Jul 21, 2025 Board of Supervisors Special Meeting: Code Enforcement Hearings

[00:00:02]

GOOD MORNING. TODAY IS A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. IT IS MONDAY, JULY 21ST. THE TIME IS 9:00 A.M.. WE HAVE ALL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT, ALONG WITH CEO DAVE RICKERT, COUNTY COUNSEL, JOE LARMER, AND FROM THE CLERK OF THE BOARD, MIRANDA ANGEL.

MARCI WINSTEAD IN THE FOYER, KRISTEN GOINGSMITH.

WE ENCOURAGE THOSE WISHING TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC COMMENTS, FILL OUT A FREE.

FILL OUT A SPEAKER REQUEST CARD SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK'S TABLE SET UP IN THE FOYER.

SPEAKER REQUEST CARDS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EACH REGULAR ITEM BEGINS.

WITH THAT, I'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO MS. ANGEL.

THANK YOU. THROUGH THE CHAIR I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY OF THE BOARD ROOM RULES OF ORDER AS OUTLINED IN ADMIN POLICY 1-101, WHICH CAN BE FOUND ONLINE THROUGH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD WEBSITE. THIS POLICY INCLUDES SIGNAGE RESTRICTIONS, ATTENDEE SEATING, AND OVERALL CONDUCT TO ENSURE BUSINESS IS DONE IN AN ORDERLY FASHION AND THAT ALL HAVE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE AND PARTICIPATE.

UNLESS ADDRESSING THE BOARD, ALL THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE SHALL REMAIN SEATED IN THE CHAIRS PROVIDED.

STANDING ALONG THE BACK WALL OF THE BOARD ROOM IS ACCEPTABLE, SO LONG AS NO PERSON BLOCKS THE INGRESS OR EGRESS.

MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES MAY STAND AND USE EQUIPMENT TO RECORD PROCEEDINGS IN THE AREA DESIGNATED BY THE CEO NEAR THE SOUTH WINDOWS.

SHASTA COUNTY REMAINS COMMITTED TO CONDUCTING ORDERLY BUSINESS IN A PROFESSIONAL AND ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT FOR ANYONE WISHING TO PARTICIPATE, ATTEND, OR OTHERWISE ENGAGE WITH THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND WE KINDLY ASK THAT ALL ATTENDEES ADHERE TO THESE RULES.

WITH THAT, I'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO COUNSEL LARMER. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS EXPLAIN THIS HEARING THE POSTURES OF THE CASES AND WHAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY.

THIS BOARD HAS NOT SAT FOR ONE OF THESE HEARINGS BEFORE, SO I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS COMING TO YOU.

WHAT DECISIONS? YOU'RE HERE TO MAKE PER THE CODE.

ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS A HEARING WHERE CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS COMPLETED THESE CASES.

THEY HAVE TAKEN THEM THROUGH HEARING THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH DUE PROCESS AND A HEARING.

THE HEARINGS MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THE VIOLATIONS EXISTED, AND THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO INITIATE THESE FEES AND COSTS. THE CODE REQUIRES ONE MORE STEP, WHICH IS AFTER THOSE FEES AND COSTS ARE AWARDED BY HEARINGS OFFICER TO MOVE THOSE TO WHAT'S CALLED A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.

AND A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR THE PORTIONS OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE THAT ARE ACTUAL HARD COSTS FOR THE COUNTY.

AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT CREATES A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON THE TAX ROLLS, AND IT'S COLLECTED AS IF IT WERE A TAX SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL FROM THAT.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU'LL SEE THE APN MORE THAN ONCE, AND SEAN WILL EXPLAIN THAT IN MORE DETAIL ARE FINES.

UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, FINES CANNOT BE LEVIED AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE PROPERTY.

THEY HAVE TO BE CREATED AS A LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY.

SO FOR SOME OF THE PROPERTIES, YOU MAY HAVE BOTH TYPES OF LIEN AND ASSESSMENT THAT YOU'RE EVALUATING.

WHAT YOU'RE NOT EVALUATING TODAY IS WHETHER A CASE WHETHER THEY WERE GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE CODE.

SO YOU'RE SITTING MUCH LIKE A COURT WOULD BE IN A SENTENCING PHASE WHERE THE, DUE PROCESS AND THE TRIAL HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED. THE QUESTION FOR YOU IS NOW WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED, THAT THE DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN COMPLETED, AND THAT THERE WAS A FINDING BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER THAT A VIOLATION EXISTED SHOULD THE BOARD IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OR A LIEN SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY. WE WON'T BE RELITIGATING THE COLD CASE WILL ONLY BE LOOKING AT WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE TO PLACE THE LIEN AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.

AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT HELP CLARIFY THAT.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NOPE. OKAY. WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE LED BY SUPERVISOR KELSTROM.

PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR KELSTROM. AS THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETING, THERE IS NOT AN INVOCATION.

SO WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR ONE. MR. EWING, COME ON UP.

[R1 Receive a presentation regarding operations of the Code Enforcement Program within the Building Division of the Department of Resource Management.]

I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.

SO YES. FLOOR IS YOURS. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

[00:05:01]

SO SO GOOD MORNING, CHAIR CRYE, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, SEAN EWING, DIRECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT HERE THIS MORNING WITH THE PRESENTATION, WHERE I WILL PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE COUNTY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, AS WELL AS SHARE SOME BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS FOR PROPERTIES WHERE CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM OVERSAW NUISANCE ABATEMENT CLEANUPS DURING FISCAL YEAR 24-25.

THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM CONSISTS OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER, THREE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND ONE AGENCY STAFF SERVICES ANALYST. WITH THE CURRENT NUMBER OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY ONE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER PER 1255MI², OR ONE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER PER 21,892 CITIZENS. UNLIKE OTHER RURAL COUNTIES WHERE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE FOCUSED TO SMALLER GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS, DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SHASTA COUNTY IS WIDELY DISTRIBUTED IN THE MOST REMOTE PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY, SOME OF WHICH REQUIRE TRAVEL OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY TO REACH.

SHOWN HERE IS A TYPICAL IS OUR TYPICAL CODE VIOLATION COMPLAINT FORM THAT CAN BE FOUND ON THE BUILDING DIVISION WEBSITE.

A RECENT POLICY CHANGE WITHIN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAS BEEN THAT ALL VIOLATIONS GENERATED MUST BE SUPPORTED WITH THE CODE.

AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT IN THE FILE TO JUSTIFY THE INVESTIGATION.

THE COMPLAINING PARTY IS KEPT CONFIDENTIAL AND THE CODE VIOLATION COMPLAINT FORMS ARE REDACTED PRIOR TO ASSIGNING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

THE CODE VIOLATION COMPLAINT FORM INCLUDES THE MOST COMMON VIOLATIONS AT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM IS DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE.

IT IS COMMON FOR A CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS FOR POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS THAT ARE REGULATED BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCY AGENCIES.

WE'VE TRIED TO LIMIT THIS OCCURRENCE BY PROVIDING CHECKBOXES, RATHER THAN A BLANK FORM, TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE COMPLAINING PARTY.

THE TYPICAL COMPLAINTS WE RECEIVED THAT ARE NOT WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY ARE UNLAWFUL BURNING, ABANDONED VEHICLES, INCLUDING RVS, ILLEGAL DUMPING, OR OTHER VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE COUNTY'S RIGHT OF WAY.

EVEN THOUGH IT TAKES ADDITIONAL STAFF TIME, WE WORK TO COORDINATE AND PROPERLY REFER VIOLATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS, SO THE COMMUNITY RECEIVES THE RESPONSIVENESS THAT IS EXPECTED OF THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE.

THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM COORDINATES WITH MANY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AS WELL AS OUTSIDE AGENCIES.

WE'VE BEEN CONTINUALLY, LOOKING TO IMPROVE THESE RELATIONSHIPS, AS WELL AS EXPAND THE COOPERATIVE EFFORTS, WITH THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF PROVIDING A MORE COMPLETE SOLUTION TO THE ISSUES CONTRIBUTING TO THE CODE VIOLATIONS OUR TEAM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING.

THIS APPROACH IS ESSENTIAL IN WORKING TOWARDS LONG TERM SOLUTIONS THAT WILL HELP TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

ONCE A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN RECEIVED, AN INVESTIGATION CONFIRMS THAT VIOLATIONS EXIST.

CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WORK WITH PROPERTY OWNERS TO IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE AT THE LOWEST COST TO THE COUNTY.

THE BEST CASE SCENARIO IS FOR THE OWNER TO SELF ABATE THE VIOLATION WITHOUT TOO MUCH TIME BEING REQUIRED OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

HOWEVER, WORKING WITH OWNERS AND ATTEMPTING TO GAIN VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE USUALLY TAKES CONSIDERABLE TIME AND UNFORTUNATELY MAY NOT ACTUALLY REMEDY THE VIOLATION.

WHEN COMPLIANCE IS NOT ACHIEVED VOLUNTARILY, THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEEDING IS THE NEXT STEP.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROCESS REQUIRED FOR THE COUNTY TO LAWFULLY ABATE THE VIOLATION IS RATHER TIME CONSUMING AND IS EXPENSIVE ENDEAVOR FOR THE COUNTY.

FOR FISCAL YEAR 24-25, CODE ENFORCEMENT HAD A CLEANUP BUDGET OF $125,000.

$125,000 TO $150,000 IS WHAT IS COMMONLY BUDGETED EACH FISCAL YEAR, AND EQUATES TO APPROXIMATELY 2 TO 4 COUNTY FUNDED CLEANUPS.

FORTUNATELY, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVED THE ARPA VOLUNTARY NUISANCE ABATEMENT CLEANUP PROGRAM THAT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY HELPED OUR TEAM TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITHOUT PENALIZING THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

THE COUNTY HAS ALSO RECENTLY BEEN APPROVED FOR THE CALRECYCLE FARM AND RANCH SOLID WASTE CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT GRANT THAT CAN BE USED FOR SPECIFIC TYPE OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE COUNTY. THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM IS CURRENTLY WORKING TO GAIN APPROVAL ON SELECT PROPERTIES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER THIS GRANT.

THE VOLUNTARY NUISANCE ABATEMENT CLEANUP CONTRACT WAS APPROVED IN NOVEMBER OF 2024.

THE FIRST CLEANUPS UNDER THIS PROGRAM BEGAN IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, WITH A TOTAL OF EIGHT PROPERTIES BEING ABATED BEFORE THE END OF FISCAL YEAR ON JUNE 30TH.

MOST CLEANUPS WERE ABATED. MOST CLEANUPS WERE ABATED AT APPROXIMATELY $30,000 TO $45,000, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT EXPENDED OF $231,802 FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR. 17801 PARADISE LANE WAS ONE OF THE PROPERTIES CLEANED UP UNDER THIS

[00:10:06]

AND AS PART OF THAT STIPULATED AGREEMENT, WE'RE ABLE TO ABATE THE NUISANCE UNDER THIS PROGRAM.

THE JUNKYARD CONDITIONS WERE RESOLVED AND MULTIPLE ABANDONED VEHICLES WERE REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE SHERIFF VEHICLE ABATEMENT PROGRAM.

THE TOTAL COST OF THE CLEANUP WAS $34,776. HERE'S A BEFORE PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY.

FROM ONE VANTAGE POINT, THE PHOTO ONLY CAPTURES A SPECIFIC AREA OF THE PROPERTY, BUT JUNK AND REFUSE WAS SCATTERED OVER MUCH OF THE PROPERTY.

HERE'S AN AFTER PHOTO FROM A SIMILAR VANTAGE POINT SHOWING THE CLEARED SITE.

19902 LITTLE ACRES LANE WAS A PROPERTY AFFECTED BY THE FAWN FIRE IN 2021.

THERE WERE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS GOING BACK TO 2022.

WE WERE ABLE TO USE ARPA FUNDS TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY AND RESOLVE THE CONDITIONS, CREATING THE NUISANCE.

THE TOTAL CLEANUP COST WAS $36,023. HERE'S A PHOTO BEFORE WITH AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF JUNK AND REFUSE SCATTERED ACROSS THE PROPERTY. AND HERE'S THE AFTER PHOTO SHOWING THE CLEARED SITE.

17026 DORVEL LANE WAS A NEWER VIOLATION WHERE THE OWNER WAS ATTEMPTING TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE BUT WAS STRUGGLING.

ONCE THE ARPA PROGRAM WAS AVAILABLE, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER REACHED OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO OBTAIN AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY USING THESE FUNDS. THE CLEANUP COST CAME IN AT $30,678. HERE'S AN AFTER PHOTO SHOWING THE JUNK AND REFUSE REMOVED FROM THE SITE.

20894 DODSON LANE WAS A PROPERTY IN VIOLATION SINCE 2023.

THIS WAS ANOTHER PROPERTY WHERE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WAS CONTINUALLY WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND IN AN ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.

EVENTUALLY, THE OWNER AGREED TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY WITH THESE FUNDS.

TOTAL COST WAS $5,605, SO NOT QUITE AS EXTENSIVE.

AND THEN THIS IS A CLEARED SITE. 7971 SANS SOUCI DRIVE WAS ANOTHER RECENT VIOLATION WHERE WE WERE CONTINUALLY RECEIVING COMPLAINTS, AND FORTUNATELY, WE HAD THESE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO HELP THE PROPERTY OWNER TO CLEAR THEM.

THE CLEANUP COST WAS $5,519, SO IT WASN'T QUITE AS EXTENSIVE, BUT IT WAS STILL ENOUGH TO TO WARRANT THE VIOLATION AND THE COMPLAINTS. SO HERE'S A CLEANED UP PROPERTY. 21667 RIVERVIEW DRIVE HAD RECEIVED MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS, WITH THE VIOLATION STARTED IN 2025.

THE PROPERTY WAS CLEANED FOR A TOTAL COST OF $41,380.

HERE'S SOME BEFORE PHOTOS AND THEN THE AFTER PHOTOS WITH THE SITE CLEARED.

20350 CHRISMAR DRIVE WAS A PROPERTY AFFECTED BY THE SALT FIRE IN 2021, WITH MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS AND AND VIOLATIONS STARTED IN 2023. THE PROPERTY WAS COMPLETELY CLEARED FOR A TOTAL COST OF $45,682.

HERE'S BEFORE PHOTO. COMPLETELY DESTROYED. AND THEN THE AFTER PHOTO OF THE CLEARED PROPERTY.

I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY REACHED OUT POTENTIALLY TO THE SUPERVISORS AS A WHOLE SHOWING THEIR APPRECIATION.

20676 OAK STREET WAS A RESIDENCE MOSTLY DESTROYED BY A FIRE.

WE CONTINUE TO RECEIVE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS ON THE PROPERTY AND EVENTUALLY WERE ABLE TO ABATE IT UNDER THIS PROGRAM, FOR A TOTAL COST OF $32,136. THIS WAS THE BEFORE PHOTO WITH THE UNINHABITABLE STRUCTURE OR RESIDENCE, I SHOULD SAY. AND THEN THIS WAS THE STRUCTURE DEMOED.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN SEE THAT PROPERTY OWNER MAYBE COME BACK WITH A SMALL HOME OR SOMETHING TO BE BE BACK IN A IN A, RESIDENCE. AT THE FIRST HALF OF FISCAL YEAR 24-25, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM HAD TAKEN FIVE PROPERTIES TO ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING.

TWO OF THE PROPERTIES WERE EVENTUALLY ABATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

ONE PROPERTY WAS ABATED UNDER THE ARPA PROGRAM, AND TWO PROPERTIES HAD TO BE ABATED BY THE COUNTY, FOR A TOTAL COST OF $38,551 TO THE COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND.

WE WERE FORTUNATE THAT ONLY TWO PROPERTIES HAD TO BE CLEANED UP UTILIZING GENERAL FUND DOLLARS.

[00:15:05]

11308 IRON MOUNTAIN ROAD WAS A PROPERTY WITH NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS AND THE PROPERTY WAS IN VIOLATION SINCE 2020.

THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN TO NUISANCE ABATEMENT HEARING IN MAY OF 2024.

AND WE ENTERED INTO A STIPULATED AGREEMENT. WE WANTED TO SEE THE PROPERTY OWNER BE SUCCESSFUL IN CLEARING THE VIOLATIONS WITHOUT THE COUNTY HAVING TO COME IN AND DO IT FOR THEM AT A HIGHER COST. EVENTUALLY, WE COULDN'T HOLD OFF ANY LONGER IN THE STIPULATED TIME HAD LONG PASSED, SO THE COUNTY CAME IN TO CLEAN THE PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL COST OF $13,883.

THE SHERIFF ASSISTED WITH THE CLEANUP OF THE ABANDONED VEHICLES, AND THE PROPERTY WAS CLEARED OF ALL JUNK CONDITIONS.

HERE'S A PHOTO AFTER PHOTO SHOWING THE CLEARED SITE.

27835 BULLSKIN RIDGE ROAD WAS A PROPERTY IN VIOLATION SINCE 2018.

WE EVENTUALLY TOOK THE PROPERTY TO HEARING IN SEPTEMBER, WITH THE CLEANUP OCCURRING IN MAY OF THIS YEAR FOR A TOTAL COST OF $24,667. HERE'S A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE CLEANUP.

AND THEN WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE AFTER. 6694 HAPPY VALLEY ROAD WAS A PROPERTY WE CONTINUED TO RECEIVE MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS ON. WE EVENTUALLY TOOK THE PROPERTY TO HEARING IN JULY.

WE ENTERED INTO A STIPULATED AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO GIVE THEM MORE TIME.

THE PROPERTY OWNER, WITH THE HELP OF FAMILY, SUCCESSFULLY CLEARED THE VIOLATIONS AND REIMBURSED THE COUNTY FOR ITS COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. NOW, THESE ARE THE AFTER PHOTOS, AND I JUST DROVE BY IT OVER THE WEEKEND AND IT'S STILL IN A CLEAN CONDITION. 17786 PARADISE LANE HAD BEEN IN VIOLATION FOR MULTIPLE YEARS WITH CONTINUAL COMPLAINTS.

THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN TO A HEARING IN NOVEMBER OF 2024, AND WE ENTERED INTO A STIPULATED AGREEMENT TO GIVE THE OWNER ADDITIONAL TIME TO CLEAR THE VIOLATIONS. THE OWNER SUCCESSFULLY CLEARED THE VIOLATIONS AND REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR ITS COSTS.

HERE'S SOME BEFORE PHOTOS. AND THEN AFTER THE CLEANUP.

THESE NEXT SLIDES ARE SOME TYPICAL PROPERTIES IN VIOLATION WHERE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITHOUT GOING TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING. FOR THE SAKE OF TIME I'LL QUICKLY MOVE THROUGH THESE SLIDES, BUT I WANTED TO PROVIDE THEM TO HELP REPRESENT MUCH OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT MUCH OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM'S WORKLOAD AS THEY WORK WITH COMPLIANCE, WORK WITH PROPERTY OWNERS TO TO GAIN COMPLIANCE WITHOUT HAVING TO DO THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. SO THIS ONE WAS RELATIVELY MINOR BUT LUCKILY WE WERE ABLE TO GET THEM TO COMPLY SOME AFTER PHOTOS AS JUNK AND REFUSE.

AND THEN THE SITES CLEARED. AND THEN THIS WAS A RV LIVING SITUATION.

FORTUNATELY, THEY COMPLIED REMOVED IT.

THIS SLIDE IS A COMPARISON OF COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AND CLOSED, AS WELL AS VIOLATIONS CREATED AND VIOLATIONS CLOSED IN A FISCAL YEAR FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS. WHAT ISN'T SHOWN HERE IS THAT THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 149 CRM'S OR COMPLAINTS THAT ARE OPEN, AND THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 2926 OPEN VIOLATIONS.

MANY OF THESE OPEN VIOLATIONS ARE CASES THAT HAVE HAVE A NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE RECORDED AGAINST A PROPERTY THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN TO HEARINGS, SO THEY SIT IN VIOLATION STATUS UNTIL A PROPERTY OWNER DECIDES TO COME IN AND TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO CLEAR THE VIOLATIONS.

