Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Nuisance Property Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council committee tightens nuisance‑property rules, extends look‑back period to 12 months and adds appeals, notice requirements

3077386 · April 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Cleveland City Council Finance, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee on April 21 approved amendments to codified ordinance sections 6.30.01 and 6.30.02 (Ordinance 228‑2025) that expand evidence standards, broaden who counts as engaging in nuisance activity, and extend the counting period for repeated incidents to 12 months.

The Finance, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee approved an amended emergency ordinance (228‑2025) on April 21 that revises city nuisance‑property rules in sections 6.30.01 and 6.30.02 of the Codified Ordinances of Cleveland. The amendments change the time window for counting repeated criminal nuisance activities, broaden who can be counted as engaging in nuisance activity, clarify allowable evidence, require nuisance abatement plans after repeated incidents and add electronic notice to council members when a property is declared a nuisance.

Assistant Director Schechner and city legal staff summarized the proposed changes for the committee. The ordinance clarifies that a criminal conviction is not necessary to declare a nuisance and explicitly states that citations or arrests also are not required; instead, officers may rely on probable‑cause determinations using witness statements, videos and officers’ observations. The ordinance adds a new category, “persons associated with the property,” so individuals who gather at or approach a site may be counted when determining whether the property has a pattern of criminal nuisance activity.

A substantive procedural change extends the look‑back period used to count incidents from six months to 12 months. The committee also amended corresponding civil‑fine language so fines are assessed based on occurrences within 12 months. The ordinance keeps an escalating fine scheme tied to repeated incidents: on the fourth nuisance declaration a $250 civil fine applies; a fifth incident within the 12‑month window triggers a $500 fine, a sixth $750, and $1,000 for each subsequent occurrence within the 12‑month period, according to staff explanation to the committee.

The ordinance makes submission of a nuisance abatement plan mandatory after a third declaration; if an owner fails to provide the plan within 10 days, a $100 per day fine may be imposed. Staff said the mandatory plan is intended to compel property owners (including out‑of‑state LLCs) to propose steps — for example, security arrangements, eviction of problem tenants or other measures — to abate recurring problems.

The committee also approved an amendment to ensure Cleveland City Council members are notified electronically when a property is declared a nuisance, when a mandatory submission is requested, and when fines are imposed. Staff said notices will be sent to the owner address listed on the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer’s records; if mailed notice is returned undeliverable, posting on the property’s door will be deemed proper notice.

Enforcement and due process: Sergeant Landon (public safety detail) was described as the staff member who will review calls for service and related evidence; the ordinance creates a review workflow to let him consider witness statements and video and to confer with district command staff. Property owners may appeal an initial notice to the director of public safety (or designee) and then to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Committee action and amendments: Councilman Polensek moved the committee amendment to extend the counting period to 12 months; Councilman McCormick seconded the motion. Councilman Anthony Harrison proffered an amendment requiring electronic notice to council members; Councilman Polensek seconded. Both amendments were adopted on voice votes and the ordinance was approved by the committee as amended.

Scope and limits: Staff cautioned the ordinance is a tool among many; domestic‑violence calls and other sensitive matters still require tailored responses and other city resources. Staff also said the changes are not retroactive: enforcement will begin going forward from the ordinance’s effective date. Records for prior complaints will not automatically carry forward to be counted under the new regime.

The committee recorded the ordinance as approved as amended; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the transcript.