposes the Nuisance Ordinance in its current form and supports City Council's consideration of: - increased community discussions and problem-solving, - increased participation from ASCSU and the student population, - increased enforcement of applicable municipal ordinances, - utilizing the education and information neighborhood programs, and - utilizing and testing the effectiveness of the Coordinator's position. These combined efforts should be the community's first response to the problem. The members of the Fort Collins Board of Realtors offer to distribute information to new neighbors and investors, host informational meetings, and further educate ourselves to support the success of a community-based problem solving. We encourage and look forward to additional community involvement and a reasonable test of a broad plan, rather than the extension of municipal laws. Passed�byyaa una—nimous vote of the Board of Directors, February 16, 2000. Kurt Faulkner President, Fort Collins Board of Realtors amity !.�na er 's Gf£ice RECEIVED Attn: `Linda Gula FEB Gentlemen : These sugrestiens have tqOfty-"ANABE%rbances against properties : 1. People who allow dogs to leave dodos on ones lawn and oroperty . Same £or oeonle who do so. almost stepped in one t A s morning. Some cities rewire rersons with dogs to clean un after t`aem, to carry bags . 2. Street oeoole wllo pull tniccs out of trash ocntainers and then leave them . on other necole ' s property . 3. People whc have a rear door withir. a few feet of one 's prooerty and Father thereto smoke , wnicn blo:as -over into one ' s window . Thank. you. Sore of us try to keep prooerty clean while others make work for us . sincerely , A citizen Some of doa t have websites , so publish text in oarer. Thank you. 4. recole who think one 's yard and backyard a is a trash container. Throw trash and cigarette butts on one ' s property . Public Nuisance Ordinance— Citizen Comments RECEIVED . January/February 2000 MAR 0 1 2000 City of Feet Collieu Generally,what do you think about the proposed ordinance? CITY MANAGER ❑ (7 Support the OrdinanceOppose the Ordinance ❑ Support with Reservations ❑ Oppose with Reservations ❑ Undecided Comments: Your comments are valuable to City Council as they consider this proposal: AaV i nh eptdtkKe2 ►VlAnar\ w�s wl-s G� �vt.h�a.,ru 5��, idt�d cnnw5iG - ofw ✓►v_-Kj- e4cc�-e �I�borS W O w aA�> cirtcE 1M1au �i� $ ([lcat,� 4-t�l� b t8ob Name/Address: (option ) y+rj yy�Gwl %o%t. t Lt, ► <>Trl- 6vr_>" .. on., ot..r d l tv FG...rt Ab ►M � � u s T - ✓d t v�ct.K�. p � �L✓� �(�v2 G( {�-l�t^cfGGQ µtb��w � �j Q.[�ot ItnrS L O ✓(�C tti�.w.Gai / G V1 Afr b'J Ve- C 1s to 6[') 1 +C> - _ a..Cl tU,�c�.•-eA' cc t tt > VxaY-e-r' L.qve- Wr✓ 5G¢.tn/ Grcl Q. CaR�oCA Q.v i v )f 1�` o rc� k t. cc.tn.Le-, v� - G{_,(�r 1 Trc I t� vP�os� 11 K- o,-d t �cw-cam, Jl�S f fio( lr, a t�Ut -r KA-4 • I.G t>� a U{ 1{�,, P ►mod. (L;,J — ; e S T w a,/L. VJ [.�w t . t,y. vv1L�A,/ d v�.,-�„ � Qu.t>°-� �o ts�c-t�ok o✓I � V+ (t�� cry V; y,Jv-e-5S JI cM b.owsc. a t W lei—. !/�orr i t-• A 4- 1. h-G�- �l� KC.i�I+O'� !✓Lt.o I�,gVE r�0 GONE. o2.vFfiM -lac i� 67k✓ aw/ym-4 tL, cf cor U � .s bw tort, co awc-� Tw S vvd i c-a^-w "� � r,/l k-es '(l . h Uvw�-` W_— ,j— -j 1 1 c�v, Q'I c'P ovv� (�wd K c c�2 s h� Public Nuisance Ordinance—Citizen Comments • January/February 2000 Generally,what do you think about the proposed ordinance? ❑ Support the Ordinance *W.the Ordinance ❑ Support with Reservation, ❑ Oppose with Reservations ❑ UMxided Comments: Your comments are valuable to City Council as they consider this proposal: tl' i'. fJn<i{</j ' lI : .11 r J,r / \wIr 1 .� rI 1J.� - Ptn/aOBc I r;DID.mn Name/Address: (optional)_ Generally,what do you think about the proposed ordinance? ..1p3'Support the Ordinance ❑ Oppose the Ordiru=e 01support with Reservations ❑ Oppose with Reservation • ❑ Undecided Comments: Your comments are valuable to City Council as they consider this proposal: _ �rArJAG6r�• w.ti� 'fb6 c$'ro�NF.&vE �r`---�dnt' tf+13d-1»e- JPc�Q^'e'ptit^� 'DNS 0A TA L61Zi��1u tS-a1N r.E-V✓�i n�tT6f W t�toJl a i.�+CcJr.T'A-6t "'�'7 �hE -�3Bo♦7 O!`0'tn1ANCF� woJ�D b--r— lF-CF=-�Ag'l.E-- Name/Address: (optional) N Jt�y (Q-2O> 8q� k. w Generally,what do you think about the proposed ordinance? 0 Support the Ordinance ❑ Oppose the Ordinance ❑ Support with Reservation ❑ Oppose with Reservations ❑ Undecided Comr�mm� ents: Your comments are valuable to City Council as they consider this proposal: t- . -K r„4 III w fl y ONE _ 710s or)'�tIU _S ;ftm} J February 1, 2000 Mr. Ray Martinez/Mayor 4121 Stoneridge Court Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Dear Mr. Martinez, According to the proposed "Nuisance Ordinance" , as revised on 12/31/99, paragraph VII states : "Such written notice shall be deemed sufficient if sent by certified mail to the parcel, addressed to owners (s) by name and to `all tenants and/or occupants' and to owners (s) by name at any different address of the owners (s) as shown in the records of the Larimer County Assessors for the parcel . " Attached is a notice of taxes due on 2018 Leicester postmarked January 31, 2000 . Also attached is a copy of my settlement statement for the sale of that property on September 21, 1999 . Clearly, County Records can be, and often are, in error. This Ordinance, as written, fails to provide proof of legal notice. Sincerely, Dick Eshelman outm R a 0 4 0 — HE TREASURY dL \^^ PBMET H , y J I1 0 80522-1250 odward,Treasurer IMPORTANT!! RTY TAX NOTICE ENCLOSED • ILI Charles L.Woodward,Treasurer m°"" PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT Post OtROe Box 2336 Fort Collins,CO 80522.23M (970)488-7020 OFRCEOFTNETREABUMY 1999 TAXES PAYABLE IN 2060 www.eo Wmr•eo•MB/deptaft nu4 wu.htm TAXMEA: 1100 PARCELW.; 9721108( ..YtNAPOETTANT INFORMATION:REVERSE SIDE PROPERTY LOCATION 2018 LEICESTER WAY * SCHEDULE NUMBER: 0173754 * RL *AA 546.63 *x 1,093.26 ESHELMAN, RICHARD LEE E^ 0.00 I"T 0.00 ALLIPROPERTY SERVICES "D1 0.00 ADv 0.00 155 N COLLEGE AVE 8200 FEES C.00 FEES 0.00 FORT COLLINS CO 80524 TmAL 546.63 TDT'u 1,093.26 PADBY_ --------------------------------------------------------j------ VALUATION DISTRIBUTION.2 T AMOUNTS: LAND 2.470.00 LEVY BIANNGIIMPS 10,730.00 39.S430'POUDRE R-1 GENERAL FUND 521.97 WSKUEOPWW 0.00 8.7000 POUDRE 11-1 BOND PAYMENT 114.84 GILIGASPRGOUCTI N 0.00 21.6560 LARIMER COUNTY 295.86 MOSAENOME 0.00 9.7970 FT COLLINS 129.32 TOTAL ASSESSED 13,200.00 • 1.9850 POUDRE HEALTH SERVICES 26.20 Taro ACTwL 0.1420 LARIMER CO PEST CTRL DST 1.87 TOTAL MILL LEVY32 X LEVY=TAXES 1.0000 M COLO WATER CONS DIST 13.20 ASSESSED VALUE TAXAMOUUNTNT TAX AM LEVIED TAX 1,093.26 MOSLEM TO 0.00 CREDIT 0.00 TOTAL WE 1.093.26 F RE ED R1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION(MAY BE PARTIAL L... J: OT 31, BLX 16. BROWN FARM 1 8 LEVY CREDIT • LEVY REDUCTION FTC RETAIN THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS. ____________________________ ___________________________ _ ______________________________________� YOUR CABEELIED CNECX 1E A VIWD REEDIT.FOR A PAID RELENT.PLMSF A00$2.OB TO YOUR PAYMENT. I y PEEL IMRE usE LABEL FOR AIALLING YOUR vAYYOET IEp EEALF'•:L: DUE BY N07ND HALF NOTICE ' r PA NNE NNE 18 WILL BE MAILED♦ I SCHf PULE NO 0173754 SCHEDULE NUMBER. RETURN THIS COUPON WITH YOUR FAeJJPDO ; ' CMARLES-L WOODWARD TREAS 0173754 7 P.O. BOX 2336 � FORT COLLINS -CO $0522-2336 OWNER V NAUE(s): ESHELMAN, RICHARD LEE ADDRESS CHANGE ALL PROPERTY SERVICES ': r'O AEET S - -546.63- h:, ;ESHELMAN. RICHARD LEE arrEREu ;ALL PROPERTY SERVICES 155 N COLLEGE AVE 9200 i7 IFBBMT'.COLLINS CO 30524 TOTALDUE S �546.63 0173754 PARCELr 97211 0 30 81 !STREET PADBY: CHECXr. i MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO LARIMER COUNTY TREASURED !DRY STATE iX I PROPERTY ONINERS SIGNATURE REOUIRED FOR ADDRESS CHANGE ONLY. -----------J---------------------------------------- TO YON PAYMENT. ' r PE9.NEAE USE zt.MR MANMD YOUR PAYMENT 1781'HALF DUE BY FULL TAX DUE BY PAYYBTT COUPON FEB 28 OR PAYMENT COUPON APRS"O SCHEDULE NO 0173754 RETURN TNIS COUPON WITH YOUx8A4,L13R.00 ;-CHARLES L2 WOO DWARD TREAS �ED11`E FADAeEa 0173754 P.O. BOX 2336 iFORT COLLINS CO 80522-2336 OWNER ESHELMAN, RICHARD LEE L NALIE(Sr ALL PROPERTY SERVICES ;ADDRESS CHANGE OPi10EI T' OPTION2 !ESHELMAN. RICHARD LEE ISTHALFAMT - RALTAXANT RMEREST S 546-63 .S 1,093.26 !ALL PROPERTY SERVICES pITERE - INiEXEffi - :155 N COLLEGE AVE 820D TOTAE S i� 546 63 �t7=-3 1,093.26 ;FORT COLLINS CO 80524 PAD BY: amr0173754 PARCEL♦ 972110e0d1 MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO LARIMER COUNTY TREASURER !STREET I CITY STATE_'ZIP i\F ' 343 West Drake Road, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 PHONEi (970) 226-1901 FAXs (970) 226-4330 SELLERS SLTiL04ENT STATEMENT PREPAM FORt ALL PROPERTY SERVICES CABS NO.t F054302AB9 PROPBRTY ADDRB08t 3018 LEICESTER WAY FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BBLLBAs Asset Preservation, Inc. as Qualified Intermediary for Eshelman PORCBa87Rt ZACHARY B. WHEATLEY AND MERIBETH P. WHEATLEY 931TLB MIT DATtt SEPTEMEER 21, 1999 DATE OF PRORATIO SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 LRGAL DISCRIPTIONt LOT 81 BLK 16 BROWN FARM 1ST FIL COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLGRADO DEBCRZ"Xox DEBIT CREDIT 1. SELLTNG PRICE $ $ 137,900.00 2. OWNER'S POLICY (GEC) 449.00 3. EXPRESS DELIVERY TO SECURITY TITLE 15.00 4. WIRE TRAMPER FEE TO SECURITY TITLE 15.00 S. RELEASE RECORDING FEES 20.00 6. TAXES FOR CURRENT YEAR 263 DAYS AT $ 2.9012 763.04 7. CLOSING FEE TO SECURITY TITLE 6D.00 S. BROKER'S COMMISSION 2 3.00% 4,137.00 9. RENTS 9/21/99 TO 10/ 1199 380.00 10. FIRST DEED OF TRUST PAYOFF TO PRINC RES 60,733.24 11. CITY OF FORT COLLINS 183.59 12. x1CHANGE FEE 350.00 P.O.C. Bub-Totals 66,755.87 f 137,900.00 ealawn 4us to seller 71,14i.13 i TOTAIA ; 127,900.00 $ 137,900.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . APPROVED AND ACCEPTED Sales or use taxes on personal property not included. SECURITY TITLE GUARANTY Co. assumes no responsibility for the adjustment of special taxes or assessments unless they are shorn on the Treasurer's Certificate of Taxes Due. The condition of title to the property is to be determined by reference to the title evidence provided by Seller or by personal invests ation. The above statement of settlement is approved as of the settlemont date shorn above and Escrow Holder is hereby authorized to disburse as Trustee funds as indicated. Asset Preserver Inc. an Qual Lied Intermediary for Richard Les Eshalman Sy� t-✓ �i„e�. Title:. CmJUSE[� Read -and Approved. Richard Lee Eshelman Broker/Agent All Propert rvicas Closing Agent 9e urity U tle Guaranty Co. RECEIVED • FEB 2 2 20M February 16, 2000 Mr, Ray Martinez, Mayor �iTy MANAGER 300 Laprote Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mr. Martinez, I am writing you in regard to the Public Nuisance Ordinance that is under consideration by the City Council. I am very interested in this matter because I live in an older neighborhood, which does not have a covenant or a homeowners association. Therefore we must rely on the city's ordinances. In my view the Public Nuisance Ordinance is the best thing that has happened for the neighborhoods in the city for a long time. This Ordinance is the result of careful study by the city staff on how to deal with chronic nuisance properties. I want to thank the city for doing a good job. It will definitely improve the quality of life for residents, enhance the property value, and reduce crime rate. I know there has been a lot of complaints to this Ordinance. On the other hand, I have attended several meetings to educate myself on the topic, and I cannot help but notice that neighborhood residents usually are very supportive of the Ordinance, while the landlords and realtors who do not live in the neighborhoods are opposing it. I have also not heard any complaints from other sectors of business owners. All the hoopla raised by the realtors drives • home to me that these people have the power and the money to sway City Council. I certainly hope that this fine city is not run by realtors, but sometimes I wonder. I also strongly support the city to have a public nuisance coordinator. Right now the enforcement of existing ordinances is too fragmented, and this person will provide the needed coordination between different departments. I heard complaints about the city spending money to deal with a small sector of troublemakers. If that logic holds, we shouldn't have policemen either, because only a small sector of the population are criminals. The biggest complaint seems to be that the property owners and property management companies should not be responsible for what the tenants are doing. This may sound reasonable at first, but it is patently unfair to others. What we are talking here are the incredibly irresponsible owners. I have heard and read a lot of comments by people who think that existing ordinances and better enforcement of them would solve the problem. Well, if everyone is a responsible citizen and we live in an ideal world,that would be the case. Right now the city has no means to deal with the few percent of chronic nuisance house owners that generate the majority of the problems. Asking the neighbors to "deal with it" is unfair to those of us who first of all, have no authority to deal with it, and secondly, have to suffer through hell and see our lifetime investments go down the drain. Come live in my neighborhood, and then talk. I have lived in my neighborhood for 18 years. Right now there are 6 rentals and 14 owner occupied houses on my street. There is one particular rental house that I would put in the • chronic nuisance category, and this one house has basically ruined our quality of life and our property values. Usually we first tried talking to the tenants, but to no avail. Sometimes the tenants get downright abusive. We tried talking to the landlord, and the standard response is: Don't bother me, talk to the tenants. (For example, one time the drunken tenants decided, at 3 in the morning, to start a bonfire in their front yard to see if they could bum down a tree. We called the fire department, then the landlady, and her response was: This is 3 in the morning, couldn't you people just take care of it?) Existing ordinances only solve the problem temporarily. The tenants would get cited, and after a few tickets, they move out. Then the next group of tenants move in, and the cycle repeats. It is always the same house, year in and year out. Since no tenants had ever stayed in that house for more than one year, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that the chronic nuisance problem is not tenant specific, rather, it is house specific. The common denominator of the problem house is the landlord. An irresponsible, inconsiderate landlord (or management company) attracts irresponsible and inconsiderate tenants. When tenants would consent to rent a dump of a house, by definition these tenants could care less about cleaning up their trash or treating their neighbors with respect. How can we as neighbors or the city deal with a chronic nuisance problem when one does not address the root cause of the problem, i.e., the landlords that see the rentals as cash cows and won't do anything to fix up the property or try to find good tenants? As for the business community, I think business owners are already required to be responsible for other people's (e.g., their customers') action. Can business owners (such as MacDonald's) use the excuse that because it is the customers who litter, they are not responsible for cleaning their premises? What about a business whose customers habitually cause nuisances and wreck havoc on the neighboring businesses? That business owner is required to take steps to prevent such nuisances from happening again. A rental house is a business, the landlord is a business owner, and the property management company is the business manager. So why is it that the landlords and realtors think that they are above the law, and should not have to take any responsibility for their customers', i.e., tenants', actions? It is not surprising that you do not hear from business owners other than the realty sector. A business owner would have the same concerns as a resident. If there is a nuisance business, it affects the neighboring businesses. The thing is that the city has laws and regulations to deal with nuisance businesses. All we are asking for is that the same kind of protection is provided for the residents in a neighborhood. I urge you to support the Nuisance Ordinance. Please,please help to preserve the quality of living in the older neighborhoods. I like my neighborhood. I like the convenience of old town. I don't want to be forced to move because of some irresponsible owners. A deteriorating city center is never a good thing. If responsible residents abandon the center of town because the City Council refuses to take action to protect these neighborhoods, it will not just impact negatively to the old town businesses and neighborhoods, but to the city as a whole. Sincerely, ,�A ;&W, Sin An Lee 939 Pioneer Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RECEIVED FEB 18 2000 • Feb. 17, 200o CITY MANAGER Betty Aragon 140 Second Street Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524 To: John Fischbach & City Council Members This letter is in regards to the proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance. I would like to share my thoughts for consideration on this issue. Our issues are not students but homeowners and renters, we expect people to be responsible and respectful but that is not always the case. First, I will say I am in support of this ordinance, and that I would like to see the seizing of property and criminal charges filed against property owners. Here are my reasons why: Our neighborhood has suffered because of chronic problems, the "bad apples" have given this neighborhood the reputation for being the place to buy drugs and for cruising with loud music. Five years ago we had serious clean up work , we had a serious drug problem which resulted in the offenders getting caught and now serving prison time for dealing drugs. These people put our neighborhood at risk. Not to mention it was • criminal activity, which has legal consequences. They knowingly did this activity and they should not have the right to remain in the neighborhood, they should loose their property! Two properties were classified as Class 2 Public Nuisance, the families that were living there are gone but extended family remains and we continue to see problems coming out of these locations. The community is told we currently have ordinances to deal with the problem properties so why is it so hard to get the city to enforce them? I see it as being a break down of the city working with the neighborhoods, let me clarify. I asked for a meeting with city officials back in August of last year to discuss the continuing problem that plaque our neighborhood. I was willing to take other residents who also care about the neighborhood, I was told it wasn't necessary and they would start with what I had to say. That meeting took place, 1 felt good about the meeting and anxious to get city involvement, but to my disappointment no follow up happened! Let's look at a specific issue, Chief Harrison was present at that meeting, I shared with him information which concerned the police involvement. He gave some ideas, good ones, but in my follow up I am told he has passed this on to Sgt. Pino, who I have had many meeting with only to feel discouraged and saw our problems continuing, and now he has passed it on to another officer who never got with me and finally at one of our neighborhood meetings apologizes and tells me he just "spaced me out." Need I say how frustrating this is. My time is valuable, and when I call on an issue I don't appreciate getting blown off! And I do speak for many people who live here, who were willing to come to this meeting, so this is not just about Betty Aragon. We care about our neighborhood and the environment our families are exposed to, and we are not about to go back to the way this neighborhood was five years ago, drug ridden, and • gang infested and got that way because the city was not involved! To date nothing has been done about the current problems which I called and spoke to Frank Bruno many times. I see a break down in communication with the police department, and its . unfortunate because I put myself in harms way to help the police department. Pete Gazlay who was Sergeant at that time and Acting Chief Bud Reed will go down in history in our neighborhood. They cared, they listened, and they put words into action, they were not intimidated by the likes of LeRoy Gomez. They changed allot of negative attitudes many people had about the police department. And Bravo to Pete Gazlay for his recent soap box, I applaud him for telling a truth that should of been said a long time ago! They earned my respect and that of many here, it was a great loss when they left the department. We haven't had the same interaction with the police department since. So here are the other things we see as problems, Noise is a big one, we continue to have cars blasting their stereos at all hours, many who live here. If its not bad enough that its shaking things on our walls, then we are subjected to vulgar lyrics and every other word is F--! This is not music to me , its trash and I'm deeply offended by it. Then explain to me the concept of people being allowed to build a fence around their junk, why not enforce getting rid of all of it, building fences to hide unsightly junk to me does not.solve the problem. Then we have the "slum landlords" whose track record show they don't care who they rent to as long as they get the rent money, why should they care, they live on the nice side of town and don't have to put with the problems their renters cause, we do! And before you know it now there are more people moving in to the same house, and now they have them living in trailers parked in the yard, or living in sheds or in the garage because there is too many people living in small quarters. When the city is aware of numerous problems coming out of a property and is clearly a chronic problem the city should have the right to seize the property. You have no idea the stress people are put under that have to Irve near it, or next to it. And frankly I'm fed up with it! I have said this statement a number of times, we have to have a working and committed partnership with the city, we had that once but have not had it for some time now and because of that we have had good hard working people move out of our neighborhood because of the problems. We have had at least eight families move out of second street and believe me if I had the money I would too. We want to be proud of where we live and feel there is a sense of respect and safety. And honestly, I don't see that. I will say one thing regarding students, in trying to help a student who attends CSU, back in April a student called me asking information on the Truck Route, he was doing a presentation for a lass and called me and Margaret Guzman. Its hard to give allot of information over the phone and I truly wanted to "help" him do well on his report. I lent him a folder full of articles from the Coloradoan and two video tapes. These items were very important to me and 1 lent them to him but told him I wanted them back. I have tried every method to retrieve them and no luck. I find this conduct very irresponsible and a direct reflection on CSU. I find myself jumping through hoops in trying to get assistance from CSU to get my things back. Students have stated they are being targeted, and this is one incident for me regarding a student, but it leaves a bad impression and I will probably be reluctant to help again. Thank you for listening and consideration for the ordinance. Sincerely, RECEIVED FEB 14 2000 To the City Manager and the City Council: We are opposed to the proposed nuisance ordinance for the following reasons: CITY MANAGER 1. This ordinance is not necessary. According to the City Manager's statement in the FORUM paper,the current problem is with a"small number of properties that incur a large number of code violations." The council should deal with those properties rather than creating a citywide law that intrudes on everyone. We have enough government intrusion in our lives now. 2. Nowhere in this ordinance is"nuisance"defined! How are the nuisance abatement officers going to determine what is a nuisance?Are they supposed to make up their own rules as they go along? An ordinance of this kind needs definite standards by which the enforcement offices can determine if the code has been broken;otherwise everything is subjective. For example,will someone practicing a musical instrument be considered a nuisance? How about a person working with power tools m his/her garage? Will a person working on his/her car parked at the orb qualify as a nuisance? How will people know if they are violating this ordinance? 