Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Tracy council orders corrective action on two properties after owner raises health and timing concerns

Tracy City Council · September 24, 2024
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 council approved resolutions ordering corrective action at 50 Morgan Street and 6743 Street; the latter prompted an extended exchange with the property owner, who said health issues and storage needs make the 20–30 day compliance window difficult.

The Tracy City Council approved two resolutions ordering corrective actions on properties the city deems hazardous or blighted and set compliance timelines, while also hearing an extended appeal-like exchange from one property owner.

Council discussed Resolution 2024-88 concerning 50 Morgan Street, where staff cited missing or rotted siding, failing roof materials and unsafe structural issues; the council approved the resolution and staff described a 20–30 day compliance window after the resolution is served before the city may file an enforcement action in district court.

On Resolution 20 2489 addressing 6743 Street, the property owner—addressed in the record as Dick—spoke at length about recent health issues (including multiple surgeries), the need to salvage personal possessions and storage concerns that make demolition or full repairs within 20–30 days difficult. Council members acknowledged sympathy for the owner’s situation but emphasized the need to follow the city’s ordinance and avoid setting lenient precedents for other property owners.

Council members asked staff and the city attorney to consider whether an intermediate, documented agreement or other procedural step could be employed to provide limited extra time while preserving the city’s ability to enforce the ordinance if work is not completed. The chair said the city would consult with legal counsel and with the staff member referenced (Matt) about possible options.

Both corrective-action resolutions were approved by roll-call vote; staff noted the city typically proceeds to district court if compliance is not achieved within the set timeframe and that court filing carries a city cost (recorded in the meeting as $1,500). The council directed staff to follow the ordinance steps and to report back to the council about any feasible interim agreements.