IT'S CRITICAL TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS COSTLY TO THE COUNTY TO ACHIEVE THE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE EXPECTED FROM THE COMMUNITY.

WE MUST HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO BE ABLE TO ASSESS PROPERTIES AND APPLY LIENS WITHOUT THE SUPPORT IT LIMITS OUR ABILITY TO RECOVER OUR COSTS AND PLACES THAT BURDEN ENTIRELY ON THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH IN REALITY PLACES A BURDEN ON ALL CITIZENS INSTEAD OF THE INDIVIDUALS CAUSING THE VIOLATIONS. WITHOUT SUPPORT OF ASSESSMENTS AND LIENS IT ALSO SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE TO OTHERS WHO MIGHT BE IN A SIMILAR SITUATION, WHO WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN WILLING TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY. SO THANK YOU, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

[00:20:01]

THANK YOU SIR. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE HEARING, WHICH IS R-2.

[R2 Conduct a public hearing and either: (1) Adopt resolutions which designate authority to recover special assessments and liens to be levied against properties (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 014-530-008; 207-250-012; 089-240-001; 061-050-025; 203-280-019; 306-440-007; 011-530-002; 094-620-005; 064-420-040; 205-230-005; 064-350-024; 065-190-013; 098-420-012; 077-080-011; 207-250-012; 061-050-025; 203-280-019; 306-440-007; 011-530-002; 094-620-005; 064-420-040; 205-230-005; 065-190-013; and 098420012) in which the Administrative Hearing Officer issued Findings and Orders, finding that nuisance conditions existed on the premises and ordering them to be abated pursuant to Government Code §25845 and Shasta County Codes §8.28.060 and §1.12.050(B)(6); (2) amend the proposed resolutions and adopt the amended resolutions; or (3) provide alternate direction to staff.]

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS WE COULD TAKE THAT DOWN.

RIGHT. CHAIR CRYE AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SEAN EWING, DIRECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, HERE FOR THIS ITEM WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS.

ONE, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THREE EITHER A, ADOPT RESOLUTIONS WHICH DESIGNATE AUTHORITY TO RECOVER ONE THE COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT HEARINGS ON PARCELS.

I WON'T LIST EACH PARCEL BY MEANS OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AS SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT A OF THE RESOLUTION TO RECOVER THE COSTS TO ABATE NUISANCE CONDITIONS ORDERED AS A RESULT OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT. HEARINGS BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 25845 AND SHASTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 8.28.060 AND TWO PENALTIES AND FINES ORDERED AS A RESULT OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT HEARINGS ON PARCELS.

THE LISTED PARCELS BY MEANS OF LIENS AS SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT A OF THE RESOLUTION TO RECOVER THE PENALTIES AND FINES RELATING TO THE NUISANCE CONDITIONS ORDERED AS A RESULT OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT HEARINGS BY LIENS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53069.4 AND SHASTA COUNTY CODE, SECTION 1.12.050, B 6 OR B AMEND THE PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS AND ADOPT THE AMENDED RESOLUTIONS, OR C PROVIDE ALTERNATE DIRECTION TO STAFF. SO I APPRECIATE JOE COUNTY COUNSEL LARMER EXPLAINING THE PROCESS AND WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.

AND THEN ALSO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SOME DUPLICATE APN'S LISTED IN THE AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT.

AND THE REASON IS, IS BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE FOUR ASSESSMENTS AND SOME OF THEM ARE FOR LIENS.

SO THEY SHOW UP THEY APPEAR TO BE DUPLICATED.

SO AS COUNTY COUNSEL EXPLAINED, THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE PROPERTIES BROUGHT FORWARD FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TODAY WERE PROPERLY NOTICED.

THE ABATEMENT HEARINGS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED AND ALL APPEALS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.

THE FIGURES SET FORTH IN THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO EACH RESOLUTION COMPRISES THE FINES, PENALTIES AND ABATEMENT COSTS ACCRUED.

IN EACH CASE AS TO EACH PROPERTY THESE AMOUNTS WERE IMPOSED BY A HEARING OFFICER AFTER A PUBLIC AND PROPERLY NOTICED HEARING WAS CONDUCTED WITH NOTICE OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION MAILED TO EACH OWNER AND POSTED ON THE PROPERTY.

TODAY, WE ASKED THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO SECURE THE COUNTY'S OUT OF POCKET COST FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT ABATEMENT, AS WELL AS THE FINES AND PENALTIES AWARDED TO THE COUNTY.

THANK YOU, AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MISS ANGEL IS ALL CORRESPONDENCE ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD? YES, CHAIR. ANY AND ALL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED REGARDING THIS ITEM IS ON FILE AND AVAILABLE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD.

GREAT. WITH THAT, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. DO WE HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, IF I COULD, SEAN, WE NEED TO OPEN AN INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR EACH PROPERTY.

OKAY, SO YOU SAID THAT SOME OF THE APN'S ARE DUPLICATED.

SO JUST ONE FOR EACH PROPERTY. OKAY. COUNSEL LARMER ARE WE NOT TAKING THOSE ALL IN ONE? I THOUGHT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS WE WERE GOING TO TAKE ALL THESE AT ONE, AND THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS GOING TO BE EVERYBODY WITH THAT.

SO THE WHAT WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN ALL, ALL IN ONE IS THE DOCUMENTS WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD.

EACH PROPERTY OWNER IS ENTITLED TO AN INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY. SO DO WE WANT TO START WITH. I MEAN, WE'VE I'VE OPENED THIS ONE, SO THAT'S FINE.

JUST HAVE SEAN IDENTIFY A PROPERTY ADDRESS AND WE'LL WORK WITH THAT ONE.

MR. EWING COME UP AND GIVE US A PROPERTY ADDRESS? YOU DON'T HAVE IT MEMORIZED? YEAH, NO, I THINK THE EASIEST WAY TO DO THIS WOULD BE TO ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS TO THE STAFF REPORT. WE HAVE VIOLATION AND NUISANCE ABATEMENT SUMMARY WHICH IDENTIFIES THE VIOLATION.

AND THEN THE PROPERTY ADDRESS AND APN. SO THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE VIOLATION 16225 WHICH THE APN WOULD BE 077080011. OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON THAT PROPERTY AND WHETHER YOU'VE TURNED A CARD IN OR NOT, YOU PROBABLY RECOGNIZE THE PARCEL NUMBER IF IT'S YOURS, IF YOU'RE HERE IN ATTENDANCE. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK ON THAT PARCEL NUMBER? SEAN, WOULD YOU HAVE AN ADDRESS FOR THAT? THE ADDRESS FOR THAT. I'M SORRY. THE ADDRESS FOR THAT WOULD BE 20049 BRAVE STREET.

[00:25:08]

AND THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KELSTROM, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG.

WE'VE TAKEN PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'VE CLOSED THE HEARING.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. PASSES FIVE ZERO. ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT MR. EWING THE NEXT PARCEL NUMBER AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

YES. THE PARCEL NUMBER IS 014530008. AND THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 29239 CASTELLA LOOP.

CASTELLA. 960017. ALL RIGHT. I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYBODY IN ATTENDANCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT PARTICULAR ADDRESS? PARCEL NUMBER? SEEING NONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KELSTROM, SECONDED BY.

IS THERE SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU. YEAH.

COME ON UP. ISN'T THAT SO? GO AHEAD. COME TO THE LECTERN OVER HERE FOR ME, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. SO COUNSEL LARMER. SO WALK ME THROUGH THIS.

AND SINCE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, I CAN REOPEN IT. CORRECT. YOU CAN REOPEN. OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. GO AHEAD.

SIR. OKAY. AS FAR AS THE FINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND WHATNOT. I WAS, CAN YOU DO ME A FAVOR COULD YOU TAKE ONE STEP TO YOUR RIGHT AND GET IN FRONT OF THE MIC? I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT BASED ON THE FOREGOING, ON THIS DOCUMENT HERE, IT SAYS OKAY. SECTION 1.08.010 C, IT SAYS THE COUNTY MAY IMPOSE FINES AND OR COLLECT THEM AS PART OF THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCESS IDENTIFIED ABOVE.

HOWEVER, IF THE PERSON VOLUNTARILY ABATES THE NUISANCE DURING THE TIME SPECIFIED FOR VOLUNTARY ABATEMENT, THE NOTICE TO ABATE, THE NOTICE TO ABATE, THEN NO FINES MAY BE IMPOSED.

SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHY THERE'S STILL. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM.

HAVE YOU CLEANED THE PROPERTY UP? I MEAN, YEAH, IT'S BEEN CLEANED UP.

AND HAVE YOU HAD CODE ENFORCEMENT OUT THERE TO INSPECT? YEAH, YEAH. SO I WAS JUST WONDERING BECAUSE THE FINE WOULD BE SOMEWHERE AROUND $5,900, AND I WOULD NEED, LIKE, IF IT WERE IMPOSED, I WOULD NEED, LIKE, AT LEAST 60 DAYS TO HAVE THAT.

MR. EWING, COME ON UP. SORRY. MR. JEFFERSON, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. I'M FAMILIAR WITH MR. JEFFERSON HERE, AND IT'S ACTUALLY A LATER PARCEL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I BELIEVE THE ONE THAT THAT YOU OPENED THE HEARING FOR WAS THE CASTELLA LOOP ONE. AND SO. SO MISTER JEFFERSON'S PROPERTY IS A LITTLE BIT LATER NOW.

OKAY, SO THAT'S THE. SO IF YOU'RE WANTING TO SPEAK ON AS PART OF THE HEARING FOR THAT FOR YOUR PARCEL I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN WE GET TO THERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE DONE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE PREVIOUS ONE LISTED BY MR. EWING. AND WE DID HAVE A MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR KELSTROM, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR HARMON.

MR. EWING IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD ON ON CASTELLA LOOP? NO. OKAY, PERFECT. SO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT PARTICULAR ADDRESS.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. PASSES FIVE ZERO. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR THIRD.

OKAY, SO THE NEXT APN. NUMBER OR APN IS 207250012 THAT'S 7174 HAPPY VALLEY ROAD, ANDERSON 96007. OKAY, GIVE THAT ADDRESS ONE MORE TIME.

7174 HAPPY VALLEY ROAD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT PROPERTY ON HAPPY VALLEY ROAD.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE IN ATTENDANCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT? ONCE, TWICE. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT HAPPY VALLEY ROAD ADDRESS.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KELSTROM TO APPROVE.

SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. PASSES FIVE ZERO AS WELL. FOURTH PROPERTY, MR.

[00:30:02]

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KELSTROM APPROVE.

SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR HARMON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. PASSES FIVE ZERO. FIFTH PROPERTY. THE NEXT PROPERTY IS 089240001. THAT'S THE AP NUMBER. THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 22283 ADOBE ROAD, COTTONWOOD. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPERTY ON ADOBE.

YES. COME ON UP.

GOOD MORNING. WELCOME. I REPRESENT THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY.

SHE'S CURRENTLY IN MICHIGAN AT A WEDDING. AND I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU NEED, BUT I'M SUPPOSED TO COLLECT ALL THE INFORMATION FOR HER AND LET HER KNOW. I KNOW SHE'S GOT CODE ENFORCEMENT ON HER.

THERE'S THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY WITH HER BROTHER, I THINK.

AND THEN HE WAS, UNFORTUNATELY SHOT AND KILLED ON THE PROPERTY BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND THEN IT'S BEEN YEARS NOW. AND THEN IT CAME BACK TO HER.

AND THEN SHE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE A DEED FOR THE PROPERTY.

AND THEY'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH A LOT OF PROCESS JUST TO GET THE DEED BACK.

IT WAS IN HER MOTHER'S NAME. SO SHE'S GOT IT SO FAR AS I DO BELIEVE SHE'S GOT A COPY OF IT.

AND THAT'S AS FAR AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. AND THEN SHE'S BEEN WORKING WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT ABOUT THE CLEANUP.

THEY WERE GOING TO GO ON THE PROPERTY AND POSSIBLY CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN THIS HEARING CAME UP. AND SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT'S AT FROM THERE, BUT I THINK THAT'S ABOUT ALL I GOT RIGHT THERE.

OKAY. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM. YEAH, I DROVE BY THE PROPERTY YESTERDAY, AND I MEAN, THE NEIGHBORS MUST HAVE BEEN PRETTY TERRIFIED IN 2022 WHEN EVERYTHING WAS DRY OUT THERE, BECAUSE, I MEAN, YOU COULDN'T EVEN SEE THE HOUSE FROM THE ROAD. THERE'S SO MUCH VEGETATION AROUND THERE. SO I MEAN IT. AS OF YESTERDAY, IT CERTAINLY HADN'T BEEN CLEANED UP.

I COULDN'T SEE THE THE REFUSE OR THE JUNKYARD WHICH I THINK THEY HAVE LISTED HERE.

BECAUSE I COULDN'T SEE THROUGH THE VEGETATION. I MEAN, IT WAS JUST I COULD BARELY MAKE OUT A HOUSE IN THERE. I MEAN, I STOPPED, AND IF MY MAPS ON MY PHONE HAD NOT TOLD ME WHERE I WAS, I WOULD HAVE NEVER GUESSED THERE WAS A HOUSE. OKAY. AND I DRIVE ADOBE ROAD FAIRLY REGULARLY.

SO WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE THEN, IF I'D BEEN OUT THERE BEFORE LAST YEAR AND DID A LOT OF WEEDING AND KNOCKED ALL THAT STUFF DOWN, ESPECIALLY THE EASEMENT, AND THEN WENT ALL THE WAY BACK IN THE BACK AS BEST I COULD WITH WHAT TOOLS I HAD.

I WASN'T AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS ALL GOING WELL.

YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IT'S GROWING UP AGAIN. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT CAN GET BACK OUT THERE AND CLEAN THAT UP OR KNOCK IT ALL DOWN? AND I'M NOT SURE, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FOR THE FIRE FIREBREAKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

BUT AS FOR THE THERE'S VEHICLES OUT THERE, A COUPLE OF VEHICLES AND THERE'S SOME I WAS TRYING TO TALK HER INTO GET AHOLD OF SCHWARTZ, AND SHE GAVE A DUMPSTER OUT THERE AND JUST PUT JUST METAL IN THERE. YOU KNOW, THEY'LL ROLL OFF LIKE THAT AND WORK IT LIKE THAT.

AND THEN SHE'S BEEN WORKING WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH THE CLEANUP THAT THEY HAD A GRANT FOR.

SO, I DON'T KNOW. I SAID I'M JUST REPRESENTING HER RIGHT NOW.

SHE'S ACTUALLY DISABLED AND, YOU KNOW, AND SHE'S GOT A BROTHER, AND THEN HE ACTUALLY HAS HAD TWO STROKES, AND HE'S IN REHAB RIGHT NOW. SO RIGHT NOW SHE'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, ON HER OWN FOR MONEY WISE AND ALL THAT STUFF.

AND LIKE I SAID, I'M HELPING HER OUT AS BEST I CAN. CAN YOU GIVE ME A CHANCE TO GO OUT THERE AND TAKE CARE OF THAT? BECAUSE I CAN GO OUT THERE AND. WELL, I MEAN, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR FIVE YEARS, BUT I MEAN, I'M, YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO THAT. AND I FEEL YOUR PAIN. I MEAN, AS WE'RE SITTING HERE STARTING THIS MEETING, I JUST GOT A TEXT FOR MY INSURANCE COMPANY THREATENING TO DROP MY INSURANCE, SO I. YEAH, WELL, SHE ACTUALLY ON THAT PROPERTY.

I'M SORRY. I'M TELLING YOU, IF I COULD PAUSE YOU REAL QUICK. YES, SIR. COUNSEL LARMER. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS HEARING AND THE MEETING TODAY IS NOT ABOUT THE ACTUAL VIOLATIONS OR CONTINUED VIOLATIONS.

IT'S ABOUT THE PAST VIOLATIONS AND THE LIENS.

AND SO WE WOULD BE GOING OUTSIDE OF OUR LIEN, TOO.

SO THERE'S NO WAY TO GIVE THEM MORE TIME AT THIS POINT. IT'S ALREADY BEEN A DONE DEAL.

SO THERE'S NO NO WAY TO GIVE HIM MORE TIME ON CLEANING UP THE PROPERTY.

[00:35:02]

THE ONLY THING BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY IS WHETHER TO IMPOSE THE LIENS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.

OKAY. I HAVE ON THAT RIGHT THERE. THAT WAS THERE'S BEEN A FINE ASSESSED ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN A WHILE AGO TOO THAT WAS RIGHT AFTER SHE WAS SHOT. AND I DON'T KNOW, I THINK IT WAS A 20 OR 19 SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA RIGHT THERE.

RIGHT. AND SHE WAS NOT EVEN. SHE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT EVEN HAPPENED WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, AND THE FINES AND EVERYTHING WERE LEVIED AGAINST THAT PROPERTY. AND THEN SHE'S JUST TRYING TO TAKE IT OVER AND GET IT BACK TO WHERE IT SHOULD BE.

IT'S FAMILY PROPERTY FROM A LONG TIME AGO. AND THEN THE FINES THAT SHE'S NOT ABLE TO PAY THEM CURRENTLY.

SO SIR WE'RE KIND OF WE'RE KIND OF GOING OFF WHAT'S BEFORE THIS BOARD TODAY? OKAY, SO I'M JUST GOING BY WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE FROM THE PAST.

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PAST. THAT'S THE FINE. THE LEVY BACK THEN.

$2000 OR $3000? SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ANYWAY. YES.

OKAY. SO. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BRING IT BACK FOR BOARD DISCUSSION. SO, MR. EWING, CAN YOU COME UP? YEAH. SO THE PART ABOUT THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY THAT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT THIS IS JUST A WE'RE JUST TRYING TO RECOVER THE COST ON THIS.

WE'VE ALREADY EXPENDED THIS TIME AND ALREADY HAVE HAVE BEEN AWARDED THE DIRECT COST OF THE DEPARTMENT.

AND SO SO YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING FINES AND PENALTIES HERE.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO RECOVER OUR COSTS. SO WE'RE GOING TO RECOVER THE COSTS ON THIS.

BUT AND THEN MOVING FORWARD, THOUGH, IT STILL NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP OR? MY NOTES INDICATE THAT IT'S STILL IN VIOLATION, SO IF THERE'S STILL A VIOLATION ON THE PROPERTY, THEN WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TRY TO GAIN COMPLIANCE SO.

SO THESE COSTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN INCURRED. YES. AND BUT TO ALLEVIATE FUTURE COSTS BEING INCURRED IT NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD AND CLEANING IT UP.

SO OKAY SO WITH THAT I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. JUST TWO QUESTIONS.

ONE. WHAT IS THE TOTAL FOR THE COST THAT WE'RE IMPOSING HERE? ALL RIGHT, LET ME LOOK REAL QUICK.

SO WE'RE. WHICH ONE ARE WE CURRENTLY ON? WE'RE CURRENTLY ON ADOBE ROAD THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

OKAY. SO ADOBE ROAD, THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IS 2,807, AND YEAH. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE NOW.

AND THOSE WOULD BE THE COSTS INCURRED AFTER THE VIOLATION WAS CREATED ON JANUARY 23RD.

LIKE SINCE THEN. RIGHT. SO THESE COSTS ARE WHAT IT TOOK WHEN WE HAD TAKEN THIS CASE TO HEARINGS.

SO LOOKING AT MY NOTES HERE. WE HAD REQUESTED ATTORNEY COSTS AND THEN ADMIN COSTS FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM.

OKAY. AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE IN THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME THINGS AROUND 2018 WHEN THAT ACCORDING TO THE GENTLEMAN'S COMMENTS THAT THERE WAS SOME TRANSFER TIME THERE, BUT THIS HAPPENED SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THAT POINT.

SO THIS IT LOOKS LIKE THE VIOLATION WAS CREATED IN 2020.

YES. AND THAT'S CORRECT. AND THE DATE OF THE DATE OF THE ABATEMENT HEARING WAS MARCH OF 21.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KELSTROM, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR HARMON.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. HEARING. SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. PASSES FIVE. ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS THE 222 ADOBE.

