Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abatement Costs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds abatement costs for 5992 SE Monroe after residents dispute charges
Summary
Milwaukie council voted unanimously to uphold $5,920 in abatement costs assessed after staff removed debris and vehicles from 5992 SE Monroe. Residents disputed the number of truckloads, police overtime charges and the timing of the work and asked for receipts and GPS records; staff said the abatement followed code and presented contractor weights and invoices.
The Milwaukie City Council voted unanimously to uphold the city’s abatement-cost assessment for the property at 5992 SE Monroe after a public hearing in which the property owners disputed the charges.
City code compliance coordinator Tim Sers told the council that code compliance followed required procedures when administering the abatement and that staff documented four and a quarter truckloads of debris removed, contractor weight receipts and staff hours, including police overtime. "We estimated five truckloads and removed four and a quarter truckloads," Sers said during his presentation.
In two rounds of testimony the property owners, Barrett Owens Swanson and Erica Swanson, said the abatement notice lacked specificity about what they were required to remove and questioned both the number of truckloads billed and the inclusion of police overtime. Barrett Swanson said the abatement began about 7:30 a.m. and ended near noon and asked, "I don't understand how that's overtime pay," and pressed staff to produce contractor dump receipts and GPS logs of the trucks.
Staff and the city attorney responded that owners had previously received notices and citations and that the abatement followed the legal process: a warrant was executed and staff completed an affidavit and return of service for the judge. Tim Sers said the weights and invoices supporting the contractor billing were in the record and defended standard overtime charging for officers when extra staffing was required for safety and operational continuity.
Council members reviewed photographs offered by the residents and questioned staff about the timing and logistics. After deliberation the council moved to uphold the costs as determined by staff. The motion passed without opposition.
The residents asked whether the city would consider a payment plan; staff said court staff could be contacted to discuss payment arrangements. The hearing record indicates the abatement cost figure discussed by the residents was $5,920.
