The New Cordell City Council voted Monday, Sept. 16, 2019, to adopt a new ordinance that would allow the city to add the cost of abatement to the utility bill of the property owner, occupant, or both.
The ordinance allows city officers to order property owners or tenants to remove “any source of filth, cause of sickness, condition conducive to the breeding of insects or rodents that might contribute to the transmission of disease, or any other condition adversely affecting the public health and safety, including but not limited to dilapidated structures...” Should the property owner, agent, or tenant refuse to comply with such an order, the city may then undertake abatement measures.
Under current ordinance, when the city incurs an abatement expense on private property a lien can be placed on the property as a means of collecting on the expense. The problem arises, said city administrator J.C. Moser, when there are other liens in priority position on the property. If the property is foreclosed or sold at a sheriff’s sale, tax liens are paid first and any additional revenues are then used to pay off liens in the chronological order in which they were placed, making it extremely unlikely enough money will be collected to cover the city’s abatement costs. The new ordinance, Moser said, will give the city one more tool to help collect the costs from the property owner and/or occupant and thereby keep the costs off the city and its taxpayers and utility customers.
Former mayor Bob Plummer, who was in the audience, asked the council if the ordinance would include some sort of a payment plan, which would allow the owner or tenant to pay for the abatement over time. City attorney Johnny Beech said it’s not the city’s role to create a payment plan inside an ordinance. The city could, if council decided, revise the current utility payment and collection policy to include payment plan options.
The ordinance, which Beech said complies with state statute in Title 63, 1-10-11, does not create a mandate for the city to undertake expensive abatement measures, it only provides one additional avenue for the city to collect the costs of doing so, when necessary, from the property owner.
The ordinance passed by a vote of seven to one, with council member Earlene Smith as the dissenting vote. The council then invoked the city’s emergency clause, making the new ordinance effective immediately.