OKAY. THE APN IS 306440007. THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 21250 PEBBLE CREEK DRIVE IN REDDING. WITH THAT, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS AROUND 21250 PEBBLE. IS ANYBODY IN ATTENDANCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KELSTROM, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ALL RIGHT. SEVENTH PROPERTY.

OKAY. APN 203280019. THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 16443

[00:40:08]

THIS IS FOR 16443 TRAIL DRIVE IN REDDING. ANYBODY HERE? I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT ADDRESS. SEEING NONE.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION TO APPROVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KELSTROM TO APPROVE.

SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR HARMON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. MOVING ON TO THE EIGHTH PROPERTY. APN 011530002.

PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 15287 WALK WALKER TERRACE IN SHASTA.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. THIS IS FOR 15287 WALKER TERRACE.

YES. COME ON UP.

WELCOME. HI. YES. THIS PROPERTY WAS IS MINE. BUT SOMEBODY ELSE HAD TAKEN OVER MY BACK PROPERTY AND HAD BROUGHT IN SEVERAL TRUCKLOADS OF GARBAGE, BASICALLY, AND WAS SQUATTING ON MY PROPERTY.

AND WE TRIED TO GET HIM OUT OF THERE, BUT I ASKED THE COUNTY TO COME IN AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT HE CAN'T DO THAT.

AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SAID THEY COULDN'T DO IT.

IT WAS CIVIL OR SOMETHING, WHATEVER. AND BY THEN THE COUNTY CAME IN AND HELPED ME GET HIM OFF MY PROPERTY.

AND THEN WE TOOK CARE OF ALL THE GARBAGE. I MEAN, WE CLEARED THE PROPERTY AND EVERYTHING AND MARC PELOTE.

I GUESS THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAD CHECKED US OFF AND WE NEVER HEARD ANY MORE ABOUT IT.

AND THEN I GET A LETTER SAYING, YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO TAKE MY PROPERTY. THAT WAS THREE YEARS AGO.

AND THEN I GOT A LETTER RECENTLY SAYING THAT I OWED ALL THIS MONEY FOR THAT.

I DON'T KNOW WHY IT CAME UP THREE YEARS LATER THAT I OWED MONEY FOR FINES AND ALL THIS WHEN I WAS NEVER AWARE OF IT.

OKAY. CAN YOU TAKE A SEAT? JUST IN THE FRONT ROW OVER HERE.

OKAY. MR. EWING, COULD YOU COME UP, PLEASE? COUNSEL LARMER, JUST PROCEDURALLY, DO I HAVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, OR CAN WE LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AS WE DISCUSS THIS, IN CASE WE WANT TO BRING IT BACK? YOU CAN LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. PERFECT.

MR. EWING COULD YOU. I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO PREDATE YOU.

IT DOES? AND DO WE. DOES ANYONE ON OUR TEAM KNOW THIS PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR THAT CAN MORE EASILY SPEAK TO THIS? SORRY. OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT. JOSH, WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THIS ONE? I WAS INVOLVED. OKAY. I'LL LET YOU SPEAK TO THIS.

SO I THINK IT STARTED BACK IN 2019. I WAS WORKING WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, WITH MR. MARC PELOTE. MARC PELOTE WAS THE PRIMARY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AT THAT TIME.

I WAS ASSIGNED TO HELP, IN PART, TO TAKE SPECIFIC CASES TO HEARING.

AND THIS WAS ONE OF THE CASES THAT I HELPED PUT TOGETHER.

SO I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T HAVE ALL OF MY NOTES AND ALL THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME.

I DO RECALL TALKING TO MARC AT LENGTH ABOUT THIS PROPERTY AND WITH THE OWNER AND THE ISSUES AT HAND.

I BELIEVE WHERE SOME OF THE CONFUSION MAY LIE IS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS IN VIOLATION FOR MULTIPLE YEARS, AND I KNOW THE OWNER WAS COMMUNICATING WITH US AND TRYING TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES AND DEALING WITH A TENANT THAT SHE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE WANTED THERE.

I THINK PART OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD WITH THIS IS THAT WE TOOK THE CASE TO HEARING AFTER A FEW YEARS, AND WE GAVE THE OWNER THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY AND TO GIVE HER TIME, A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY.

IT WAS EITHER 30 OR 60 DAYS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND THE PROPERTY WAS NOT CLEANED UP IN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME.

SO THE AGREEMENT, IF MY MEMORY SERVES THE AGREEMENT WAS IF IT WAS CLEANED UP WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THE FEES WOULD BE REDUCED OR WAIVED. AND I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WAS CLEANED UP WITHIN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME.

AND THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THESE FINES TO COME UP.

SUPERVISOR LONG. QUESTION FOR YOU. YES. SHE SAYS SQUATTER.

YOU SAY TENANT. CAN YOU CAN YOU MOVE YOUR MICROPHONE OVER SUPERVISOR.

WELL, YEAH, SURE. SO IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER NOT NOT BEING THE INDIVIDUAL THAT'S ACTUALLY CREATING THE VIOLATION. AND IT IS UNFORTUNATE.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PROPERTY AND WHETHER IT'S A TENANT OR A POSSESSOR,

[00:45:08]

AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT HERE IS IT'S NOT ALWAYS OUR PLACE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE A LAWFUL RIGHT TO BE THERE OR IF THEY'RE SQUATTING.

IT'S NOT IT'S NOT OUR PLACE IN THOSE CASES. WE JUST NEED TO SEE THE VIOLATIONS CLEARED.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE LOOK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR PROPERTY.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WERE WORKING WITH THEM ALONG THE WAY AND WERE WILLING TO REDUCE IF COMPLIANCE WAS GAINED.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT. THERE WAS A CERTAIN TIME FRAME GIVEN IN THE JUDGMENT.

AND AGAIN IF I'D HAVE TO GO OVER IT TO MAKE SURE.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE CASE WAS THE TIME FRAME HAD PASSED.

AND SO THE FULL FINES WERE INCURRED BECAUSE IT WASN'T CLEANED UP WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME.

GOT IT. THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE IN THE SUMMARY REPORT HERE THAT IT'S SAYING IT'S STILL IN VIOLATION. IS THAT BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE THE OWNER WAS SUGGESTING THAT THAT VIOLATION WAS CLEARED? IF SO, CAN YOU LET US KNOW WHEN THAT WAS OR IF IT'S STILL IN VIOLATION? I THINK THE THING THAT CAN BE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING IS WHEN IT'S NOTED AS STATUS OF VIOLATION STATUS, IT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE IT MAY HAVE UNPAID FEES.

SO I DON'T KNOW OFFHAND IF IT'S IN A NUISANCE CONDITION TODAY, BUT IT IS IN VIOLATION BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN CLOSED OUT YET DUE TO OUTSTANDING COSTS. SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE PROPERTY, THE ISSUES WITH THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN RESOLVED AND WERE RESOLVED AFTER THE THE HEARING THAT HAPPENED IN 2022. IT'S POSSIBLE I WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW THAT IN PARTICULAR.

OKAY. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE PROPERTY LATELY.

I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAD AN ABATEMENT HEARING ON APRIL 25TH OF THIS YEAR, BUT THE DATE OF HEARING.

SO IT WAS A COUPLE OF YEARS. OKAY. WELL, WE'RE HERE THAT'S 22. OKAY. AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY.

I PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW. OKAY. BECAUSE I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THIS ONE WHEN SOMEONE ELSE CAUSED THE DAMAGE, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, SHE SAYS IT'S A SQUATTER.

AND SHE CALLED THE SHERIFF OUT THERE, SO WHEN SHE CONTACTED THE COUNTY TO HELP GET THEM OFF THERE.

SO IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT WAS SOMEBODY SHE WANTED THERE. SO, I MEAN.

ONE MINUTE. COUNSEL LARMER. SO I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT CALIFORNIA LAW.

SO SUPERVISOR KELSTROM CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT CODE ENFORCEMENT DOES.

ESSENTIALLY THE WAY CODE ENFORCEMENT IN CALIFORNIA STATE LAW AND IN OUR CODE IS WRITTEN IS A PROPERTY OWNER AND ANY POSSESSOR ARE NOTICE OF THE ISSUE.

IF THE POSSESSOR IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IS CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THEY CAN'T MOVE THEM OFF.

IN CALIFORNIA THERE ARE CIVIL PROCESSES, EVEN FOR A SQUATTER, IF THEY'VE BEEN THERE LONG ENOUGH TO GAIN SQUATTERS RIGHTS.

AND WHAT CODE ENFORCEMENT IS SAYING HERE IS THEY CONTINUE TO WORK WITH HER.

HAD SHE GONE TO COURT AND OBTAINED A JUDGMENT TO MOVE THIS PERSON OFF THE PROPERTY, THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE EXECUTED THAT ORDER AND MOVED THEM.

BUT ULTIMATELY, IF CODE ENFORCEMENT IS HINDERED BY THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD AGAINST A PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE IT'S ALLEGED THAT THE PERSON IS NOT APPROPRIATELY THERE, THAT ALLEGATION IS USED AS A CRUTCH FOR EVERY PROPERTY THAT WE'LL RUN INTO.

AND THAT'S WHY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS WRITTEN THE LAW IN THE WAY THAT IT IS.

NOW, YOU KNOW, THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND CODE ENFORCEMENT ARE SITTING IN PLACE TRYING TO GIVE HER TIME TO REACH THAT LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE.

WHETHER THAT'S AN EVICTION OR GETTING THE PERSON TO MOVE OFF, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MULTIPLE OPTIONS.

BUT IF CODE ENFORCEMENT IS UNABLE TO ENFORCE BECAUSE A, A NON POSSESSOR HAS THE PROPERTY AND THE OWNER CONTINUES TO NOT MOVE THAT NON POSSESSOR OFF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE AT A STANDSTILL.

IT IS A COMMON OCCURRENCE FOR US IS THAT IT'S A NON PROPERTY OWNER CREATING THE VIOLATIONS.

SUPERVISOR [INAUDIBLE]. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. DO WE HAVE CAN YOU SHARE SPECIFICALLY WHAT WAS RULED IN THE 2022 HEARING? BECAUSE KIND OF WHERE I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT IS IF IN THAT HEARING WE SAID WE WOULD WAIVE THE FEES AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S JUST COST OR IF THAT WAS ONLY PERTAINED TO FINES, BUT IF WE SAID WE WOULD WAIVE IT IF IT WAS DONE IN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS DONE AND WHAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT WAS DONE.

[00:50:06]

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIMEFRAME. IF YOU CAN'T, PLEASE DON'T SPEAK FROM THE FLOOR.

LIKE I SAID, IF YOU WANT TO COME UP IN THE FRONT ROW, IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK UP, WE CAN BRING YOU BACK UP IN A SECOND. BUT I THINK IF WE COULD, IF WE KNEW WHAT WAS RULED DURING THAT HEARING SPECIFICALLY, AND THEN IF WE CAN TRY TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ACTIONS WERE TAKEN AFTER THAT, THAT WOULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND IF THIS FEELS APPROPRIATE.

YEAH. IF YOU CAN JUST GIVE ME A MOMENT. I DO HAVE THE THE ORDER HERE, THE JUDGMENT HERE.

SO TRY TO DO WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING THAT UP, CAN I.

YEAH. BECAUSE IT MIGHT, IT MIGHT HELP. SO I, JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TRESPASSER.

SO IF I LOOK OUT THERE AND SOMEBODY'S TRESPASSING ON MY PROPERTY AND MAYBE I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY, MAYBE THIS LADY DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO DOWN THERE AND TAKE CARE OF IT. I'D GO TAKE CARE OF IT.

TRY NOT TO GET IN TROUBLE. BUT I CALL THE SHERIFF BECAUSE I HAVE SOMEBODY TRESPASSING.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS HAPPENED. TRANSPIRED, BUT.

AND THE SHERIFF COMES OUT, TELLS THEM TO LEAVE OR.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND. HOW COME WE DON'T HAVE SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE THAT ALLOWS SOMEBODY.

A TRESPASSER IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LEGAL ISSUE.

SO A TRESPASSER IS SOMEBODY WHO COMES ONTO YOUR PROPERTY BUT HASN'T ESTABLISHED A LIVING CONDITION THERE.

UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW THERE ARE SQUATTERS RIGHTS LAWS WHICH PROTECT SQUATTERS WHO ARE ON PROPERTY THAT ARE NOT EVEN THEIR OWN.

AND IF THE SHERIFF DETERMINES THAT THEY ESSENTIALLY HAVE SET UP AN ABODE, AS THE LAW DESCRIBES, THAT THEY'RE LIVING THERE, THEY HAVE THE CONDITIONS OF LIVING THERE. THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME. IT CREATES SQUATTERS RIGHTS.

AND MUCH LIKE ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER ONCE A PERSON HAS ESTABLISHED RESIDENCY, THE ONLY WAY TO TAKE CARE OF THAT IS TO GO THROUGH THE CIVIL COURTS AND HAVE THEM EVICTED OFF. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S HOW CALIFORNIA LAW WORKS WITH SQUATTERS.

IS THERE ANY. SO I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH LAW, IS THERE? IS THERE ANY WAY THAT SHASTA COUNTY CAN CREATE THEIR OWN.

THAT THAT WOULDN'T BE PART OF THIS HEARING SUPERVISOR HARMON.

OKAY. OKAY. COMING BACK TO THE QUESTION. I'VE NARROWED IT DOWN.

I WILL READ IT DIRECTLY. THIS IS FROM THE HEARING OFFICER.

AND IT'S NOT THE IN ITS ENTIRETY I'M JUST SKIPPING TO THE END.

SO THE VIOLATIONS ARE EXTENSIVE AND LONGSTANDING.

THE COUNTY PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT AN UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY, AND THAT EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF JUNK AND REFUSE COULD COVER LARGE SWATHS OF THE PROPERTY. ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS CAN BE CORRECTED, AS SET FORTH IN THE LIST OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOUND IN THE NOTICE TO ABATE.

THE VAST AMOUNT OF JUNK AND REFUSE ON THE PROPERTY IS AN EYESORE THAT IS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC ROADWAY AND IS MORE LIKELY DANGEROUS TO WILDLIFE AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

ALSO, THE COUNTY TESTIFIED THAT A MINIMUM OF 25.75 HOURS HAD BEEN SPENT THUS FAR BY COUNTY COUNSEL AND CODE ENFORCEMENT TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. MISS BEARD AND MISS IRVING IRVINE TESTIFIED AS TO THE SIGNIFICANT WORK AND FUNDS USED ALREADY TO CONTINUE CLEANING UP THE JUNK AND RUBBISH ON THE PROPERTY.

INSPECTOR FUGITT ESTIMATED AS OF HIS MARCH 7, 2022 INSPECTION THAT HALF OF THE JUNK AND RUBBISH HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY. MISS IRVINE TESTIFIED THAT SINCE THE MARCH 7, 2022 INSPECTION, THE PROPERTY WAS NOW ABOUT 89% CLEANED UP. THE COUNTY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT MISS BEARD HAD BEEN PLEASANT AND VERY, VERY COOPERATIVE DURING CODE ENFORCEMENT, INSPECTIONS AND ATTEMPTS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.

MR. REDD TESTIFIED THAT HE LIVES OUT OF STATE, AND HE HAS NOT LIVED ON THE PROPERTY FOR MORE THAN 32 YEARS, AND THAT HE HAS NOT VISITED THE PROPERTY FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

HE TESTIFIED THAT KATHY GROVE LIVED AT THE PROPERTY FOR A FEW YEARS AGO WHILE TAKING CARE OF HIS MOTHER, BUT SINCE THEN HAS NOT LIVED ON THE PROPERTY.

MS. BEARD BEARS SOME CULPABILITY FOR ALLOWING THE VIOLATIONS TO CONTINUE.

HOWEVER, MR. REDD AND MRS. GROVE, AS LEGAL CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, DESPITE RESIDING AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY, ALSO SHARE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY.

THE NOTICE TO ABATE WARNED THAT FAILURE TO ABATE THE VIOLATIONS WITHIN FIVE DAYS FROM SERVICE OF THE NOTICE TO ABATE MAY RESULT IN ADMINISTRATIVE FINES UP TO $1,000 PER DAY ACCRUING FOR EACH VIOLATION. THE VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY WERE NOT ABATED, SO AS OF THE HEARING, EACH OF THE THREE VIOLATIONS WAS SUBJECT TO A POTENTIAL OF $25,300.

[00:55:06]

THE COUNTY REQUESTED 10,000 EACH FOR VIOLATION NUMBER ONE.

VIOLATION NUMBER TWO, VIOLATION NUMBER ONE WAS UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES.

VIOLATION NUMBER TWO. JUNKYARD AND VIOLATION NUMBER THREE.

DUMPING OF REFUSE TO BE IMPOSED IN LIEU OF THE MAXIMUM FINES, AND FURTHER REQUESTED THE COUNTY BE GIVEN AUTHORITY TO REDUCE THESE FINES SHOULD THE VIOLATIONS BE CORRECTED IN A REASONABLE TIME.

AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS LISTED IN SHASTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 1.12.050 A3 WHEN DETERMINING THE TOTAL FINES TO IMPOSE THE COUNTY'S REQUEST FOR TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE FINES IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 IS REASONABLE, CONSIDERING THE MAXIMUM FINES FOR ALL THREE VIOLATIONS COULD HAVE EXCEEDED $75,000, AND THAT THE VIOLATIONS CONTINUE TO EXIST ON THE PROPERTY.

ADDITIONALLY, PER THE COUNTY, IF THE PROPERTY OWNERS CORRECT ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS WITHIN TIME SPECIFIED IN THE ORDERS BELOW, THE COUNTY WILL REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE FINES TO $1,000 PER VIOLATION OR A TOTAL OF $3,000 FOR ALL THREE VIOLATIONS.

THEN WHO WROTE THAT? THIS IS THE THE HEARING OFFICER.

AND WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THAT? THIS WAS MARCH.

WHAT'S THE DATE? LET'S SEE THE DATE. IT WAS ASSIGNED DATED APRIL 21ST, 2022.

AND SO THAT IS WHAT I JUST READ, I BELIEVE WAS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FINES.

AND THEN THE COSTS THERE ARE. JUST TRY TO RECAP WHAT YOU SAID AND MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING IT CORRECTLY.

SOUNDS LIKE THE FINES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED WERE $25,300 PER.

SO ABOUT OVER $75,000 COULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED IN THE HEARING.

THE COUNTY ONLY REQUESTED $10,000 EACH FOR A TOTAL OF $30,000.

AND IN THAT IT SAID THAT IF THE VIOLATIONS WERE SOLVED OR RECTIFIED, THAT THE COUNTY COULD REDUCE THAT DOWN TO $1,000 FOR A TOTAL OF $3,000.

CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FINES AND PENALTIES IS THE $30,000 BECAUSE BASED ON THIS INFORMATION I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE CORRECTED PRIOR TO THE STIPULATED TIME.

WHICH WAS THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL NOTICE. RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT.

LET ME SEE WHAT THE IT SOUNDED LIKE IN WHAT YOU SAID, THAT IT DIDN'T DEFINE A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME.

IT JUST SAID THAT AT LEAST WHAT YOU READ, IT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS JUST THAT THE AUTHORITY COULD USE ITS DISCRETION, OR THE COUNTY COULD USE ITS DISCRETION. SO WHAT IT SAYS IS, ADDITIONALLY, PER THE COUNTY, IF THE PROPERTY OWNERS CORRECTED ALL THE VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THE ORDERS BELOW, THE COUNTY WILL REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE FINES TO $1000 PER VIOLATION OR A TOTAL OF $3000 FOR ALL VIOLATIONS.

LET ME SEE WHAT THE TIME. SO SEAN DIDN'T THE OWNER OR THE PERSON THAT SPOKE, AT LEAST ON THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO VERIFY IF THEY'RE THE OWNER. BUT DIDN'T THEY SAY THAT IT'S ALL CLEANED UP AT THIS POINT? I BELIEVE SO. THAT'S WHAT SHE HAD INDICATED. SO AND THIS IS BACK THIS ORDER.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. IF I COULD REAL QUICK. BUT IF THIS ORDER DATES BACK TO 22.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING I KNOW SUPERVISOR KELSTROM AND I WANTED IT MOVED ON NOT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, BUT NOTHING REALLY HAPPENED UNTIL COUNSEL LARMER CAME.

