HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail - Mail Packet - 1/30/2018 - Information From Darin Atteberry Re: Email Exchange With Curt Reynolds Re: Neighborhood Services And Code EnforcementFrom: Curt Reynolds [mailto:lungfish2k@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 6:12 PM
To: Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>
Cc: Gerry Horak <ghorak@fcgov.com>
Subject: Re: Follow up
Darin,
First of all, thank you for stepping into this yourself. I do appreciate it. I also apologize when I implied
that your staff could "work harder." My intention was that they could work more collaboratively to
alleviate stubborn neighborhood issues. Perhaps you would facilitate this?
Again, my issue isn't that people haven't been working and looking at the issues, but that despite all this
activity, after two years, we're still looking at the same set of code violations that leave garbage around
the neighborhood. It's my view, from the outside, that there is a very strong leaning toward not
formally enforcing the code unless absolutely necessary. This is fully acceptable 98% of the time, but in
the other 2%, it makes it difficult for any one department to generate enough critical mass to propel an
enforcement effort forward.
I appreciate the voluntary compliance approach to enforcing the code--letting someone know that they
are violating the code with an opportunity get in compliance is good. As you've mentioned 98%
comply. The other 2% is our sticking point here.
Here are some specific suggestions:
Define "Business": If the operation at 1407 Ash isn't a business, what is it? I couldn't find a definition of
business in the code, and no one I have spoken with the City had a definitive explanation--a number of
folks told me what wasn't a business. Either way, someone somewhere in the organization is making a
determination.
A location that advertises regularly, sets up the front yard like a showroom most weekends from April-
September, has customers dropping off and picking up lawnmowers routinely, and has a trailer full of
mowers to be rehabbed showing up regularly would seem to be a "business." Of course, there are
regularly small engine parts and salvage in the yard, the trash can is routinely overflowing (above the
screen), and there's assorted rubbish on the property. Who knows how the gas and oil from the
incoming mowers, etc. is handled?
An objective definition of business, agreed to by the various divisions and perhaps ratified into law by
the City Council would go a long way toward enforcing land-use violations.
Garbage/Dumpsters: I understand your reticence to a code amendment to address the grandfathered
exposed dumpsters. The management companies and property owners would fight the City forever on
this. That being said, would you support amending the code to require any dumpster or trash container
in a residentially-zoned area to be closed and the surrounding area (25 feet?) free of rubbish? Property
owners would have three days to clean up surrounding rubbish and 24 hours to close the lids.
Inoperable Vehicles: Either give Neighborhood Services the explicit authorization to consult Police
Services to verify a valid registration when assessing an inoperable vehicle or recommend that a clause
January 25, 2018
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Darin Atteberry
RE: Referenced at Jan. 22 LPT.
/sek
be added to 20.92 explicitly authorizing city staff to request verification of a registration by Police
Services or other agencies.
Again, I find it strange that finding a way to determine validity of a registration of a vehicle is a strange,
unusual event when a valid, current registration is part of the code's requirements. Unfortunately, the
2% that need to be dealt with should be.
Thank you again for stepping into these issues personally. My largest frustration is that despite a large
amount of activity and effort, there's still rubbish and junk (and a business) in the neighborhood. I do
appreciate your efforts.
Sincerely,
Curt Reynolds
--
Curt Reynolds
lungfish2k@gmail.com
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:35 PM Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com> wrote:
Mr. Reynolds,
Thank you for your email and continued engagement in your neighborhood. I have thoroughly reviewed
your past emails and have discussed your concerns with several City staff members. I am sorry to hear
of your disappointment and continued frustration, but would disagree with your assessment of the lack
of City action or response.
The City does not take a punitive approach to enforcing codes. We have, for decades, focused on
achieving voluntary compliance through education. This is not the most expeditious way to resolve
issues sometimes, but we think it appropriately balances the need to inform residents of codes and
requirements with the need to take corrective legal action to fix an issue. This approach has resulted in a
voluntary compliance rate over 98% after communication with offending properties. Staff and I take the
intent of the Code and of the Councils that have passed them extremely seriously and I do not find your
comment that staff needs to be encouraged to “work harder” productive to this conversation.
As has been stated in the past, the City does not agree with your assessment of your neighbor who is
refurbishing lawn equipment. And even though we disagree with your interpretation of the Code, each
time you emailed this past year, our team investigated the situation to ensure there were no code
violations. I am very sympathetic to your concerns about blowing trash, and will absolutely be asking
Code Compliance to take a look at the property that is in violation again for corrective action. I also
understand your angst with the various grandfathering provisions in City Code. I think there are many of
us who wish that the entire City could be brought current on many standards immediately; but the
reality is the costs are real and substantial and would be placed on a diverse range of people, including
“mom and pop” properties, and middle and low income families.
Staff met multiple times to discuss the challenge with the inoperable vehicle and to look at the practices
that allow for Police Services to look at registrations in their system but not Code Compliance staff. They
determined that rather than codify a policy to address what is a rare circumstance, it was appropriate
for Police to get involved in your situation, which subsequently happened.
I again want express my appreciation for you reaching out.
Regards,
Darin
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
970-221-6505 office
datteberry@fcgov.com