Council denies property owner’s appeal over abatement, owner says notice went to wrong address

Owner’s appeal: missed notice and procedural concerns
Taj Gray told the council he did not receive timely notice of the city's abatement action at 1703 Crooson Street, saying the mailed notice went to the wrong address and that he only received documentation more than five weeks after abatement work had been performed. He said a tow company removed a vehicle without prior communication and that earlier corrections to his mailing address were not made in the city’s records until after the abatement.

City response and process cited
City code enforcement staff said they received a 3-1-1 complaint, inspected the property, mailed an initial letter on Nov. 13, conducted a reinspection on Nov. 24 and found no corrective action had been taken; staff said abatement followed the department’s processes. City staff noted their process does not include posting a notice on the property but does include mailing the owner.

Council action
Council members asked about frequency of owner checks and whether signage or further notice should have been posted. After discussion the council voted to deny the owner’s appeal on the record.

What remains
The owner asked the council to acknowledge procedural violations and reconsider the abatement decision; the denial on the record ends the appeal at this meeting, though the owner and staff discussed steps to improve communication going forward.