SO IS THERE ANY WAY FOR. I MEAN, YOU GUYS HAVEN'T BEEN BACK TO THE PROPERTY DOESN'T SOUND LIKE CORRECT, JOSH. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. SO FOR CLARIFICATION, MAY 31ST, 2022 WAS THE REQUIRED DEADLINE.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING, BASED ON WHAT I'M READING HERE IN THE, IN THE IN THE DECISION FROM THE HEARING OFFICER IS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS ATTEMPTING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. THEY FAILED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING.

AND SO, AGAIN, AS SUPERVISOR PLUMMER SUMMARIZED THAT IF THEY FAILED TO, WE GAVE THEM AN ADDITIONAL, I BELIEVE, 30 DAYS TO FINISH. AND IT FEELS LIKE WE GAVE THEM AN ADDITIONAL THREE YEARS, BECAUSE IF THE BOARD AND COUNTY COUNSEL IN 22 DIDN'T BRING THIS FORWARD AND THEY FAILED. I MEAN, IF WE WANTED OUR $30,000, THIS SHOULD HAVE COME BACK IN 22.

THIS IS MY OPINION, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER THIS IS YOUR TIME STILL. SO I'M.

GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. DO WE JUST REAL QUICK. HOLD ON.

DO WE WANT TO. COME UP TO THE MIC? DO WE HAVE RECORD OF WHEN THE COUNTY LAST VISITED THIS PROPERTY?

[01:00:08]

I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, HOW WAS THERE A TIME WHERE WE WENT BACK DURING THAT TIME PERIOD AND THERE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T KNOW IF THE CONDITIONS STILL EXIST. I MEAN, AND I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID, AND THAT'S HELPFUL.

BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T KNOW IF THOSE CONDITIONS STILL EXIST.

I AM PERSONALLY NOT CERTAIN. ONE OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ON OUR TEAM MICHELLE, JUST INFORMED ME THAT MARC PELOTE DID DO A SITE VISIT IN JUNE AFTER THE MAY DATE, AND INDICATED THAT NOT EVERYTHING WAS CLEANED UP IN JUNE OF 2022.

SO I'M GOING TO COUNSEL LARMER BEFORE I MAKE MY MOTION.

GO AHEAD. IT'S OKAY IF YOU'RE READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

I WAS JUST GOING TO LET YOU KNOW IF THEY IF THEY DON'T HAVE INFORMATION AND YOU WANT TO CONTINUE. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO. SO I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE BRING THIS BACK.

HAVE JOSH BRING THE FILES BACK. HAVE SOMEBODY FROM YOUR OFFICE GO VISIT THE PROPERTY.

AND A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. SO RIGHT THERE, WE WERE PRIMARILY TALKING ABOUT THE FINES AND PENALTIES.

THE DIRECT COST WITH SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. I BELIEVE THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY.

SO IF THE BOARD WANTS TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE DIRECT COST IN TAKING IT TO HEARING.

I'M GOING TO I'M JUST I'M GOING TO KEEP MY MOTION THE WAY IT IS. I'D LIKE TO. I'D LIKE TO GET ALL THE INFORMATION AT ONCE, BECAUSE IF THE WORK'S BEEN DONE AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, THEN THAT WOULD THAT WOULD WEIGH ON MY DECISION PERSONALLY.

SO DO YOU THINK SUPERVISOR CRYE WOULD YOU STILL.

I MEAN, BECAUSE I WOULD SAY I WOULD STILL BE IN FAVOR OF IMPOSING THE COSTS THAT WERE INCURRED UP TO THAT PROCESS AND THEN, YOU KNOW, DROP YOU, YOU CAN MAKE IT. YOU CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION IF YOU'D LIKE.

I WANT TO GET ALL THE INFORMATION ON THIS. I MEAN, BECAUSE REALLY IT I MEAN, IT'S NOT I GUESS WE CAN HAVE BOARD THE BOARD DISCUSSION.

SO I SECOND YOUR MOTION BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I REALIZE THAT EXCUSES CAN BE MADE AND PEOPLE CAN SAY, OH, IT WASN'T ME, IT WAS A SQUATTER. BUT I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE, I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS A SQUATTER.

I MEAN, SHE GOT THE SHERIFF INVOLVED. SHE GOT YOU GUYS INVOLVED.

SHE MENTIONED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE SHERIFF SAID IT WAS A CIVIL MATTER. SO OBVIOUSLY SHE DID CALL THE SHERIFF KNOWING THAT. SO I'LL SECOND YOUR MOTION.

OKAY. COUNCIL OR NOT? SUPERVISOR? COUNSEL LARMER.

ARE YOU STILL IN QUEUE? YEAH. SO I JUST WANT TO SEE IF WE CAN CLARIFY IN IN THE MOTION.

I THINK WHAT THE BOARD SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IS THE INSPECTION THAT WAS COMPLETED AFTER THE JUDGMENT.

AND IF THERE IS NO RECORD OF THAT, YOU CAN REQUEST THAT THERE BE A RE INSPECTION TODAY JUST SO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

BUT ULTIMATELY THE FOR THE TIME FRAME YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND WHAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD, IT WOULD BE THAT RE INSPECTION AFTER THE RULING.

OKAY. ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS. HOLD ON, HOLD ON.

PUBLIC IT'S CLOSED. SUPERVISOR LONG. THANK YOU, CHAIR.

SO SO MY OPINION AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE ON YOUR MOTION MOMENTARILY, BUT MY OPINION IS THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS FOLLOWING FULL PROCEDURE. AND WE HAVE TWO COMPONENTS TO THIS ASSESSMENT.

ONE IS THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR ACTUAL COUNTY COSTS FOLLOWING PROCEDURE.

AND ONE IS THE LIEN FOR THE PENALTY PHASE OF THE NONCOMPLIANCE.

SO I THINK THAT THE COUNTY FOLLOWED POLICY. AND WE GOT TO A POINT WHERE THERE WAS NONCOMPLIANCE.

AND I THINK IT'S A DANGEROUS SLOPE TO GO DOWN.

THE IDEA OF SQUATTER VERSUS TENANT, AS MR. EWING DESCRIBED, BECAUSE EVERYBODY WILL CLAIM THAT IT WAS AN UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THE RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT THEIRS.

SO I'M FEARFUL A LITTLE BIT THAT WE'RE SETTING PRECEDENT.

I'M OKAY WITH COMING BACK WHEN WE HAVE A FINAL SITE INSPECTION TO SEE WHAT THE ACTUAL COMPLIANCE WAS AND WHETHER THERE'S STILL SOME WIGGLE ROOM FOR REDUCTION OF LIENS AGAINST THE PROPERTY, BUT I WILL BE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE COUNTY'S OUT OF POCKET COST UP TO THIS POINT IN THEIR ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS, BECAUSE IT TO TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD UNDERMINE OUR SYSTEM.

THANK YOU. IS THAT A MOTION? WELL, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON YOURS FIRST, SO I'LL MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO THAT.

WE WE APPROVE THE COLLECTION OF COUNTY COSTS, AND WE.

AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE, IN MY UNDERSTANDING AND COUNSEL LARMER CORRECT ME IF I'M MISSTATING THIS, BUT THE HEARING THAT HAPPENED IN 2022 ALREADY ESSENTIALLY DECLARED THAT THOSE WERE WARRANTED TO THE COUNTY.

AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD GO ON THE BASIS OF THAT.

WHAT IS UNCERTAIN TO ME IS WHETHER THE OWNER MET THE DEMANDS OF THE RULING AT THAT TIME, EITHER.

[01:05:10]

SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE COLLECTION OF COUNTY COSTS AND THAT WE DELAY WE REVISIT THE FINES AT A LATER DATE, AFTER WE HAVE CHECKED OUR FILES TO SEE IF THERE WAS AN INSPECTION DONE, AND CONFIRMED IF THE PROPERTY IS STILL IN VIOLATION.

I WILL SECOND THAT. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG UNDER BOARD DISCUSSION.

MY THOUGHTS ARE THIS. WHEN SUPERVISOR LONG I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT.

BUT THE OTHER THING TOO IS THIS WAS STARTED IN 22 WITH A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BOARD, A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COUNTY COUNSEL, AND A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO I THINK I AGREE WITH YOU.

IT IS SETTING A PRECEDENT. AND WHAT I WANT TO SET THE PRECEDENT OF IS IF SOMEBODY IS ACTUALLY GOING TO COME IN AND WORK WITH THE COUNTY AND BE HERE AT THE HEARING, THAT HOLDS WEIGHT TO ME. MANY PEOPLE HAVEN'T EVEN SHOWED UP TODAY FOR THEIR STUFF OR SPOKEN ARTICULATELY ABOUT THEIR SITUATION.

SO I THINK THE PRECEDENT WE WOULD BE SETTING BY MOVING THIS FORWARD AND IMPOSING THOSE COSTS IS ISN'T ONE THAT I'M PERSONALLY ON BOARD WITH. WE WE WILL TAKE THAT VOTE, THOUGH, AND WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

WE'LL START TO MY LEFT WITH SUPERVISOR LONG. AND JUST TO JUST TO CLARIFY THIS THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE COST RECOVERIES AND THEN PUSH THE PENALTY CONVERSATION BACK.

MY MOTION, WHICH WE WOULD HEAR AFTER IS THAT WE PUNT THE ENTIRE THING TO GET MORE INFORMATION, BRING BACK THE FILES THAT MR. FUGITT WHO WORKED ON IT WOULD HAVE THOSE AND THEN THEY WOULD ALSO VISIT THE SITE BECAUSE I THINK IMPOSING MONEY ON ANYWAY.

OKAY, WE'LL START TO MY LEFT MISS ANGEL WILL ROLL CALL VOTE.

START WITH SUPERVISOR LONG. SUPERVISOR LONG? YES.

SUPERVISOR KELSTROM. NO. SUPERVISOR CRYE. NO.

SUPERVISOR HARMON. NO. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. YES.

FAILS TWO THREE. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

STARTING TO MY LEFT, I GUESS AS WELL, WITH SUPERVISOR LONG TO BRING THIS BACK IN ITS ENTIRETY.

SUPERVISOR LONG? NO. SUPERVISOR. KELSTROM? YES.

SUPERVISOR. CRYE. YES. SUPERVISOR. HARMON. I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE THE MOTION IS AGAIN.

WELL, I WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION ON THE ON THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE REDUCED.

RIGHT. NO, NO, WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO BRING THE ENTIRE THING BACK IN TERMS OF WHAT THE FINE WOULD BE AND WHAT THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY IS TODAY. THE FINE WAS ONLY GOING TO BE REDUCED IF THEY MET COMPLIANCE AND DID EVERYTHING ON THE PROPER TIMELINES, THEN IT WENT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS. YEAH. SO RIGHT NOW THERE ISN'T THERE HASN'T BEEN.

YEAH. RIGHT NOW THERE HASN'T BEEN A VISIT BY CODE ENFORCEMENT TO THE PROPERTY TO SEE IF IT'S BEEN CLEANED UP SINCE 22.

SO WE'RE SO WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT.

YEAH. WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK AND WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS RIGHT NOW ON FINES, CORRECT. OR ON COSTS OR ON COSTS.

OKAY. SUPERVISOR HARMON YOUR VOTE. SO SAY THAT SAY THE SO WHEN I IF I SAY NO, THEN WE'RE OR I MEAN IF I SAY YES WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK. BRING IT BACK OKAY.

YES. THANK YOU. MY UNDERSTANDING. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

YES. ALL RIGHT. PASSES FOR ONE. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU.

AND PLEASE, PLEASE SEE CODE ENFORCEMENT ABOUT NEXT STEPS.

AND, JOSH, WHEN YOU BRING THAT BACK, IF YOU HAVE RECORDS OF THEM, HER CONTACTING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR CONTACTING THE SHERIFF AND CONTACTING US AND HOW WE GOT THE SQUATTERS OFF THERE, WHETHER THEY WERE SQUAD OR NOT.

I MEAN, IF YOU CAN GET ALL THAT IN YOUR NOSE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I'LL I WILL WORK WITH OUR TEAM TO REVIEW THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE.

WE'LL VERIFY THAT AN INSPECTION WAS IN FACT COMPLETED.

WE'LL REVIEW TO SEE WHAT PHOTOS ARE AVAILABLE OF ANY ANY VIOLATIONS THAT STILL EXISTED AFTER THIS DEADLINE, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION TO PROVIDE TO TO THE BOARD.

AND WE'LL ALSO REACH OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO REQUEST AN INSPECTION TO SEE WHAT THE CURRENT STATUS IS AS WELL.

SO WE'LL TRY TO HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION TO YOU, TO THE BOARD FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

CHAIR, IF I MAY. YES, SIR. MR. EWING. SO I'VE HEARD THAT WE'VE GOT ANOTHER ONE OF THE LIEN HEARING PROCESSES COMING UP NEXT MONTH.

IS THAT ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU TO COME BACK WHEN WE.

AND WE CAN HEAR THIS IN A MONTH? FOR CLARIFICATION, IT'S NOT A LIEN HEARING.

IT'S AN ABATEMENT HEARING. SO WE HAVE AN ABATEMENT HEARING SCHEDULED FOR JULY, I BELIEVE, 30TH FOR ONE PROPERTY THAT THAT'S TO DETERMINE IF A VIOLATION EXISTS AND SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE ALREADY YOU KNOW,

[01:10:07]

BUT WE GIVE THEM PLENTY OF DUE PROCESS TO, TO SQUARE UP.

SO THE ANSWER IS NO. WE DON'T HAVE A LIEN OR ASSESSMENT HEARING SCHEDULED IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.

ALL RIGHT. OUR NINTH OUR NINTH PROPERTY ADDRESS AND I APOLOGIZE.

THERE WAS SOME TIME FRAMES I WANT THE BOARD TO BE AWARE OF REGARDING THIS DISCUSSION THAT BRYCE JUST SHARED WITH ME.

OKAY. SO BRYCE RITCHIE, SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR, THEY'VE ALREADY VOTED TO CONTINUE THE ITEMS. YEAH. AND THAT'S FINE. I JUST WANT THE BOARD TO BE AWARE.

WE'LL LIKELY TRY AND COME BACK ON THE 29TH, BECAUSE THE DEADLINE TO GET THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON THE TAX BILL IS AUGUST 10TH, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER MEETING BETWEEN THOSE TWO DATES.

THANK YOU. SO, MA'AM, JUST TO REITERATE, CONNECT WITH THAT GENTLEMAN RIGHT THERE.

ALL RIGHT. 9TH PROPERTY, MR. EWING. OKAY. APN 094620005.

THAT THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 7565 SPARKY LOHR LANE IN SHINGLETOWN.

SPARKY LOHR. I BELIEVE SO. OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL RIGHT. SPARKY LOHR IS THAT L O R E. L O H R.

L O H R SPARKY LOHR. THAT'S A GREAT. THAT'S A GREAT STREET NAME.

IT WAS NAMED AFTER THE OWNER'S DOG. OWNER'S DOG.

THE OWNER'S DOG. FANTASTIC. THEIR LAST NAME WAS LOHR, AND THE DOG'S NAME WAS SPARKY. IF YOU COULD HOLD ON ONE SECOND. HEY, MA'AM. JOSH, CAN YOU TAKE THAT OUT THERE, PLEASE? I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE BOARD FOR HAVING ME HERE TO SPEAK TODAY.

I AM A TENANT AT SAID PROPERTY AND NOT THE OWNER.

AND I HAVE THREE POINTS IN WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU TODAY CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENTS AND FINES AND FEES.

AFTER [INAUDIBLE] THEY ARE, I'LL MAKE MY STATEMENTS. AND IF ANY QUESTIONS OR INQUIRY IS REQUIRED, I'LL GIVE FURTHER EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF THOSE STATEMENTS.

THE FIRST ONE IS TO ASK FOR A DISMISSAL OF FINES, LICENSES OR LIENS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COSTS AND THE COST OF ABATEMENT.

FAILING TO REACH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A REDUCTION AND GIVE THE STATEMENTS AND REASONS FOR SUCH AND FINALLY, IF NEEDED, TO PRESENT PROPERTY FOR EXEMPTION OR TO BE EXCUSED FROM FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

I WILL GO AHEAD AND JUST READ THE BASIC STATEMENTS. AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT EITHER OF THEM, I WILL GIVE YOU MORE EXPLANATION AND PROOF. FAILURE TO THE REASON WHY I BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE A CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL IS AS FOLLOWS.

THAT THE FAILURE TO. THERE WAS A FAILURE TO INFORM THE OWNER AND RESIDENTS IN A JUDICIAL AND TIMELY MANNER.

THERE WAS A BREACH OF DUE PROCESS. WE WERE NOT GIVEN THE RIGHT OR THE OPPORTUNITY.

WE WERE ACTUALLY BLOCKED THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT OUR SIDE OF IT.

WE WE WERE NOT ADMITTED ACCESS TO THE HEARING DUE TO INCORRECT NOTIFICATIONS AND WAS IMPEDED IN OUR ATTEMPTS FOR APPEALS AND IMPEDED OUR ATTEMPT TO HAVE IT REVIEWED BY A COURT OF LAW.

THERE WERE SEVERAL FALSE MISREPRESENTATIONS, MISREPRESENTED AND OMITTED FACTS GIVEN IN THE REPORT BY MARC.

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE HIS LAST NAME, BUT COULD YOU HELP? I BELIEVE IT'S BALU. PELOTE. HELLO. THAT THERE WERE ALSO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN REGARDS TO COVID 19 AND THAT THIS OCCURRED IN APRIL OF 2022, WHEN THINGS WERE STARTING TO OPEN UP.

AND IT HAD AN EFFECT UPON THE SITUATION, BUT IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED.

OWNER AND TENANTS WERE NOT CONSENT WERE NOT SENT THE COMPLETE REPORT PRIOR TO HEARING THERE WAS IMPROVEMENT AND WORK BEING DONE AT THAT TIME. ADDRESS WAS ALSO MISSTATED AS BEING ON A PUBLIC EASEMENT WHEN IT WAS ON A PRIVATE ROAD.

AND I FEEL THAT THE COUNTY AT THAT TIME ACTED IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEPARTMENT'S STATEMENTS OF VALUES, ITS MISSION STATEMENTS AND ITS GOALS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE THAT IT HAS BEEN ABATED.

THE PROPERTY WAS CLEANED UP BY THE COST OF THE COUNTY OR THROUGH THE COUNTY AND COUNTY ACTIONS IN JUNE OF 2022.

OKAY. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM, YOU'RE UP AND IN QUEUE.

YEAH. I MEAN, THIS STARTED IN 2019. IT LOOKS LIKE WAS THE FIRST.

CORRECT. NOTICE. OKAY. AND THEN YEAH, THE DEMAND LETTER WAS MAILED ON THE 25TH OF MAY.

WHAT'S PROPERTY LOOK LIKE NOW? IT IS COMPLETELY IT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY CLEANED UP AS OF JUNE OF 2022.

OKAY. BUT ALSO DURING THAT TIME OF CLEANUP, THERE WAS OF COURSE, COVID.

[01:15:01]

OKAY. BUT THE JUDGMENT DATE WAS ON MAY OF 2022.

RIGHT, RIGHT. AND THEN YOU SAID IT WAS CLEANED UP BY JUNE OF 2022.

YES. THEY IMMEDIATELY UPON MAKING THE JUDGMENT, STARTED THE ABATEMENT PROCESS AND CAME IN AND CLEANED UP THE PROPERTY THE VERY FOLLOWING MONTH. OKAY. BUT THEN THEY SENT YOU THE LETTER ON THE 25TH.

SO APPARENTLY THEY DON'T FEEL THAT IT WAS CLEANED UP. THE OWNER OF SAID PROPERTY LIVES IN ARIZONA, WHICH MARC WAS VERY AWARE OF AND HAD HER CURRENT ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER.

