Albany City Council held a special work session meeting last Tuesday, September 21, with all council members on hand, including city legal advisor Norb Sohm.

Only one item of business was on the agenda for discussion and no official action will be taken until more revisions and other information is included.

The purpose of the one hour session was to go over and make revisions on a proposed city-wide nuisance ordinance that will hopefully be fair to all citizens and businesses that it may affect.

The council has been working on the ordinance–with several postponements on first reading–for the past several months.

Councilman Reed Sloan read through most of the ordinance that had been presented, primarily specific sections of the most interest.

Under the “definition” section, the item pertaining to vehicles in inoperable condition had read “which has remained in such condition for a period of not less than 10 consecutive days,” but council members felt that should be increased to at least 30 days.

Councilwoman Tonya Thrasher suggested throughout the meeting that in order to enforce any such ordinance, the city needed to put in place a “Code Enforcement Officer,” probably someone from the Albany Police Department.

Council person Sarah Browning also noted during the discussion on inoperable vehicles that she had a 1994 model vehicle in her driveway without a motor and didn’t see it as a nuisance.

Thrasher said that if one resident or business was affected by the ordinance, everyone should be.

Councilman Gene Ferrill then asked about places that had multiple vehicles in different conditions, to which Sloan replied he was referring to vehicles that were not running. Browning asked about the visibility of a vehicle that is visibly inoperable.

Attorney Sohm said Browning’s question would be a decision for the council to make.

Thrasher then said “If we get to ‘gray’ it’s going to open up things for everyone.”

Assistant Police Chief Wayne Glover also told the council that a Code Enforcement Officer would have to be tempered with good judgment on a case by case basis.

The ordinance which was written already includes an exemption to motor vehicles not running, stating they were not a nuisance if “located inside of enclosed garages or sheds and not visible from public streets or rights-of-ways.”

The council then discussed dangerous trees, shrubs or stacks on adjoining streets, deciding it would be better to combine two sections together, which reads as follows:

(A) Dangerous trees or stacks adjoining streets. Any tree, stack, or other object standing in such a condition that if the condition is allowed to continue, endangers the life, limb, or property, of, or cause hurt, damage, or injury to persons or property thereof, and;

(F) Trees and shrubbery obstructing streets, sidewalks and drainage. The growing and maintenance of shrubbery which in any way interferes with the use, construction, or maintenance of streets or sidewalks, causes injury to street or sidewalks, or constitutes an obstruction to drainage.

Another portion of the earlier presented ordinance reads, “It shall be unlawful for any person owning property or having property in their possession or control to fail to cut, mow, and remove weeds, bushes and grass, or any other thing that might grow in, around or on the property, and which is exposed within their yards and lots within the city and which becomes an unkept state, after notice by the City Clerk, Police Chief, or any Police Officer or Mayor.”

The penalty under that provision would also be considered a misdemeanor if not corrected, which some council members felt was too harsh.

Council members suggested exemptions such as gardens, agriculture use and others.

Attorney Sohm noted vacant lots where such weeds and bushes are unkept pertained to eight feet back off a city street or right-of-way.

Councilman Ferrill also suggested “mandatory” trash pick up in the city and Thrasher questioned about whether people could burn trash in town and asked if trash pick up could be added to a resident’s monthly water bill.

It was noted there was already a provision that trash burned in the city limits had to be a certain distance from any residential area.

As far as the mandatory trash collection, which some noted would be unpopular to many, the sanitation hauler franchises are controlled by the county and such an undertaking would have to be coordinated with local county government.

Also, the council briefly discussed the provision about the keeping of animals.

That current section says, “The failure to keep an animal from injuring or threatening injury to the public; the keeping of farm animals within the city; or the keeping of an animals’ pen, yard, lot, or other enclosure in a sanitary condition and free from preventable offensive odors.”

The nuisance section in the pre-written ordinance pertaining to junk, metal and motor vehicles reads “The open storage of motor vehicles in an inoperative condition, motor vehicles unfit for further use for transportation, automotive parts or scrap metal within the city limits.” Council members agreed that “old tires” should be included in that particular provision.

Browning asked about such junk or automotive items not visible from the street and Ferrill suggested erecting a garage or cover or constructing a fence to keep those items from becoming an eyesore to the public.

Browning also said city buildings and structures that were dilapidated and needed to be removed or covered up as much as cars, asking, “Where do we draw the line?”

Thrasher then questioned whether or not the city had written letters to people to let them know about the condition of their property and also asked about burned or partially burned buildings, which she said there were several (of each) in the city limits.

Under the “standards and procedures for enforcement” of a nuisance ordinance, councilman Joe Stockton said a $100 per day penalty for each day a nuisance is not abated was much too high an amount.

The councilman said at that rate, over a 60 day period, a property owner may owe up to $6,000 which few could afford.

The penalty, other than the fine, calls for a lien to be placed on the property if not adhered to within 60 days after being given written notice.

The section reads in part, “After the expiration of 60 days without the nuisance being remedied, then the penalty provisions provided herein will be assessed. The City Mayor will be authorized to send employees, contractors, or agents of the City upon the property to remedy the nuisance, which shall include, but is not limited to, the demolition or removal of any dwelling or structure to accomplish same.”

Browning concurred with Stockton’s assessment, saying some people don’t pay their water bills and also said she disagreed with the section on weeds and shrubbery provisions as written in the current ordinance that has not been voted on. She also asked if there was an ordinance pertaining to mobile homes.

Sohm said there was a current ordinance, but it could also be amended.

Prior to adjourning, it was noted a lot more work was needed on putting together language that would suit everyone, including setting penalties per provision prior to a final ordinance being presented for a first reading vote.

The council agreed they needed to “add and take away,” as well as review and add fines and tweak the document before a final draft is presented.

The next regular meeting of Albany City Council is scheduled for next Tuesday, October 5, at 5 p.m. and is open to the public.