Minutes: Board of Commission Meeting, 09/21/2004 COUNTY COMMISSIONER CHAIR FRED WARNER, JR
COUNTY COMMISSIONER TIM L. KERNS COUNTY COMMISSIONER DR. CARL STIFF
The Baker County Board of Commissioners met for the September 21, 2004 public hearing on the proposed nuisance ordinance. Present were Commission Chair Fred Warner Jr., Commissioner Tim L. Kerns and Commissioner Carl E. Stiff.
Commissioner Warner began by stating that the intent of the ordinance was to protect the public’s health as well as property values and to establish a collaborative relationship between the landowners and government. Commissioner Warner stated that changes had been recommended from the first public hearing and read the following proposed changes (in bold italics):
Section 1.02 Purpose
The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the health and general welfare of Baker County’s citizens and maintain the beauty of its landscape. The desired goal is to establish a collaborative relationship between landowners and local government in order to meet this purpose.
Nothing in this ordinance is intended to interfere with ORS 215.253, prohibiting restrictive local ordinances affecting farm use zones, nor is it intended to restrict any activity allowed under Baker County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Section 1.05 General Prohibitions
No person shall cause a public nuisance to come into existence on another’s property, nor to allow a public nuisance to continue to be in existence on his or her own property. Public nuisance includes:
B. VEHICLES ON REAL PROPERTY in Baker County are a public nuisance when:
(1) An accumulation of inoperable or unlicensed vehicles is visible from public roads, walkways, or adjacent properties.
(2) An accumulation of vehicles bodies or body parts are visible from public roads, walkways, or adjacent properties.
Commissioner Stiff stated that the mayors from the small communities had worked diligently on the ordinance and should the ordinance be adopted, they would most likely use the County’s ordinance to assist with issues in their communities.
Commissioner Warner stated that the ordinance would only cover unincorporated areas and if the cities wanted to participate, they would need to enter into an MOU with the County. The County would then enforce violation, only after the city had done the groundwork.
Commissioner Warner proceeded by reading three letters into the record:
1) Bill Arnold, Mayor of Huntington (see attachment A)
2) Unnamed Durkee Resident (see attachment B)
3) Jasper Coombes, Richland Resident (see attachment C)
Don Silva, 14082 S. Rock Creek, Haines, OR: Mr. Silva stated that he was in support of the ordinance and did not believe that it would be used punitively. Mr. Silva’s property was being impacted and saw the ordinance as a step in the right direction.
Barbara Fleming, 2408 East Street, Baker City, OR: Ms. Fleming stated that she liked things neat, clean and healthy, but not at the expense of private property rights. She was concerned with the 50% additional cost and 6% interest a year that people would be penalized. The ordinance would hurt the people that could afford it the least. Ms. Fleming asked if there could be something more voluntary instead of imposing liens.
Mary Neske, 420 E Third Street, Haines, OR: Ms. Neske stated that she was there on behalf of her mom and dad. Ms. Neske’s parents owned property on Hwy 86 and although others might see it as a nuisance, she did not. Ms. Neske believed that Baker County would be in worse shape had it not been for her dad repairing the old equipment and helping the Sumpter Valley Railroad. Ms.Neske suggested that if the County wanted to fence their property, that they would need to find the funds as her mom would not be able to afford it.
Esther Jackson, 3090 N. Second Street, Baker City, OR: Ms. Jackson submitted photos of a house that she had sold on contract. The gentlemen wasn’t even able to get insurance for it because of the condition it was in. Ms. Jackson stated that she was in favor of the ordinance.
Robert Ledbetter, 39001 Ebell Creek Road, OR: Mr. Ledbetter stated that he was against the ordinance as it was taking away more freedoms. Mr. Ledbetter stated that his son was fighting for our freedoms in Afghanistan and now the County was trying to take them away.
Debbie McBroom, 34622 Old Hwy 30, Pleasant Valley, OR: Ms. McBroom submitted photos of her neighbor stating that his property was a danger. Ms. McBroom stated that the Road Department couldn’t even plow around it. Ms. McBroom added that the neighbor had been using the extra equipment in his yard to stock her and her family. Many warnings had been issued, they had been to court, and still nothing had happened. Ms. McBroom stated that she was in favor of the ordinance.
Gary Fuller, 34583 Old Hwy 30, Pleasant Valley, OR: Mr. Fuller stated that he was in favor as well. Mr. Fuller stated that he was Ms. McBroom’s neighbor and agreed with her about the other neighbor. Many complaints had been filed and the person would not comply.
Glen Swilling, 15701 Goodrich Creek Ln, Baker City, OR: Mr. Swilling stated that he was really opposed to the ordinance for the main reason that it was full of holes. Mr. Swilling felt that the ordinance was open ended and therefore only people with money could afford to fight it. The people that the County would actually be cleaning up after, wouldn’t be able to fight it. Mr. Swilling stated that the end result would be a lien on the place followed by foreclosure. Mr. Swilling felt that this was not the job for the County Court. Mr. Swilling added that it was foolish to make another ordinance to enforce when the County couldn’t enforce the ones they already had. Mr. Swilling stated that as far as taking pictures of nuisances, anyone could find eyesores down the road. The owner of the eyesore might believe it to be the prettiest thing in the world. Mr. Swilling believed that the ordinance should not be given any further consideration and suggested offering a tax break for those that clean up their places.