WE AS TENANTS LIVED THERE. WE WERE NEVER GIVEN ANY PAPERWORK.

EVERYTHING WE FOUND OUT, WE HAD TO WAIT UNTIL IT WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY TO ATTEND THE HEARING WE NEEDED TO HAVE TEN DAYS PRIOR TO GET AHOLD OF THEM PRIOR TO BEING ABLE TO ATTEND, BECAUSE IT WAS BY VIDEO CONFERENCE.

WE WERE NOT EVEN INFORMED OF THE HEARING UNTIL FIVE DAYS BEFOREHAND.

I CALLED MARC AS SOON AS I SAW THE NOTICE, WHICH WAS, I BELIEVE, OF THURSDAY EVENING.

HE HAD ALREADY LEFT THE OFFICE. I CALLED HIM THREE TIMES ON FRIDAY.

I LEFT HIM AGAIN A MESSAGE ON SUNDAY EVENING AND ON MONDAY MORNING TO FIND OUT HOW IT IS THAT WE COULD STILL ATTEND THE HEARING, ALTHOUGH WE ONLY HAD FIVE DAYS INSTEAD OF THE TEN REQUIRED.

MARC DID NOT RETURN ANY OF MY PHONE CALLS UNTIL AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER.

THE OWNER ATTEMPTED TO REACH MARC, AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE HAD HER ADDRESS AND HER PHONE NUMBER IF HE NEEDED TO REACH HER.

BUT YET ALL OF THE INFORMATION, ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS WERE SENT TO THE ADDRESS UNDER HER NAME THAT WE RESIDED IN, NOT TO HER ADDRESS WHERE SHE RESIDED IN, AND SHE TRIED SEVERAL TIMES FOR THIS TIME TO CALL MARC.

AND MARC DID NOT RETURN ANY OF HER CALLS UNTIL THE DAY AFTER THE TIME OUT FOR APPEAL.

OKAY. WHO DO YOU PAY RENT TO? WE PAY RENT TO JANE MESSER, AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S IN ARIZONA.

THAT IS, SHE IS IN ARIZONA. EVEN THE INFORMATION ABOUT TODAY'S HEARING WAS NOT SENT TO JANE IN ARIZONA, BUT WAS SENT TO US UNDER JANE'S NAME AT THE ADDRESS IN WHICH WE RESIDE.

OKAY, SO THE COUNTY STILL HAS HER AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? YEAH. SHE IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. CORRECT. SO DID SHE GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO OPEN HER MAIL? YES SHE DID. OKAY. AND IT LOOKS LIKE SHE DIDN'T SHOW UP AT THE HEARING.

BEING IN ARIZONA AND THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T GET THIS UNTIL THE 28TH, WHICH WAS JUST LESS THAN A MONTH AGO, SHE DID NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO BE HERE TODAY. AND IT SAT THERE FOR A WHILE BEFORE WE CALLED HER, ASK HER WHAT WE SHOULD DO. SHE ALSO WAS NOT AT THE ABATEMENT HEARING IN 2022. ONCE AGAIN, ALL INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEARING WAS SENT UNDER HER NAME TO OUR PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT US TO OPEN AND WAS NOT EVER INFORMED TO US DIRECTLY OTHER THAN WHEN IT WAS POSTED, WHICH WAS A TOO SHORT OF NOTICE FOR US TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING. OKAY, WELL, AND THESE FINES ARE GOING TO BE IMPOSED ON HER.

YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, RIGHT? YES, I DO, BUT I DO FEEL THAT THE ACTIONS TAKEN VIOLATED OUR FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO REPRESENT OUR SIDE. WE HAD FACTS THAT WOULD HAVE, IN MY OPINION, MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE HEARING.

WELL, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR SIX YEARS, SO. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

OKAY. AND WHEN WE MOVED IN THAT THE PROBLEM ALREADY EXISTED UPON OUR PRIOR TO US MOVING IN, AND WE HAVE WORKED GREATLY TO TRY BEFORE THE COUNTY CAME IN AND FINISHED IT OFF TO HELP IMPROVE THE SITUATION.

AND IT WAS IMPROVED CONSIDERABLY CONSIDERING WHAT WAS LEFT THERE FOR US.

WELL, I'D SAY, YOU KNOW, THREE YEARS SINCE IT STARTED IN 2019 AND YOUR ABATEMENT HEARING IS IN 2022.

SO YOU HAD THREE YEARS THERE, RIGHT? BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO HAVE ANY REPRESENTATION FOR.

ABATEMENT HEARING. ALSO TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

THE PROPERTY IS COMPLETELY CLEAR THAT MY THING IS, I AM HERE TO ARGUE THAT THE ASSESSMENTS AND COST OF ABATEMENT BE RECONSIDERED DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ANY WE DID NOT HAVE DUE PROCESS.

WE DID NOT HAVE CLEAR NOTIFICATION. OKAY. COUNSEL LARMER.

SO, BECAUSE THESE THINGS CAN GET COMPLICATED, SOMETIMES I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE LIENS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED HERE TODAY ARE ONLY AGAINST THE OWNERS BECAUSE THEY CAN ONLY BE AGAINST THE OWNER.

I KNOW, I KNOW THAT THE LIENS ARE NOT AGAINST ME.

HOLD ON, HOLD ON. SO THAT THE TENANTS HAVE TO BE NOTICED OF THE PROCESS AS IT MOVES ALONG.

BUT ONCE THAT PROCESS IS COMPLETED AND THE FINES AND FEES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND WE'RE MOVING FOR A LIEN THAT IS ONLY AGAINST THE OWNER.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD. ANYTHING ELSE? THAT IF THE CAUSE FOR DISMISS IS NOT GRANTED, I WOULD LIKE TO ARGUE FOR A REDUCTION OF COSTS FOR HER ON HER BEHALF BECAUSE SHE CANNOT BE HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I THINK YOU CAN GO AND TAKE A SEAT, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK FOR MORE DISCUSSION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I HAVE I HAVE A COUPLE.

I MEAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S JUST REALLY FRUSTRATING TO ME IS THAT, AGAIN, AND I KNOW AND I DIDN'T REALLY REALIZE, MR. EWING, I KNOW WE'VE HAD COUNSEL LARMER, WE'VE HAD A TON OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SHERIFF,

[01:20:02]

IT IS SUCH AN ABOMINATION OF PEOPLE'S JOBS THAT THIS WASN'T HANDLED A LONG TIME AGO.

IT JUST INFURIATES ME. I'M GUESSING, MR. EWING, WE HAVEN'T BEEN OUT TO HER PROPERTY IN THREE YEARS.

I DON'T HAVE THAT, I DON'T KNOW. BUT. HAS SUPERVISOR KELSTROM ATTENDED A PANCAKE BREAKFAST ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THERE.

CLOSER THERE. BUT, YEAH, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE COUNTY SPENT $45,814 JUST TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY.

NO, I MEAN, I ABSOLUTELY. SO THIS IS A DISCUSSION FOR THE FIVE OF US.

I'M NOT MAKING A MOTION OUT OF THIS. I MEAN, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME COST RECOVERY FOR SURE.

WHAT THAT AMOUNT IS. I MEAN, BECAUSE ONE OF MY THINGS WITH THIS AS WELL IS IF IT'S BEEN CLEANED UP AND IT SAT FOR THREE YEARS YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM, IT'S YOUR DISTRICT.

DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT. SUPERVISOR HARMON'S IN QUEUE? OH, SORRY. MY QUESTION IS MICROPHONE. MY QUESTION IS, IS IT A MESS AGAIN? IS IT CLEANED UP AGAIN? I'LL HAVE TO GO UP THERE AND LOOK.

I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

YEAH. I THINK AT LEAST THE WAY I'M THINKING ABOUT THESE SITUATIONS IS IF THERE'S A RULING, WHICH WE KNOW IN THIS CASE HAPPEN IN MAY OF 2022, AND AT THAT RULING, IT IMPOSED THE FINES, THEN, EVEN IF IT'S CLEANED UP AFTERWARDS, UNLESS IN THE RULING, AS IN THE PREVIOUS SCENARIO THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED.

WE SAID THAT WE WOULD CHANGE THE FINES AS A RESULT OF THEM CLEANING UP POST RULING.

TO ME, I DON'T THINK IT REALLY IS MATERIAL WHETHER OR NOT IT'S BEEN CLEANED UP AFTERWARDS, BECAUSE THE FINES AND THE COSTS ARE FOR WHAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO THE RULING.

THAT'S THE WAY I'M UNDERSTANDING IT. BUT THIS IS THE ARGUMENT I WOULD MAKE.

RIGHT. IS WE'RE TALKING I MEAN, WE'RE THE FIVE OF US ARE MAKING A DECISION OFF PEOPLE WE DIDN'T HIRE, WE DIDN'T OVERSEE. WE HAD NO STEP IN THE PROCESS.

SO I DON'T LIKE PERSONALLY TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S ACTIONS.

I MEAN, THE CEO IS DIFFERENT, THE COUNTY COUNSEL IS DIFFERENT.

CODE ENFORCEMENT AND OR THE LEADERSHIP IS DIFFERENT.

SO TO ME, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN WE'VE ALL SEEN HOW PAST DEPARTMENTS OR PAST BOARDS OR PAST COUNTY COUNSELS RULED AND DID THINGS AND IT WASN'T REALLY FOR THE PEOPLE.

SO WHO IS WHO IS THE WHO ACTUALLY MAKES THE DECISION IN THESE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS? IT IS A HEARING OFFICER. THE HEARING OFFICERS ASSOCIATION THAT IS CONTRACTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO, TO OVERSEE THESE ABATEMENT CASES. WITH INFORMATION PROVIDED BY SAID INDIVIDUALS.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THAT'S WHY THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED IN 22 OR AT THE VERY LATEST.

WELL, I AGREE THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED PREVIOUSLY, BUT IF WE TAKE THAT REASONING, THEN WE WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO BASE ANY OF THESE DECISIONS OFF.

WELL, AND THAT'S THE THING IS, PEOPLE ACTUALLY WHEN PEOPLE SHOW UP, THAT'S I MEAN, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD YOU KNOW, WHAT. I THINK HER ARGUMENT WAS NOT THAT THE FINES WERE UNDUE NECESSARILY, JUST THAT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO PROPERLY REPRESENT THEMSELVES, WHICH I IMAGINE WE FOLLOWED, YOU KNOW, COUNTY POLICY IN TERMS OF SENDING IT TO THE ADDRESS ON FILE.

DO YOU WANT TO MAKE? DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? OF WHAT THOSE FINE SHOULD BE I MEAN, I DON'T.

WHETHER WE GO AT THE 48 OR WE REDUCE THOSE A LITTLE BIT AND THAT IS.

OBVIOUSLY IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS RIGHT.

IT WAS 48 IS I THINK WHAT WE PAID TO CLEAN IT.

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION $48,808.81 IS THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO COVER DIRECT COSTS, COSTS THAT THE COUNTY SPENT THEN FOR THE FINES AND PENALTIES BY LIEN, IT'S $14,000.

SO, I MEAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REDUCE THAT TO $40,000 AS AN EVEN NUMBER.

GIVE THEM SOME BENEFIT FOR COMING IN 40 TOTAL OR 40 FOR THE.

40 TOTAL FOR THE THE ADMIN CODE ENFORCEMENT COSTS AND THEN RECOVERING THOSE FEES.

SO BECAUSE YOU HAVE 68 OR $62,000 COST TOTAL, IT'S 48,14 AND 62.

I WAS LOOKING AT THE 48 EIGHT. FINES 14 RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.

THE 14 IS FINES. YEAH, MAN. OKAY. $48,000. DID WE CLEAN THE PROPERTY UP OURSELVES OR.

I MEAN, THAT'S A WE DID. WE HAVE A CONTRACTOR, AND SO THAT'S PREVAILING WAGE.

YEAH. NO, I GET IT. WE PREFER TO HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS CLEAN IT UP.

IT IS COSTLY FOR THE COUNTY. WE DO NOT WANT TO GO OUT THERE AND CLEAN UP PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

[01:25:03]

SO THAT JUST MEANS THAT THE COUNTY CLEANED IT UP. THE COUNTY DID. OKAY.

SO YEAH, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, WITH, YOU KNOW, OUT OF STATE OWNERS.

I MEAN, THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES UP IN THAT AREA THAT WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES PEOPLE HAVE BOUGHT THEM FOR INVESTMENT. SOMETIMES IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS, THIS LADY MOVED, YOU KNOW, USED TO OWN IT AND MOVED. BUT I HAVE A HARD TIME BECAUSE A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES WE HAVE.

BUT WAS IT SADDLE LOOP OR WHATEVER IS WAS DOWN IN HAPPY VALLEY.

I MEAN, IT'S LIKE YOU GET THESE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE OUT OF STATE, AND THEN YOU GET SQUATTERS, YOU GET ALL THESE SORTS OF PROBLEMS ON THEM. AND IS THERE A MOTION IN THERE SUPERVISOR KELSTROM. YEAH. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO. WELL, DID YOU MAKE A MOTION FOR THE 40? WELL, I MADE A MOTION ON THAT, BUT I DIDN'T. SUPERVISOR LONG REMINDED ME THAT THERE WAS THE PENALTIES IN THERE AS WELL, AND I WAS LOOKING AT JUST THE COST RECOVERY. SO THE WHERE'S THAT? BECAUSE I'M SEEING ON THE SLIDE THAT I'M ON, WHICH IS I SEE THE COST AT 48 EIGHT.

AND THEN WHERE IS THE, WHERE DOES IT COME UP WITH THE 60 SOMETHING.

14,000, 14,000 FINES. SO SEEING AS HOW WE CLEAN THE PROPERTY UP, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS IS.

WELL, CAN I WEIGH IN WITH A COMMENT OR WHERE DO YOU.

OH I'M SORRY, SUPERVISOR LONG. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER'S IN QUEUE, THEN SUPERVISOR LONG.

WELL, I'LL SECOND THE MOTION FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

OKAY. SUPERVISOR LONG. OKAY. THIS FEELS. THIS FEELS A LITTLE BIT LIKE WE'RE ON THE GAME SHOW.

LET'S MAKE A DEAL. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE PROPER PROCESS TO GO THROUGH HERE.

I THINK WE HAVE OUR COUNTY POLICIES IN EFFECT.

WE HAVE HEARINGS, WE HAVE HEARING OFFICERS. AND WHILE SOME OF THE PLAYERS HAVE TURNED OVER EVERYBODY, IT SOUNDS LIKE AND WHILE WE HAVE HAD EXTENUATING DELAYS, I DON'T THINK THAT CHANGES THE FACT THAT WE HAD A PROCESS TO ASSESS THE PENALTIES BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CLEANED UP IN A TIMELY MANNER AND NEGOTIATED AT THAT TIME.

SO I'M GOING TO BE ALONG THE LINES OF FAVORING ENFORCEMENT AS IT IS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

IS THAT WHAT YOUR MOTION WAS? SO I AND DID WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT WITH PLUMMER.

SO I'M GOING TO BE GOOD WITH THAT. OKAY. YEAH.

THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. PASSES FIVE ZERO. NO. THAT THAT ONE'S BEEN CLOSED.

IF YOU'D LIKE, YOU CAN SPEAK TO MR. FUGITT RIGHT THERE.

ALL RIGHT. 10TH PROPERTY, MR. EWING. OKAY. APN 064420040.

PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 127725 NEWTOWN ROAD, REDDING.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NEWTOWN ROAD.

IS THERE ANYBODY IN ATTENDANCE? YES. IS THAT 12725.

NEWTOWN. YES. YES. COME ON UP. THIS IS THREE IN A ROW.

WELCOME, SIR. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ART KOON, AND I OWN THIS PROPERTY.

I'VE BEEN WORKING ON A LONG TIME. I KNOW SOME OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT.

I'M KIND OF A SCREW UP, OKAY? JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

BUT THIS MAN WAS A PRETTY GOOD GUY TO WORK WITH.

START OUT WITH MARC PELOTE. EVERYBODY IN TOWN WILL TELL YOU.

EVERY TIME HE COMES OUT, HE MESSES WITH YOU, HE SCREWS WITH YOUR LIFE, OKAY? AND HE DID MINE. OKAY. AND I AGREED WITH THIS MAN TO DO THINGS ON MY PROPERTY.

AND AS SOON AS I DID, THEY STILL CAME IN. AND THEY DID THINGS THEY SAID THEY WOULDN'T DO.

WE EVEN WROTE CONTRACTS IN THEIR PLACE AND THEY CHANGED IT.

THEY WERE PRETTY IMPRESSED THAT THEY CAME OUT, TOLD ME IT WAS GOING TO TAKE SEVEN DAYS TO CLEAN MY PROPERTY, AND THEY DID IT IN 12 HOURS BECAUSE I DID MOST OF THE WORK MYSELF.

AND. I AGREED TO THIS IF THEY WOULD GIVE ME MY BECAUSE I PUT A MOBILE HOME IN MY PROPERTY, I WAS SUPPOSED TO PUT A RAMADA UP, AND THEY WERE GOING TO GIVE ME MY GRADING PERMIT BACK THE NEXT DAY AFTER THEY CAME TO MY PROPERTY AND THEY DID ALL THAT THEY, I WALKED IN THE NEXT MORNING TO PAY THE MONEY TO GET MY PERMITS.

BECAUSE I NEEDED AN EXTENSION. THEY SAID, NO, WE'RE NOT DOING IT NO MORE.

WHEN WAS THIS AND WHO WAS THAT? THIS WAS LIKE THIS MAN RIGHT HERE.

AND DON'T GET ME WRONG. I TALKED TO THEM ALL, MARC PELOTE, I JUST SAID, YOU CAN'T COME TO MY PROPERTY.

BECAUSE MARC PELOTE WILL COME INTO YOUR PROPERTY AND HE'LL SAY, YOU GOT THIS VIOLATION.

[01:30:02]

HE'LL LOOK AROUND YOUR WHOLE PROPERTY AND HE'LL SAY, OKAY, I DON'T LIKE THAT.

I DON'T LIKE THIS. I DON'T LIKE THAT. AND GUESS WHAT? YOU GOT WAY MORE VIOLATIONS. AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS TOWN, BUT AND I DON'T WANT TO POINT FINGERS AT EVERYBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY.

AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT I'M THE CLEANEST PERSON IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD.

BUT I'VE BEEN WORKING ON MY PROPERTY FOR TEN YEARS.

DON'T GET ME WRONG, THEY TOLD ME IT WAS GOING TO TAKE. AND DON'T GET WRONG.

I, I QUIT MY JOB A MONTH AGO JUST SO BECAUSE OF COURSE I GET STUFF AND I SHOULDN'T AND I GOT TO CLEAN MY PROPERTY UP AGAIN. NOT THAT IT'S TERRIBLE, BUT IT'S TERRIBLE COMPARED TO WHAT PEOPLE WANT IN.

I BUILT SIX FOOT FENCES. ANYTHING I'VE EVER MADE IN THIS WORLD, I PUT INTO MY PROPERTY.

I HOPE TO LEAVE SOMETHING TO MY CHILD. I HAD A NICE 16 BY 16 ROOM I DIDN'T BUILD.

OKAY. IF CAN YOU CAN YOU TURN THE MIC BACK ON? COULD YOU, COULD YOU WRAP UP ON THIS PARTICULAR.

I'LL WRAP UP TO SAY. YEAH. THEY TOLD ME THAT CERTAIN BUILDINGS WERE GOING TO STAY WHEN THEY GOT THERE.

SORRY, ART. WE CHANGED OUR MIND. I CAN'T DO NOTHING WHEN THEY'RE DOING IT, OKAY? CERTAIN THINGS THEY WEREN'T GOING TO TAKE, THEY TOOK. I HAD A QUONSET HUT IN THE BACKYARD.

$40,000. THEY LOADED IT WITH SCRAP AND HAULED IT TO THE SHORTS.

I HAD A 16 BY 16 ROOM. THEY SAID IT WAS PERMITTED.

I WENT IN AND IT WAS PERMITTED ON MY PAPERWORK.

THEY SAID NOPE. WE CHANGED OUR MIND. ALL RIGHT.

