(A) When the Police Chief, a code enforcement officer or the designee of the Police Chief or Code Enforcement Board receives information documenting the existence of activities which qualify as nuisance activities:
(1) The Police Chief, a code enforcement officer shall independently review such report(s) to determine whether a chronic nuisance property as defined in § 92.16 is established by the information.
(2) Upon a determination that a chronic nuisance property exists, the Police Chief, or code enforcement officer shall issue a notice of violation under § 41.05(B) to the person in charge that the property has been determined to be a chronic nuisance property and request an abatement plan from the person in charge.
(3) The notice to the person in charge, shall contain the following information:
(a) The street address or a legal description sufficient for identification of the property.
(b) A statement that the Police Chief, or code enforcement officer has determined the property to be a chronic nuisance property with a concise description of the nuisance activities leading to this determination.
(c) A demand that the person in charge respond within ten days to the Police Chief, or code enforcement officer by either describing the actions the person in charge intends to take to abate the nuisance activities, (abatement plan), or indicating good cause as to why the person in charge cannot abate the nuisance activities.
(d) That an agreed abatement plan must be reached with the Police Chief, or code enforcement officer within 30 days from the date of the notice of determination of chronic nuisance property.
(e) That if the nuisance activities are not abated and good cause for failure to abate is not shown, a citation under § 41.05(B) may be issued.
(f) That permitting the existence of a chronic nuisance property is a violation of this chapter.
(g) That the above remedies are in addition to those otherwise provided by law.
(4) The notice may be delivered in person, or sent registered mail with return receipt requested. The notice may be delivered to the property itself, or to the mailing address of the owner of the property as listed on the city tax roll, or to any other address that is likely to give the person in charge notice of the determination of the Police Chief, or code enforcement officer.
(5) The failure of any person to receive notice shall not invalidate or otherwise affect the proceedings under this chapter.
(B) The Police Chief, or code enforcement officer may issue a citation where:
(1) The person in charge fails to respond within ten days from the date of the notice of determination of chronic nuisance property by the Police Chief, or code enforcement officer; or
(2) No agreeable written abatement plan is reached within 30 days from the notice of determination of chronic nuisance property by the Police Chief, or code enforcement officer and the person in charge fails to establish one of the affirmative defenses provided in § 92.17(F) or (G); or
(3) The person in charge fails to abate the nuisance activities from the property as required by the agreed abatement plan; or
(4) The person in charge fails to comply continuously with all conditions of the written abatement plan for a period of one year.
(C) When the person in charge includes both a person with actual or constructive possession of the property and a legal owner of the property, both people must agree to any proposed abatement plan within the time allotted under subsection (A)(3)(d) of this section. Failure of both to agree to a proposed abatement plan shall result in a finding by the Police Chief, or code enforcement officer that the abatement plan is not agreeable under subsection (B)(2) of this section.
(D) Failure to respond, failure to abate the nuisance activities, or failure to propose an abatement plan shall be prima facie evidence of lack of cooperativeness of the person in charge. Failure to execute or comply with any abatement plan shall be prima facie evidence of lack of good faith in mitigating or correcting the situation.
(E) When a person in charge makes a response to the Police Chief or code enforcement officer as required in § 92.17, conduct or statements made in connection with the response do not constitute an admission that any nuisance activities have occurred or are occurring. This subsection does not require exclusion of any evidence that is otherwise admissible or offered for any other purpose.
(F) Residential landlord affirmative defense. A residential landlord has an absolute defense to a charge under this ordinance if they establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the basis for the charge is the actions or omissions of their tenant(s) and the residential landlord establishes all of the following:
(1) That the residential landlord undertakes a reasonably appropriate screening process for prospective tenants including diligence into the criminal background of prospective tenants, which shall include, at a minimum, an online search and inquiry with the tenant into their criminal background;
(2) That the residential landlord include language in their leases with tenants that provides that violations of federal, state, or local laws by tenants or their guests is grounds for eviction with 30 days or less notice;
(3) That the residential landlord, upon written notice by the city that a nuisance activity has occurred on their property within the prior thirty days, commences an eviction action against the tenant whose action or omission forms the basis of the charge, and diligently prosecutes that action to completion, irrespective of any ultimate ruling by a court on the merits of that action. A residential landlord shall not be responsible for prosecuting a forcible entry and detainer action against the tenant or their guests whose action or omission forms the basis of the charge if the city fails to give the notice provided in this section.
(G) Good cause affirmative defense. Any person charged under this subchapter has an absolute defense to a charge under this subchapter if they establish by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) The person charged has taken all appropriate actions to deter and prevent the nuisance activity that forms the basis of the charge on their property;
(2) The nuisance activity that forms the basis of the charge was not the result of the actions or omissions of person charged, their authorized guests or any other person residing in their household; and
(3) The nuisance activity that forms the basis of the charge was not permitted by the person charged.
(Ord. 2010-03, passed 8-23-10)