3. Ordinances of this kind are never enforced fairly. What safeguards will there be to prevent power- hungry enforcement officers from being overbearing,unfair,and unreasonable? How will these officers be chosen and what training will they receive? How much cost is involved? Will wealthy neighborhoods be given de facto exemptions while poorer neighborhoods are targeted? Is this proposed ordinance really about nuisances or is it about raising more revenue through fines? Or perhaps,is it about developers wanting to get their hands on certain properties? 4. Have you considered what this ordinance might do to the unity and peacefulness of Fort Collins neighborhoods? Many people are already under great stress: financial,personal,etc.What actions might they take if they feel more pressure is being put on them by the city? It may lead to • retaliation against neighbors who are perceived,correctly or otherwise,as the source of complaints against a particular property. We would like our neighborhoods to remain calm safe places where neighbors can communicate with each other without unwarranted suspicions. We already have "road rage";we don't need"homeowner rage." We will support any petition to put this ordinance on the November ballot so it can be voted on by the people of Fort Collins...and hopefully be defeated. Mr.and Mrs.Warren P.Moore 2219 Silver Trails Drive Fort Collins,CO 80526 • RECEIVED � ���L� 4 �f � ao c FEB 0 7 2000 Ivar `tom-l�Plc Co g� � Ann Tumquist- Input on Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 • From: Rich Shipman <richs@webaccess.net> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Sun, Feb 20, 2000 9:50 AM Subject: Input on Public Nuisance Ordinance Some of the articles in the press indicate that this is a concern just around the campus where students live. Actually, now days the students live all over town. I live about 4 miles south and between two rental properties.When the rentals are occupied by families there is usually no concerns, but when students occupy the property issues come up: 1 They park in from of other's homes(especially when they have parties), 2 They litter, 3 They don't keep their yards watered and/or dean, 4 They don'tshovel the walks after snow storms, 5 They have barking dogs, 6 They seem to be nice people,just not respectful of other's rights and their responsibilities. We in the neighborhood have tried to work with the owners and/or management firms with little luck. It would appear to us that the landlords just want to get their rent money and let everything else go. So,we are in favor of getting the owners attention to fix these problems by having a stronger law. People in authority tell us to contact the neighbors and work it out, • but when it is hard to catch people (busy lives) and with the tendency for people to pull guns and shoot, most of us don't want to approach a difficult neighbor anymore. So,we are just left suffering without any recourse. Many of us applaud your effortsM Thanks. • RECEIVED FES 17 2000 CITY MANAGEF Nuisance Ordinance / Urban blight / Campus West project Obervations on a walk from Lynnwood Drive to Kinko's on west Elizabeth: Springfield at City Park: Overgrown shrubs extending onto the sidewalk. Never-raked leaves covering the grass. A week's worth of newspapers on the lawn. Trash container in the middle of the sidewalk. Empty beer bottles and a worn-out chair against the side -of a house Paper trash along the way. Cars, cars, cars, and more cars. City Park at University: An overgrown field of weeds, with noxious wild morning glories climbing the fence. Paper cups and other debris blown against it. Animal waste covering the lawn of the apartment building on the SE comer. City park at Elizabeth: Vast expanses of asphalt at the liquor store, restaurant and gas station with little or no attempt at landscaping. Other eye-sores in the neighborhood: Two horse pastures (with horses), one at Springfield and Shields; the other at Bennett and Shields, the latter being particularly unsightly. The playground at Bennett School littered with dog and goose droppings. All in all, this area has become so disgusting that one dislikes driving, let alone walking, through it. . Public Nuisance Ordinance Comment Cards From the ASCSU Forum at Colorado State University March 2,2000 Totals Support the ordinance I Support with reservations 0 Oppose the ordinance 2 Oppose with reservations Undecided Comments You say this isn't directed towards students,but it is!! Also communication is a key and after this debate I do not see the communication that is needed. Because current ordinances don't press compliance like the Nuisance Ordinance proposed, I believe it is necessary to bring change of behaviors continuining to be abusive in our community neighborhood. This Ordinance is not in my best interest,nor the tenants of my living complex. Being . cited for a violation is punishment enough. • Page 1 of 1 Please Sign In 1 AA-ME I ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL /,p,� yip'% ,:✓n" r i y%:��, -.;� tL // IO6141J f•(�1GT�i�%//� a�/ a3a3 RdZ3z3 � k uti i;i2 � fau,E �"/c 3 �/�-�'`�-� ice-���,-sC �.✓ cd/.r� cd. r. 'e,J,) d, o /3i+ (t,/ ('Youdn Ccoe y�y—� ?Lf� 14og Sdf 33�f8 P (x� L-p/CT7a7�e_ e '.j / w• Ltivr'I i i '►�, DU n 70) V✓ / Juncan �{ a Seh 2°IDD Foss lie. (,3$ SbSz �I67 -$ 359 "SC), �jl,oll� , cc�oS+oje.e ; /vr ac/ pG Iao4 �9zz8 Co�1x'ffl �� 495--5-5 3 AS-FC,,-d77 ® ad/, coin C9.tvi /003- W, Mul "93 -bq { 1�171-(r I �Ci ` tir cA Citle �rrd�vnd I2405 Moll Y4 47- 8a520 ! 217—oyss I �y I 1 ns �7d5 V0 `aI �z/-)SOFJ ;6cjy, 9u4 a / dsle &A.; I '3)a 9a ya Ri i ON -�o rom Please Sign In \ANTE ADDRESS PHO\E ENWL ' TO no( at6 /'O17oli,ork /,�, y 1/5 a sa aM�xr �kSylstl+d iilaN w. P"U Cipt 178 141g1b13E GZ�61ti; s��c t �u Tom, IzzS �° 'ter'` 440-+-McA e I 5 . IL - SI e V.cc orix z c. In�cntilleholl .coPe .e ! „6 `6,1A 2tc9 -5W I I I i I i I Please Sign In NANFE ADDRESS PHONE EA-UL Om) 11107 2l4'-31'yS lo�. /asf � . FC g�e-k i r7 f�XA -tw" 17/3 EF-�Au 010 - 5a5 AA&C U cs.60 z C z� tlp�f0. O o� I i I i I I • Public Nuisance Ordinance Comment Cards From the Mayor's Meeting at Colorado State University February 17, 2000 Totals Support the ordinance 0 Support with reservations 0 Oppose the ordinance 25 Oppose with reservations 2 Undecided 1 Comments College is a time to relax. It's time away from your parents. It's a time for experimentation,making long term relationships, friends, and good times. For a fraternity these events are priceless, you all have to understand what I mean by this. This law will take that away from us. Adam I think that this ordinance is going to hurt the Landlords. Not only will they have to pay the fines, but also lose money if they have to evict the tenants. This is going to increase the cost of living which will primarily hurt the students. Trevor Justus This ordinance seems to target, unfairly, college students that make up a very important part of this community. I don't like this ordinance because it will cause many students to become evicted and there will constantly be people searching for a place to stay. Nick Lorenzen Just because ... ya know what I'm saying. I just don't understand why? ...Why? It is unjust, completely irrational and its basis is utterly repulsive when taken in with the context of this college environment. And again just because. (Checked `oppose the ordinance"but no followup comments) Erik Helgeson, D201 Corbett Hall Dave McNaught, 2250 W. Elizabeth Ben Lorenzen, 2828 Silverplume Dr. #S-6, Ft. Collins, CO 80526 I believe that a"good faith"policy within the neighbors needs to be enforced. Many times, if neighbors inform the offender of the problem is quickly solved. If it is not • solved, then the complaint is justified. Abbe Margheim Page 1 of 3 Consider special zoning for fraternity/sorority houses. The ordinance cannot be specific for one type of"unit"and the other type of"unit" for other properties. Mitch Selco, 377 Allison I don't feel that this is a fair ordinance for sorority girls Ashley Powell, 2250 W. Elizabeth#712, 266-3692, (720) 231-8414 The ordinance seems to have rough spots that need to be worked out concerning apartments, fraternity houses and sorority houses. The residents of each sign individual leases which should all be comparable. The Greek houses should have the same separation as apartments. Are the residents of dormitories going to be subject to the ordinance as well? What is the different between living arrangements of dorms and Greek houses? Kristan Clark, 135 Allison Hall,Ft. Collins, 80521 I do not believe that City and/or it's officials have significant alternatives, solutions, data and goals to promote this ordinance with the belief that it will have a"positive" impact on the community. Jack Gardiner,2828 Silverplume Dr. S #6, Fort Collins, 80526 This ordinance only attempts to ease the systems, and does not solve the root of the problem. Fort Collins already has adequate existing laws that govern any nuisances. If this law is passed, landlords and property owners without any knowledge of a problem will be responsible for something they haven't done. This is an unfair and unjust ordinance. Too liberal and the possibility of abuse of the ordinance is inevitable. I think it is between local authorities and property owners to enforce the existing laws. Enforcing existing laws would probably make this proposal unnecessary (example: 1993 that Ray Martinez spoke about). Too vaguely worded and it does not discern individuals or individual situations. Too broad of an ordinance. Institute community service as a fine. Utilize"decible meters". Bob Dabkowski, 2837 Adobe Drive, Fort Collins, 80525 Whether or not it is meant to target fraternities/sororities it does. It's been stated that an individual on average gets fewer tickets than 3, or rather the amount required to be evicted; but by considering fraternities not as an apartment complex but rather a single entity,that individual average is multiplied by the entire populous of that house. That would shoot their number of tickets far beyond tolerated levels, indicating that they are specifically targeted and unduly punished. William Wiser, 190 Newsom Hall Page 2 of 3 • The Public Nuisance Ordinance is unjust. It is made not to attack college students but the city as a whole. If this is true then the city needs to research the Greek System because the law will mainly hurt and attack these institutions. Thomas Mestmaker, 2250 W. Elizabeth Apt. 721, Fort Collins, CO 80521 I believe that this ordinance is very broad and too many types of violations are being included under one law. I understand that many neighbors have frustrating situations, but the rights of the tenants, college students and Greeks need to be protected as well. This ordinance needs serious modification before attempting to pass it. I like the idea of ratios. Keep in mind the financial implications involved. College students make up the majority of this town. Because fraternity houses hold more students they should be allowed more tickets or a higher noise level. Trent Kemper I believe that property should have a boundary of protection within its community. This would mean that if the surrounding community approves of a party,the property should not be ticketed. Zone Greek houses for higher decible ratings. Community service to "wipe the slate clean." Register Greek parties with the city and PD. • Jared Smith, 701 Wagner Dr. #2 Zoning fraternities. Community service to fix noise problems. Ratios. Number of people increases the number of tickets. Register parties. • Page 3 of 3 Please Sign In 1 NAME 1 ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL n W ak LII4 S37? 1 _ Wei ed `I$�, 7314 ' ZFzC S1wEi; �vME ��- Z66-2'7i(a I Nichi6trArs HR+ti� N r $ �` 2 c , c ''' ws " ccl o J'A , c-0VO � � I I l i ! i 1 DrGvi✓.nnSG aol. cn,�n u766-y 1 35 ksicM C We . Qom ck Jve 704, 1G�0S& k ��vYl 536��ro �` Cc II A$.yCal� 1 AmS'� y I goS2) Please Sign In NAME ADDRESS I PHONE ENLAJL i mot 5 �7 cM ee 91 �2\ ti ij /� J oM� E , ��.. v , �aso � h � > ► �� yr � 5 it Aso., sly. ;�; id� `Il i- 10�5 srr R o , C6r-, Ake! Lk 1720 ear✓ ew Gt, {l�( OQ`fG �hc✓ na,l ey�Gol. �� I QEUo JL6-Fu l .c I 95- 85.5 VALMEP 2,.! !3o , A0 o� 1A .\1 41S- Z83S Kre 'I i2W. rLPS7. K ,-,-NarC- 1w11 i rv. ;� .\Str•=i•n I�-{1Z LJ. r `.51. 4�7-`jZZ � i M 1tti SelCo 1 1-377 —Z$`I( 5.lu•'icc26 �'exc,�tt .c�n-, N1e9an :r e,ner Ib0 Anao� �495-3S5Y Sever TjGOIo��,oTMp�\.�pry� Pc b3c �Ayry�if�yy�� r-k- Dr. 1 I ' C.,C Dn� �J ! &W �it57�11�6 '1�1�� Car1�f! u�� s 4s aRU I nay t ,-j I in1 tJF'2� 1c, mc, ynxwo,4 1k2:kl I Lpe-K�ry S.Y�c� �C�1^c�lCu (C tos-ie.k Please Sign In NAME ADDRESS I PHONE EMAH. r. 19-c:G'•ta PI►.11 rr.�d� E11 61,1,wC-+z1 i4al 9s- 7v3 tioll� . Goios+� fe.ev elk Ai�j z . mil, l_ e# e-ke. I T Pnn ? .e . W a- 13 YF /c n ' I w, h• .�•lRr! d L.AnGt ! u� 6vK F//O of c,/� r1S- / 7 �/7 8 m00%Go•✓t i 1 5-a 5 is o A i2 9E R � •! d� or IAI oll u erg Ujjm.1 C)`! E) �.ru).rd 495-1 '( ,u I.06,t, �e AAA �� �2 Vv, L vtYti I � � . 221 K� � An@doll colot�9fr.c� lija Por,a �T. Flo •03XA T-3 KScft 0,AL24. �r'�ah q{TiSo+� I R 17 Corbe 441 yes-5�54 6r,&rQ..q%a-W15 ,. t& L(Wa-hd% V3 6umto �"o br�cfa✓1 Qr I� , urs0 : FnYr Cclo„ Z,J !.zaa8 S,'/wr la.•+e '�SI I223-7Ha] sw�1kQ 1,011 . evlos�k. cant Please Sign In i NAME I ADDRESS II PSONT ENI LAIL 3r-�tt /Nolan Ia-o JC1,typar K V?,Zl bi/lo/arr hol/vcolo i , Gvin 'rnfCJ. 49q--S,,4 S /ye 7Z c MI ICe n.V, =50 W- E 4a6ef-4 12 2G6-unz �051} FLy tlz-O y"-wAo tiltu 14 `15-2 1 t3 �y Jost, EJ hofm.?j, . Co ��K�t�raz.�+ 1Oac� �egE.ir t4A''� 1Li45-N4o�. xt�1�S��o�l.�or, K�ncG 5cx1 JDzo t CPRzt-tr Hh 701 z how AV - i Ip i ! � i Please Sign In I NAME ADDRESS I PHONT EMAIL i VC1 I a(roJ o ;s H �—L c _ Z @ wl��•Co ��,,;� SI-,a�ei �luY Corle�+' i}o.11 I 'f45 - yava s�a�rrG3� l Ccrh Josh v �o� cl C. I �1�IwG�hd, �K r�. c UGc l$��oj.cc , ©0N �'I ��iaut5 i � �9S-1S�sbj C� ubq � ® �1G� iKa1I Cc rn5 d IJ cfo /Zw lU(R5 �f���ZhUECtS ZZI -bS3Z (M41q 20 Z i -NHS Lacs O t / �� >s Lz) y A 1&1 /lv, ct�cs rz�.Qpt/ ti I�SialanS�N " `/93 35s§, c6sk;, C�j0 c�los4cJ-c .�o�� I as l- (73 AREdSn c�i 1iell�.Co%S�n .EQk, I l I rc� S4- y8�1 Sd J Sv �� 'I Please Sign In NAME ADDRESS PHONE ENI LAIL CHI goAEUk �k3-�IEyk s_ hle.��eit�be R 112- 1 dw a0` 135 IIILlSon1 I GHQA-C,c- y41$'2'7Z'9 V& vt6RGE ®10wol,cova fC omE67rq I ; ICELESE .;c MEu�£-� 13 14iCZYN PAU j�QS-2 � �y �rshELCe LCSa.nE� i chi- GMeok � C-) ail r< Had oq - �Cibrc,�61 5uvaftnv,sfia . ��,n? ML I i i j i i City Manager City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Council Health and Safety Committee Members FROM: Ann Tumquist, Council Policy Manager Tess Heffernan,Neighborhood Resources Manager THRU: John Fischbach, City Manager Qc.q• 4;1" Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager RE: Citizen Feedback re: Proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance—December 1999 to February 8,2000 DATE: February 8, 2000 At the December Health and Safety Committee meeting, committee members asked staff • to seek some additional input regarding the proposed public nuisance ordinance. Staff developed a communication plan which included a number of meetings with community members, including neighbors, the Chamber Legislative Affairs Committee, representatives of the property management and real estate communities, and other interested individuals. Two additional meetings will be held on campus prior to Spring Break. Staff plans to provide assistance and information at those two meetings. A full listing of outreach efforts is attached. We received numerous written comments, and nearly 200 people attended one or more of the meetings. We continue to receive e-mail feedback on a daily basis. Attached is a complete set of all the feedback received between December 1999 and now. We expect that we will receive and pass on additional written feedback from residents and property owners prior to the first reading, currently scheduled for March 21. Several themes have emerged in the comments from the community. The following is a brief summary of issues that have come up frequently. A full listing of the comments is also attached: Pro: • Owning a rental property is a business and business owners are responsible for how their business premises are used. Therefore,property owners must be held responsible for activities at their rental properties. • CSU needs to take responsibility for problems that are created by its students. • The City also needs to be more aggressive in enforcing existing ordinances. • Property values suffer when these problem properties are allowed to exist. 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6505 • FAX (970)224-6107 Health and Safety Committee February 8,2000 Page 2 • Even when neighbors try to contact the owner,they are generally not successful in getting cooperation. This ordinance will force owners to get involved. Con: • This ordinance is too far reaching for the small number of problems that may exist. • The City should enforce existing ordinances instead of adding another ordinance that will be difficult to enforce. • Landlords are not responsible for the actions of the people to whom they rent their property and shouldn't be held accountable for those actions. • Unreasonable neighbors can create a problem for a landlord. •_ It is difficult for landlords to evict problem tenants,yet the ordinance holds them strictly liable for their bad actions. Sometimes landlords get bad tenants, despite their best efforts to avoid problems. • Property owners should always be notified about police calls at their property so that they can address the problem. Without that information,how can property owners be proactive in solving problems? • Real estate professionals were not consulted in drafting the ordinance. Better solutions could have been created. Attachments: Public Nuisance Ordinance Outreach Schedule Citizen Comments, January-February Council Member Forums(Comment Cards) Citizen Comments, Flip Chart Transcripts, Council Member Forums Letters and E-mail re: Public Nuisance Ordinance fmdbackcowr2800 • PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE OUTREACH December 1999—March 2000 January 2000 City News article re: Public Nuisance Ordinance (50,000 distribution via Utility Bills) January 3, 2000 Direct mail letter and press release 230 letters sent, 30 a-mails sent January 5, 2000 Draft Ordinance on City Web Site Includes address for feedback, ordinance language, questions and answers, and list of upcoming public meetings January 5, 2000 Neighborhood News article re: Public Nuisance Ordinance (1,350 distribution) January 26, 2000 Residents of District 6 7:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. (Sponsored by Mayor Pro Tern Chuck Wanner) The Farm at Martinez Park January 27, 2000 League of Women Voters "Cross Currents" Program 7:00 p.m. Live Discussion featuring proponents and opponents January 31, 2000 Residents of District 1 7:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. (Sponsored by Councilmember Bill Bertschy) Ben Delatour Room, Main Public Library February 3, 2000 Residents of District 5 7:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. (Sponsored by Councilmember Mike Byrne) John XXIII University Center 1220 University Avenue February 5, 2000 Stop and Chat with Mayor Ray Martinez 1:00 p.m. —2:00 p.m. Foothills Fashion Mall Community Booth February 2000 Talk of the Town cable television show Various times February 17, 2000 Council Health& Safety Committee 4:30 p.m. February 17, 2000 Campus outreach—Greeks 7:00 p.m. March 2, 2000 Community-wide Forum sponsored by 7:00 p.m. Associated Students of Colorado State University March 21,2000 City Council meeting 6:00 p.m. First Reading of Ordinance • Citizen Comments Public Nuisance Ordinance Forums January-February 2000 In Support of the Ordinance • This is an ordinance that will improve the quality of life in older neighborhoods such as mine. To say that landlords are not responsible for their tenants' action is equivalent to saying that a business can sell any product but is not responsible for the quality of the products. Siu Au Lee, 939 Pioneer Avenue. • Very supportive, also support the first version of the ordinance. William Volz, Moore Neighborhood Association, 1816 Orchard Place. • Please pass this ordinance. It is a minimal effort considering the enormity of the problem. If the "3 unrelated persons" ordinance were enforced, a lot of this"rental impact" wouldn't occur. Myrne Watrous, 723 West Olive Street. • I'm only sorry to see it so watered down! 818 W. Magnolia. • Basically a good ordinance,with the exception: "To hold property owners liable for what the tenants do." Charge to offender,not the landowner. The offender is or would be the cause, the violator and should be held liable. Joe A. Coria. • Support the ordinance. Chris Maldonado, 412 N. Whitcomb Street. • • Irresponsible landlords and property management companies should not profit at the expense of committed property owners. I support the idea of having a City employee to coordinate complaints and oversee enforcement of the ordinance. • We feel that a public nuisance ordinance is necessary in order to protect neighborhoods and homeowners from "investors"who's main interest is to make money at the expense of the homeowners who intent to live there for a long time. Rental properties tend to create problems for homeo-.Nmers when houses are turned into rooming houses for young adults. Raymond Anderson, Highlander Homeowners Association. • I strongly support the ordinance and other measures that will help the City to enforce