SO THANK YOU. I BET I CAN'T. I MEAN, EVEN IF WE GOT TO DO ANOTHER HEARING.

MARC PELOTE I WANTED TO GO TO A HEARING. THREE YEARS AGO, WHEN WE DID THIS.

MARC PELOTE COME TO MY HOME AND SAYS THAT HEARING WAS CANCELED.

AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO. WELL GUESS WHAT? IT WASN'T CANCELED.

I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO SAY MARC PELOTE'S A SNAKE, BUT HE IS A SNAKE.

BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON.

IF YOU COULD GO AND TAKE A SEAT IN THE FRONT ROW IN CASE WE HAVE A QUESTION. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM. WELL, I THINK HE JUST ANSWERED MY QUESTION BECAUSE IT SAYS HERE THAT THE OWNER DID NOT SHOW UP AT THE ABATEMAN HEARING, SIR. I DIDN'T, BUT HE TOLD ME I DIDN'T HAVE TO OR I WOULD HAVE SHOWED UP.

AND AND WE WENT IN THERE AND CLEANED THE PROPERTY.

THE COUNTY WENT AND CLEANED THE PROPERTY. YES. AND DON'T GET WRONG, I WAS THERE. AND I'M NOT SAYING THEY DID A GOOD JOB.

AND I KNOW YOU GUYS DID A DEAL WHEN IT WAS CLEANED UP.

SO AT THAT TIME I SHOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD AND I WAS GOOD WITH THESE GUYS.

BUT THE SUCKY PART IS THAT THEY TOOK MY THREE PERMITS AWAY, WHICH WAS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.

OKAY, I CAN'T EVEN GET MY MOBILE PERMITTED NOW BECAUSE THEY SAID, HEY AND TELL YOU WHAT THEY WANTED.

OKAY, TO BE EXACT. AND THIS IS THE PART THAT EVERYBODY'S UPSET ABOUT IS MY PROPERTY WAS FLOOD ZONE.

OKAY. SO YOU COULDN'T HARDLY DO ANYTHING WITH IT.

AND OF COURSE, I GOT A DUMP TRAILER AND I GOT, YOU KNOW, GUY DOWN THE STREET TOLD ME I COULD HAVE SOME DIRT.

SO I BROUGHT DIRT IN AND I FILLED IN MY PROPERTY.

OKAY, WELL, THE NEXT DAY WHEN I WENT IN THERE.

ALL RIGHT. SO. SO WE GOT TO REALLY STICK TO. YEAH.

SO, SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO TAKE A SEAT IN THE FRONT ROW.

SURE. SO AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK FOR BOARD DISCUSSION. HOW DO I GET.

SIR. IF YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

CAN I COME TOMORROW TO THE HEARING? YOU CAN. AGAIN.

YOU CAN COME TO ANY BOARD MEETING YOU'D LIKE. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE NOT SO GOING. I DID HAVE A QUESTION, MR. EWING. WELL, I THINK I. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. GO AHEAD AND ASK YOURS FIRST.

RIGHT. YEAH. MR. EWING, I WAS WONDERING WHAT DRIVES THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE AND PENALTY SEEING THIS ONE IS, YOU KNOW, QUITE HIGH. I'M CURIOUS KIND OF WHAT LEADS TO THAT AMOUNT COMING OUT OF THE HEARING.

WELL, I WASN'T A PART OF THAT HEARING, SO I CAN'T SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THIS ONE.

BUT IN GENERAL ACTUALLY LET ME OFTENTIMES LET ME READ THIS AND SEE IF THIS COVERS IT. SO THIS IS JUST A PORTION OUT OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S ORDER IS PER SHASTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 1.12.050B1, THE HEARING OFFICER IS GIVEN THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE THE IMPOSITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINES OR PENALTIES. SECTION 1.12.050 A3 OF THE SHASTA COUNTY CODE LISTS THE FOLLOWING

[01:35:05]

A THE NATURE, CIRCUMSTANCE, EXTENT, AND GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATION.

B WHETHER THE VIOLATION IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO RESTORATION OR OTHER REMEDIAL MEASURES.

C THE SENSITIVITY OF THE RESOURCES AFFECTED BY THE VIOLATION.

D THE COST TO THE COUNTY OF BRINGING THE ACTION AND E WITH RESPECT TO THE VIOLATOR.

ANY VOLUNTARY RESTORATION OR REMEDIAL MEASURES UNDERTAKEN, ANY PRIOR HISTORY OF VIOLATIONS, THE DEGREE OF CULPABILITY, ECONOMIC PROFITS, IF ANY, RESULTING FROM OR EXPECTED TO RESULT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE VIOLATION AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE. THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. I'M SORRY, I WAS SORRY. GO, GO. GO AHEAD.

GO AHEAD. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, AS DOCUMENTED HERE.

SECOND. SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND BY SUPERVISOR HARMON.

I'M JUST READING ONE MORE THING. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I GUESS SEAN I'M STILL A LITTLE A LITTLE UNCLEAR.

YEAH, UNCLEAR OF THAT. BUT HOW DID. WHAT DID YOU ASK AGAIN, MATT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED IS UNPROCESSED, AND THE ANSWER HE GAVE WAS THE SAME.

I WAS ASKING WHAT FACTORS DETERMINE THE SIZE OF THE FINE.

YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ALL RIGHT. FIVE ZERO.

OKAY. THE THE NEXT APN IS 205230005. THAT'S 46200 SADDLE TRAIL IN ANDERSON.

OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY WITH THAT ADDRESS.

PARCEL NUMBER ENDING IN 005. SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YEAH. THIS IS ANOTHER OUT OF TOWN OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

I WAS DOWN THERE WHEN WE WERE DOING SOME OF THE CLEANUP, AND THERE WAS SQUATTERS ALL OVER AND DOGS GOING AFTER WILDLIFE.

I MEAN, IT WAS IT WAS A MESS. IT'S ALL CLEANED UP NOW.

YEAH. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. OKAY. THE NEXT APN IS 065190013. ITS PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 11308 IRON MOUNTAIN ROAD. AND IT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE PROPERTIES WE CLEANED UP SHOWN IN THE PRESENTATION UNDER R-1.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS ON PROPERTY 11308, SIR. YES, SIR. COME ON UP. HOW ARE YOU GUYS DOING TODAY? OKAY. GOOD. SO THIS PROPERTY WAS FROM THE CAR FIRE.

I GOT TWO SITUATIONS ON ADDRESS WITH [INAUDIBLE].

I'M NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT. I'M NOT USED TO DOING THIS. ONE IS THE FINES AND FEES.

IF I'M ASKING FOR THEM TO ALL BE DROPPED, AND THEN THE PAYMENTS, LIKE THE MONEY THAT THEY'RE OUT OF POCKET FOR CLEANING IT UP.

I'M OKAY WITH PAYING THAT. AS LONG AS I CAN MAKE PAYMENTS ON IT SO THAT I CAN AFFORD TO TO PAY IT OFF.

MY DAD LOST THE HOUSE TO THE CAR FIRE, AND A FEW YEARS AFTER THAT, MY STEPMOM WHO ACTUALLY OWNED IT, SHE COULDN'T KEEP UP WITH IT. SO I BOUGHT IT FROM HER THROUGH, LIKE, A PRIVATE PARTY.

I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE SITUATION AT THE TIME WHEN I BOUGHT IT, BECAUSE IT WASN'T THROUGH AN INSTITUTION ABOUT ALL THE VIOLATIONS.

ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF LATER. JONATHAN, WE HAD A HEARING.

THERE WAS $180,000 WORTH OF VIOLATIONS AND APPROXIMATELY $50,000 TO CLEAN IT.

SO I DID THE BEST I COULD, I CLEANED UP. I MEAN, IT WAS THE PICTURES WERE GREAT, BUT THAT WAS AFTER I CLEANED IT UP. THERE WAS 11 VEHICLES, NINE TRAILERS, 70 TIRES, DOGS. IT WAS BAD. I WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, CALLED THE SHERIFF'S A COUPLE TIMES.

THEY SAID, I CAN'T DO NOTHING. THEY'RE CONSIDERED SQUATTERS AT THIS POINT. SO I HIRED A LAWYER, PAID $3,000, EVICTED MY FATHER, MY BROTHER, MY SISTER, AND ABOUT FOUR TENANTS THAT WERE JUST SQUATTING, ALL DRUGGED OUT OUT THERE, SPENT PROBABLY ABOUT 20 TO $30,000 CLEANING THE PROPERTY UP.

DIDN'T MAKE THE DATE FOR THE HEARING FOR THE ABATEMENT.

THEY DIDN'T COME OUT AND ABATE AT THAT TIME. IT WAS AUGUST 18TH.

I THOUGHT, OKAY, AUGUST 18TH OF WHAT WAS 2023 OR 4? I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY. IT WAS 24. YEAH. SO I OWNED IT FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF SINCE THEN.

[01:40:01]

ANYWAY, THEY DIDN'T ABATE WHEN THEY SAID THEY WERE GONNA.

I CLEANED UP AS MUCH AS I COULD UP TO THAT POINT, SO I THOUGHT, OKAY, I EVICTED EVERYBODY.

I GOT THE PEOPLE OFF THE PROPERTY, I GOT THE ANIMALS OFF THE PROPERTY. MAYBE THEY'RE GIVING ME MORE TIME TO CLEAN IT UP AND I WORK OUT OF TOWN. I HAVE FIVE KIDS.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY TO DO IT EVERY DAY, SO I JUST SLOWLY PECKED AT IT.

A LOT OF THE TENANTS OUT THERE DECIDED, OR THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT LIVE OUT THERE DECIDED THAT'S THEIR NEW DUMPING GROUND.

SO THE MORE I DUMPED, THE MORE THAT GOT DUMPED ON THE PROPERTY AND IT JUST BECAME DUMP LOAD AFTER DUMP LOAD, I JUST KEPT DUMPING STUFF. FINALLY, JENNIFER CONTACTED ME, SAID I HAD ANOTHER DATE TO GET IT CLEANED UP BY AND IF NOT THEY ARE DEFINITELY ABATING IT THIS TIME. I SPENT A LOT OF MONEY CLEANED UP AT THAT POINT.

THE FIRST PICTURES THEY TOOK HAD ALL THOSE VEHICLES. I HAD TWO LEFT TO GET OUT OF THERE.

I HAD TWO TRAILERS LEFT AND MAYBE FIVE DUMP LOADS, SO THEY EVENTUALLY DID AN ABATE.

IT WAS LIKE 19. I THINK IT SAID 13, BUT IT WAS LIKE 19,000 TO CLEAN THE PROPERTY UP.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR YOU GUYS TO DROP THOSE FEES. I MEAN, $180,000 IN FEES.

IT'S A QUARTER OF AN ACRE WITH NOTHING ON IT.

LIKE, WHO WOULD EVER PAY THAT MUCH MONEY TO KEEP A QUARTER OF AN ACRE? YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T. IT'S NOT EVEN WORTH IT AT THAT POINT. MY WHOLE GOAL WAS TO BUILD A HOUSE FOR MY DAD TO LIVE OUT THERE.

NOW, I DON'T TALK TO MY FAMILY. SO MY NEW GOAL IS TO BUILD A HOUSE, TO HAVE A RENTAL OUT THERE, TO MAKE SOME INCOME FOR MY FAMILY SO I CAN HAVE SOMETHING.

BUT I WENT DOWN TO THE COUNTY AND I SAID, OKAY, EVERYTHING'S CLEANED UP.

YOU GUYS CLEANED IT UP. NOW I DID THE BEST I COULD.

CAN I GET A PERMIT TO BUILD AND START MAKING PAYMENTS ON MY FEES AND EVERYTHING? NO, YOU GOT TO PAY IT ALL IN FULL. $180,000, PLUS THE $20,000 TO CLEAN IT UP.

$210,000 BEFORE I CAN GET A PERMIT TO BUILD. SO NOW, WHAT DID YOU PAY FOR THE PROPERTY IF I CAN ASK? 20,000, $20,000? ALL RIGHT. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM.

YEAH. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR JOE LARMER OR SEAN, BUT THESE FINES WERE SET FOR THE PREVIOUS OWNER, RIGHT? I MEAN, THEY WERE IMPOSED ON THE PREVIOUS OWNER.

YEAH. IS THAT CORRECT? I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT.

OKAY. YEAH. IF YOU COULD SIT IN THE FRONT. THERE YOU GO.

SO THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT WAS IN VIOLATION ABOUT THE TIME THAT I STARTED GETTING INVOLVED IN CODE ENFORCEMENT.

SO THIS WAS ACTUALLY THE FIRST ABATEMENT HEARING THAT I SAT IN, I JUST OBSERVED.

SO THIS THIS PROPERTY WAS IN VIOLATION FOR, I THINK, A WHILE.

AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK WITH MR. COTTRELL.

HE'S TRYING TO COOPERATE. AND EVENTUALLY WE FINALLY GOT TO A POINT WHERE WE HAD TO TAKE IT TO A HEARING.

WE TOOK IT IN MAY OF 2024. AND KNOWING THAT HE'S A PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S TRYING TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE AND WE RESPECT THAT.

WE ENTERED INTO A STIPULATED AGREEMENT THAT PART OF THAT WAS THAT HE WOULD GO THROUGH THE EVICTION PROCESS.

AND HE DID. AND THEN WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THAT EVICTION PROCESS, WE GAVE HIM ENOUGH WHAT WE CONSIDERED TO BE ENOUGH TIME TO BE ABLE TO CLEAR THE VIOLATION ONCE THAT EVICTION WAS COMPLETE. AND AND I AGREE THAT HE WAS MAKING ATTEMPTS TO DO THAT.

AND WE ACTUALLY EVEN THOUGH THAT STIPULATED AGREEMENT HAD PASSED, THE TIME HAD PASSED WE CONTINUED TO KIND OF DRAG OUR FEET WITH FEET BEFORE WE WENT OUT AND ABATED IT. THIS IS ONE OF THE ONE PROPERTY THAT WE RECEIVED A VERY, VERY HIGH VOLUME OF COMPLAINTS ON.

EVEN AFTER WE TOOK THIS TO HEARING. AND WE MET WITH MR. COTTRELL MULTIPLE TIMES TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE AND ENCOURAGE HIM TO DO THAT.

AND WE ACTUALLY WENT SO FAR AS IN THE STIPULATED AGREEMENT, IS THAT IF HE WOULD HAVE ABATED IT, WE WOULD HAVE WE AGREED THAT THE FINES AND PENALTIES WOULD GO TO ZERO, AND IT WOULD JUST BE THE THE COST OF US OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SINCE HE WAS UNABLE TO DO THAT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY FOR TO RECOVER OUR COST, BUT THEN ALSO WITH THE FINES AND PENALTIES AS A LIEN.

BUT MY QUESTION WAS, WERE THE FINES AND PENALTIES WERE THOSE IMPOSED ON THE PREVIOUS OWNERS TO START OUT WITH.

NO. SO THEY SO AFTER HE EVICTED EVERYBODY, THAT'S WHEN THE FINES STARTED.

OR THEY WERE ALREADY BUILDING UP TO THAT POINT. SO WHAT THE WAY THAT IT WORKS IS WHEN WE GO, WHEN WE TAKE THE CASE TO HEARING WHICH MR. COTTRELL WAS THE OWNER AT THAT TIME, HE WAS AT THE HEARING THE NOTICE TO OBEY AND THEN TO THAT HEARING PERIOD, IF THEY'RE NOT ABATING IT AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THAT'S WHERE THOSE FINES AND PENALTIES COME IN.

AND THEN AND THEN AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE WE NEGOTIATED OR DID THE STIPULATED AGREEMENT TO WAIVE THEM IF HE WAS IN COMPLIANCE.

SO IT WAS AS HE WAS THE OWNER. HE'S NOT THE HE'S NOT THE TENANT OR THE, THE POSSESSORS, TENANTS CREATING THE VIOLATION. BUT BUT YEAH, HE WAS A PROPERTY OWNER AT THE TIME.

AND WHAT WAS THE COST INCURRED TO CLEAN IT UP? SO THE FINAL COST TO CLEAN IT UP? 13,000. YEAH, IT CAME OUT TO BE $13,883.

[01:45:06]

IT WAS IT WAS IN MY OPINION THIS WAS JUST MY OPINION.

IT WAS PRETTY, PRETTY BAD. FORTUNATELY, IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A SMALLER PROPERTY.

AND MUCH OF THE I BELIEVE THERE WAS NUMEROUS ABANDONED VEHICLES THAT THE SHERIFF HAD TO TAKE OFF.

I THINK WE HAD THEM LINED UP AND HAVING TO TAKE QUITE A FEW OFF, SO IT DID.

THE ESTIMATE WAS HIGHER. FORTUNATELY, IT WAS A LITTLE BIT LOWER AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL CLEANUP COSTS DIRECTLY INCURRED BY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

OKAY. I MEAN, AND HE HIMSELF SAID HE DOESN'T HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE CLEANUP COST THAT HE, YOU KNOW, REALIZES THAT WE DID GO OUT THERE AND CLEAN THE PROPERTY UP. BUT I DON'T KNOW, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THE FINES.

THAT'S AN AWFUL LOT OF FINES. SO. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

YEAH, TO THAT POINT, I WANTED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I BELIEVE MR. COTTRELL SAID $180,000. IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE DOCUMENT WE HAVE, IT'S $90,000.

WHAT IS THE, FOR THE FINES AND FEES. WHAT? WHAT'S THAT NUMBER? THE FINES AND PENALTIES. IS IN THE DOCUMENT BEFORE THE BOARD IS $90,750 FOR THE FINES AND PENALTIES.

OKAY, SO IT'S THE $90,000. AND THEN THE COST WOULD BE ALMOST $20,000 FOR THE COUNTY COST.

THAT'S THE TOTAL NUMBERS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT.

WELL, 13 IS JUST FOR THE CONTRACTOR SERVICES.

BUT IF WE LOOK AT THE AT LEAST ON, ON THIS DOCUMENT, IT HAS FOR THE TOTAL COUNTY COST GOING TO $20.

THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SUPERVISOR LONG.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. MR. EWING, CAN YOU ALSO DESCRIBE THE EFFECTS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY ON THE OWNER THAT HAD HIS DRIVEWAY TO THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE, THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

UNFORTUNATELY, WITH THIS PROPERTY, IT HAD BEEN IN VIOLATION FOR A WHILE.

AND WE WERE RECEIVING A HIGH VOLUME OF COMPLAINTS.

AND THEN ALSO WHERE THE JUNK AND REFUSE WAS ENCROACHING INTO OTHER PROPERTIES AND ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAD, UNFORTUNATELY, IS BY THE TIME WE GOT OUT THERE TO CLEAN IT UP, SOME OF IT HAD BEEN MOVED ON TO AN ADJACENT PROPERTY.

AND SO WE ACTUALLY UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAD TO LEAVE A PILE OF JUNK AND REFUSE RIGHT IN PLAIN SIGHT ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT WASN'T PART OF THE HEARING.

AND SO WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. SO UNFORTUNATELY, BY US DELAYING A LITTLE BIT, TRYING TO WORK WITH THE OWNER TO GET COMPLIANCE, WE LEFT AN ADJACENT PROPERTY IN A NUISANCE STATUS.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR? WELL I WAS IF I'M THINKING ABOUT THE SAME PROPERTY THERE'S AN OWNER THAT LIVES BEHIND IN HIS DRIVEWAY.

COMES THROUGH ALL THE BLIGHT, AND HE COULDN'T GET ACCESS TO HIS GATE.

RIGHT. THERE'S THAT PART. I BELIEVE THERE WAS ACCESS ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE JUNK AND REFUSE WITH THE DRIVEWAY.

THANK YOU. YEAH, WE WE RECEIVED NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ON THIS PROPERTY.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR THIS TO BE PART OF PAYMENT PLANS.

IS THAT SOMETHING WE DO OR DO WE ALWAYS REQUIRE IT TO BE PAID IN ONE LUMP SUM? WE USUALLY WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE FOR A PAYMENT PLAN, BUT AS A PROPERTY OWNER CAN COME IN AND MAKE PAYMENTS, WE, WE CERTAINLY ACCEPT IT AND WE TRACK IT AND REDUCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OWED.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE A PROGRAM IN PLACE AS FAR AS HOW TO COLLECT ONCE THAT DOES NOT OCCUR.

