Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves appeals‑officer appointments; members ask broader review of code enforcement and graffiti enforcement
Summary
Hanford — The Hanford City Council approved consent item C on May 6, which included appointment of appeals officers for code‑enforcement hearings, and held an extended discussion about graffiti responses, citation language and the complaint‑driven nature of enforcement.
Hanford — The Hanford City Council approved consent item C on May 6, which included appointment of appeals officers for code‑enforcement hearings, and held an extended discussion about graffiti responses, citation language and the complaint‑driven nature of enforcement.
Local business owner Onan Champey had pulled the consent item to ask why property owners receive notices when graffiti or dumped trash appears on their parcels. Champey said his properties are repeatedly tagged and he has been subject to administrative notices despite not being the person who painted or dumped trash. He asked the council to reconsider aspects of enforcement that penalize property owners for vandalism by third parties.
Staff explained the city’s process: complaints are typically reported through the ClickFix app, code enforcement responds and — if a violation is found — staff issues a notice giving the property owner time to abate. City staff said citations are generally administrative fines and that criminal prosecution is “extremely rare.” The city attorney told the council it was his recollection that the code‑enforcement citations are administrative in nature; staff agreed to review citation language after council raised concerns that some citation notices used wording that appeared to reference criminal penalties.
Council members asked for a broader review of code enforcement practice, including the phrasing of notices, the appeal fee and refund process, proactive versus complaint‑driven enforcement, and the city’s ability to remove graffiti from private property. Staff noted legal limits on painting private property with public funds and said staff will bring a broader code‑enforcement discussion to a future meeting and will contact property owners as appropriate in specific cases.
The council then voted to approve the consent item (appointments for appeal hearings); a council member made the motion and it passed 5‑0.