health and safety provision to keep neighborhoods livable. We should do what is necessary to get to out-of-state and out-of-town owners. It sounds like the process has been extensive. It's time to act. No need to delay. Barbara and Joel Rutstein • I like the principle of holding owners and their agents responsible for what goes on in their property. Since these are "businesses"the owners should be responsible in the same way that other business owners are. I believe the proposed ordinance, if properly enforced, can help mitigate the worst cases. But the greatest gains can be made b clarifying and restructuring the health fly g Y Y g a and safety ordinances and consistently enforcing them. The due process features of the proposed ordinance are too drawn out and cumbersome to be • effective for the bulk of violations. It is most refreshing that the City has I finally acknowledged that this is a very significant problem. Harold E. Worth, 1501 S. Shields. • We need this ordinance as a last resort for problems with rentals and owners who refuse to adhere to the rules. There has to be a consequence for those who don't or won't remedy the problem. I do think we should make sure property owners have clear ability to evict tenants who get citations. They need to be able to remedy the situation if they need to. Patti Westfall and Wes Westfall, 1112 Skyline Drive. • Please also increase enforcement through Police Services especially enforcement of multiple noise violations. Currently the courts do not multiply fines. Please also ask the judge to not plea-bargain noise violations. • Regarding holding property owners accountable for the use of their properties—part of being a responsible property owner should be having no more than three unrelated adults in a single family residence. This issue needs to be addressed. Not being able to enforce this is changing our neighborhoods from family neighborhoods to rental neighborhoods where we as families would not choose to live. • It's not just the students. I'm more interested in the "no more than 3 unrelated." Fran Ward. • The current ordinance dealing with noise,trash, etc. only address specific problems. The proposed ordinance addresses all these problems in total. The notification process is sorely needed. Frank Goss, 1621 Leesdale Court. • Need to include weeds as part of the ordinance. • The proposed public nuisance ordinance absolutely needs to be implemented! There is no other way to resolve the on-going problems. Don Fogerberg, 1304 Constitution. In Opposition to the Ordinance: • I don't agree with owner's being punished except in certain situations. I don't agree with some party situations if it is not out of control. I would like to see more community neighbors talk with each other about problems, then if still problems get police involved. CSU student. • Ordinance is excessive and lacks due process. Task force from 1998 that formulated had only 4 people from the public. Proper public input was not give prior to the drafting of the ordinance. Either scrap the ordinance or table the ordinance and form a task force with proper public input to solve the problem. It is evident that if neither of these this occurs, the ordinance will go to referendum and be beat by a wide margin. • We already have laws to take care of the problems. Have the police enforce the laws we have. If landlords were notified whenever the police went to a property, the landlord could take care of the problem. Evelyn Clarke, 1401 Lindenwood Drive. • If landlords are responsible for their tenants,they must be notified of the first offense and every time trouble happens. How else could a landlord be aware to take corrective action. Dolores Williams. 2 . • Legal problems,potential for purposeful abuse due to neighbors not getting along. Potential means of discrimination. No ability for landlord/owner to evict tenants with current magistrate in office. Can decrease property values. Have enforcement currently in place through current city ordinances,have enforcement through police department. • Too many legal problems. Takes away responsibility from tenants. Fosters discontent between neighbors. Increases City bureaucracy. Landlords don't have the legal ability to evict for cause. Could jeopardize an owners ability to insure property. Liens could be called due without a judicial decision in advance. Dane Brandt. • What is purpose of clean slate and 5 year notice requirement? Seems conflicting. Linda Hopkins, 1809 Rangeview. • I believe the City needs to give the tickets at a faster rate than it has in the past. The rules are on the books and you haven't enforced the laws or issued tickets. Don't pass another law because you haven't enforced what you already have. • • 3 Please Sign In NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL L�cr / 77 /boa eicx'F/EG,� �/-U/3G /—D(o Z 63T7 4 /1Q11 �ssz-4 7-7y "ARe LD l(Jo O T7- •,ter. Ui S. CHf ENDS [/�'V-`l'JF7 '�c 'i Q'Ji�'%:Ck IUpr l �/G (L.. ji/%� i--i. f�•` -L: C r • Please Sign In NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL c Ra7kr �° fi/'G� / -T . 'v4 .n%- ae•f1 � 225-/8i.� fo�Clie�?� .VaIC )✓._ is 1 r� JA 2 > l rye l'l c.�l -r \J _ ,Y r US; uuiS� 377• S`�<b ? ,n love t 1 3c)e S ✓ u, LccM (iir 31< YLiNL ��.lzct�7( I Please Sign In NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL G/,Yit%�x �i. ii rs« w„ rLak, S r/yr � 1F7 v 19r7 5, S1 775 1I� r 5 ,�c (�1bncEa U cf� ll� E 1^�+. aa3 RW(F GU 6L-Nri eZ Lu K Ci C5.Cora Dor-ene G-v"sjj 13i2 L� rnwroA Dr, y-81-bc4 /' : � vo rc.lc Z�UI• \h` 1 ..r Oa�- �147 �or� aru�i5w ,� � � K,d e>,�=ocd 4�18 '0l�{�! ��vsw� C �u�.�l� •C1�M C /(/� c/ 24-73 l�-6/7 � J7(-13-of7O i S�oi7 �u/t� /3/3 Go�Trz.r.�.✓ 493 �'� 22S W.l✓ �5 . h4�J 41t�4� . JS I •r r e� I.serr� ✓ �MSN. Co�v I Please Sign In NAME I ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL a < / � - 7575 'rsC I Gq «'Ns J2 .S',.Q� CO Q � G jiorioh 'rri� 1 . l 0 I I I i I i Citizen Comments . Public Nuisance Ordinance District Meeting with Bill Bertschy January 31, 2000 Is the PNO aimed at all properties? Yes. Do owners get contacted when there is a noise violation? No—there is a gap in the system The new position will look at the gaps Do we really need another position for noise?—On other issues the owners are well informed. Police do not always have all the details There is such a high volume of noise violations that the workload would be overwhelming Where can we register properties so we are notified of code violations? Health and Safety with Rich Kopp, 221-6675 Rich will "cc" notices to the owners City Comment: Noise complaints, vs health codes vs zoning are all different systems within the City City Comment: There is no common data base and the new position would tie violation and public nuisances together Do we really need the PNO to track violations? Many property owners do not reside within the city limits so violations continue at properties Who can change codes? City staff recommends changes, City Council changes them. What is a ticket-able offense? Health and safety issues are ticket-able and tickets are rarely issued Are cars in the driveway a violation? No, unless they are inoperable If you were to "beef up" the current ordinances,what percent of the problems would be solved? PNO is a good tool to add to help safeguard the owners Have saturated the current enforcement with existing ordinances The City Attorney's office is working on current ordinance improvements Have you sat down with real estate investors asking for ideas? • Yes How does the PNO affect the out-of-town/state owners? - The "Zero-Tolerance" worked well in the `801s. PNO can get default order so City can go on the property City can get their costs back on a criminal case Comment: The PNO feels like"a slap in the face!" Comment: Not all landlords are irresponsible. I support the PNO so my neighborhood feels safe and people respect the neighborhood. I want to come home in the summer, sit outside without noise, dogs, and cars. I don't want to be the hound dog! Help me I am tired of dealing with rentals. It will be nice to have the PNO. I support it! Comment: Why is it a"slap in the face?" for responsible owners? Laws are on the books for a reason so that those who break the law will be affected. (This person used a gun law analogy). Comment: It is a slap in the face because I am not responsible for someone else's behavior! Why was there not a group of people who are resources in the City tapped for this ordinance? I think we should table the PNO and form a group to find solutions to solve this problem. Bertschy Comment: There were lots of invitations sent from the City Manager's Office to inform people that we were ready to draft a PNO. We are still doing rewrites and I believe we are doing a good job of getting input to improve or modify the PNO. Why do we have to move to another ordinance? Let's put people together to address the issue and not polarize the city. This really is a very complex issue and the PNO is just one piece of the solution Comment: Regarding the comment of being responsible for other's behavior...Police will shut down a property if they sell cigarettes to minors and it is a continuous problem. This is the same thing; it is appropriate to hold owners responsible. Comment: The number one issue in the neighborhood is nuisances on properties. It is a devastating problem and affects more than those next door. We may not even have a neighborhood soon. I don't want to see another taskforce. We need to solve the problem now. If there is no PNO then let's just give up on the neighborhoods. What about our rights too as the neighbors?! Comment: The process is lengthy now the civil action. The"evidence is plenty." When something happens—call immediately so the city knows what is going on and have every other neighbor call too. City Comment: Some of the biggest problems are at owner-occupied properties. Comment: Thanks for all your hard work. The owners are responsible. "I should not have to do it as a neighbor!" Comment: Highlander Heights neighborhood has the biggest problem with an owner occupied property. When you"come right down to it"there is nothing else the city can do • with this property because the neighbor is violent. Our neighborhood will go down because of this neighbor. Comment: There should be "zero tolerance"and landowners should be notified. Bad properties do affect the neighborhood. Comment: I should be able to be in my home and not worry or have to take care of others. Certain properties are chronic problems so we need the PNO. What if the owner disregards the notice? Civil action can be taken Comment: Once the neighborhood goes down then it is difficult to get back. With this umbrella law we have one major tool to help the neighborhoods pull out of the decline. The decline happens because the owners get away with lack of care. The PNO benefits everyone because the property values will go up. Comment: But...branding a property, as a public nuisance will affect the entire neighborhood. Besides the decline of a neighborhood is cyclical, it's economic. I have a problem with the PNO because I am ultimately responsible and the perpetrator is not held responsible. Comment: The neighborhood would never have to decline iCity Comment: The perpetrator does get ticketed Comment: Many properties are turning around from investment to owner occupied so I see that the problem is to get the right people together to solve this issue so this doesn't go to a referendum. Comment: When we live next door, "we can't even go to bed' so we need to all be held to the same standard.No one wants to be the "police." The PNO makes people take responsibility. Comment: I think the PNO is vague in its definition of a nuisance Ciry Response: Three or five offenses are the definition. Let's talk afterwards. Comment: I don't know if the PNO is perfect and it works as an umbrella ordinance to cover what is not being addressed. We have to start somewhere. • Comments from District 1 Outreach Meeting Proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance January 26, 2000 a Including violations such as dog barking and sidewalk shoveling brings tolerance level down to "village idiot" level, leading to selective persecution by the overly sensitive. a Seems like a"big brother" approach, could be cited if police happen to drive by three times. a Many neighborhoods don't have covenant protection so this helps them remedy chronic problems. a I strongly feel this is a good ordinance. It's the only way to deal with problems such as chronic drug houses. There's currently no other recourse. a The Mantz neighborhood strongly supports the ordinance. It's currently difficult to identify owners of problem properties. . e If current laws are not enforced,why would this be better enforced. a Ordinance is needed to help neighbors know who to deal with. There's no threat to those who don't violate ordinance. a Support ordinance because it backs up those without covenants. Had to call many times before there was a response to noise complaint. a Moore Neighborhood Association believes the three unrelated law needs to next be reconsidered because excessive occupancy affects all neighborhoods. a Greater involvement by property owners and real estate community would have created a more balanced task force that could have proposed better solutions. Strongly supports ordinance as a"basic necessity."The problem is citywide and not just around CSU campus. a All of us who have invested in our property suffer for irresponsible property owners. a Reconsider requirement that nuisance violations must be reported to potential purchasers. Provision creates disincentive to sell problem properties. • 0 Tenants, not the house, are the nuisance. District 1 Meeting Notes February 8,2000 Page 2 • Neighbors need a one-stop approach to cope with nuisance properties. They can't devote the necessary time to remedying problems. • Tracking proposed in ordinance helps identify bad tenants. • Police don't have enough time to deal with property violations. • It's obvious most people will not be affected. The ordinance deals with owners who just don't care. Does make owner responsible. This is really the last straw. • Comments from District 5 Outreach Meeting Proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance February 3, 2000 • This represents a"typical liberal" approach of making one responsible for another's actions. • Rental property owners run a business and all businesses are accountable. If tenants are not responsible, property owners must be. • Strongly supports ordinance because currently "There is no responsibility." • Should preserve single-family neighborhoods because it's"ridiculous" to have rentals in a single-family neighborhood. • Next need is to once again consider limiting the number of people able to live in a single house • Businesses are required to provide adequate parking for customers, why isn't there a similar standard for neighborhoods? • • Police provide only real source of enforcement. Problem is there's no way to hold real violators responsible. Too much opportunity for harassment with ordinance, others can intentionally create violations. Mike Byrne should be • Helping homeowners is the real reason for this ordinance. y applauded for developing and supporting it. • ASCSU does not condone actions of irresponsible students, but only a few are causing the real problems. Getting into trouble is a"strong learning experience" but don't penalize those not responsible. This will lead to penalizing all renters. We need an equitable solution. • All we're doing is asking 23,000 students to act as responsible adults • In the real world, lots of people have to pay for the actions of others. • Comments from Property Managers,Landlords, and other Property Owners Meeting Sponsored by Health and Safety Division Staff City Streets Facility January 12, 2000 ❖ The City needs to enforce existing laws. The City needs to provide information to landlords regarding violations that occur on their property. •b The City needs a database for the police to use in notifying landlords when there is a problem at their property. ❖ The Police Department needs a database of information to use in enforcing current ordinances so that they can issue tickets to tenants when problems occur,not try to hold the property owner responsible. This ordinance uses too much time and has too big an impact for a small number of properties. •3 The provision in the ordinance that requires an owner to notify a potential buyer about a public nuisance violation works against trying to solve the problem. If a bad property owner is motivated to sell the property,the City shouldn't make that harder. It may stop the bad owner from selling it to someone who would do a better job. •:• The City went to an ordinance before it tried anything else. The City should try other enforcement tools before considering such a big stick. If the problem is about rentals, the ordinance shouldn't apply to every property including owner occupied. ❖ Property owners aren't opposed to good relationships within the community,but this ordinance goes too far. The basic premise of the ordinance is not built from input that included property owners,the real estate community, property managers, etc. The City should start over and come up with some better solutions. S• It's not fair to base a public nuisance action on a ticket that hasn't been validated by the court through a conviction of the tenant. :• The fundamental flaw of the ordinance is that property owners can't be held responsible for the actions of other people. •: It might be o.k. to hold the owner responsible for the condition of rental property, like weeds, but the owner shouldn't be held responsible for the behavior of other people. Approximately 20 attendees Ann Tumquist- Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 • From: Eddie Dot<EddieDot@webtv.net> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Wed,Jan 26,2000 3:56 PM Subject: Public Nuisance Ordinance My husband ad I own a home in a condominium complex, Village IV. We are anxious to have the city ordinance concerning a limit of three unrelated persons in a rented dwelling. First of all the units here are designated as single family dwellings. This means that no part of a unit may be rented such as a basement. If more than three unrelated people live in a unit, our pitting lots become severly overcrowded. Also there is an imposition on all owners, because of increased water usage since every owner pays a share. Please consider leaving this ordinance in place. Thank you, Edward and Dorothy Bednarowicz • RECEIVED �j"� FEB 0 7 2000 Public Nuisance Ordinance— Citizen Comments QtV of F�co� January/February 2000 CITY MANAGE' Generally,what do you think about the proposed ordinance? ❑ Support the Ordinance ❑ Oppose the Ordinance Support with Reservations ❑ Oppose with Reservations ❑ Undecided Comments: Your comments are valuable to City Council as they consider this proposal: Thanks for the opportunity to attend a meeting and have the ordinance explained. An ordinance to cover the "chronic problem properties" in Ft. Collins is needed and if the one distributed at the Residents of District 5 meeting 2/3/00 (which has been amended to leave it without enough teeth" o lie.Lp peop a living in areas witri CrTronic ro em roper ies") is all we can expect, I support it. I firmly believe there should be a change in the definition of "Public nuisantee" __ ______ -_ ampfided __ -____o_ It __ 6 and 12 _,.. the rather. «1.a 1 and 24 months. This seems to be an effort to let the tenents live out a lease and move on without the problem being dealt with. If as implied at the meeting tickets must have been issued and the city writes very few tickets neighbors are doomed. Why not "clean up" the city and make it a beautiful place to live, a place to take pride in. Beautification will not remain in any area as long as the "students and tenants have no restrictions or requirements in Leases. Since housing seem to do a great deal of the leasing why can they put some clauses in the lease to req ow it can be done. That eti.sdthe place to start also until a single family residence is a single family residence witWa'?a'm34S9g35:lk%;itn$'n them the 1-9 yearg effort hag not corrected or really touched the problems significantly. in the case of a reported noise disturbance where an officer is sent to investigate, when those involved in the disturbance claim to be students, why can't the officer get the names of those claiming to be students and get verification of place of residence from the University or college. In this manner the number of residents might be established as residents at that address. For non-students there should also be some way to check this. Also, lets get something on Parking. We understand from our chat with the Mayor that a zero tolerance noise ordinance exists but is not enforced why not enforce it. I was told once by the city attorneys office that there are restrictions such as one in the garage, one in the dirveway and2 or? in the street and that any others needed to parked on a hard surfaced area on the property. Where did that go? If it existed then, why not now. The Attorney at that time also told me that these people are running a business at the risidences, if that is true I know businesses have some restrictions, why not the owner of these rental houses, I understand a fee of $2.00 is on the books, is that enforced? If present ordinances exist why not enforce them and save the dollars and time of writing and hagling over new ones? Action is needed now not 3-5 years down the road. I applaud the help I have had from Rjth Ann Kastner and the response we have had from the police department. It has been excellent and I will continue to call the police and the health department. Sorry to be so negative but if you dealt with the "chronic problems"(according to my definition) daily and into the night and early mornings and had people come up near your patio to urinate when you are sitting with guests, maybe you would understand. Also music blaring at 2-3 AM. Its not comfortable. Edith C. Moore 1417 Shamrock St. St. Collins, Co. 80521 970-482-8610 Rutji Ann did a great job facilitating 1 t evening. All participants seemed well informed and prepared. RECEIVED FES 0 7 2000 • Feb. 2, 2000 CITY MANAGER City Council Members, I am writing concerning the public nuisance ordinance. For background, my parents built their home here in 1962, so we have a long history of living near rentals as we are in close proximity to the university. Any problems we have had inevitably have involved rentals with multiple student habitation. I often hear the students need to live in groups so they can afford rent. I challenge you to drive down a street of multiple student rentals and you will find the newest, most expensive automobiles in front of those rentals. Also, if they are so poor, how can they afford all the alcohol they purchase for those once or twice weekly wild parties. Funny thing though, with all that, they seldom seem to be able to afford a lawn mower or a snow shovel. Typically students stay in the same house for three years. The first year can be unreal, second year they start to settle down somewhat, by the third year things are usually pretty