SO EVEN WITH ANY SORT OF ONCE, IT ONCE IT GOES TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COUNTY COUNSEL MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK MORE DIRECTLY TO THIS, BUT I BELIEVE THERE MAY BE PAYMENT OPTIONS AVAILABLE WITH THE TAX COLLECTOR.

I'M NOT PART OF THAT. BUT BUT AGAIN, COMING BACK TO EVEN ONCE A LIEN IS RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY FOR FINES AND PENALTIES, A PROPERTY OWNER CAN STILL COME IN AND MAKE PAYMENTS ON THAT.

SEAN LET'S JUST ASK COUNSELOR LARMER CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON THAT? YEAH.

SO I JUST WANTED THE BOARD TO BE CLEAR THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE FILED FROM THIS HEARING.

THE FIRST ONE IS A LIEN. AND ESSENTIALLY THE WAY A LIEN WORKS IS THE DEPARTMENT WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO COLLECT THOSE.

AND IF THAT PAYMENT IS MADE, THEN WE CAN ENTER A SATISFACTION OF LIEN THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE PROCESS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE.

WHAT WHAT IS ASSESSED AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, WHICH ULTIMATELY BECOMES A TAX WOULD FOLLOW THE PROCESS THAT THE TAX COLLECTOR WOULD GO THROUGH. THERE ARE SOME PROVISIONS FOR PAYMENT PLANS.

BUT ULTIMATELY IF THAT FALLS INTO DEFAULT IT'S DEFAULT TAXES.

SO AND RICH MAY BE ABLE TO TELL YOU THE SPECIFICS OF HOW THAT WORKS, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTOOD THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT LIENS.

[01:50:02]

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. SO I'LL MAKE A I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE COUNTY COSTS OF NEARLY $20,000 AND THAT WE REDUCE THE FINES TO $20,000 AS WELL.

FOR I DON'T THINK THAT THAT HIGH. ARE THEY FROM $90,000 CURRENTLY.

ALL RIGHT. SUPERVISOR. OKAY, SO, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER MADE A MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? I FEEL THAT I FEEL THE FINES WERE LEVIED FOR THE FIRST TIME, SO HOLD ON.

SO WE'RE GOING TO FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

SUPERVISOR LONG. YOU'RE IN QUEUE. NEXT. THANK YOU.

CHAIR. SEAN, THIS MAY BE A IT'S KIND OF A RELATED QUESTION, BUT IT'S MAYBE I'M NOT SURE IF YOU KNOW THIS ANSWER, BUT WAS THERE A SPILLOVER FROM THIS ABATED PROPERTY ON IRON MOUNTAIN? DID IT SPILL OVER TO A SITUATION OVER ON ROCK CREEK ROAD, KIND OF IN THE SAME COMMUNITY THAT WHERE THE VIOLATIONS CONTINUED AFTER THE IRON MOUNTAIN ROAD WAS ABATED? WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS I BELIEVE A FAMILY MEMBER OF MR. COTTRELL WAS ONE OF THE TENANTS ON HIS PROPERTY THAT CREATED THE VIOLATIONS AND OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE VIOLATIONS.

AND THEN I BELIEVE THAT HE MAY HAVE RELOCATED HIMSELF OR SOME SORT OF AN ASSOCIATE FAMILY FRIEND, I DON'T KNOW ON ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT'S NOW IN VIOLATION.

SO I WANT TO EVEN THOUGH IT'S RELATED, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T ASSOCIATE IT WITH MR. COTTRELL. RIGHT? RIGHT HERE. NOW. I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR HIM AS A PROPERTY OWNER.

I DON'T BELIEVE HE'S INVOLVED IN THAT OTHER VIOLATION.

SO THAT WAS A SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY THAT WAS EVICTED BASICALLY FROM MR. COTTRELL'S PROPERTY ON IRON MOUNTAIN. THAT'S CORRECT. NOW SET UP SHOP.

AND WITH ALL THE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE GOING ON IN ROCK CREEK.

POTENTIALLY, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. POTENTIALLY. YEAH.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM. YEAH. I MEAN, PERSONALLY, I FEEL IF THERE'S ANY FINES INVOLVED HERE, IT SHOULD BE WITH THE EVICTED PERSON. THAT'S CAUSING MORE PROBLEMS NOW SOMEWHERE ELSE.

BUT AND SO IF WE WERE TO JUST IMPOSE THE CLEANUP COSTS AND PUT A LIEN ON IT AND LETS HIM PAY AS HE GOES ALONG, WOULD HE BE ABLE TO PULL ANY PERMITS, ANY GRADING PERMITS OR BUILDING PERMITS BECAUSE HE SAID HE'D LIKE TO BUILD A HOUSE ON IT? WE WOULD DEFINITELY BE ENCOURAGING HIM TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PROPERTY. I'VE HEARD HIS STORY.

I HAVE NO ISSUES. AND HE COULD PULL THE PERMITS EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY IS LIENED. YEAH, ONCE IT GOES TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.

I DON'T BELIEVE I WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO PREVENT A PERMIT FROM BEING PULLED.

I DON'T. THAT'S NOT COMMONLY OUR PRACTICE. CAN WE ASSESS THE FINES TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER? WELL, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO DO THAT? BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONES THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM.

MISTER COTTRELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THAT WE TOOK TO HEARING.

SO THE FINES AND PENALTIES WOULD BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTY, NOT HIM AS AN INDIVIDUAL, BUT THE PROPERTY. AND SO BUT IT OBVIOUSLY IMPACTS HIM.

YEAH. I HAVE A HARD TIME PUTTING $90,000 OF FINES ON A QUARTER ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY.

SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE JUST LIEN THE PROPERTY FOR THE CLEANUP COSTS AND THE COUNTY COST OF $20,000.

IS THAT IS THAT THE $19,852? YES. SO THAT IS THE ORIGINAL $13,883 AS WELL AS THE ATTORNEY COSTS OF THE $2650 AND THE ADMIN COSTS AND SERVICE FEES OF 33,19,17.

SO THAT COMES TO $19,852.68. YES, THAT'S MY MOTION.

OKAY, I'LL SECOND THAT FOR DISCUSSION. SUPERVISOR LONG. THANK YOU, CHAIR.

SEAN, CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE PROCESS JUST A LITTLE BIT? I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, BUT THIS WENT THROUGH ALL PROPER PROCEDURE, ALL HEARINGS.

AND HOW DID THEY COME TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE $90,000? I KNOW MR. COTTRELL HAD MENTIONED $180,000, BUT I THINK IT'S $90,000.

AND SO HOW DID HOW DID WE JUSTIFY THAT NUMBER FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT AND THE LIEN PART OF THIS PROCESS? WELL, THE ASSESSMENT IS THAT THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IS BASED OFF OF DIRECT CODE ENFORCEMENT MAIL SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, ATTORNEY COSTS AND CONTRACTOR COSTS.

SO THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IS DIRECT COSTS. THE PENALTIES AND LIENS ARE BASED OFF OF THE PERMISSIBLE MAXIMUM AMOUNT FOR THE NUMBER OF DAYS IN VIOLATION PER VIOLATION.

[01:55:03]

WE USE THAT AS A BARGAINING TOOL DURING NEGOTIATIONS TO TRY TO GET THE PROPERTY OWNER TO ABATE THEIR OWN PROPERTY.

THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO SEE. WE WANT TO SEE COMPLIANCE.

AND SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T HAVE THE WORKSHEET DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME, BUT BASICALLY IT'S A CALCULATION FOR THE MAXIMUM PENALTY PER VIOLATION PER DAY AND VIOLATION. THANK YOU. AND I MEAN, $90,000 SEEMS LIKE A VERY HIGH NUMBER.

SO I'M WRESTLING WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT. BUT THE PROCESS, I DON'T WANT THE MESSAGE TO BE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORK WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH YOU AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS ABATEMENT CLEANUP OF THOSE THINGS IN A TIMELY MANNER.

SO I THINK THAT IF WE JUST ELIMINATE THE THE LIEN PART OF THIS AND THE PENALTY PHASE, THEN WE'RE CUTTING YOU OFF AT THE KNEES A LITTLE BIT FOR FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS WITH, LIKE, SITUATIONS WITH OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO I WOULD I WOULD BE OPEN TO DISCUSSION AS TO THE AMOUNT $90,000 DOES SEEM VERY HIGH TO ME.

AND IT MAY BE PROHIBITIVE TO EVEN MAINTAINING OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY.

SO DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? I THINK THE $19,800 FOR THE ASSESSMENT PORTION OF IT, THAT'S A GIVEN IN MY BOOK. BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN SOME THOUGHT, DISCUSSION, BOARD DISCUSSION AS TO HOW WE HOW WE FIGURE OUT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF THE LIEN PENALTY PROCESS.

KEEPING IN MIND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF FUTURE CASES COMING IN, I THINK IT'S PRUDENT TO HAVE THE RULES, IN EFFECT, THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THEM AND TO SUPPORT OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THAT PROCESS, OR WE'RE GOING TO INVITE CHAOS. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T CLOSED IT AND WE'RE OBVIOUSLY IN BOARD DISCUSSIONS, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT.

COULD I PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON THE AMOUNT OF FINES AND PENALTIES ON THIS.

SURE. NORMALLY? SO IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER, WE ENTERED INTO A STIPULATED AGREEMENT, WE WERE WILLING TO WAIVE THOSE IN ITS ENTIRETY IF WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION, WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCING THOSE FINES AND PENALTIES BECAUSE $90,000 IS RATHER HIGH. SO I JUST WANT TO I WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE WE NORMALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN PROBABLY LOOKING AT TRYING TO REDUCE THOSE.

IF IT DIDN'T GO THE DIRECTION THAT IT DID. SO.

SO SO A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO YOUR STATEMENT ARE YOU IN SUPPORT OF THE $90,000 OR WOULD IT BE A LESSER SUPPORT, A LESSER AMOUNT, OR DO YOU THINK THE $90,000 IS WARRANTED GIVEN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE? WHEN I LOOK AT THE PROPERTY, I MY AND I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION THAT I BELIEVE THE $90,000 IS EXCESSIVE.

I BELIEVE MY AS THE MANAGER, THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, MY GOAL IS TO GAIN COMPLIANCE AT THE LEAST COST TO THE COUNTY AND NOT TO SIMPLY PENALIZE PEOPLE.

THE PURPOSE IS TO GET COMPLIANCE AND TO RECOVER WHATEVER COSTS IT TAKES TO GET US THERE.

THAT'S MY MY OPINION. MY PERSONAL OPINION. SUPERVISOR LONG DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, I MEAN, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE I MEAN, BECAUSE YOU'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH. WELL, HERE'S THE. YOU'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH.

YEAH. I WILL MAKE A MOTION AND I AND MY MOTION IS GOING TO BE RECOVER OUR 19 EIGHT.

SUPERVISOR KELSTROM ALREADY MADE THAT MOTION RIGHT.

AND THEN THE OTHER PART OF MY MOTION WILL BE TO RECOVER A PORTION OF THE, THE PENALTY FEES, BUT $90,000 JUST THAT'S. SO WHAT'S YOUR MOTION? WHAT'S THE AMOUNT? WELL, THAT IS WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET TO A BASIS FOR HAVING AN IDEA BECAUSE I HAVE NO I HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF THIS.

IT'S NOT LET'S MAKE A DEAL HERE. IT'S WHAT IS ACTUALLY A JUSTIFIABLE PENALTY.

MR. EWING, I KNOW I'M GOING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I KNOW WE CAME IN AT 90.

THAT SEEMS REALLY HIGH TO ME. WHAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE, GIVEN THE VIOLATIONS AND THE AND THE NONCOMPLIANCE AS FAR AS LIEN PORTION TO IT. I WOULD DEFER THAT BACK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

I THINK IT'S THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DECISION TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AS TO THE FINES AND PENALTIES.

OKAY. THEN I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOVER THE ASSESSED COSTS TO OUR COUNTY OF $19,800 AND CHANGE WHATEVER THAT NUMBER EXACTLY WAS, AND THAT I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ALSO INCLUDE A LIEN FINE OF $15,000.

[02:00:06]

HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THE $15,000 SUPERVISOR LONG? YOU MADE ME JUST COME UP WITH IT ON THE SPOT WITH NO EXPERTISE.

NO UNDERSTANDING. NO. BUT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT THE YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S LET'S MAKE A DEAL, BUT NOW YOU'RE DOING LET'S MAKE A DEAL.

SO. NO, BECAUSE I THINK I THINK WHAT WE HAVE IS FROM THE DIRECTOR HIMSELF SAYING THAT $90,000 WAS EXCESSIVE AND THAT WAS THE FEELING I HAD ON THIS. I WANT TO BE FAIR. I WANT TO SUPPORT OUR PROCESS.

I WANT TO SUPPORT FUTURE ENDEAVORS. I WANT TO SUPPORT EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING FORWARD.

$90,000 WAS RUBBING ME WRONG AND I THINK $15,000 IS IT STILL SUPPORTS OUR PROCESS AND IT WILL KEEP US IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR OWN PROCEDURE. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT MR. COTTRELL CAN GO FORWARD AND WORK OUT AND POSSIBLY PAYMENT PLAN ON PART OF THIS AND.

SO BUT SO BUT HELP ME BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU WANT IT TO BE A PROCESS.

SO WHAT'S THE FORMULA WE JUST USE SO WE CAN DO THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT HEARINGS.

SO LIKE WHAT'S THAT PROCESS. YEAH WE THERE IS NO PROCESS TO THAT.

EXACTLY. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM YEAH. I'M AGAIN I'M HAVING A HARD TIME.

MR. COTTRELL BOUGHT A PROBLEM PROPERTY OBVIOUSLY.

I MEAN, HE'S EVICTED ALL THE TROUBLEMAKERS, ALL THE PEOPLE THAT CREATED THE PROBLEM.

HE'S EVICTED THEM OFF THE PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT THAT HE'S FRACTURED FAMILY MEMBERS, HIS RELATIONSHIPS WITH FAMILY MEMBERS.

SO YOU KNOW, I GET IT. HE DIDN'T HAD HE CLEANED IT UP IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME, THERE WOULD BE NO FINES THERE, YOU KNOW. AND SO I'M GOING TO STAND BY MY MOTION.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO PAY FOR THE COUNTY COSTS AND THE CLEANUP FEES, BUT I'M THE AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THE FINES SHOULD GO TO THE PREVIOUS OWNERS THAT CREATED THE PROBLEM, NOT MR. COTTRELL, WHO IS WANTING TO GO FORWARD AND FIX THE PROPERTY UP AND BUILD A HOUSE ON IT.

SO I STICK BY MY ORIGINAL MOTION. OKAY, I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO WEIGH IN BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO YET.

AND I APPRECIATE MR. COTTRELL SHOWING UP. AND THEN THE FACT THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO BRING REVENUE INTO THE COUNTY WITH THE POTENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY.

I MEAN, IF WE'RE STOPPING NEW BUSINESS AND AGAIN, I THINK THE LESSON THAT I'M GOING TO TAKE FROM THIS HEARING, NOT JUST ALL OF THEM, BUT ESPECIALLY THIS ONE AS WELL, IS I THINK THIS IS A PROCESS THAT.

MR. EWING, I HOPE THAT YOUR TIME HERE AS LEADING THIS DEPARTMENT, WE DON'T LET THESE THINGS GO THIS LONG.

I MEAN, THIS, IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT. I DID WANT TO MS. SCOTT, OUR TREASURER. SHE. SHE POPPED INTO THE MEETING.

SO. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THIS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION? BECAUSE YOU MORE THAN ANYBODY UNDERSTANDS THIS, AS I'VE BEEN TO THE PROPERTIES WITH YOU BEFORE, NEVER IN THE HAZMAT SUIT.

BUT AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALLWARD WAY. YOU'RE WELCOME.

THAT'S WE'RE GOING FOR AN OVERBID RIGHT NOW ON THAT PROPERTY.

LET'S NOT LET'S NOT GO DOWN, OKAY? YOU CAN THANK HER.

YOU CAN THANK HER. BUT LET'S NOT GO TO ANOTHER PROPERTY. GO AHEAD. OKAY.

THIS PROPERTY AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW IS IN THE NAME OF PETER AND ASHLEY COTTRELL.

OKAY. THIS PROPERTY IS THREE YEARS IN DELINQUENT TAXES ALREADY.

IT TWO MORE YEARS AFTER THIS THAN IT WILL BE PUT UP FOR AUCTION.

SO YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT. AND IN TWO A YEAR, TWO AND ABOUT TWO YEARS, THEY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AT THAT POINT BEFORE THAT TWO YEAR TIME PERIOD LAPSES TO START AN INSTALLMENT PLAN.

THIS PROPERTY IS WORTH ON THE TAX ROLL RIGHT NOW, $20,000.

SO I WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION. BUT HE IS DELINQUENT THREE YEARS IN TAXES.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MISS SCOTT. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER THEN SUPERVISOR LONG.

YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT IN TERMS OF FIGURING OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE APPROPRIATE FINE IS, I AGREE THAT IT'S SOMEWHAT PROBLEMATIC TO NOT KNOW KIND OF HOW TO CALCULATE THAT IN A MORE FORMULAIC APPROACH.

THE REASON THAT I INITIALLY PROPOSED THE $20,000 AND, AND THINK THAT SOME FINE IS LIKELY STILL WARRANTED IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE HEARING YOU MR. EWING YOU HAD SAID THAT IF IT HAD BEEN ABATED, YOU WOULD HAVE OFFERED TO REDUCE OR TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE FINES.

AND IT WASN'T AT THAT POINT. AND SO THERE WAS THAT OPTION.

GRANTED, IT CAN BE CHALLENGING TO DO THAT, BUT.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER CAN I ASK A QUESTION BECAUSE BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN GET TO THE SOLUTION.

BUT BUT IF HIS ISSUE WAS GETTING PEOPLE OFF HIS PROPERTY AND EVICTING THEM.

FAMILY MUCH LESS. I MEAN, THAT BECOMES REALLY HARD TO OUTLAY CAPITAL WHEN YOU'RE KICKING YOUR, YOU KNOW. AND MAYBE, MAYBE THE PERSONALITY SHOULDN'T MATTER.

BUT TO ME, I THINK IT WOULD MATTER IF YOU'RE KICKING FAMILY OUT AND THEN PUTTING MONEY INTO IT WHEN YOU KNOW IT'S ONLY WORTH 20.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I MEAN, HELP ME GET THERE. LIKE, AND I AGREE WITH SUPERVISOR LONG, BUT I'M JUST SAYING, LIKE IF WE TALK ABOUT A FORMULA, LET'S CREATE A FORMULA AND LET'S SAY WHAT IS IT.

YOU KNOW. SO, SO SO I THINK AND I AGREE THAT THAT WOULD BE TERRIBLY DIFFICULT IN TERMS OF EVICTING FAMILY MEMBERS.

[02:05:06]

IT WAS PART OF THE STIPULATED AGREEMENT IS THAT HE.

WAS PART OF THE PROCESS. OKAY. THROUGH THAT, WITH THAT PROCESS.

SO IT'S ALL CO-MINGLED. I MEAN, TO MY TO MY UNDERSTANDING.

THAT WAS WHEN WE WHEN WE WERE AT THE HEARING, OUR GOAL IS TO TRY TO GET LONG TERM LASTING SOLUTIONS.

AND IF THE PROPERTY IF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS WAS CREATING THE VIOLATIONS REMAINED ON THAT PROPERTY IT WAS LIKELY TO CONTINUE.

AND SO WE WORKED WITH MR. COTTRELL TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE IN ITS ENTIRETY BY GETTING THE VIOLATORS OFF THE PROPERTY THROUGH THE EVICTION PROCESS.

WAS THERE A REQUEST TO EVICT THOSE PEOPLE PRIOR TO THE HEARING? I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC REQUEST.

