Fort Thomas officials are considering a significant increase in fines for chronic violations of its code of ordinances covering maintenance of properties within the city. An amendment to the code would increase fines for third and subsequent violations.
The fines will remain at $100 for a first and $200 for a second offense. If the amendment passes, the fine for a third and subsequent offenses increases to $500. If a violator contests a citation and a hearing is requested, maximum penalties for the third offense, if imposed, would go from $400 to $1000.
City Attorney Tim Schneider said increasing the fines may be the only way to get long-term violators’ attention and hopefully get problems resolved. With the steep fines, if left unpaid, the city could put a lien on a property and could even, in worst case scenario, enforce its lien and file a foreclosure petition. Yet, the intention of the fine increase, he said, is to push violators to resolve issues and not have to go further.
The process
Most owners take care of their properties, but things happen. When a lawn has become a tangle of tall weeds or a yard has been hosting a pile of trash for a length of time, it falls upon the city’s code enforcement officer to help the owner resolve the situation.
In Fort Thomas, that job falls to Administrative Assistant Sam Shelton. When a complaint is filed, the issue is passed along to Shelton, whose first duty is to investigate. If he finds a violation, his next step is to send the property owner a notice outlining the situation. If the property owner is unable to fix the issue right away they are asked to contact the city to work out the problem.
“People laugh, but the biggest complaint I get is people not cutting their grass… Some people go on vacation or are just out of town for something, and it becomes one of those things on the end of the to-do list,” he said. “It’s one of the easiest violations to correct, but it is one I get called in for a lot. We give them a week and often, by the time they get the letter, they’ve cut the grass. So it’s also one of the most quickly cleared up violations,” he said.
While this time of year gets several complaints about tall grass, the code also prohibits the open storage of trash, salvaged material or other types of junk listed as “miscellaneous refuse.” Other potential violations include the parking of trailers on public streets and codes concerning accessory structures and fences erected without building permits and inspections.
If a property owner does not respond or fix the problem within the allotted time, they will receive a citation outlining the issue and a potential fine. At that point, the owner can ask for a hearing to contest the citation, but if there is no response, it could lead to a second and subsequent offenses and fines, and ultimately to a lien and potential for foreclosure.
“Our city has been very prudent about waiting and giving folks an opportunity to satisfy indebtedness before ever filing liens,” Schneider said. Yet, “when we do get a property owner who has been notified of a problem, and they just continue to ignore the problem and don’t make appropriate repairs, it’s not fair to surrounding neighbors as well.”
The problem
The increase in fees is targeted to a handful of properties that have ongoing problems that go well beyond an overgrown lawn. These “problem properties” represent years of neglect, eyesores that can even pose safety concerns.
According to Shelton, right now there are only three pieces of property that fall under the “chronic problem” heading. Two of the properties have been abandoned for years. These are the same homes that had violations on the books when he came into the position three years ago.
“I live on a street where a home has been empty for 18 years, and the person who owns the property hasn’t kept it up,” he noted. “It’s starting to fall, starting to decay. The backyard is a mess, and it’s becoming a nuisance. The neighbors who live next door to it don’t want to live next to an abandoned property that is attracting animals or might collapse one of these days due to water damage and not being maintained correctly.”
The owners of these properties have not answered numerous notices and have not paid fines leveraged against them. In fact, they have not responded at all to the city’s attempts to get matters resolved, he said.
This has been a source of frustration for Shelton and the city general services staff.
A potential solution
“It’s never been my intention to go for fining in the first place and neither is it for other city officials. Fines are a last resort for us,” said Shelton.
Schneider said the aim is to create a greater incentive for the owner to take care of the matter — but it also makes it worthwhile for the city to pursue going through the process of placing a lien on the property if necessary.
“No one wants to buy a piece of property that’s got liens against it, and they’re responsible for it. And so this effectively takes the present owner and puts them in a spot where they would realize that, should they want to refinance it or sell, it will be subject to satisfaction of that lien.”
The hope is the fine increases will make it more painful for owners to ignore the city. “We just want the properties maintained for the property owners, the neighbors…it’s just a win-win when everyone takes care of things properly, right?” Schneider added.
The amendment increasing the fines is expected to be on the agenda for a second reading at the city’s June 20 council meeting.