Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, February 1, 2024 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Carol Myers, Chair Commissioner John Culpepper Commissioner Jesse Houle Commissioner Ovita Thornton Commissioner Allison Wright Staff: Niki Jones, Assistant Manager Sherrie Hines, Deputy Chief Attorney Mike Wharton, Sustainability Office Courtney Davis, Senior Attorney Doug Hansford, Building Permits & Inspection Stephanie Green, Sustainability Office Sarah George, Recorder Commissioner Myers called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. A. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the January 4, 2024 minutes. Commissioner Thornton seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Public Input: There was none. Commission Identified Items of Interest: C. Examine modifications to the Code of Ordinances related to invasive plant species, specifically identify means by which bamboo and other plant species in the ordinance can be mitigated Assistant Manager Jones summarized past discussion on the topic. He shared the staff- recommended proposed definition of invasive plant, as was previously discussed in past meetings. Stephanie Green shared that staff would change the reference to the Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council to the Georgia Invasive Species Council; she shared that this change is needed, because the Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council is transitioning to the Georgia Invasive Species Council. Commissioner Thornton inquired about whether or not there was a place where the different categories of invasive plants are listed. Staff shared that the link listed in the proposed definition would take individuals to the list of invasive plants by category. Deputy Chief Attorney Sherrie Hines also noted that there have been updates made to the plant list categories, and she shared that Bradford Pear, which was previously a Category 3 invasive, is now a Category 1 invasive as previously anticipated. Commissioner Houle expressed interest in expanding the definition in the future to include all four categories of invasive plant species and apply the broader definition to the things that ACCGov gives credit for in zoning development and tree canopy; they explained they just wanted to share this interest in case it arises in the future.  Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the staff-recommended proposed definition of invasive plant. Commissioner Houle seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Staff shared potential opportunities for education and outreach. Commissioner Wright inquired as to whether or not there might be a budgetary impact regarding materials and supplies. Assistant Manager Jones shared that he would defer to staff; however, there could be a budgetary impact. Commissioner Wright explained that, if they are able to check in on the progress with this topic in the future, it would be helpful to learn about the potential for having grant funds available for projects within the community. She shared that she would be interested in learning how this outreach could further encourage community members to become involved, similar to ambassadors. Commissioner Myers inquired about which of the efforts provided in the staff recommendation for education and outreach opportunities are new. Stephanie Green shared that the “Invasive ‘Bounty’ Program” is a proposal that the Sustainability Office has an interest in pursuing. She explained that they would look to use grant funding to allow residents to show proof of an invasive species being removed and receive a replacement native plant in return. Stephanie Green also explained that, to her knowledge, ACCGov has not participated in National Invasive Species Awareness Week. They also have not previously reached out to local plant nurseries or provided training or information to Planning, Code Enforcement, and other departments. She shared that the rest of those opportunities listed are things that they have been involved with. Assistant Manager Jones shared that, while a formal approval was not necessary on the recommended education and outreach opportunities, staff would like some direction from the Committee. Commissioner Houle requested clarification on what was needed as far as direction. Assistant Manager Jones explained that, if the Committee is amenable to the recommended education and outreach opportunities, staff will then move forward with pursuing them, though this would be with the understanding that they will implement as they are able. Commissioner Houle explained that, from their perspective, they did not want to conflate generally feeling fine with the list of education and outreach opportunities with it being the top priority. They noted that they defer to the Sustainability Office on the prioritization of this compared to the other work of the Sustainability Office. Assistant Manager Jones reviewed considerations for enforcement. He explained that complaint- driven enforcement would be the recommended approach from staff. He shared that, with the complaint-driven approach, once a complaint is received, it would be assigned to a Code Enforcement Officer. The Code Enforcement Officer will investigate and conduct an on-site inspection. He noted that one of the challenges for the Code Enforcement Officer would be determining property lines and encroachment. He also explained that the burden of proof would be on ACCGov. Code Enforcement staff can also provide educational material on invasive plants and how to mitigate them to residents when responding to the complaint. Building