calm. But, then they graduate and we get to start the process all over again. Ironically, • the out-of-town property owners cooperate much more than the locally owned home. The local owner has owned the property for many years and has made outside improvements only once, that being when a family member moved into the house for a year. Several years ago, he rented to a family. They asked repeatedly for stove repair, plumbing repair and a furnace check but it was never done. Instead, he raised the rent, they had to move out, and he filled it will a bunch of students who, I'm sure, could care less about repairs. Funny thing, after all these years, that house is now for sale. Could it be he didn't want to deal with the possibility of the ordinance or is it just coincidence? Would I like to see the ordinance pass? Definitely yes. l really don't think the neighborhoods are unreasonable. We really aren't asking for that much. We don't want to see our neighborhoods deteriorate and we only ask for some respect and common decency from our neighbors. Presently, our neighborhood is doing fine. Three rentals are families and two are students, all have been good neighbors. But, experience tells me that can change very quickly, all it takes is a "For Rent" sign to go up. Thankyou. Q, Feb. 3, 2000 City Council Members, I am adding this note as I just returned from a meeting discussing the proposed ordinance. Thank you for holding these meeting. As I had to leave the meeting before it had ended, I didn't have the opportunity to make a comment on a topic presented. This was a complaint by a Property Management person who was upset about being held responsible for trash on a property, trash she said was not from her tenants. Through the years, we have picked up trash in our yard varying from bottles, cans, plastic cups, food wrappers, and even condoms. This was not "our" trash either, but we pick it up to keep the neighborhood clean. It seems to me, that is a responsibility they take on when they take the job of managing, at least they get paid for it. Thank you, Au4z � �'.G Dorene Grasse) 1312 Lynnwood Drive RECEIVED FEB 0 8 2000 • January 21, 2000 CITY MANAGER Mr. Ray Martinez, Mayor Mr. Chuck Wanner Mr. Bill Bertschy Mr. Mike Byrne Mr. Kurt Kastein Mr. Scott Mason Ms. Karen Weitkunat 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: I am writing in regard to the proposed `landlord nuisance ordinance". I am concerned that this ordinance(as amended)will have a very negative impact on the rental market in Fort Collins. I understand that your primary nuisance problem is in the area around the college-yet the proposed ordinance is going to have city-wide application. It appears to me that your new ordinance will create an"open season" on rental property throughout all parts of the city. Every barking dog or screaming cat problem will soon generate complaints from neighbors located next to rental property. It will be used as an easy way to get rid of rental property in residential neighborhoods. Consequently,while you attempt to solve a localized problem near the campus, your new ordinance is going to become an open invitation to file complaints throughout the entire city. First, let me say that it is fundamentally wrong to hold a landlord responsible for the personal behavior of a tenant. I doubt if you would ever consider trying to hold Budget or Avis rental companies responsible for their customers poor behavior on the streets of Fort Collins. Why do you feel that residential landlords should have a different standard? It seems so very basic to me that if a tenant or anyone violates an ordinance-then enforce the law! Why try to pass the buck to the landlord to solve the problem. The message that this proposed ordnance gives to any landlord is very loud and clear and that is never rent to a tenant that could potentially ans n Pisan prohlems. But if the landlord III should happen to be unlucky and rent to someone that receives an ordinance violation—then get rid of that tenant as coon as possible Is this the message you really want to send? If it is, it will certainly encourage more short term leases and higher rents. I understand that your pilot study revealed that most of the nuisance tenants are repeat offenders. As soon as a single violation is received under the proposed ordinance any intelligent landlord is going to start taking action to get rid of the tenant (i.e.. raise rents, refuse to renew lease, evict). These are the only real courses of action that a landlord has available to them. What else would you have the landlord do? Why would any landlord wish to keep a tenant and risk the possibility of receiving subsequent violations when there is an abundance of people seeking rentals? The bad tenants are not going to go away but will simply seek another place to rent. In other words, you haven't solved the problem but have just moved it to anew address. Since your primary culprits are college students, do you really think that loading their"boombox" and a few belongings in their car and driving around the block to a new rental is going to be much of a problem for them? Do you believe that the mere threat of being evicted (or encouraged to move) is going to be enough to cause the bad tenant to change their behavior? If you pass this ordinance, are you going to maintain a listing (data base) of tenants and/or properties that have received nuisance violations? Can we assume that you will make this knowledge available to all landlords so that such information can be used by landlords when selecting/screening new tenants? It would seem to me to be grossly unfair to hold a landlord responsible for the actions of tenants and yet have the city withhold the very information that would help a landlord screen out these potentially undesirable tenants. I believe that you would agree that there is a severe shortage of reasonably priced rental housing in the city. I think that it is safe to assume that most landlords are going to react to such an intrusive ordinance by raising rents and intensifying their screening process when selecting tenants. The people that would logically be impacted the most by a tighter screening process will be students, renters with pets and renters wishing to move from one location within the city to another one. In other words, you are creating a situation where most landlords would logically prefer to rent to people moving into Fort Collins from another city over someone who is a current resident that might be suspected of moving because of trouble with the nuisance ordinance. If your goal is to maintain a stable supply of reasonably priced housing in the city, why would you want to establish an ordinance that will hinder the rental market? The net result can only be to encourage landlords to get out of the business or fiuther escalate the cost of rental housing. I believe it is logical to assume that such an intrusive ordinance will prompt landlords to raise rents by$50 to $100 per unit just to offset the risk of having to deal with these new problems. Can you imagine the impact such a city-wide increase in housing costs will cause when it affects over half of the total housing!. I sincerely hope you will reconsider your plans to proceed with the proposed ordinance. If you have a localized problem near the campus, I believe you should address that specific problem. Why not enforce the existing laws? If the existing laws are not effective then increase the fines and then enforce them You already have a good Neighborhood Resource Office that is very capable of handling"neighbor to neighbor"types of problems. Why do you need a new ordinance and new resources?If you believe that landlords can help solve the problem (through persuasion),why not notify them of any problems and • seek their help voluntarily. You don't need a new ordinance with heavy handed penalties in order to do that. Sincerely Pete Pedersen 2225 Creek-wood Dr_ Fort Collins, CO 80525 Ann Tumqu""is4-Re: City's Proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance Pagel From: <TFXRSR@aol.com> To: FC1.Exec Net(ATURNQUIST),FCI.GWIACmistermf@yahoo.... Date: Thu, Jan 6, 2000 10:15 AM Subject Re: City's Proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE ARE EXISTING LAWS TO HANDLE THE PROBLEMS IF THE CITY WOULD ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS. YOU ARE ACTING LIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT—MAKE A NEW LAW—THEN PEOPLE WILL THINK WE ARE DOING SOMETHING. ACT YOUR AGE, IF YOU DON'T ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAWS THEN YOU WONT HAVE THE GUT TO W-FORCE THE NEW LAW. 1 THINK YOU ARE ALL BAGS OF WIND, PRETENDING TO BE DOING YOUR JOB. DROP THE WHOLE THING AND GET ON WITH RUNNING THE CITY. TOM REILLY �� cc: Council John iF.t Fischbach Greg Byrne/Patty Storm i Ann Turnquist FYI . RECEIVED FEB 0 4 2000 January 24, 2000 CITY MANAGER Fort Collins Coloradoan 1212 Riverside Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Editor: The editorial on Wednesday, January 19, the day before the Fort Collins Planning &Zoning meeting stating that Wal-Mart project must be approved ignored the fact that that body previously as well as the City Council studied, debated, and voted against situating Wal-Mart at the Lemay-Mulberry site. The extreme traffic problems still have not been solved. The proposed"Round-About" would be dangerous for pedestrian or bike traffic. The Poudre River would receive oil-dirt run-off from the acres of pavement. Air pollution from increased traffic directed into the lowest point in the city(the Poudre River basin) was not addressed. Zoning against building in a flood plain was dismissed. �ARS questions re-votes by the City Council and Fort Collins Planning &Zoning Board which previously had oted"no"to the regional "big-box Wal-Mart" at the Lemay-Mulberry intersection. If citizens can negate these official bodies' decisions by a ballot vote, our City government is useless. Citizens should have been concerned when the City Council voted down the Lemay Truck Route, and then because some didn't like the outcome decided to vote again Confidence in our local government's ability to stick to a decision is zero. At every public meeting Wal-Mart's developer, Goldberg, and his attorney Liley threatened to sue if they didn't get their way. Why did the majority of the Planning&Zoning Board criticize CARS but not Wal-Mart? The chairman courageously and judiciously stated that the location of an enormous regional "big box"Wal-Mart was the wrong scale for the site. A more reasonably scaled Wal-Mart could be located there, on North College (Evergreen Shopping Center), near Timberline/MountainVista, or closer to I-25 (like the Loveland Outlet Stores). We in the north go south for many reasons other than to shop Wal-Mart. The argument that locating there would decrease traffic at that site by keeping all shoppers in the north is ridiculous when actually a regional "big box"Wal-Mart including groceries would entice shoppers from the entire region to that traffic challenged site. Sincerely, Dolores Williams 1520 Hillside Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 .484-2792 491-5102 r February 3, 2000 For your information. In addition,thought I would share that I heard over NPR that the State of New Jersey has said that truckers must stay on the Interstate highways if they do not have local deliveries in towns/cities. The first fine is$400 and the second is S 1,000. Therefore, if recall correctly, about 1,100 vehicles per day do not have to travel on Mulberry,Riverside, and North College Avenue. Please let me know what you, City Council, along with the City Traffic people plan to do about this. Sincerely Dolores Williams 1520 I-Ellside Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 P.S. regarding the attached Nuisance Ordinance. I attended an information meeting and was impressed with the problem City staff face trying to mitigate problem people and yards. Most important is that owners are not now being informed of noise violations of their tenants,yet as an owner I have been efficiently informed about nonworking cars, snow not cleaned off a sidewalk, trash put out on the street too early for trash day (tenants moving and not knowing), and weeds outside a fence needing to be under six inches (along back alley outside the fence). In the case of the autos and moving trash, I had just gone by and notified the tenant to remove the cars in the street that he was working on and regarding the trash, I had just called for a special pickup from the garbage company they use. The City notices reinforced my requests of the renters. However, I believe that owners and renters do not have a right to make life miserable for neighbors or to have a yard that lowers property values for those around them. I require my renters to maintain the lawns and provide lawn mowers so they can keep the grass cut. I wonder how you can make the people around CSU keep grass up when now the yards are a mass of weeds. Neighborhoods charge and when renters outnumber owners, the fact is that renters are not as committed as a rule to the condition of the yards. Right now homes around old town are too expensive to buy for rentals, so young families are moving in and taking over previous rental streets. I personally water the lawns of my duplexes because I don't want the grass to die. Absent landlords can have their property managers spend money on yard maintenance. Ann Tumquist- Re: City's Proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 From: <TFXRSR@aol.com> To: FC1.Exec Net(ATURNQUIST),FCI.GWIACmistermf@yahoo.... Date: Thu, Jan 6,2000 10:09 AM Subject: Re: City's Proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance FORGET THE ORDINANCE AND GET ON WITH RUNNING THE CITY AND ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS OR GET SOMEONE WHO WILL ENFORCE THEM.—YOU ARE ACTING FOOLISH LIKE THE FEDERAL GOV. TOM REILLY • Ann 7umquist Nuisance Ordinance Pagel From: Dennis Sumner To: Gula, Linda Date: Thu,Jan 6, 2000 11:28 AM Subject: Nuisance Ordinance Linda, Thanks for the call. My comments are those from a long tens landlord. I have owned and managed a multifamily property in west central Fort Collins for over 20 years,so even if I am taking a limited vantage point it is based on experience. I take Issue with the approach of putting the burden of policing personal behavior control of tenants on landlords. There are numerous burdens placed on landlords under the concept of renter-protection. Some examples are eviction and disposition of security deposits. To put a landlord in the position of also playing police simply is not workable or appropriate. In many ways this enforcement role is just the opposite of the public policy that guides renter protection. If there is a civil issue related to a "repeat offender•'the police should have or be given the tools to deal with the person. This is a civil issue, consistent with the role played by the police. For example,the police have access to a person's police record to know if they are a "repeat offender"or etc. When a landlord is screening a prospective tenant that information is not available to them. Tenants also have privacy rights as related to the relationship with a landlord-again, landlords are not giving policing authority by our society. As a landlord, I go through a lot of effort to screen renters. I have to be concerned with my property and other impact on other tenants(my place is multifamily) . Most of the time my renters have proven to be responsible. When a"problem" renter shows up there can be a host of problems- impact on others, impact on property, paying rent, etc. As noted above,the law places numerous burdens on a landlord when dealing with such a tenant-you can't just say"Leave", and the renter's gone. There are formal processes that must be followed- again under the theme of renter protection. To add the burden of civil control,when the police are empowered to deal with these issues, is simply unconscionable. I understand there has been an attempt to"softened" my concerns in the current draft. My point is that it is inappropriate to place the burden for"policing"behavior of others on landlords, period. That's why we have a police service. That authority and tools to deal with problems have been given to police - not to landlords. Don't place the burden of public policing on landlords. It's not consistent with public policy of renter protection. Likewise,it is not supported by power or authority given and related authority has not been vested in landlords. Thanks,Dennis Ann Turnquist-Nuisance ordanance Page 1 • From: Jeffrey Squires <jesquire@psd.kl2.co.usv To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Fri, Jan 7, 2000 8:45 AM Subject: Nuisance ordanance I completely support the new attempts at a new ordanance.lf you all think the current laws and standards are adaquate then come out to our neighborhood and let me give you a toure and then see how you fell.If the current standards were adaquate then we wouldnt have the on going problems that we have and have had for years.Try for once not listening to the special interest groups,such a Realitors,and instead pay attention to the local residents that live in these high problem neighborhoods and have made their homes there.Hope the councel has the courage to step up and make the improvements that are needed to improve the quality of life for our neighborhoods.Thanks Jeff Squires Jeffrey Squires jesquire@psd.kl2.co.us Poudre School District, Ft. Collins, CO • • Ann Tumquist-Nuisance ordinance Page 1 From: John Hendrix<jhndx@lamar.colostate.edu> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Fri,Jan 7,2000 9:37 AM Subject: Nuisance ordinance To:John Fischback, City Manager, Fort Collins. From:John Hendrix, 3000 Tulane Dr. Fort Collins. Subject: Public Nuisance Ordnance. Date:January 7,2000 1 wish to thank you for sending me the information on the proposed Public Nuisance Ordnance. Also, I request that the comments I make be made availably to various officials who are concerned with this ordnance, especially members of the City Council. I wish also to say that my comments are based on the material you sent and on the article in the January 7, 2000 Coloradoan. I wish to comment on your answer to question#8 and to some comments quoted in the paper regarding that issue. 1 support what you have said, for the landlords should be encouraged to take action against disruptive tenants. However, 1 would hope that the City would facilitate the eviction process after the second citatation that is based on tenant activities. In this regard, Councilman Kastein quotation in the paper saying, 'However, I don't believe in holding landlords responsible for the tenant's unruly behavior.' It is clear that unruly tenets are not responsible, so what are the choices? Either the current unsatisfactory situation continues or the City, using police action,takes responsibility. It would seem that either of these alternatives are not appropriate. If someone is not given responsibility,there is no point in passing an ordnance. Along this same line, reattor Linda Hopkins makes a statement indicating that we have a system in place to handle problems. What ever that system is, it is not working. Also, I wish to point out that the landlords are making money out of our neighborhoods. One of the reasons that they are able to charge the rent they do is that we,the resident owners, have maintained a favorable environment. Therefore,they are making a profit, in part, on the basis of our efforts. Therefore, they owe something back to us and our neighborhoods. I am also concemed about properties that are managed for out of town owner. Some of these management companies do not take proper responsibility for the properties they manage. I believe that there should be some provision whereby they would loose their license to manage rental property if they do not take appropriate actions. Finally, it should be pointed out that to allow neighborhoods to deteriorated has a significant economic cost to the city in tax revenue and to the property owners, both landlords and resident owners. Furthermore, deteriated neiborhoods Ann Tumquist-UNTITLED • From: Arlene M Jekel <mummzie3@juno.com> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Sun,Jan 9, 2000 7:20 PM City Manager's Office Attn: Linda Gula I am writing about the proposed nuisance ordinance. I believe that our city needs a very strict ordinance to protect our senior citizens from unruly college students and people that are renting houses. 