THE WAY THAT WE APPROACH CODE CASES PRIOR TO HEARING IS OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM WORKS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND ENCOURAGES THAT, ENCOURAGES THEM TO REMEDY THE VIOLATIONS. AND IF THEY HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE CAUSING THE VIOLATIONS TO REMEDY THAT, BY WHATEVER MEANS IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT THOSE VIOLATIONS FROM CONTINUING.

OKAY. SUPERVISOR LONG WOULD YOU AMEND YOUR MOTION TO LIKE, A $1,000 FINE.

I MEAN, SO THAT WAY THERE IS SOME CULPABILITY THAT SAYS, HEY, THERE IS SOMETHING THERE.

SO AT LEAST BY US ACKNOWLEDGING THAT. BUT TO ME, LIKE WHAT I WANT IS I WANT THIS INDIVIDUAL TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ON IT.

CATCH UP ON HIS PAST TAXES, AND IF HE DOESN'T, THE COUNTY WILL DO WHATEVER IT HAS TO DO AND IT'LL GO FROM THERE.

BUT I WANT THE INDIVIDUAL TO HAVE EVERY SHOT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ON IT.

IT'S BEEN A PROCESS. SO LET ME ASK A QUESTION HERE.

SO, SEAN YOU DID WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MR. COTTRELL AND ASHLEY, HIS WIFE AND THE PRIOR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? HE'S GOING TO BE I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF WHO THE PRIOR OWNERSHIP.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION IS THAT HIS DAD WAS LAWFULLY RESIDING ON THAT PROPERTY, AS WELL AS HIS BROTHER.

I'M NOT SURE HOW THE OWNERSHIP OCCURRED. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS YOUR DAD'S WIFE OR I'M NOT.

IT WAS MY DAD'S GIRLFRIEND'S PROPERTY HERE IN THE SO IT. AND SHE WAS THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN AT SOME POINT YOU.

YEAH. SO, SO SO WE'RE GOING TOO FAR OUT. SO I'M GOING TO, I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE IT'S THE 19,000.

AND THEN WITH AN ADDITIONAL $1,000 FINE AND THEN CALL IT GOOD.

I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT.

AND MR. COTTRELL, I HOPE IF THIS DOES PASS YOU GET MOVING, YOU GET YOUR BACK TAXES DONE, GET YOUR GRADING PERMITS DONE.

I MEAN, MR. EWING HAS SAID THAT THOSE CAN BE DISTRIBUTED TO YOU AND YOU GET BUILDING WHATEVER WHETHER IT'S A TINY HOME OR WHATEVER YOU CAN PUT ON THE PROPERTY AND CREATE A TAX REVENUE FOR THE COUNTY. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT SUPERVISOR LONG, YOU'RE STILL IN QUEUE.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? NO. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? DIDN'T HEAR ANY.

OKAY. FIVE ZERO. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THE NEXT APN IS 098420012. PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 27835 BULLSKIN RIDGE ROAD IN OAK RUN. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS FOR PROPERTY 27835 BULLSKIN. YES. YES 27835 BULLSKIN.

AND, SIR, IS THIS. IS THIS YOUR PROPERTY? IS THIS HIS? DON'T THINK SO. AGAIN, JUST TO MAKE SURE. 27835 BULLSKIN ANYBODY GOING TO SPEAK ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KELSTROM TO APPROVE.

SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR HARMON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. NEXT ONE. ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE THE LAST ONE.

THE APN IS 064350024. IT IS FOR PROPERTY ADDRESS 17801 PARADISE LANE IN REDDING. AND PROPERTY OWNERS, MR. JEFFERSON. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS FOR THE PROPERTY IN REDDING ON PARADISE LANE.

HELLO, SIR. WELCOME BACK. SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM PAYING

[02:10:09]

I BELIEVE. IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. AND YOU'RE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH JOSH NOW ON LIKE A PAYMENT PLAN OR.

NO, NO, NO, IT SAYS HERE THAT I HAVEN'T TALKED TO ANYBODY FOR PAYMENT.

OH. I'M SORRY. THIS IS THE FIRST. OWNER IS WORKING ON A LOAN.

OKAY, I GOT YOU. THIS IS PERFECT. AND SO? SO YOU'RE WILLING TO PAY THE FEES ASSOCIATED? YOU JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. I CAN PAY IT ALL AT ONCE.

I JUST NEED, YOU KNOW, I'M SAYING 60 DAYS, BUT REALISTICALLY, PROBABLY CLOSER TO 30 DAYS TO RAISE THE MONEY BECAUSE IT'S THE TIME IT TAKES TO DO THE PAPERWORK, YOU KNOW. AND DOES THAT POSE ANY PROBLEMS, SEAN, TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO PAY THESE FINES? I MEAN, ARE THEY DO TODAY IF WE IMPOSE THEM TODAY.

IF THEY'RE IMPOSED TODAY THAT WOULD. THESE WOULD BE THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.

AND THEN THEY WOULD BE REFERRED TO THE TAX COLLECTOR.

THAT WOULD THEN GO ON THE NEXT TAX. OKAY. SO LORI'S THE ONE THAT KNOWS THE ANSWER.

MY QUESTION. SO MY MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO NOT PUT ME IN A SITUATION TO HAVE TO BRING IT BACK.

I'D RATHER. NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. MISS SCOTT.

YOU WANT TO COME ON UP REAL QUICK? WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS, ONCE THEY GET PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL, THE PROPERTY TAX BILLS WILL COME OUT IN OCTOBER.

THAT FIRST INSTALLMENT, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE HALF OF IT BECAUSE IT'S ON FOR ONE YEAR.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. I'M GETTING A YES FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE.

ONCE THAT'S ON THERE, YOU'RE HALF OF IT IS DUE BY DECEMBER 10TH.

THE SECOND HALF IS DUE BY APRIL 10TH OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR, 2026.

I'LL HAVE THE MONEY FOR IT IN, LIKE 30 DAYS TO JUST PAY THE WHOLE THING.

I DON'T HAVE TO. WELL, IT'LL HAVE TO WAIT TILL IT GETS ONTO THE TAX ROLL.

OKAY, SO YOU'VE GOT EVEN MORE TIME THAN YOU'RE ASKING FOR, SIR. OKAY.

OKAY. AND IT'LL BE BROKE IN HALF IN TWO PAYMENTS. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE LIEN TODAY. IT'LL BE A LIEN ON THE ASSESSMENT BUT IT WON'T YOU WON'T SEE IT AS A BILL UNTIL YOU RECEIVE IT IN OCTOBER. AND AT THAT FIRST HALF.

OR YOU COULD PAY IT ALL AT ONE TIME FOR THE WHOLE YEAR.

OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU? YEAH. THAT'LL WORK. OKAY. THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE.

ANYTHING ELSE, SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KELSTROM, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. FIVE ZERO. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT GREAT EXPLANATION, MISS SCOTT.

I APOLOGIZE THERE'S AN OWNER WHO SHOWED UP LATE WHO REQUESTED TO TALK TO YOU GUYS.

HE'S ONE OF THE OWNERS ON THE LIST WE HAVE. HE WAS THE SECOND ONE ON THE LIST.

MR. STAMBOLIS IS HERE. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OPTION, I JUST COUNSEL LARMER YOU'D HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.

THAT'S FOR THE BOARD TO DECIDE. IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION SINCE THE ACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THE BOARD.

THAT THAT BE NOT DONE. OKAY. DISCUSSION. UNDER DISCUSSION, I GUESS.

SO THEY JUST SHOWED UP, LIKE, A FEW MINUTES AGO.

PROBABLY LIKE 10 OR 15 MINUTES AGO. YEAH. SUPERVISOR LONG I WOULD SAY IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS.

IT'S A TECHNICAL VIOLATION BEING LATE, BUT HE MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN EXACTLY THE ORDER THE PROPERTIES WERE GOING TO BE CALLED.

SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING HIM THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

AS WOULD I. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REVISIT THAT ITEM.

SECOND. OKAY. JUST REAL QUICK. AND COUNSEL LARMER, JUST SO I'M CLEAR.

WHAT DOES THAT. WHAT? I MEAN, I AGREE WITH THE OTHER SUPERVISORS.

I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT WHY YOUR OPINION IS THAT? SO IN GENERAL, MY OPINION IS TO TRY TO KEEP EVERYTHING CONSISTENT SO THAT EVERY ITEM THAT COMES ON IS TREATED THE SAME.

AND IF ANYBODY ELSE SHOWS UP LATE, WE COULD LET THEM DO IT TOO. IN A GENERAL BOARD MEETING AND GENERAL HEARINGS BEFORE THE BOARD THAT IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY.

WE WOULDN'T REOPEN AN ITEM BECAUSE SOMEBODY SHOWED UP AND WANTED TO SPEAK ON IT DURING THE BOARD MEETING.

SO THE CONSISTENCY PIECE IS WHAT I REALLY LOOK FOR BECAUSE THOSE ARE.

COUNSEL CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION ON THAT? HE MIGHT NOT HAVE KNOWN THE ORDER OF THIS.

SO WE'RE STILL HEARING CASES ACTIVELY. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THAT WOULD BE AN EXCEPTION TO WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING?

[02:15:05]

SUPPOSED TO BE HERE AT NINE, BUT I AGREE. SO I THINK WE HEAR IT. SO I LIKE I SAID, IT'S UP TO THE BOARD.

I'M USUALLY MY JOB IS TO TRY TO KEEP CONSISTENCY SO EVERYTHING IS THE SAME FOR EVERY CITIZEN.

ULTIMATELY, IF YOU HAVE A HEARING AT 9:00 IN COURT AND YOU DON'T SHOW UP AT 9:00, BUT THE COURT IS STILL IN SESSION WHEN YOU SHOW UP, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO RECALL YOUR CASE. BUT DID THEY KNOW THE EXACT TIME? SO DID HE KNOW HIS CASE WAS GOING TO BE CALLED AT 9:10? THESE ARE A NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING TO START AT 9:00.

JUST WHATEVER. YEAH, YEAH. I MEAN I AGREE I AGREE WITH COUNSEL LARMER, BUT I, WE HAVE A MOTION WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER AND SUPERVISOR LONG.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. AYE. YEAH. FIVE. OH SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND I GUESS DO I NEED TO DO ANYTHING IN TERMS OF THAT ONE COUNSELOR LARMER.

AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO REOPEN IT? YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE SEAN DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY AND REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY. OKAY. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APN 014530008. THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 29239 CASTELLA LOOP IN CASTELLA. OKAY, SO I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASTELLA. COME ON UP.

YES. YEAH. GO AHEAD. WAIT TILL YOU GET UP THERE.

OVER THERE. I HAVE TWO LAST TIME I WAS HERE. COME ON UP.

LONG TIME. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD. OKAY. NOW, I'M NOT SURE THAT I KEEP GETTING DIFFERENT MONEY AMOUNTS AND EVERYTHING OF WHAT THE FINES AND ASSESSMENTS WERE AND ALL THAT STUFF.

EVEN, THE BEGINNING OF THE PROPERTY THEY COULDN'T TELL ME IT WAS.

IT STARTED AS AN ABATEMENT, WHICH I DID ABATE.

AND THEN NOW I GOT TO DO IT AGAIN BECAUSE I HAD THE SAME THING. I HAD PEOPLE LIVING ON MY PROPERTY AND I GOT RID OF ALL OF THEM, AND NOW I'M HAVING TO DO IT AGAIN. BUT THERE'S ALSO THAT WHEN THEY CAME IN, THEY WERE MORE INTERESTED IN THE STRUCTURES, AND THEY CAME IN AND TOOK DOWN THE GREENHOUSE, WHICH WAS LEGAL, REALLY.

THEY SAID IT WAS ATTACHED TO THE TRAILER. IT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE TRAILER WAS ATTACHED TO THE TRAILER AWNING, WHICH AND IT WAS THE RIGHT SIZE BECAUSE ME AND MY DAD BUILT IT.

THEY DID TAKE OFF THE PROPERTY AND BRING OUT A LOT OF JUNK.

YES, I HAD TO GET RID OF, BUT. AND I ALSO DIDN'T, I DIDN'T HEAR.

AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PLACE WHERE THEY TELL YOU WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE? IF THEY JUST TOOK STUFF OFF YOUR PROPERTY? YOU DON'T YOU HAVE TO CATALOG IT AND TELL ME WHERE WHERE IT IS.

AND MAYBE I COULD PAY FOR IT THEN OR SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WORKED. IT WAS A COVID DAY.

THEY WOULDN'T AND HE REFUSED TO WEAR MASKS OR ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, AND WE TOLD THEM IT WAS A COVID DAY.

HE SAID, NO, IT WASN'T. AND WE WENT AHEAD AND CALLED THE COUNTY AND THEY SAID IT WAS A COVID DAY AND HAD THEM SEND AND THE INFORMATION TO HIS PHONE IS JUST IT WAS VERY AND I WAS AND I HAD A THEY HAD A DEMO PERMIT AND HE CAME IN AND SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT DEMOING ANYTHING.

AND HE NEVER SAW INSIDE. I WAS DOING THE DEMO INSIDE AND GETTING THAT DONE, THE ELECTRICAL STUFF IN THE GARAGE, AND IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 62. NO 64, AND THEY COULDN'T TELL ME IF IT WAS ONE OF THEM WHEN IN THE FIRST MEETING THEY TOLD ME IT WAS ONE OF THEM, TOLD ME IT WAS 63. SO THEY ALL HAD THREE DIFFERENT STORIES OF WHAT THE ACTUAL LAW WAS.

SO I NEVER REALLY GOT ALL THAT INFORMATION. I DID DEMO SOME OTHER THINGS AND I LOOKED UP MY MY THING AND IT HAS SOME RECORDS OF THE SLAB FOR THE GARAGE AND I DON'T KNOW WHY. WHY WOULD YOU JUST CALL AND SAY, HEY, PUT ME DOWN FOR THE SLAB? IF NOBODY INSPECTED IT? I'M SURE SOMEBODY LOOKED AT IT.

AND LAST TIME I WAS HERE, I DIDN'T. I HAD TO WAIT TILL LIKE 4:00 BEFORE I GOT IN THERE.

I WAS KIND OF TIRED. I WANT TO GO. CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE ABATEMENT? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US RIGHT NOW IS THE ABATEMENT. OKAY.

WELL, I WENT AHEAD AND THEY CAME OUT AND ABATED IT.

I WASN'T SURE WHEN THEY WERE GOING TO BE IN. YES, I WAS I WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE IN THE TIME ZONE.

SO YES, I DO ADMIT THAT. AND AFTER THAT I WENT AHEAD AND ABATED THE PROPERTY, PULLED ALL THE CARS OUT OF THERE, CLEANED IT UP AND MY POOR CHOICE IN RENTERS AND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT I HAD OVER WAS IT BEGAN AGAIN.

SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN. AND YOU'RE KENNETH, CORRECT? I'M KENNETH. YES. YEAH. I MEAN, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I DON'T SEE ANY ATTORNEY COSTS OR ADMIN CODE ENFORCEMENT COSTS PLUS PROOF SERVICE FEES.

I JUST SEE THE ABATEMENT. I MEAN, YEAH, THIS IS JUST COST ONLY.

AND WHAT IS WHAT IS ALL THIS? I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WASN'T HERE AND I'M SORRY.

$9,270.06. IT'S JUST THE HARD COST FOR CLEANING IT ALL UP.

[02:20:03]

SO. MR. EWING? WELL, ACTUALLY, IT WOULD BE MS. SCOTT, BUT WOULD IT FOLLOW THE SAME LINES? SO IT'LL GO ON TO YOUR PROPERTY TAX.

YOU'LL PAY HALF OF IT IN OCTOBER, AND THEN THE OTHER HALF WILL COME DUE IN APRIL 26TH.

YEAH. OKAY. SO IT'S LIKE A, LIKE A $5,000, $5,000 TYPE OF THING.

YEAH. AND IF I CAN'T PAY THAT, IS THERE ANYTHING I CAN DO PRIOR TO THAT? IF I CAN'T, YOU'LL BE GOING IN ARREARS ON YOUR PROPERTY TAX.

OKAY. IT'LL BE PUT ON YOUR PROPERTY TAX. SO I COULD ACTUALLY SPACE IT OUT IF I HAD TO AND PAY IT DOWN.

OKAY. NOT BAD. YEAH. I MEAN, THE PAYMENT QUESTIONS.

THAT'S REALLY BETWEEN YOU AND THE TAX COLLECTORS OFFICE OR LORI.

YEAH. LORI SCOTT. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING ME BACK UP HERE. YEAH.

LIKE I SAID LAST TIME IT WAS, I WAITED ALL DAY, AND I DIDN'T.

SURE, BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY DID, WHICH WAS JUST THE HARD COST RECOVERY OF THE $9,270.06.

SECOND. WOW. GOT, LIKE, THREE OF YOU AT THE SAME TIME.

WE'LL TAKE SUPERVISOR HARMON. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A FIRST BY MYSELF, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR HARMON.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. PASSES FIVE ZERO.

OKAY, MR. EWING, THAT IS OUR LAST ONE, I BELIEVE.

CORRECT. YES, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. SO? SO DO WE.

CAN I GET, LIKE JUST AN INFORMAL PROMISE THAT GOING FORWARD.

AND I KNOW THIS REALLY STARTED WITH COUNSEL LARMER COMING ON AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPENED, BUT CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN WHERE WE HAVE THIS MANY THAT ARE THIS FAR BACK, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN WHILE I'M DIRECTOR. I APPRECIATE THAT DOES.

OH SUPERVISOR LONG. NO. OKAY. MISS ANGEL, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON.

YEAH. AND THEN. NO, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF CHAIR.

OKAY. COUNSEL LARMER, DEPUTY. I ALMOST SAID DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

DEPUTY CEO. AND THEN. AND THEN. JUST TO CLARIFY, TOO SUPERVISOR LONG LIKE I AGREE WITH YOU, I THINK MAYBE THIS BOARD SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT COMING UP WITH FORMULAS AS IT RELATES TO BECAUSE AND I DIDN'T WANT TO HOPE I DIDN'T COME ACROSS AS DISRESPECTFUL.

BUT WHEN WE JUST PICKED THE 15, I MEAN, I'M JUST LIKE, WE IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FORMULA, LET'S HAVE A FORMULA. BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE NOW WITH MR. EWING'S LEADERSHIP IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE OF A PROCESS, BECAUSE I KNOW SUPERVISOR KELSTROM HAS WORKED TIRELESSLY WITH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SINCE HE'S COME ON AS A SUPERVISOR TO KIND OF STREAMLINE AND MAKE THIS MORE PRO CITIZEN AND LESS HEAVY HANDED GOVERNMENT.

AND I THINK THE BIGGER QUESTION WOULD BE TO LOOK AT HOW WE ASSESS LIENS AND PENALTIES AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. AND THEN BECAUSE THIS MAKE A DEAL, I JUST DON'T LIKE THAT MESSAGE THAT IT SENDS OUT IS THAT IF YOU DON'T COMPLY WITH WHAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO, AND THEN YOU JUST COME TO A HEARING LIKE THIS, YOU CAN GET IT WHACKED DOWN TO ZERO.

AND I THINK THAT'S A REALLY DANGEROUS, SLIPPERY SLOPE.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT HOW FINES AND PENALTIES ARE ASSESSED, AND THEN LOOK AT HOW THEY WILL REDUCE PENALTIES TO GAIN COMPLIANCE. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION.

AND MAKING SURE THAT IT'S JUST IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER FEE, IT HAS TO BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE ACTUAL DAMAGE IS DONE.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE MY THAT'S GOING TO BE MY FUTURE DISCUSSION.

AND IT DOES SOUND LIKE THERE IS SOME INTERPRETATION FROM OUR STAFF THAT GOES OUT AND DOES SOME OF THIS OF WHAT'S TRANSPIRING.

I THINK THAT'S THE HARDEST DISCONNECT BECAUSE.

MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, I'VE LET IT GO A LITTLE BIT, BUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA? PERFECT.

ALL RIGHT. SO THEN BECAUSE WE DID HAVE, I THINK, FOUR PEOPLE OUT OF 13, MAYBE FIVE OUT OF 13 SHOW UP.

SO. ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.