JR Streifel, 15063 Profitt Loop, Baker City, OR: Mr. Streifel believed that more research needed to be done. The way in which the ordinance was written left loopholes and predicted many cases going to court. Mr. Streifel believed that the County would be putting their noses in a persons domain and unless they were abusing their children, animals, etc, they should be left alone.
Carmen Ott, 2615 College Street, Baker City, OR: Ms. Ott requested clarification on whether or not the ordinance would include Baker City. Commissioner Warner stated that it would not include Baker City unless they wanted to join. Ms. Ott stated that she was still in support of the ordinance. Ms. Ott stated that there were many travelers along the freeway and through Haines that love the valley. Ms. Ott described comments that were made during her 40 year class reunion regarding how the County had so many junk piles. Ms. Ott stated that there were burned out old buildings still standing that should be made a part of the ordinance as well as weeds. Ms. Ott recommended getting people motivated to clean their property and offer programs to assist. Ms. Ott added that as far as taking away peoples freedom, her freedom was being taken away by the people that had junk outside and she was in full support of the ordinance.
Lynn Shumway, Bridgeport, OR: Mr. Shumway stated that he had real reservations about the ordinance. Mr. Shumway agreed with the letter by Mr. Coombes. Mr. Shumway was concerned about how the County would enforce the ordinance. Mr. Shumway requested that before the County adopt it, that they give serious thought to how a nuisance would be determined and how it would be enforced. Mr. Shumway did not believe this was the route that the county government should be taking at this time. Mr. Shumway recommended that instead of giving tax breaks, to put a tax penalty on those that wouldn’t clean up.
Commissioner Warner stated that the reason for taking on the matter was because there were legitimate issues in the community and he did not want to diminish them. If the ordinance was not done now, what could the County do? Commissioner Warner stated that he liked the idea of a tax penalty instead of a lien and possibly a citizen accountability board. Commissioner Warner added that as far as Pug's place, he hadn’t heard any concerns on that.
A brief discussion followed regarding grandfathering certain property.
Melissa Garner, Haines, OR: Ms. Garner stated that she was in opposition of the ordinance. Ms. Garner appreciated the complaints and the danger of true health hazards, but there were laws already in existence to deal with those. Ms. Garner did not believe that another ordinance would solve any of the complaints when the laws that they already had were not being enforced.
Bill Harvey, Haines, OR: Mr. Harvey believed that a lot of good ideas had come forth. Mr. Harvey described how penalties were used in the construction business and the County would not even have to physically enter someone’s property. Mr. Harvey recommended creating a subcommittee to look at the ordinance and penalties. Mr. Harvey did not believe that the County should be responsible for cleaning up people’s property. There were civic organizations that would be more than happy to help out. Mr. Harvey stated that research needed to be done on what laws were already on the books. People were having a real hard time with neighbors and the County could not do nothing.
Jon Croghan, Baker City, OR: Mr. Croghan stated that hazardous wastes should be cleaned up, no questions asked and eyesores did not make for a premier living experience. Mr. Croghan qeustioned what other ordinances were on the books that would take care of the nuisances. Commissioner Warner stated that the proposed ordinance was specific and was not sure if there were others in the comprehensive plan.
Linda Gorham, Haines, OR: Ms. Gorham stated that she had garbage blowing over in her yard on a daily basis. She had worked with Mark Bennett for two years and had yet to see other ordinances. Commissioner Warner questioned if the proposed nuisance ordinance would help her situation. Ms. Gorham stated that it would.
Lorrie Harvey, Haines OR: Ms. Harvey stated that she was not passionate either way. Her concern was with the sense of smell as well as site. Mr. Harvey added that she did not believe that it was fair to say that those with junk were poor, sometimes it was their way of life.
Ms. Ott stated that her previous remarks had not been directed towards people that were poor, or elderly. She wanted to see some assistance made available to those that could not clean up their property on their own. Ms. Ott stated that everyone needed to be aware of the problems out there and take responsibility. Meth lab chemicals were being dumped on private and public property and everyone would be affected.
Ms. Gorham added that an additional resource for helping to clean was the prison crew.
Alice Knapp, Baker City, OR: Ms. Knapp questioned where the funding would come from for the abatement. Commissioner Warner stated that the Commission did not intend it to be a full time effort.
Bill Bousquet, Baker City, OR: Mr. Bousquet’s concerns were with people moving just outside of city limits and turning nice neighborhoods into junk yards.
Mr. Steifel reiterated the need to enforce the laws already in existence. He had a neighbor that had been busted for meth twice and was still living in the house.
Hellen Swilling, 15701 Goodrich Creek Ln, Baker City, OR: Ms. Swilling stated that it would be much easier to start with something positive. Ms. Swilling realized there were some serious problems, but they could be helped by making people aware and giving incentives. Ms. Swilling stated that she was against more laws and wanted to preserve our freedoms as much as possible.
Commissioner Kerns stated that the price of scrap iron was up and it would be a good idea to look at a more convenient way to recycle iron and steel.
Mr. Ledbetter stated that a major problem with getting rid of cars was that the State of Oregon required a title before you could crush them.
Consensus was reached to research what laws Baker County had on the books and if they were lacking in any area and to work on enforcing them. Consensus was also reached to create a citizen committee that would keep the momentum going to come up with some solution.
The public hearing was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin Nudd, Executive Assistant
Baker County Board of Commissioners