1 bought my home 11 yrs ago. My wife and I retired and bought a home on the west side of town. We found a perfect Tittle home. it was a nice quiet area, very few children and only a few dogs and cats,just what we were looking for. Everything was nice and quiet and we just loved the area. About 2 or 3 years ago,several of the people in the area sold their homes to either realtors or to private parties who then rented them out. These houses were rented out to mostly college students and to middle-aged people. That's when all of our troubles started in our area. We have rentals all around our place. There are college students in two houses on the comers adjacent to our property, 3 girls in one house, who have three howling dogs and across from them are 4 boys with 3 dogs who bark at everything that goes past their house. Then next to us, also a rental, a middle-aged couple have 4 dogs and 2 cats. They let their dogs out every morning about 6:00 or 6:30am and they bark incessantly. Since • we are both retired, it sure would be nice if we could sleep in in the morning without being awakened by these barking dogs. When one starts barking, the whole neighborhood of dogs joins them. In fact, in the immediate homes adjacent to ours,there are 13 dogs and I don't know how many cats. I have called Animal Control several times and ail they do is talk to them. Then the lady came over to our house and asked why we had called Animal Control. I told her her dogs were barking all the time. She told me that that was what dogs were supposed to do. When we bought our home 11 yrs ago,there was an ordinance to have only 2 dogs per household. Now Animal Control says they can have as many as they want to. I sure wish the City Council would pass some decent laws in our"Choice City". In my opinion, I believe the college kids are taking over our city. I hope that our elected City Council will investigate our concerns about college students, barking dogs and rentals to college students in residential areas. They have drinking parties every weekend, don't keep their yards dean and don'tshovel the snow from their sidewalks. I hate to say it, but I don'tthink our City Council is doing a very good job for home owners and senior citizens. I hope they will do more investigating on these problems. Thank you for allowing me to have my say. Raymond H. Jekel 2500 Montmorency St. Ft. Collins Ann Tumquist-Proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 From: "don_laude krump"<dikrump@hotmail.com> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 6:28 PM Subject: Proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance Dear Linda, I am pleased to see that the latest draft of this proposed ordinance does not have the language that would allow or dictate the possibility of taking or seizing a persons home/property for violation of the proposed nuisance ordinance. What concerns me is that there are people in local govememnt that would even entertain such a notion)l That kind of thinking is communismil And if any of the founding leaders of this country were alive today they would be at the lead of a movement to have people in governemt who would even suggest such tactics to be thrown out of office, if not criminally charged as well. Also, complete removal of the possibility of crimminal charges(by criminal I'm assuming it means felony, if it means misdomeanor, that's okay)for violation of this ordinance should be incorporated, not just if they knowingly ignore a court order to remedy a nuisance. Ordinances such as these (and subdivision covenants or other similar restrictions), are in place to keep a city and neighborhoods orderly, tidy and more liveable. To seize property or turn those who fail to comply into criminals is not the way to approach it. Other cities I've lived in have been successful by setting reasonable timeframes (usually 30-90 days)for someone to comply. If they fail to clean up their garbage heap, remove their broken down car(s), or similar housekeeping issue,then the city would hire (or bring in their own crews)to tidy up the property and the property owner would pay the bill within 30 days. if they fail to pay the bill within 30 days a lien would be put against the property (if the occupants are renters then the owner would have to deal with that end of it), and interest at say 18% per year would commence. In the worst case the city would get it's money(plus 18%interest)when the property changes hands. If it's a case of dogs barking or other animals out of control, or otherwise a nuisance to neighbors,the owner of the animals would have a short period (7-10 days)to rectify the problem, or the city would impound the animals. If it's a problem of someone(s) partying all night(or whatever), R would be handled like it is currently. Seizing property(or possibly causing someone to have a criminal record)is not necessary. This ordinance should make it hurt their pocketbook, and with that alone I think almost everyone will comply. Government (at all levels) is to help preserve our freedoms, not take them away. Thanks for your time. Don Krump Get Your Private, Free Email at http-1/www.hotmaii.com Ann Tumquist- public nuisance ordinance Page 1 • From: Nancy Oyster<noys@lamar.colostate.edu> To: FC1.Exec_Net(LGULA) Date: Mon Jan 17 2000 11:30 AM Subject: public nuisance ordinance Please forward this message to all council members. Thank You. 1 seriously object to the ordinance for the following reasons: 1. Am I my brother's keeper? Renters are adults. They should be reaponsible for their own actions. 2. Landlords MUST have SOME rights. It takes months under the current system to evict a renter. The renters know this and play the system. Will I be able to evict the renter for being a public nuisance? 3. 1 must accept all renters and cannot discriminate. Will 1 be able to choose the renters to whom I wish to rent under this new ordinance? 4. 1 rent to low income renters and try to give them a break but more often than not I am the loser. Unfortunately, I have run into a Gass of people who take advantage of every loophole, trash the place and don't pay the rent. It has taken as long as 3 months to get them out and I have lost thousands of dollars in the process. The city needs more low-rent houses but you are not making it easy for us to provide this service. PLEASE DO NOT PASS THIS ORDINANCE. i • Ann Tumquist-public nuisance ordinance Page 1 From: victoria peters<vpeters@webaccess.net> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Mon,Jan 17, 2000 7:51 PM Subject: public nuisance ordinance It's about time Fort Collins had such an ordinance. I am completely in favor of it as written. I am a property owner who is concerned that the value of my property will continue to drop each time a house on my street is bought as a rental for college students. I agree with the idea that property owners who rent their property should be treated like any other business in the city, namely that they need to be accountable and responsible for who they rent to. I think the renters should also be held accountable for their actions. Good luck. 1 hope this ordinance passesill Vicki Peters . JOE&CAROL SHEA P.O.BOX 1518 SUN CITY,AZ 85372-1518 623-933-0323, FAX: 623-933-0957 EMAIL: jshea4@juno.com January 7,2000 Mr.Ray Martinez,Mayor 4121 Stoneridge Court Fort Collins,CO 80525 Dear Mr.Martinez:: My wife and I have resided in Fort Collins and have owned property there since 1981. We have owned rental property in the city for the same length of time. Health and age have forced us to winter in a warmer climate. We have been Investment Realtors,investment property owners and property managers in various communities since 1964. Over the years,we sold millions of dollars of residential and income properties in Fort Collins. We are absolutely shocked to learn that there is under a consideration a Nuisance Ordinance that is so onerous and abusive of the property owners'rights as the one that now is under consideration. We understand the concerns of the good neighbors in the City who are disturbed by the noise,litter and general abuse that some tenants are capable of bringing to town. This should be stopped and dealt with firmly. We have had dreadful tenants from time to time,despite our best efforts to screen out the undesirables. However,we never found the City's laws or the Police to be deficient in maintaining the peace when informed of a situation requiring appropriate action. To our way of thinking,this is where the problem should be intelligently addressed-local enforcement of the existing laws NOT in trampling the property rights of the citizens. We will be watching the voting on this issue. If this sort of ill-conceived legislation is passed,we will bail out of Fort Collins as quickly as possible,taking our investments with us. Furthermore, it would be unconscionable for us to sell any Fort Collins real estate to any unsuspecting buyer. This ordinance abuses the property owner's rights and will seriously lower property values in Fort Collins. The City Administration needs to think this over very carefiilly. The voters need to think over their choices during the next City election. Very truly yours, Joe&Carol Shea .i Ann Tumquist-Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 From: James Bert<jb131 9@peakpeakcom> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Wed, Jan 19,2000 12:27 PM Subject: Nuisance Ordinance My wife Bev and 1 would like to go on record as supporting the above ordinance. We feel it's been too long in coming. Enforcement of existing laws have been sporadic and almost negligent. Thus it is time to put the pressure on the landlords,especially the absentee ones. We have lived next door to rental units since 1986 and have first hand experience as to the generally uncaring attitude toward property upkeep. I'm sure these landlords would not like this attitude and disrespect for property to happen in their neighborhoods. We encourage the city council to continue with the passage of this ordinance. Sincerely; James and Beverly Bert 2012 Leicester Way Fort Collins, Co e0M, F:� v raid>._i��o..a. JAN 2 u 2000 . Darlene Johannsen 1208 Green Streetn e =" Ft Collins CO 80524 January 20,2000 City Managers Office Assistant Linda Gula RE: Public Nuisance Ordinance Both my husband and I are in favor of the ordinance. We live in University Acres. In the past 2 years we have gone from no rentals to 3 on this block. All of these houses were bought by out of town families for their children to use while going to C.S.U. The one house that has had the most noise, parties, and police calls was bought by a father in Illinois and is in his son's name. I hope the ordinance covers owners who are the nuisance. I think that C.S.U. should be incouraged to build more student housing. I would also like council members who vote on this to indicate whether or not they live near student rentals at the time of their vote. • Sincerely, 9Aa"V,,y,ae,,� Darlene Johannsen • RECEIVED JAN 2 4 2000 `t F'\ NV. V- p _Vo j VJE w \ G-L Na -C (�R \-`= -\ CE\ E�NL CEO CIF- \ N IEN O �cC \S \ V \ C F\ N \M P.C4. \ � �Ncc �\ aF 4 \Z- \\IP-%'cIF- l-ANN:�, owWV- C Ann Tumquist-Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 From: "fran106" <fran106@gateway.net> • To: FC1.Exec_Net(LGULA) Date: Tue, Jan 25, 2000 10:12 AM Subject: Public Nuisance Ordina nce January 25,2000 Subject Public Nuisance Ordinance I can speak from only one perspective—as the owner/occupant of unit 45 of the Village IV Condominiums, 1024 Oxford Ln, 80525. It is unfortunate that nearly half the original condo owners here have either moved away and leased their units or have sold their property to professional (?) landlords. There are property managers and then there are property managers. Individual rental units get varying degrees of management and care.Absentee owners seem only to care that the monthly rent checks reach them.And, once the lease is signed, the unit property managers seem interested only in their monthly fee. Certain rental units are regular problem spots here at Village IV. Loud parties, fireworks, parking on rockbeds and driving cars or motorcycles on lawns... Super-sized dogs, dogs off leash, football games and non-operable vehicles in the parking lot. And when they do move out, our trash bins overflow! Everything but the kitchen sink is left outside for the HOA to pay for removal. The lack of actually visiting the property to make sure tenants abide by both the homeowner association • rules and regulations as well as city ordinances is rampant. This must be a city-wide problem. Have you heard from other condo owners? Yes, our association's property manager SHOULD be receptive to and act on owners complaints, but our particular one does not deign to respond. There have been as many as seven students living in a PUD-designated single family unit. Seven students usually mean seven vehicles in a parking area meant to offer just one space per unit in addition to the garage. In theory, each of these seven bathe once a day and wash clothes now and then. Each unit owner pays an equal amount in HOA dues which in turn pays for the water bill. Somehow, I find this to be unfair. It is one thing to complain about paying beyond my share of the water bill; it's another to express the hope that there's relief in sight when certain obnoxious renters make life miserable for those of us old-timers who are still living here and paying on our mortgages! It would help if it could somehow be made clear to individual property managers they too bear some responsibility for overseeing and making sure those who signed the leases follow the rules of both the city and of the homeowners associations. We also need quick, clear and official backing from the city on the"No more than three unrelated persons—"ordinance AND a way to stop other ongoing offensive and unsafe actions short of calling in the police.To most of us seniors, contacting the police is a major happening reserved for burglaries, serious threats, auto accidents and etc. By the way, if a board,commission or group is formed to receive requests for help, no realtor, property manager or anyone related to one should be a part of it! They are all too busy'managing' (collecting) • their clients'monies to be open to a nearby homeowners concerns. People of other occupations (or retirees)with open minds would do well as mediators. Ann Tumquist- Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 From: Victor Day<vctor@verinet.com> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Sun,Jan 23, 2000 5:21 PM Subject: Public Nuisance ordinance I would like the city council to support the above ordinance. I live on Remington Street and experience problem tenants and problem properties. Some of these properties are realtor owned and others are owned by out of town investors. Counter to the opinions that these investors are interested in perserving the properties value, the intent is only to maximize current income. Little care is taken of these properties and as many sudents as possible are stufffed into some. My wife and I own 8 rental units and manage 12 units for her family. We like to see rental properties taken care of and we do control the actions of our tenants so that they do not adversely effect others. Landlords do have the power to control what happens on their properties. If landlords do not care:the tenants do not care. Had the reattors not been proposing to investors that the city could not inforce the requlations on the number to unrelated people living in a unit, maybe they would not be faced with this type of ordinance. i.e. Excellant investment 5 bedrooms will rent for$per bedroom This ordinance will efffect a few problem property owners and a few tenants. Please support this ordinance. Vic Day 1110 Remington Ann Tumquist-Public Nuisance ordinance Page I From: <DAcottQaol.com> To: FCI.GWIA("lugla") Date: Thu,Jan 20, 2000 7:54 PM Subject: Public Nuisance ordinance I have loosely followed the debate on this issue. I have noticed several requests for comment, so I will. I have lived in FTC for about 45 years. It would be my premise that there are currently laws that would apply to almost all the violations addressed by this new ordinance.The issue seems to me to be one of"ease of enforcement".My opinion is that this ease of enforcement given by this ordinance would come at the expense of individual owners property rights. I donY.consider the problems in this city significant enough to warrant the passage of this ordinance. Landlords have plenty of incentive already to avoid the problems the ordinance addresses. Anyone who has ever been to the"courthouse"with a tenant problem is aware of the extensive rights they have and situations can be difficult to correct. Take action against the offender, not the landlord.Table this ordinance with a wait and see attitude. Dennis Acott 307 W. Magnolia Ft. Collins • I JAN 18 2000 January 11, 2000ij i 7 9: rFt • City Council P. 0. Box 580 Ft. Collins, Co. 80522 To Whom It May Concern: I would like to thank the City Manager for his letter regarding the Nuisance Ordinance and for the copy of the proposed ordinance. I have reviewed the draft ordinance and find it to be written very broad and with therenter, property owners, Board of Realtors, Students and CSU favored. It does not relate to specific problems whicnneighbors in a highly populated rental area zoned single family are experiencing. It is quite obvious that the Board of Realtors, the University, students and other renters havp been given a great deal of consideration but that representatives of Neighborhood have had very little glout. We already have ordinances in effect which would relate to many of our problems ina more effective manner but for various reasons they are not enforced. Some of the items which are important are noise tolerance. It appears that a zero tolerance noise ordinance is in place but is not enforced. I realize this may be a result of the reported shortage of police officers which . shortage has caused the department to eliminate the patroling of neighborhoods. This method kept the neighborhoods in compliance with ordinances. If, additional policemen or women are added to the force will there be patrols in neighborhoods or will these persons be used elsewhere. Neighborhoods were not wanting to deny students the right to have parties, only to limit the number of people attending parties, to have some respect for the privacy of others in the neighborhood. Parties should be limited to the property where it is being given. Attendees should not be wandering over the neighbors property, urinating on the bushes, coming up near a patio where people are trying to enjoy a pleasnat evening urinating where they are visible, respect? When an estimated 100-140 young people gather around with groups milling around talking silently, viewing other groups and etc. it is the proper environment for a riot or other disturbance. Not a pleasant thing to be faced with late in the evening and into the early hours of the morning. Improper parking of vehicles can include and more often than not does include parking on the sidewalk. Across the sidewalk at driveways, diagonally rather than parallel, in front yards which rapidly destroys the lawn. Calling the police department usually takes care of this but .what a hassle to always need to report something to the police department. Garbage and trash disposal is mandatory. However, it can stack up in front of a house, and not be noticed unless a person in the neighborhood calls and complains. • Page 2 City Council What has happened to the City Councils pride in the city? Drive down Prospect Street from College or even Lemay to Taft Hill and persons visiting the city to attend football games or family, friends etc. would be inclined to believe this to be the beginning of a ghetto area. One of the main street in the City! I had inquired about the process to set up a meeting with the committee while the review was in progress but could not obtain this information. A young lady kept me informed as to the progress but we did not have the proper information to arrange a meeting. Is it too late? Can a group still be heard? Persons not plagued with the problems do not have an idea as to what a nuisance it can be until they experience it or listen to persons who have or are experiencing it. Is the University not responsible for providing proper housing for students? If not, why not. Has making the tenants responsible for their actions been considered? How about a little respect for property and others? Another revolting evidence is the unkept lawns and properties when they become rentals. Contractors are required to plant a certain amount of landscaping around housing areas yet property owners can let them run down and become "Junk Heaps". Will the enforcement manager have enough authority to correct problems or will that person be given the responsibility but not enough assistance or authority to carry out their responsibility. The only alternative long time property owners who occupy their property have is to move but there are no controls for other single family areas either. The proposed ordinance covers many of the problems but it is not specific enough to really have any teeth in it. Therefore, has the "problems" really been solved or is it merely another so-called expensive "exercise"? Time will tell but other it.. place ordinances must be enforced together with this one for it to be effective. Perhaps by the time changes can be made the educators can conduct some classes for students on proper management of the property rented. There is surely some simple solution. Sincerely, Edith C. Moore 1417 Shamrock St. Ft. Collins, Co. 80521 970-482-8610 C . FIECEIVEC JAN 0 7 2000 • HIGHLANDER HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CITY M A.RkCER Januray 7, 2000 Mr. John Fischbach, City Manager City Hall, 300 Laport Avenue This letter is to let you know that the Highlander Heights Homeowners Association is highly in favor of the nuisance ordianance with sanctions."The Board of Directors, except one who owns apartments, are supportive of the cities' efforts to establish controls on people who create problems and degrade the area where they live. This includes both residential home owners and landlords that own houses as rentals. The largest number of complaints that we get as a homeowners association are about rental properties where several unrelated adults occupy a house. Traffic and cars increase, people come and go at all hours and have no regard for neighbors in the noise they make. Land- scapping is frequently ignored, lawns are not watered, grass is uncut, weeds grow everywhere, cars are parked on lawns, beer and pop cans strewn about and so on. We have protective covenants that specify that Heighlander Heights is to have single family houses for use by a single family. This may be old fashioned but it has worked well for about 40 years. Now when a speculator buys a house in this neighborhood, we have a hard time determining exactly how many people live in the house because occupants seem to change frequently. We do see that the immediate area is degraded by such use. Not only are these houses poor neighbors, making life un- pleasant for owner occupied houses, but it also reduces the value of neighboring houses. In other words, a rental landlord takes value from other properties while degrading the living experiences of long term residents. Thus we feel the city should do more to protect homeowners rather than listen too closely to the protests of landlord types who's main goal is to make a high return on their investment. The quality of life of established residents who maintain their homes and will be here for a long time should hold presidence over some speculator who owns property for monetary gain at the expense of the neighbors. After all, they are the ones who create most of these problems. Sincerely Highlander Heights Homeowners Association Board of Directors Raymond erson, Secretary 1301 Luke Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 ISM FECEIVED - earl 1 � zoeo Book Center of the Rockies, Inc. �, . D'!NL. l331 Red Cedar Circle • Fort Collins, CO 80524 Cf iMA vct=r—" January 13, 2000 Hon. John F. Fischbach, City Manager CITY OF FORT COLLINS 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins CO 80522-0580 Dear Mr. Fischbach: Many thanks fcr your?am_ary 5 letter and the accomnpaaying rua.e:ial wvering the proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance. I appreciate the effort which you and the City Council are making to keep the public informed about this very important issue. I'm torn on the issue. I've complained bitterly to the police and various City Council members about inhabitants of a property which is the scene of repeated criminal activity (from petty to murder), and obvious health and fire violations. Since the City has not solved that problem, I can sympathize with those who put up with troublesome neighbors. Yet laws already exist to handle such a situation. The revised Ordinance still presents serious difficulties. At the risk of taking up too much of your time, and that of the Council, I'll outline those difficulties. The City Council is running roughshod over the principle that even in the face of a few serious problem properties, it cannot compromise and infringe upon individual rights. The City should neither inconvenience nor punish the majority when attempting to deal with a few bad apples. Limited government is still the best government. Deal with special problems using the existing laws. "Hard cases make bad laws," my mother always says. The material you sent reters to these existing laws which deal with many of the problems which the Nuisance Ordinance will address. What are those laws? What penalties do they carry? And how do City authorities enforce those laws? It should be obvious that adding laws to existing unenforced laws solves nothing. One more unenforced law. One more burden to an already overburdened