Code Compliance Director Corey Williams reported to the Land Planning and Development Committee on Wednesday that an attempt to combine a “Notice and Order of Abatement” and a “Civil Penalty Notification” letter may violate the landowner’s due process right of appeal.
Williams was advised of the problem by City Attorney John Zollicoffer.
The due process right of appeal is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, according to a handwritten note from Zollicoffer that Williams read aloud at the meeting.
The documents that Williams is attempting to combine may be reviewed here: letter 1 and letter 2.
Henderson City Council member Elissa Yount, who was present at the meeting along with committee chair Bobby Gupton, committee member Lonnie Davis, and fellow council member Mary Emma Evans, stated that the problem is waiting for the civil penalties to be paid.
She advised members that the city does not want penalties; it just wants the grass cut.
Williams stated that once the grass is cut, it is in compliance.
“You have cameras, don’t you?” Evans asked. “There’s your proof.”
Williams explained that to get a civil penalty on a lot that is cut by the city, it has to be issued before the lot is cut.
In Henderson, grass and weeds may not exceed twelve inches in height.
Evans asked if the city has let people know about the ordinance. Yount responded that it has been on the books for 35 years.
Evans then asked if the city is required to let people know. Williams responded that it was necessary because of due process rights.
Yount suggested that the two letters be placed in the same envelope at the same time.
Williams responded that he did not know if that could legally be done.
Gupton stated that the committee would find out if the city could do that.
Yount stated that she did not understand why everything in Henderson is so convoluted and complicated. She said that other cities have ordinances that are straightforward and easy to follow.
The members of the committee continued to debate how many letters should go into the envelopes. Gupton advocated putting both letters in the same envelope, while Yount suggested putting each letter in a different envelope and mailing them at the same time.
Gupton stated that the committee wanted to proceed with cutting grass. He indicated that he was willing to have a special meeting, if necessary.
Williams informed the committee that 20 lots were cut to his satisfaction, while 30 were not. He said that he was looking at changing contractors.
The current contractor charges $40 per hour to cut the lots.
Yount asked how many more lots need to be cut. Williams responded that there are 20 or 30. He said that several lots need schools were particularly bad.
Williams also indicated that the contractors could not keep up with the number of lots that need to be cut.
Yount asked Williams about junk in yards. Williams responded that there are 600 such violations. He indicated that the city has the right to haul junk away, and that it hauled a substantial amount before cutting season began.
City Manager Jerry Moss, who was absent on other business for part of the meeting, asked why owners could not be charged more that the cost of cutting the lot.
The Code Compliance Director responded that there was a $40 administrative fee assessed. He said that sometimes it was recovered through billing or from the tax office.
Moss told the committee that when a civil penalty is assessed as a lien on a property, the only hope of recovering the money is foreclosure. He indicated that if a $100 administrative fee was charged for cutting a weeded lot, the city would no longer be doing the owner a favor.
“Weeded lots are a nuisance to us,” Moss said. “If we charge enough, they’ll stop.”
The committee agreed to ask Zollicoffer to compose an ordinance raising the administrative fees.