(A) In an action against a person in charge to abate a chronic nuisance property or to recover penalties authorized by this chapter, the city shall have the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is a chronic nuisance property pursuant to this chapter. In an action against an owner to recover penalties authorized by § 101.99, the city shall have the additional burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the owner failed to comply with §§ 101.03 through 101.05. Copies of police incident reports and reports of other city departments documenting nuisance activities shall be admissible in such actions. Additionally, evidence of a property's general reputation and the reputation of persons residing in or frequenting the property shall be admissible in such actions.
(B) It is a defense to an action for chronic nuisance that the person responsible, at all material times, could not, in the exercise of reasonable care or diligence, determine that the property had become a chronic nuisance property, or could not, in spite of the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, control the conduct leading to the determination that the property is a chronic nuisance property.
(Ord. 72, 2021, passed 6-10-21)