citizenry. One more way to spend taxpayer money. And more confusion for civil authorities. Put another way, if the City cannotenforce one law, how will it enforce another? Throughout the explanation of the proposed Ordinance are references to subjective judgments concerning an offending property. "A property might be becoming a public • nuisance...the police department otn icine a chronic problem...an enforcement officer fax line 9701493-8781 970/493-3793 telephone r would have to verify a complaint...officer on the scene would evaluate complaints...m�e sure that a complaint was not frivolous...look like a pattern to a staff member...collect data about a otp ential.nuisance property...monitoring a property as a Rossibi nuisance property." Big Brother will be watching you. Under no circumstances should individual judgments constitute the basis for a civil or criminal action. Get an officer on a good day, and a complaint by one neighbor against another is frivolous. An hour after he's had an argument with his boss, or his wife, that same complaint takes on a new meaning. Please don't say that can't happen. It happens every day in many situations. Certain other characteristics of the Ordinance defy logic, not to mention the American system of justice. How can the City hold an innocent person responsible for someone eise's actions? Do you hold Hertz responsible for the reckless driving of someone who rents a Hertz car? Better still, do you hold the state of Colorado responsible for giving that driver a driver's license? "A trial without jury. Limiting the defense which a person can use to fight an unjust action. The burden of proof on the merits of any civil action...shall be by a preponderance of the evidence(who will decide that?). No party may file any counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party claim or set-off of any kind in any action under this Article." More Big Brother. Section 20-115(b.1) suggests that if a recurring problem exists on a greenbelt or in a condominium development, not only might the Board of Directors of such an association be liable,but the entire community. I hate to strain the logic of the proposed Ordinance, but a situation may arise in which the very person who lodged a complain would become a defendant in the ensuing civil action. Let's carry that a little further. A property owner notifies the police of a problem with his tenant. Once again, that property owner could end up a defendant in an action. You will say that that cannot happen because the authorities will make a judgment that the property owner is exercising due diligence by making the complaint. I retort that in any case which requires individual judgments, mistakes can and will occur. Allow me a hypothetical situation,but one sure to arise if the Ordinance passes. A landlord and good citizen, intent upon obeying both the letter and spirit of the new Ordinance, designs a questionnaire for each prospective renter. Unbeknownst to our good citizen, the questionnaire contains a question which violates one or another of the local, state, or even federal discrimination regulations. He then becomes the target of a discrimination complaint simply for trying to be a good citizen. Perhaps a better illustration. Our good citizen denies rental to a man whose picture he has seen in the paper recently being evicted from a rental property after repeated 1 . violations of the City's new Public Nuisance Ordinance. He then becomes a target of a discrimination claim filed by the prospective renter whose rights he violated because of his past indiscretions. Your letter, I'm afraid, is a bit misleading in the matter of the City's ability to"close" a property for repeated violations under the Ordinance. Section 20-120 clearly states that the"Court may...permit the city to enter upon a parcel of real property and abate the nuisance, take steps to prevent public nuisances from occurring." Conspicuous by its absence is any limit to what those steps may be. Reading a little further, Section 20-122 states "Nothing in this Article shall be construed to limit or forbid the city or any other person from pursing(sic) any other remedies available at law or in equity, including, without limitation, THE SEIZURE, CONFISCATION, CLOSURE, DESTRUCTION, OR FORFEITURE(my highlight) of property as now or hereafter required, authorized or permitted by any other provision of law." Nowhere in either Section 20-120 or 20-122 does the Ordinance limit the City to use of these drastic measures only after a criminal citation. In fact, Section 20-120 gives the City the option to "take steps to prevent public nuisances" instead of seeking criminal prosecution. • I hope that these comments and those of other concerned citizens will lead the Council to drop this Ordinance and seek remedies already at law to solve the problems. I will be happy to discuss this further with you or any representative from Fort Collins city government. Sin re1y,// jam Neil McCaffrey III cc: Karen Meyer, News Editor, COLORADOAN Tess Heffernan Phil Walker, KCOL American Civil Liberties Union, In-take Dept. • / 3 0 ?f Cro/X, . ea, i�a✓Wu- 71 RECEIVED JAN 1 2000 0500o CITY MANAGER 611r�i poS'z Z- o SFO r .7 I?Z /Gc/cam` s G,.171 GLLf eve �/'�y� /✓3 �� � (i62.tie2 ��/f,.,a��cLlc'ovoc G1�.c��2a47t-c.�'. • Q,r�.d GLv�.vflrt�L C�6PM�?i y Y�^�+ i v" "'�'/.Si 4 U��� Ann Tumquist- Public nuisance ordinance-comments Page 1 9 • From: "Cary Album" <c.album@woridnet.att.net> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 9:53 AM Subject: Public nuisance ordinance-comments Honorable members of the City Council— I have now read the entire proposed public nuisance ordinance as it appears on the City's web site today, January 10, 2000. As a former municipal judge (Laramie, WY, early 80's), I first offer the comment that it is a lengthy, complicated ordinance that appears designed to force defendants to hire counsel. Since the vast majority of matters brought to Municipal Court are defended by the defendants themselves, forcing the hiring of counsel flies in the face of one of the primary tenets of Municipal Court,that it is a "people's court". More specifically, I question whether under Colorado law it is proper to attempt to pre-empt the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure (as appears in 20-117), and I further question whether the contemplated procedure meets the litmus tests for temporary or permanent restraining orders expressed in a long line of Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals cases, as appears in 20-115. 1 question whether the ordinance can constitutionally prohibit counterclaims, crossclaims, or third party claims (as appears in 20-114), which it seems to me are part of fundamental due process whereby a defendant may properly seek to place the blame for an occurrence upon the person or persons who actually committed ft. I question the propriety of including as defendants the lenders who finance properties(those being parties with an equitable interest). Were I the municipal judge, I would be extraordinarily concerned about the propriety of being exhorted to enter a money judgment for the City as part of an abatement order(as appears in 20-119), without a similar authority to enter a money judgment against the City for an improper proceeding, especially since the municipal judge is an employee of the City. It is difficult enough being the City's employee as a municipal judge and maintaining judicial detachment in criminal and quasi-criminal cases, let alone civil cases as well where the City is a party seeking monetary compensation. I suggest that the City will be opened to liability for interference with financing contracts, for slandering property title, and for unconstitutional takings, should it actually seek the remedies specified in this proposed ordinance. Following the "law of unintended consequences", I suggest that this ordinance will not protect the City from actions in other courts, and the financial repercussions may be steep. Whenever property rights are being challenged, owners are often willing to go to great lengths to protect those rights. This may very well be a door that would be better left closed and firmly locked. If In fact the acts that are subject to the nuisance ordinance are also misdemeanor violations of the code (as defined in 20-111), why not enforce them in that way? It seems to me that the proposed ordinance will become just another ordinance that is not regularly or uniformly enforced, if in fact the pre-existing ordinances aren't being enforced now. If speed of enforcement is the issue, it is hypothetically much faster to enforce a . misdemeanor violation against the actual perpetrator than to bring a complicated civil action against not only the actual perpetrator but against all who have any legal or equitable interest in the property as well as the Ann Tumquist- Public nuisance ordinance-comments Page 2 property itself. That is, unless the system is bogged down due to being overloaded, already, in which case,this proposed ordinance will not solve that problem but will instead exacerbate it. As a resident and property owner, I object to the"ball bat to swat a fly" mentality that is laced throughout the proposed ordinance. 1 live in a neighborhood that includes both resident owners and student tenants. Some student tenants are not good neighbors, but the vast majority are. This ordinance will not magically transform any bad neighbor into a good neighbor, but it certainly can be used as a divisive tool by overly sensitive neighbors. I suspect that there are already many unenforced ordinances on the books already, or there would not be a reference within this proposed ordinance to "violations of the code"as being the basis for actions here. If the City Council must act, I suggest that it act by insisting that current ordinances be enforced, rather than by passing yet another difficult to understand, overreaching and hard to enforce ordinance that will, in my judgment, become just another unenforced ordinance, once the hubbub over this one dies down. Thank you for offering this forum in which to comment. Yours very truly, Cary R.Album III Attorney CC: "coloradoan"<news@coloradoan.com> Linda C. '8 -Nuisance ordinance Fa-e From: John Hendrix<jhndx@lamar.colostate.edu> . To: FC1.Exec_Net(LGULA) Z: Date: Fri,Jan 7,2000 9:37 AM Subject: Nuisance ordinance " To: John Fischback, City Manager, Fort Collins. L� From: John Hendrix, 3000 Tulane Dr. Fort Collins. Subject: Public Nuisance Ordnance. Date: January 7, 2000 1 wish to thank you for sending me the information on the proposed Public Nuisance Ordnance. Also, I request that the comments I make be made availably to various officials who are concerned with this ordnance, especially members of the City Council. I wish also to say that my comments are based on the material you sent and on the article in the January 7, 2000 Coloradoan. I wish to comment on your answer to question#8 and to some comments quoted in the paper regarding that issue. I support what you have said, for the landlords should be encouraged to take action against disruptive tenants. However, I would hope that the City would facilitate the eviction process after the second citatation that is based on tenant activities. In this regard, Councilman Kastein quotation in the paper saying, 'However, I don't believe in holding landlords responsible for • the tenant's unruly behavior.' It is clear that unruly tenets are not responsible, so what are the choices? Either the current unsatisfactory situation continues or the City, using police action, takes responsibility. It would seem that either of these alternatives are not appropriate. If someone is not given responsibility, there is no point in passing an ordnance. Along this same line, realtor Linda Hopkins makes a statement indicating that we have a system in place to handle problems. What ever that system is, it is not working. Also, I wish to point out that the landlords are making money out of our neighborhoods. One of the reasons that they are able to charge the rent they do is that we, the resident owners, have maintained a favorable environment. Therefore, they are making a profit, in part, on the basis of our efforts. Therefore,they owe something back to us and our neighborhoods. I am also concerned about properties that are managed for out of town owner. Some of these management companies do not take proper responsibility for the properties they manage. I believe that there should be some provision whereby they would loose their license to manage rental property if they do not take appropriate actions. Finally, it should be pointed out that to allow neighborhoods to deteriorated has a significant economic cost to the city in tax revenue and to the property owners, both landlords and resident owners. Furthermore, deteriated neiborhoods • Ann Tumqusf- Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 From: "PAUL JOHNSTON"<4CLAIMS@worldnet.att.net> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Thu,Jan 27,2000 8:00 AM Subject: Public Nuisance Ordinance I have only a couple of comments regarding this issue.... 1. 1 f I had wanted Boulder Colorado mentality in Government, I'd be living in Boulder. 2. ENOUGH BIG BROTHER !.....Yes I meant to shout some maybe someone will hear. 3. Yes I'm an owner of rental property here in Fort Collins and 4. Yes I'm a registered voter. List offlaws with current version (12--30 99) ofPNO (Public Nuisance Ordinance) ❖ How do you hold someone responsible for equitable interest? � 9[ - Do 1 Page 5 have a right to an attorney? • g you g ❖ Page 1, 17 - ...make owners�'esponsible fo the use of their property by tenants, guests and occupants. �/�p� � q _ J ✓J�J� ` - rJ7/ YtLi ../. o% / / Ky GC-." L��..Lt/C.Cs'i ✓l liL'/Lc%G•�/v .� �-.�/ � • ,ly�y ❖ Pagve 4, Sec. 20-113 (a) No/person having any legal or equitable inte eY st in any par�l of real property, or having a contractual obligation to manage such parcel, shall commit, promote facilitate, permit, fail to prevent or otherwise let happen, any public nuisance in or on such parcel. \y ❖ Page 5, Sec. 20-113 (c) ...without a Court order, ... (does tenant get to tell their side of story/) ��: ❖ Page 5, Sec.20-114(a) ...without a jury. No equitable defenses may be set up or maintained in any such action except as provided ... ❖ Page 5, Sec. 20-114 (b) ...shall be strict liability violations. No culpability or mens rea of any type or degree shall be required ... (no criminal intent need be there, strict liability is very extreme) ❖ Page 5, Sec. 20-114 (d) ...the Municipal Court is hereby granted the jurisdiction, duties and powers to hear and decide all causes arising under this Article, and to provide the remedies specified herein. (damage awards in Municipal Court are unlimited) ❖ Page 6 Sec. 20-114 (g) ...to revoke, suspend, fine or take other action against any license. (real estate license, sales tax license,etc...?) �, ❖ Page 8 Sec.20-116(a)(ii)has further undertaken and pursued with due diligence all reasonable means to avoid a recurrence of similar violations of the parcel by the present and future tenants v or occupants of the parcel. (it is impossible to ever satisfy this) ❖ Page 10 Sec.20-117(d)(2)The Court may also consider the facts alleged in the verified complaint or in any affidavit submitted in support of the complaint or motion for temporary abatement order, and those facts need not be repeated at the hearing. (no cross examination?) ❖ Page 11 Sec.20-118 (a) (ii) ...there are no reasonable grounds to believe that a public nuisance was committed in or on the parcel;and(your burden of proof is that there is not 1 fact,hearsay, to substantiate) ❖ Page 11 Sec.20-118(b)Even if the trial on the merits is not so advanced,any evidence received at the hearing on these motions need not be repeated at trial,but shall be treated as a part of the record for trial. (hearsay) ❖ Page 11 Sec. 20-119 ... the Court may impose a separate civil judgement on every person who • committed, conducted,promoted, facilitated, or aided the commission of any public nuisance or who held any legal or equitable interest or right of possession in any parcel of real property on or in which any public nuisance occurred. (who has deepest pockets/easiest target? maybe parents for giving birth) RECEIVED log, JAN 2 5 2000 Cri Y MANAGER Ch O - Y r gel _J 1200 ..FKlua 50521 fom ;;ryry �..C ';.�!erg D JAN 2 " 2000 January 23, 2000 John Feshbach Fort Collins City Manager City Council Members PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Sir. We have written this in response to a letter I received from your office January 5, in regard to the proposed Public Nuisance Ordinance. We wish to respond in this manner. We are aware of the difficulty in formulating an ordnance such as this which is compatible with the feelings of the majority of the public and specifically would be acceptable by the landlords. No one appreciates the specter of excessive government control, goodness knows we are getting an excessive amount of this now, with our growing population. We are not writing to give you suggestions of how to write this ordinance, we are writing to give you encouragement to continue your efforts to come up with an ordinance that is acceptable. We have been plagued for several years with rental properties in our neighborhood that have nm the gamut of neighborhood nuisance problems ranging from child abuse, late night parties, drug abuse and trafficking, drug overdose death, and numerous police visits, to rental houses being used as a hotel,"with various people moving in and out for a day or two at a time, with as many as six cars being parked repeatedly and continuously in various areas of the . neighborhood. We are fully aware of how difficult it is for neighborhood residents to maintain their peace and dignity, when these conditions exist in their neighborhood. It becomes extremely difficult to counter these problems, even with the good cooperation we have had, from the appropriate City Offices, working within existing ordinances. The glaring fact in all of this is the tota! lack of concern from the landowners who avoid the issues and remain unreachable and unconcerned. Their goal seems to be, collect the rent and make themselves scarce. This is further made difficult with the situation of an out of state landowner and payment of rent through Section 8 funding. Somehow, the landowner must be made to accept some responsibility and ultimately be accountable. Our purpose of this letter is to thank those in your capacity for their concern with these problems and encourage them to continue working toward a goal that puts some form of fair and acceptable mandate requiring landowners to take some responsibility for the conduct of those to whom they rent. We appreciate your efforts and thank you. Sincerely Ge and Shirley 1416 Beech Ct. Ft. Collins, CO 80521 �' an6� 970221-4029 �,,, • L�hcla ✓a//tj ryas '' I q 3 3 Beet i�.0 - r,f Cc�CC s • F+ Cuibna, do SD534 C � b r a qav- �9K gq�s TOM TUCKER ti CEIV=D Realtor® JAN 2 a 2000 24284 County Road 8 Meeker, CO 81641 Ci l y MANAG'--� (970)878-4596 January 19, 2000 John Fischback City Manager P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Mr. Fischback, Allow me to express several of my thoughts about being a landlord in Fort Collins and the public nuisance ordinance"rewritten". An"unhappy" renter can use the law to"get back" at the owner. A college student is"out of here"on May 15, but I would still need to handle trash or party complaints. I can't control a loud party, even if it's not allowed in my lease. They happen. We need a city ordinance that give the people at the party a ticket with a fine that means something, i.e. minimum of$500.00 to $5,000.00 and some jail time for a second problem. What about complete outsiders. We have a property on Riverside that I provide a dumpster for, as do most of the owners in the area. I have complete strangers using the dumpster and even dumping furniture next to my place. I recently received an expensive bill for the city to remove a couch that was dumped next to my property when it didn't come from any of my tenants. How about an ordinance that says that if you are caught dumping trash in private dumpsters there is a fine and jail time. And mandate that when I call the police they will come out and do an investigation. You joke about mandatory eviction in the Citizen News. What about federal and state laws that give protection to people. It would be impossible for me to evict a person in a protected class simply because they don't put the trash in the dumpster or have a loud party. How about the simple solution. Why not just enforce what we have? This ordinance still has lots of problems. Sincerely, Tom Tucker Residential • Rural Acreages • Property Management • Rentals • Land • Farm S Ranch MEMBER: Fort Collins Board of Realtors • Colorado Association of Realtors • National Association of Realtors • Multiple Listing Service John Fischbach,- Public Nuisance Ordinance _ _, Page 1 NA t Kyv,-t . From: "Humane Society for Larimer County" <hslc@frii.com> F V/ To: FC2.NHD-HR(THEFFERNAN) (1n Date: Tue, Feb 1, 2000 5:55 PM }� Subject: Public Nuisance Ordinance Tess, Here are some thoughts about the municipal code that we enforce in Animal Protection and Control. The penalty for'Animal Disturbance' has increased to$100.00 for the first offense. Previous to this year the penalty was$25.00. 1 believe this increase will have a positive impact with dog owners. The penalty for 'Animal at Large' is $25.00 for the first offense. This is reasonable, however the penalty could be raised to $50.00. The penalty for'Public Nuisance' is $100.00 for the first offense. This is also reasonable. I feel the court needs to assess these penalties instead of offering suspended sentences. It is my hope that with consequences, pet owners will be more responsible. Neighbors/witnesses/complainants need to take an active part in the complaint process. If a summons is going to be served on their behalf, complainants need to follow through with the issuing department. Witness statements need to be completed and court appearances need to be attended. Lastly, if an animal violation is occurring in the neighborhood, the Animal Protection and Control office needs to be contacted so we can address the issue. Patrick Alexander Animal Protection & Control Supervisor Humane Society for Larimer County hslc@frii.com youCc I�ctve. es� �t� kk � � �(,u ?mil V,^ +koLA SC, not G10t [ OrS C{ �s c l 10 o(L caSS P2oplf_ e 4 �lorvie , I��ease t � '-(o� �o✓i� < <I�e 1-1•�P- C2rrvn-,sc�ces (1t)(4- c[oo2 �o c1b, 4-t-4-rvi Ljo,,�r- k2aa civic( G1or� Est �o.kr � iL 4 '41r 3 K$ +cam ax. So v I J y 1 ! w( J J` t Ann Tumquist nuisance ordinance Page_i • From: Bob Kost To: Ann Tumquist Date: Tue, Feb 8, 2000 1:49 PM Subject: nuisance ordinance when all is said and done; solid citzens, property owners and responsible property managers will benefit from this ordinace. bob kost, property owner and landlord i Steve, The attached is from Mr.Charles Wayker. Mike B. Forward Header Subject: Author. Non-HP-mbyme (mbymegd.fort-collins.co.us)at HP-ColSpdngs,mimegw8 Date: 214/00 3:08 AM > Dear Mr. Mike Byme, > I was at the public meeting at John 23rd University Center,which you > attended,2-3-00. At the meeting,you will recall,verbal as well as >written, denial was submitted,that: "At no time can the city seek or > obtain a court order that would take away or dose the property or place >the property into"special receivership". (Item#5, para 4,of the >two-sided flyer, dated 112000). However, under Sec. 20-122; "Other > remedies, (of the ORDINANCE),it clearly states that"Nothing in this > Article shall be construed to limit or forbid the city or any other > person from""pursing""any other remedies available at law or in > equity, including without limitation,the seizure, confiscation, > closure, destruction, or forfeiture of property........ > THIS IS CLEARLY A CONTRADICTION. > By the way, "pursing"(above)does not occur in my dictionary. >Therefore, I assume the word should have been"pursuing". Of course it > could also be an obtuse legal tens,which doesn't appear in any of my > law books either. > In Sec.20-117. "Abatement orders. (d)Temporary abatement orders. (1)" > You use a term"EX PARTE", which could have four meanings. Why use > Latin Terms?? Please spell these terms out in common English,so the > common folk, like me, can understand the true meaning of what you are >trying to impart to us. Please do not try to'snow'us, as the majority > of this city is educated. Do not confuse us, unless that is your > intent. > in Sec. 20-117.Abatement orders. (d)(2)You use an offensive phrase; > "hearsay evidence". Most courts, I assume, do not admit"hearsay" >testimony. (Arnie, please correct me if I'm wrong). I believe"hearsay" > is very intrusive.., and should never be introduced in a court of > definitive law. >I'm under the impression that a regional municipality experienced a > denunciation, by the Supreme Court that a similar ordinance was not > constitutional in their determination. I believe that our city/county > attomey(s)digest this ordinance very thoroughly so as not to have a > similar judgement by the State/and/or/U.S. Supreme Courts. > Charles D. Wayker > 1241 Constitution Ave > Ft. Collins, CO 80521 >482.4774 Ann Tumquist- Do Not Pass Nuisance Law Pace 1 . From: "Michael E. Potts" <mepotts@frii.com> To: FC1.Exec Net(CMO) Date: Sat, Nov 6, 1999 7:58 AM Subject: Do Not Pass Nuisance Law Is it true that this ordinance allows the city to seize property? Will this ordinance force a property owner to stop making mortgage payments on their property and force them to sell the property? I was listening to the Phil Walker Radio Show on Friday and could not believe what t was hearing. It appears that the city is trying to sneak by another ordinance in "Social Engineering". In fact, it appears this ordinance has all of the same flaws that the Human Rights Ordinance had that was soundly defeated by the voters. I was especially upset when I heard that the 4 "old"council persons were going to vote to pass this ordinance and set up another confrontation with the voters. I also could not believe that the ordinance would require to stop making mortgage • payments and force the property owner to sell their property. What gives the City of Fort Collins, in fact, any government agency the right to seize property without duo process of the law? I thought at this time it is appropriate to let the council review the Fourth and Sixth Amendments of the US Constitution since it seems that Scott Mason, Bill Bertschy, Mike Byrne and Chuck Wanner have little regard for the rights of property owners. In addition, once again, these 4 council persons have demonstrated that they will not listen to the voters and will to try to force their"standards"on us"common folks." I only that one of these 4 council persons comes to their senses and stops this ordinance from proceeding any farther. Mike Potts *319 Shadowbrooke Court Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fourth Amendment of the United States • Constitution The right of the people to be secure in �Ann Tumquisf Do Not Pass Nuisance Law Page their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause,supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution In all criminal prosecutions,the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;to be confronted with the witnesses against him;to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Ann Tumquist-Against Chapter 20 new Article VI Page ' From: Eric Reasons<reasons@umich.edu> To: FC1.Exec_Net(CMO) Date: Mon, Nov S, 1999 11:10 AM Subject: Against Chapter 20 new Article VII Dear Mayor Martinez and the Fort Collins City Council, My husband, Paul Wong, and I are against the addition of new article VII to Chapter 20 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. We own a rental property in Fort Collins and are concerned with being held criminally liable for tenant actions.Already, it is very difficult—due to existing laws and codes—to remove undesirable tenants from a property. And now we are responsible for their being a public nuisance. I believe that this addendum to Chapter 20 could be useful in an inner city area of crack houses and negligent landlords, but it could also be quite abusive and inappropriate and too"Big Brother"for the U.S.A, Most landlords—like ourselves—want the best possible tenants for our property and the community. We are restricted—and rightfully so,to protect tenants—from being able to swiftly evict problematic tenants to comply with the terms of Article VII.After at[we arent living in Russia or the P.R.C.1 Sincerely, Karen H.Turanchik, MSW, ACSW&Paul Wong, PHD. Ann Tumquist- Nucance Ordinance Page 1 From: <Mountaineer12716@201.com> To: FC1.Exec Net(CMO) Date: Mon, Nov 22, 1999 9:29 PM Subject: Nuicance Ordinance Hello City Council Members: I strenuously object to the proposed nuisance ordinance. Government is not the answer to everyone's problems it only creates more problems. Consider the equal and opposite reactions to the ordinances before they are voted on. This ordinance has the real potential for huge abuses, and will be used to pit neighbor against neighbor. This smells very highly of communism. Those of you that are set on voting for this have been duped into socialist or communist thinking. It is happening nation wide in little bits. Action by the government without do process is wrong and unconstitutional. There is a movement for a recall election to prevent this ordinance, I will be a signer on this petition. My legal right? I hope the federal and state constitution still stands. Signed To frightened to sign my name Ann Tumquist nuisance ordinance Page From: <wgm@uswest.net> . To: FCt.Exec Net(CMO) Date: Sat, Jan 8, 2000 7:58 AM Subject: nuisance ordinance City Council persons: My wife and I used to own a rental property in Fort Collins,the last tenants we had, were nothing but trouble makers. It took us three months, in the courts to get them out of our house, so we could clean it up and sell it. We believe that the ordinance should be written, if you believe we still need one, so it makes the tenants responsible for their actions and not the responsibility of the landlords. It should also be written so a landlord could remove the tenants, in three days, without going to court and with the help of the law enforcement. Why can we not just enforce the laws we now have. We feel that this ordinance is not needed, nor is it just. We feel this is just an other way to take more of the regular people's rights away. If it was not so, in our thinking, then why has not the tenants been the main focus in the original ordinance, and also in rewritten versions. The landlords should be held responsible if they refuse to try and do something about the problem, or if they are have problems with repeat offenders. Then this would show that some landlords do not care. But I have found out that a large marjority of the landlords do care, but they are slowed down by the courts that favor the tenants. The tenants have more rights then the landlords do. Some of the tenants know how to use the laws to their advantage, and end up getting three months of free rent from landlord after landlord. Thank you for your time. William and Doris McCalmont 930 Sandy Cove Lane Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 • Ann Tum uist-Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 From: "Dan Eckles"<deckles@frii.com> To: "City Council" <CMO@ci.fort-collins.co.us> Date: Wed,Jan 26, 2000 4:40 PM Subject: Public Nuisance Ordinance Public Nuisance Ordinance This is a scary law you are trying to create. I have seen very little information of why you need to implement this law. I have also seen very little support for this law. But I have seen and heard over whelming negative comments about this law. People are in fear of what power you are giving their neighbors. What are you going to do if you get an unreasonable neighbor that continues to report you every time he can and the city attacks you with the Nuisance Law? I thought you wanted us to learn how to get along and live together with each other. You seem to think the only way to do this is with the courts. I am scared of you new law. Dan Eckles Dan Eckles CCIM SIOR ReaRec Commercial Real Estate Services Inc 255 E Monroe Av, Ste 4 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Tel970-229-9900 Fax 970-282-1080 deckles@frii.com http://CommercialSearch.com[Realtec TOM TUCKER RECEIVED Realtor® 24284 County Road 8 �Ay 2 2000 Meeker, CO 81641 C!IT !�#i��A�'1; (970) 878-4596 January 19, 2000 John Fischback City Manager P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Mr. Fischback, Allow me to express several of my thoughts about being a landlord in Fort Collins and the public nuisance ordinance"rewritten". An"unhappy" renter can use the law to"get back" at the owner. A college student is"out of here" on May 15, but I would still need to handle trash or party complaints. I can't control a loud party, even if it's not allowed in my lease. They happen. We need a city ordinance that give the people at the party a ticket with a fine that means something, i.e. minimum of$500.00 to $5,000.00 and some jail time for a second problem. What about complete outsiders. We have a property on Riverside that I provide a dumpster for, as do most of the owners in the area. I have complete strangers using the dumpster and even dumping furniture next to my place. I recently received an expensive bill for the city to remove a couch that was dumped next to my property when it didn't come from any of my tenants. How about an ordinance that says that if you are caught dumping trash in private dumpsters there is a fine and jail time. And mandate that when I call the police they will come out and do an investigation. You joke about mandatory eviction in the Citizen News. What about federal and state laws that give protection to people. It would be impossible for me to evict a person in a protected class simply because they don't put the trash in the dumpster or have a loud party. How about the simple solution. Why not just enforce what we have? This ordinance still has lots of problems. Sincerely, Tom Tucker Residential • Rural Acreages • Property Management • Rentals • Land • Farm d Ranch MEMBER: Fort Collins Board of Realtors • Colorado Association of Realtors • National Association of Realtors • Multiple Listing Service Ann Tumquist- public nuisance ordinance Page 1 From: "Gene Wooldridge"<iwodige@lamar.colostate.edu> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 10:32 AM Subject: public nuisance ordinance To the Fort Collins City Council I would like to respond to your invitation to speak out about the proposed public nuisance ordinance. My wife and 1 frequently walk along a portion of South Whitcomb Street for exercise and to access the CSU campus, Forest Service Research Station, and small shopping excursions, and thus have frequently encountered conditions which could be controlled to some degree by the proposed ordinance. We find that the students themselves are almost always friendly and courteous, but that some of the houses in which they reside are unsightly or parked vehicles are obstructing our pedestrian excursions. Cars are frequently parked parallel to, but partly on the sidewalk, or perpendicular to the curb and across the sidewalk; the presence of trash along the curb on any week day; large dogs loose and making threatening rushes at pedestrians; furniture on the lawns;cars parked on the lawns; and lack of lawns or their maintenance cause us concern. In short, except for occasional frisby activity which extends across Whitcomb and abrupt U-tums at any point along Whitcomb,the general situation is that the care of properties and the disruptive activities are not in keeping with the general perspectives of the Prospect-Shields region. We hope that the ordinance is not so severe as to wreak hardship on these young people who are mostly in attendance at CSU, but sufficiently strong as to make the houses occupied by CSU students and other young adults compatible with the neighborhood, and to cause action when warranted. Respectfully, Gene and Virginia Wooldridge 1908 Wallenberg Drive Fort Collins, CO 80528 i Ann Tumguist- Public nc;sance ordinance Page 1 From: "SHUMWAY,MARTIN (HP-FtCollins,exl)" <martin_shumway@hp.com> . To: "'Igula@ci.fort-collins.co.us'"<Igula@cLfort-col... Date: Tue, Feb 1, 2000 12:53 PM Subject: Public nuisance ordinance Hi, I can't attend any of these meetings but I'd like to say this is a good idea and will lead to a stronger community. Martin Shumway 1205 W Elizabeth St#E167 Ft Collins CO 80521 Martin Shumway, MTS Customer Support Lab CSUCSR&D Hewlett-Packard Company MS 3D 2101 Gaither Rd Rockville MD 20850 +1 301.258.2304 (fax) 301.258.5994 shumwaym@fc.hp.com • Ann Tumquist-Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 From: Randy Callahan <randy@ezlink.com> To: FCt.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 8:44 PM Subject: Public Nuisance Ordinance Regarding the proposed nuisance ordinance, As a homeowner in old town, I applaud city councils attempt regarding the nuisance ordinance. I am vested in my property and community, yet feel surrounded by absent landlords who are not committed to our community and only care about their revenue generated. Because I live in a single family residential district which absent landlords are running as a business conflicts arise. I had a landlord say to me "why should I take care of my rentals. . . only students live in that area." This remark was made about the neighborhood I call home. Please don't let vocal landlords override residential homeowners quality of life. Thank you, Randy Callahan randy@ezlink.com City Manager City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Health and Safety Committee Members / f FROM: Ann Turnquist, Council Policy Manager7X `I 1 Tess Heffernan,Neighborhood Resources Manager RE: Additional Citizen Comments re: Public Nuisance Ordinance DATE: February 16, 2000 Attached are additional comments which staff has received since the time the packet was sent to the Committee last week. Additional comments from citizens via comment cards, e-mail, and letters continue to be received daily. We will continue to forward these comments. • • 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6505 • FAX(970)224-6107 PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE—CITIZEN COMMENTS Support the Ordinance 13 pages of legalese is ridiculous. Why not just use the explanatory ordinance which is written so one can understand it? Wouldn't it be great if Fort Collins would be the first to implement simple, clear, concise writing it its ordinances? It would help to allay the suspicions of an electorate that you were trying to be devious with legalese. DREAM Winnette Payne, 1000 W Laurel St, FC, CO 80521 I have owned the property at 620 S. Shields since 1959, when I came to town to work for CSU. This property is on the west side (boundary) of the addition. Since the house at 640 S Shields was sold and been under the auspices of Mountain/Plains Property Management (for several years), the property has been an eyesore—more dandelions than grass, at least four cars parked I in the drive and on the lawn. More than three renters too! The house at 636 was sold last summer. Now only 2 family residences occupied by the owners exist on this street. The house at 616 has a sofa in the carport (is a carport acceptable?); in the fall they raked the leaves but put them in piles to blow away to me!! I am definitely in favor of the ordinance. Ruth Moyer, 620 S Shields As with all business owners, (myself included), we have a responsibility to keep things integrated. Disintegration is not tolerated. It is a cancer. As with landlords &tenants: Self- Responsibility is sometimes a hard lesson. If we were all self responsible, there would be no need for a police force. Until we all get there...enforce this ordinance(it would have come in handy for us 4 years ago) Teresa Redmond-Ott, 2907 Sombrero Ln, 80525 Self-responsibility is a lesson all of us (hopefully) learn as we progress toward adulthood. Landlords that rent homes in neighborhoods also have a responsibility to their neighbors, regardless of their occupation of the home. We all have to live together in harmony. This ordinance is an effective tool to help the innocent victims of those who chose to ignore life's lessons. Randy Redmond Ott, 2907 Sombrero Ln 80525 I strongly support the Nuisance Ordinance. It is necessary for the protection of our neighborhoods, and will help maintain the quality of life in our city. A. Milewski, 932 Pioneer Ave Support with Reservations Some people are too critical of college students. Often if I close my windows I can't hear their laughter. A neighbor calls the police at the drop of a hat. Maybe the city should have a general guideline for renters. I find the students behave if the landlord expects them to. Homeowner in Mantz Addition Better enforcement of existing laws is needed as well. . Care must be taken for people who get a once and a while complaint—if there is a disturbance it needs to be validated by more than one nei hhbor before a citation is issued (more than just the noise disturbance). Don't abuse the law. In order to be a nuisance, it should be a problem to more than one neighbor. This law should require that 2 separate households complain. Also,why not include a clause about chronic complainer types—some repercussions there? Vicky Hansen, 3032 Avena Ct. Oppose the Ordinance Too much opportunity for abuse by neighbors and law enforcement given concerns about police abuse, passing yet another opportunity for police abuse is inappropriate. Also violation of property rights. I am strongly opposed—even if modified. Also,wrong to hold landlord responsible for violations of tenants. I am not a landlord. Will raise rates beyond market. • RECEIVED To the City Manager and the City Council: FEB 14 2000 We are opposed to the proposed nuisance ordinance for the following reasons: CITY MANAGER, 1. This ordinance is not necessary. According to the City Manager's statement in the FORUM paper,the current problem is with a"small number of properties that incur a large number of code violations." The council should deal with those properties rather titan creating a citywide law that intrudes on everyone. We have enough government intrusion in our lives now. 2. Nowhere in this ordinance is"nuisance"defined! How are the nuisance abatement officers going to determine what is a nuisance?Are they supposed to make up their own rules as they go along. An ordinance of this kind needs definite standards by which the enforcement officers can determine if the code has been broken;otherwise everything is subjective. For example,will someone practicing a musical instrument be considered a nuisance? How about a person working with power tools in his/her garage? Will a person working on his/her car parked at the curb qualify as a nuisance? How will people know if they are violating this ordinance? 3. Ordinances of this kind are never enforced fairly. What safeguards will there be to prevent power- hungry enforcement officers from being overbearing,unfair,and unreasonable? How will these officers be chosen and what training will they receive? How much cost is involved? Will wealthy neighborhoods be given de facto exemptions while poorer neighborhoods are targeted? Is this proposed ordinance really about nuisances or is it about raising more revenue through fines? Or perhaps,is it about developers wanting to get their hands on certain properties? 