Permits and Inspection Director Doug Hansford explained that the best-case scenario would be that, when the Code Enforcement Officer investigates the site, the owner acknowledges that it is their property and says they will take care of the problem. He noted that this does happen in the majority of the cases. He explained that the worst-case scenario is that the Code Enforcement Officer investigates, and the owner disputes the property line. He explained that, in order for them to issue a citation, they have to have sufficient evidence, including information regarding where the invasive plant started and spread. Deputy Chief Attorney Sherrie Hines confirmed that the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt standard, is on ACCGov; however, she noted that these are not unique or new problems. She explained Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 020124  that typically they may have the victim (individual whose property is being trespassed on) come in and testify to where their property line is and explain how they know it is their property line. She shared that they certainly could go to the lengths of requesting they obtain a survey, but she noted that she cannot imagine that ACCGov would be doing that as part of prosecution. She explained that it is not insurmountable. She also advised that they could certainly ask to the court to require someone to mitigate in the same way that if someone has litter all over their property; the court can put them on probation and require them to clean it up. Whether the individual chooses to comply is another matter, but she noted that there would be consequences for failing to do so, which could include going to jail at some point. That is not anyone’s goal, but it is usually a strong motivator if we have to get to the point of having to actually put someone on probation for not taking responsibility for a code enforcement violation. Commissioner Houle inquired about whether or not there may be a way to prove what direction something, like bamboo, is spreading and whose property it started on. Stephanie Green explained that it may be difficult to determine the originating point; however, she shared that in past Committee discussion there was conversation regarding that, regardless of whether it originated miles away from your home, once it is on your property, it is still that property owner’s responsibility to prevent it from spreading to their neighbor’s property. In some ways, she explained you might be able to prove it, especially if it was a large patch of growth by comparing past and present aerial imagery. Commissioner Houle shared that they were concerned that there may be some cases that could potentially overburden staff resources trying to obtain the burden of proof for a few waring neighbors. Deputy Chief Attorney Sherrie Hines explained that there is discretion at multiple levels; Code Enforcement is not required to issue a citation, and the Attorney’s Office are certainly not required to move forward with a case if they think there is not enough to move forward. She also reiterated that we cannot make something illegal retroactively; therefore, unfortunately, all of the bamboo in the particular situation or anywhere else is essentially fine where it is. Staff would anticipate advising residents that call to complain that, if they currently have bamboo on their property, the best thought on how to proceed would be for the complainant to remove it all from their property, so there is a clean slate; if there is new invasive growth on their property from that point, there would be a clear origin that was not related to something that existed before the ordinance was effective. Assistant Manager Jones inquired about how long property owners would have to mitigate the invasive plant. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines explained that their goal is always compliance, and they recognize that, depending on the circumstances, may require much more time or expense to mitigate. She also explained that they will also work with someone and grant more time, as long as they can demonstrate that they are actually affirmatively trying to make progress of some kind. They would also take into consideration financial burden. She explained that, to provide a timeframe, cases could legitimately take months to years to resolve; it depends on the circumstances. Commissioner Houle made a motion to move forward with a complaint-driven enforcement process. Commissioner Thornton seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Commissioner Wright shared that one of the challenges with addressing the bamboo prior to the topic being assigned to Committee was that bamboo was not included in the definition for overgrown vegetation. She inquired as to whether or not that was also being addressed with this topic. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines explained that her intention was to try to preserve what already exists, clarify it a bit as it pertains to this topic, and add it as a separate piece; she would still intend to maintain the ability for code enforcement to address nuisance abatement as it pertains to invasives, if the Committee agrees. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 020124  Assistant Manager Jones shared staff will return to the Committee at the next meeting with a draft ordinance. Schedule/Agenda Changes The next LRC meeting is scheduled for March 7, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Thornton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:58 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 020124