4. Have you considered what this ordinance might do to the unity and peacefulness of Fort Collins neighborhoods? Many people are already under great stress: financial,personal,etc. What actions might they take if they feel more pressure is being put on them by the city? It may lead to retaliation against neighbors who are perceived,correctly or otherwise,as the source of complaints against a particular property. We would like our neighborhoods to remain calm safe places where neighbors can communicate with each other without unwarranted suspicions. We already have "road rage";we don't need"homeowner rage." We will support any petition to put this ordinance on the November ballot so it can be voted on by the people of Fort Collins...and hopefully be defeated Mr,and Mrs.Warren P. Moore 2219 Silver Trails Drive Fort Collins,CO 80526 • BF-CEIVED City of Fort Collins FEB 14 Z000 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Box 580 d�5 �� ���� Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 February 9, 2000 Attention City Council I have read bits and pieces about your proposed nuisance ordinance. I have tried to get a copy off the internet, but I have been unsuccessful using the city web site. As I understand the ordinance it makes the owner/landlord responsible for illegal activity by tenants on his property. I have owned one rental with two units for the past ten years and though overall problems have been minimal, I have had one set of renters who were unreasonable to both their neighbors and their landlord and therefore, I did not renew their lease. I am very concerned because the ordinance seems to make me as a landlord responsible for the actions of someone over whom I have minimal legal authority. I do feel I have the responsibility as the landlord to cooperate with all legal enforcement authority, however I am not that legal authority. It seems to me you have this situation completely out of perspective. How would you as councilman like to be responsible for the illegal actions of your constituents? Seems unreasonable doesn't it? So it is just as unreasonable for me to be held responsible for my tenants illegal actions. I personally believe one of the greatest problems with today's youth is that they have not been held responsible for their own actions first by their parents and second by local enforcement authority. This type ordinance will just require another person to be an enabler to their problems. The tenant or home owner committing an illegal action is the problem not a landlord. Should a landlord be required to cooperate with legal authority to enforce the law? Absolutely. Please send me a copy of the proposed ordinance. Thanks for your consideration av' cc/ V owing 7312 S. Lemay Ave Fort Collins, CO 80525 Ann Tumquist- public nuisance ordinance F2ge 1 From: "linda stovall" <lindarei@verinet.com> . To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Tue, Feb 15,2000 2:26 PM Subject: public nuisance ordinance I am strongly in favor of this ordinance. I have lived at 222 S. Whitcomb Street for 12 years. It is just a fact that most rental properties are inhabited by individuals that do not care about the trash, discarded bottles, piled up newspapers and yes, house furniture tossed out on the lawn. Even as this ordinance is being debated, it took me a week of complaining to get the landlord who owns the next house next door to get their tennants to remove a couch discarded on the front lawn. Who wants to live next to a dogpatch looking home? I think the method of consulting the parties involved is a great idea, but there has to be a consequence or the ordinance is just an idle joke. Linda Stovall, home phone: 490-2616, • • RECEIVED FEB 16 2000 Dear City Council,Health and Safety Committee members,Citizens and Neighbors of Fort Collins.CITY A ANA x fWelcome to Woodvalley Court,a cul-de-sac located in west Fort Collins about a mile away from CSU. When we moved here in 1990 it was also the home of several other families with children,who ran,rode, E and played everywhere. But through the years the families moved away and Woodvalley changed into a neighborhood of multi-tenant rentals and student housing. Today ours are the only children who play on Woodvalley. On our cul-de-sac so far we have been lucky. The rental house owners care about their properties and convey this to their tenants who have been very courteous and respectful of those living around them. Still everything is not so rosy in other sections of the neighborhood. On summer evenings from a house somewhere in the area someone feels the need to share his or her music with the rest of the neighborhood. Returning home I often pass several cars lining a local street and people streaming into a house. The next morning I swerve to miss a beer bottle laying in the road..choosing instead to run over a couple of red beer glasses which scrunch under my tires. And of coarse there is the annual weekend in August where on Saturday the old occupants carry their possessions out of the house,pile the garbage and unwanted belongings on the curve,and are gone. On Sunday a new group of pickups back in and unload the possessions of those who will be our neighbors for this year. We hope the landlord gave them the"parties" talk,but dust off the police departments number just in case. This scene has been repeated not only throughout our Rogers Park neighborhood but in others as well. There is a demographic trend of neighborhoods becoming a mixture of single family dwellings and multi- tenant rentals living side by side. Unfortunately this has led to an increasing number of nuisance complaints. While the city has existing laws to deal with individual issues there is currently no effective way of dealing with repeating nuisance offenders. The purpose of the proposed ordinance would give the city a tool to remedy problems at these CHRONIC properties where City Code violations occur. More importantly it will require property owners to be responsible for the use of their properties. The current version of the ordinance states that a property will be deemed a public nuisance if three or more vocations occur within a year,or five within 24 months.The property owner will now be notified if there has been a nuisance volition(something which I have had to do on my own). Complaints will be investigated to ensure they are not frivolous before any citations are issued for each violation. The ordinance would then give property owners more than an ample opportunity to resolve nuisance problems. As soon as the first notice is sent to a property owner the city would encourage the owner to work with the city,tenants,and surrounding neighbors to avoid future problems.The only criminal penalties that could result from this ordinance is if an owner has shown absolutely no effort to resolve a problem and knowingly disobeys an abatement order issued by the court. This ordinance should have no effect on property owners who care about their investments,only those landlords that treat their property as nothing but a cash cow. Contrary to misinformation that is being spread by opponents of the ordinance I found NO language which would hold a property owner criminally responsible for the individual actions,legal or illegal,of tenants. Others have said that neighborhood problems should be solved in a neighborly fashion and not by the city. I have as many as 15 new neighbors every year,with so many coming and going I don't have clue whom lives were. Kind of throws the whole neighborly concept right out the window doesn't it. Opponents have also stated that this ordinance is not needed because the number of properties in which three or more nuisances have occurred is only 1%of the total rental market. OK,how would you like to live next to that 1%? With noway to effectively deal with a nuisance property even that small a number can decimate a neighborhood. My neighborhood and others need a way to deal with properties,which consistently disturb the peace of their surrounding neighbors. Existing laws dealing with chronic nuisance properties only exist at the state level and do nothing to protect neighborhoods such a mine. Opponents of the ordinance have been spreading half-truths on what it says in an attempt to derail it. Please,obtain a copy of the ordinance and read it yourself to determine what is says or doesn't say. Copies of the ordinance can be obtained by email at www.ci.fortcollins.co.us,or by stopping by the City Manager's Office. I ask the City Council,Health and Safety Committee members,citizens and neighbors of Fort Collins to please support the present version of the ordinance and to not let it be watered down and made ineffectual. Someday you may be very thankful you died Sincerely Michael and Verna O'Brien 2537 Woodvalley Court ph.482-2623. RECEIVED FEB 15 200, CITY MANAGER • February 11, 2000 City of Fort Collins c/o Ms. Linda Gula P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Public Nuisance Ordinance To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to support the upcoming draft of the public nuisance ordinance. As a resident of Old Town, as well as a student at Colorado State University, I believe that passing this ordinance can only help maintain or improve the current living conditions. After attending Mayor Martinez's open forum at CSU, I understand opinions on both sides of the issue. I view this ordinance as a law for the all people of Fort Collins. The violators would be small in number, but a larger percentage of residents would benefit. The possibility of encroaching on tenant's rights,be it unfounded complaints to raised • costs of renting was a concern. As I understand the ordinance would allow for numerous "reminders" of inappropriate behavior. In the area I live in, the problem pictured in the "Citizen's News", of trash in public view is limited, but there are those who just store their trash bin on the curb, filling it during the week. When a tenant moves out,there have been times that stacks of trash have sat out for three weeks at a time. Whose responvibility is it? "Parties" are another issue. Must I be the one to collect the broken beer bottles and plastic cups strewn along my yard? Those who lack common courtesy would be affected by the ordinance. The Landlord's fear of having the ultimate responsibility surprised me. According to the ordinance, landlord's would receive a warning for each set of multiple problems their tenants create. After three warnings, and both tenants and landlords fail to comply, landlord's would be legally held accountable to resolve the problem. Their complaints of having to "police"their tenants and being"forced"to raise their rent were unsubstantiated. Would the landlords not intervene if tenants burned their property down? The out-of-state owner of the property next to mine is maintained by a rental management company. For five years, a tenant decided to grow illegal crops in the basement. After not receiving rent for five months did the owner realize the property had fallen apart and the tenant's midnight visitors came in through the windows. Whose responsibility is it? Would it be a burden for property owners to have responsible tenants? Those who don't care to maintain their property would be affected by the . ordinance. The Resident's rights were also brought up. An example given was of older residents who were unable to maintain their property, shoveling snow or mowing their lawn, and then being fined by the ordinance. The city has a program in which neighbors are asked to help out the elderly with shoveling snow. I personally have mowed lawns and shoveled walks to be a good neighbor, and most people generally do this. It's common sense. Is it a hardship to encourage community service? Whose responsibility is it? I fully support this ordinance. This is a start to answering the growing questions on the quality of life in Fort Collins and what is and is not acceptable. It's like having traffic laws. Without them,there would be chaos on the streets. The majority of people follow them, it's only those who choose not to that get ticketed. Sincerely, Steven Leschi� dE elwina Le insl y Ann Tumquist 7 Pass the ordinance. Page 1 . From: Wilbur Stutheit<wilger618@webtv.net> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Tue, Feb 15, 2000 9:43 AM Subject: Pass the ordinance. We own a rental in Old Town and would like to comment on the nuisance ordinance.We did attend an earlier meeting on this , and are glad for this chance to comment again. It has been our experience that most locally owned property owners are responsible. However,there are more and more out-of-state owners (investment types)who want the rent checks and care little about the condition of their properties. We know of an instance where one investor bought five small houses, Did no improvements, moved out the families, raised rents and so that most ended up rented to 5 or more individuals. Unkempt property tends to attract unkempt tenants and the neighborhood suffers from "don't care" attitude. Thanks for listening and for making a decision FOR neighborhoods now. Pass the ordinance! Sincerely, Geri Stutheit N8 Warren Landing, Ft Collins Geri and/or Wil • Ann Tumquist- UNTITLED Pagel From: gwen cooper&fred groover<wicked@verinet.com> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2000 6:47 PM Dear Ms.Gula, Here is a little input from a resident who lives by the stadium. We rent our house. We like to keep trash picked up and the partying limited. We feel that people should not lose their property due to residents mismanagement of trash, noise and dogs, HOWEVER, unless you have been subjected to barking dogs(all three sides),trashy neighbors and lots of late night partys ,you have no idea how frustrating it can be to live a somewhat normal existance. 1 think that there should be a substantial fine for residents who destroy property and leave trash around. If I owned a house next to people who refused to pick up their trash, I would be angry that my property value was going down because of inconsiderate slobs. While I can'tstand the idea of gated communities and covenants where the trash cans have to be the same color, etc.,the fact is,when the property next to yours is trashed out,someone is responsible. As it stands now,the landlord is passing the buck to the tenants who really don't give a rip. Personally, I wouldn't invest in a neighborhood or any area in Fort Collins where there would be the likelihood of having this type of problem. I think that the City of Fort Collins is at a turning point in this debate. Will the city remain just a college town and a place where over 50% of the residences are rentals or does it want to attract people with some money who want to stay in town make sure the town grows??? The for all the people interested in keeping the coffers of the city growing, you must know that there is only a limited amount of resources coming from renters and college students, if property values rose,then there would be higher tax assessments etc.etc. If Fort Collins is to remain a transient community,then by all means, let the trash flow and let the landlords take no responsibility.Take a look at the trashed out Table Mesa section of Boulder to see what will happen. Yuck...who wants to like there??? Expensive homes that are totally overpriced next to trashed out student housing._.. Personally, I feel that a fine process should be implemented against the owner of the property. It would be the owner's responsibility to include the language in their lease to protect themselves.They may also demand additional deposit, to be refunded to the tenants if no nuisance occurs. The city should also make it extremely easy for a landlord to evict tennants who are responsible for the nuisance when the fine occurs. Finally,the city should also implement landlord tennant laws to insure that tennants are reimbursed their deposits withing 10days of the last day of rental. The fine for this would be triple the amount of the deposit. Just a few ideas. Sincerely, Gwen Cooper Ann Tumquist- Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 j . From: <DrJDS@aol.com> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2000 6:44 PM Subject: Public Nuisance Ordinance Dear City Council Members: 1 have been following the debate over the proposed public nuisance ordinance, and I want to voice my strong opposition it. My reasons for opposing this ordinance are as follows: 1) It will cost the taxpayers at least$90,000/year and this money could be better spent elsewhere. 2) This ordinance was written to address"problem properties", yet there are only a handful of these properties in Fort Collins. it is wasteful to write a whole new regulation to take care of these few properties. 3) The existing regulations, if enforced,would eliminate most or all of the problems with nuisance properties. Noise violations should be given to all residents of a property when a violation occurs, and trash cleanup should be expedited and billed to the property owners after reasonable attempts to contact them has failed to correct the problem. 4) The ordinance is unconstitutional; you can't legislate vicarious liability. . Many people I've spoken with about this are very disappointed that the Council has not abandoned this ordinance and pursued enforcement of existing laws. It is hard to understand why something so ill conceived continues to be dragged on. You are wasting our money—please stop! Sincerely, Dr. John Snyder Ann Tumquist- Input for changes to Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 From: "MIDDLETON,KAREN (HP-FtCollins,exl)"<karen middleton@hp.com> To: "'Igulalgafort-collins.co.us'"<Igula@ci.fort-col... Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2000 4:26 PM Subject: input for changes to Public Nuisance Ordinance Change Request: If this ordinance were to be enacted, I would first like to see verbiage added to the ordinance requiring that a complaint made by a neighbor be verified and confirmed by no less than at least one other neighbor. This would support in writing what has been communicated as"the spirit of the law", that the ordinance as written cannot be misused by chronic complainers and in other situations where no hard metrics are available in making judgments. Recently Mayor Martinez made a public outreach to the HP community where many questions were raised. It was realized in many of these points that having such a measure written into the ordinance would alleviate misuse of it, and not solely rely on other unenforceable assumptions. My opinion on the Public Nuisance Ordinance: While I appreciate the credible efforts made to improve the verbiage of the ordinance over the last several months, I still am in opposition at this time. My reasoning is: Based on the measures being proposed: Public Ordinance passed and enforced which expressly enforces: Step-up in enforcement of existing laws More collaborative efforts with property owners and managers, university liaisons, etc. Before passing this ordinance I would first like to see the two latter measures put in place and reviewed for effectiveness after a reasonable period. Granted,the ordinance would increase enforcement of current laws. But I feel it is appropriate to first follow and enforce measures and laws already in place. Doing so could have alleviated much of the problem that exists at this time. Only after real effort has been expended should stronger and more universal measures, such as this ordinance, be taken If neeed. We are being asked to trust that our government will enforce this ordinance as it was intended. However,that same trust was placed in our government when the existing taws were put in place. However, the lack of enforcement of these laws and the lack of more collaborative efforts being taken have strained if not broken that trust. Yet we are expected once again to offer to government that same trust, and often made to feel we are untrusting or paranoid for our hesitance to do so. Our history has multiple instances where, unfortunately, laws have been misused to the detriment of citizen(s). I know some say that misuse in this case just"won't happen". I'm sure they believe that it is just too improbable. But unfortunately that doesn't mean it can't happen if the law Pa e 2 Ann Tumquist- Input for changes to Public Nuisance Ordinance g feasibly allows it. I do believe that laws are very important where they are truly needed. I just don'tthink enough has been done to prove a demonstrated need for this ordinance when other measures, already in place, haven't been well practiced. It is this which has contributed to the very problem that now this ordinance is seeking to answer. Lets first fix our problems, evaluate the results this brings, and then see if a Public Nuisance Ordinance is truly needed at that time. Ann Tumquist- Do Not Pass Nuisance Law page 1 From: "Michael E. Potts"<mepotts@frii.com> To: FC1.Exec_Net(CMO) Date: Sat, Nov 6, 1999 7:58 AM Subject: Do Not Pass Nuisance Law Is it true that this ordinance allows the city to seize property? Will this ordinance force a property owner to stop making mortgage payments on their property and force them to sell the property? I was listening to the Phil Walker Radio Show on Friday and could not believe what I was hearing. It appears that the city is trying to sneak by another ordinance in "Social Engineering". In fact, it appears this ordinance has all of the same flaws that the Human Rights Ordinance had that was soundly defeated by the voters. I was especially upset when I heard that the 4"old" council persons were going to vote to pass this ordinance and set up another confrontation with the voters. I also could not believe that the ordinance . would require to stop making mortgage payments and force the property owner to sell their property. What gives the City of Fort Collins, in fact, any government agency the right to seize property without duo process of the law? I thought at this time it is appropriate to let the council review the Fourth and Sixth Amendments of the US Constitution since it seems that Scott Mason, Bill Bertschy, Mike Byrne and Chuck Wanner have little regard for the rights of property owners. In addition, once again,these 4 council persons have demonstrated that they will not listen to the voters and will to try to force their"standards" on us"common folks." I only that one of these 4 council persons comes to their senses and stops this ordinance from proceeding any farther. Mike Potts 4319 Shadowbrooke Court Fort Collins, CO 80526 . Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution The right of the people to be secure in Ann Tumquist-Do Not Pass Nuisance Caw Page 21 their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause,supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution In all criminal prosecutions,the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;to be confronted with the witnesses against him;to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Ann Tumquist-Public Nuisance Ordinance Page . From: Barbara Oskroba <boskroba@lamar.ColoState.EDU> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Mon, Feb 7,2000 11:43 AM Subject: Public Nuisance Ordinance The City of Fort Collins already has laws governing all the issues mentioned in the Public Nuisance Ordinance. By more effectively enforcing the existing laws perhaps the costly and time consuming task of drafting up new laws could have been avoided saving the taxpayers a minimum of $90,000 a year. "Chronic problems" represents what percentage of housing units in Fort Collins? Has a task force documented an actual percentage or is this law favoring only a few taxpayers? It is not the property that is the problem it is the tenant. By carrying violations through 12-24 months is unfair to new tenants and landlords. The "problem tenant"just moves his behavior to another property. Does the city have a plan to evict the "problem tenant"from the City of Fort Collins? Will the $90,000 a year position supply landlords with a list of "problem tenants"? If the City is creating its'own law in Municipal Court for Public Nuisance,will the City also create in Municipal Court its' own law for immediate eviction process for problem tenants? . If'Written notices"from the City to the property for trash removal are solved in a timely fashion and no citation issued, can the property receive unlimited notices in the 12-24 month time frame? Is the property considered "repeat offender"even though no citations only notices were issued? The existing method of communicating about violations to tenants and landlords by the City of Fort Collins along with the Police Department issuing fines and penalties if there is no cooperation is very effective when enforced. Let the offenders pay for disobeying the laws not the taxpayers and landlords. This new PNO encourages and gives tenants the right to be"problem tenants"repeatedly throughout the City of Fort Collins by not holding them accountable for their behavior. I do not want to be "parent and police officer"to my tenants. There are many issues that need to be addressed and clarified with this ordinance. I am glad the City Council did not succeed with slipping this one through. Regards, Barbara Oskroba Ann Tum uist-Public Nuisance Ordinance Page 1 From: "CRUME,BARRY(HP-FtCollins,ex1)"<barry_crume@hp.com> To: FC1.Exec Net(LGULA) Date: Mon, Feb 7,2000 9:26 AM Subject: Public Nuisance Ordinance To Fort Collins city mayor and others: I sincerely hope that the new ordinance is intended to include noise and safety issues, especially those caused by firecrackers and fireworks. Two years ago, we moved into the city after living in the county for years. We are continually frustrated by the lack of respect for others'rights when it comes to fireworks in the city of Fort Collins. Even the city police do not want to investigate multi-hour infractions on non-holidays. I have had many early business meetings spoiled by lack of sleep caused by adults and teenagers with fireworks at 2:00 a.m. Barry Crume 1637 Lakeshore Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-6175