Woman claims nuisance abatement over civil penalties violated her Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

The letter written by the center's attorneys, Sara Montrone and Jamie Trinkle, alleges that Contreras Granados did not receive a “Notice of Abatement or any letters about the alleged civil code violations,” before civil penalties that were sent to Contreras Granados by the city in February.

The first civil penalties notice on Feb. 21, alleged violations of city code pertaining to outdoor storage of personal property, outdoor storage of non-trash items, attractive nuisance, debris, iceboxes/freezers, weeds/grass over 10 feet tall, and storage of vehicles and parts.

Attorneys say that the notice did not explain how the violations differed from one another, nor did it provide factual specifics regarding the alleged violations.

The letter said that the city assessed the total of civil penalties to $3,950, with a maximum per-fine violation amount of $1,500.

A second notice of civil penalty was issued to Contreras Granados on March 4. According to the letter the city used a "revised fine matrix,” to set the fine level based on the severity of the violation and whether the property owner had taken any mitigation steps and if there were any prior related violations. The maximum per-fine violation was increased to $2,000.

Additionally, the letter claims she “did not timely receive either notice,” and “at the time of the notices,” Contreras Granados was not living on the property and believed it to be vacant.

The property owner claims that unbeknownst to her, people in an RV were living on her property. Furthermore, she said she did not learn of the notices until April, when the people from the RV contacted her after they had received two or three notices.

Attorneys say after that, Contreras Granados' worked diligently to remedy the violations. However, when a code enforcement officer visited the property, he told her that there were still violations. she and her family made multiple additional attempts to clean the property to the satisfaction of code enforcement officers.

The notices said she could appeal to the city of Ontario’s hearing officer. They also notice gave 30 days to pay the civil penalty or stated a lien would be attached to Contreras Granados’ property.

Attorneys say when she asked Ontario Police Department staff about an appeal, they told her she would have to file with the Malheur County Circuit Court in Vale.

Contreras Granados claims the court was closed due to COVID-19, and as such she did not file an appeal.

On April 2, the city of Ontario placed a lien on her property for $3,950. This was followed on June, 17 by a second lien of $6,000, which was reduced by the city from $7,800, because jher property was “in compliance above and beyond.”

In the letter, Contreras Granados’ attorneys say due to the liens, her efforts to sell the property have been “hindered.” Additionally, it claims she has suffered stress, anxiety and loss of sleep. Moreover, she does not have the $9,950 to pay the civil penalty fines.

The attorney’s letter describes the woman as “extremely low-income.” She is employed and is also living with her daughter.

Contreras Granados' her attorneys say is one of many “non-English speakers residing in Ontario,” citing a 2019 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey.

Contreras Granados' attorneys allege that staff from the city of Ontario misdirected her to appeal to a closed court and that if she was provided the notices in Spanish, along with the correct information of the city’s appeal policies the outcome of her case would have been different.

The attorneys also believe that Contreras Granados’ Eight Amendment under the U.S. Constitution and Article I Section 16 of the Oregon Constitution prohibits governments from imposing excessive fines and that those fines be proportionate to the offense.

In addition, the attorneys say that Contreras Granados’ Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution were violated by depriving her of an “adequate opportunity to respond,” to the aforementioned code violations.

Lawsuit filed

According to the lawsuit, Oregon Law Center Attorney Emily Teplin has taken Montrone’s place as Contreras Granados’ attorney along with Attorney Kelsey Heilman and Attorney Jami Trinkle.

The center is seeking a trial by jury for relief on three claims; details follow.

The first claim is that Contreras Granados’ is entitled to an award of economic and non-economic damages and punitive damages against the defendant [the city of Ontario] in an amount to be determined at trial.

The second and third claims, are that violations of Granado’s Eighth Amendment rights caused her injuries, entitling her to the aforementioned damages and payment of her attorney fees and litigation expenses or costs according to the lawsuit.

Council’s response to the letter

Prior to learning of the lawsuit filing, the Argus had reached out to members of Ontario City Council to comment on the letter. Responses follow.

Hill provided a letter to the paper which, in part, said, “The crux of the issue is the excessive fines levied by the City of Ontario for nuisance violations, unlawful procedures as well the unfair appeals process that required a large non-refundable fee.”

“It has been common practice for the Code Enforcement Department, administered by the Chief [of] Police and the City Manager, to allow excessive fines to be levied and accumulate against properties and citizens. Some fines reached as high as $227,000.

“There is no impartial appeals process; those fined are guilty as charged and expected to pay the exorbitant fines. This compelled me [Hill] to take the City to task where I incurred $30,000 in legal fees to expose the city’s unfair practices. This effort resulted in the current City Council recognizing these biased and unjust fines.”

The mayor also said that the “Present City Council decided that the process in place was not beneficial to the city and stopped the unjust process,” and that the council “appointed an Ad Hoc committee to review and access the process, make recommendations and present solutions to the City Council.”

Hill concluded his letter by saying that he “hope[s] to put this problem to rest and come to a good resolution,” and that his “reason for running for mayor was to ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability, make certain all citizens are treated equitably, engage in long-range strategic planning that will restore Ontario to its prominence in the Treasure Valley making it a strong, healthy, safe community where residents are proud to live, work, and enjoy life.”

Councilor Michael Braden had no comment regarding the letter, stating that he expects “the council will review and address all outstanding fines and civil penalties after reviewing the recommendations of the committee and making any necessary changes to the ordinances and policies.”

Councilor John Kirby also had “no comment,” stating he would first like the code enforcement committee to address the issues that the Code Enforcement Department is having.

Councilor Eddie Melendrez emailed the paper the following statement.

“I'm sorry to hear about the situation that Mrs. [Contreras] Granados is currently dealing with. I'm learning more about this specific abatement case and will reach out to City Staff to learn more. I’m sure if there is a way this can be remedied, City Staff and Council will find that solution. I'm eager to see what the new Code Enforcement advisory committee comes up with regarding fines and enforcement. I’m hopeful to see the City move in a positive direction that makes all residents of Ontario feel included and heard.”

In his emailed statement, Council President Ken Hart said, “The tactics alleged in the complaint are very similar to those raised earlier this year during the public comment period of our City Council meeting and previously by the Mayor: excessive fines, lack of notice and requiring payment to appeal a fine.”

Hart further said when the council was made aware of the issues, it immediately suspended the program and established the citizen committee to review the ordinance, stating that he looked forward to seeing the results of the committee’s work.

Hart also alleged that the current program was implemented and overseen by former Police Chief Steven Romero and City Manager Adam Brown.

However, it is worth noting, that the program was first implemented by the prior Ontario City Council, according to former Council President Norm Crume who served on the council for 12 years.

He said in phone interview on Dec. 2 that the program was presented by former Code Enforcement Officer Dallas Brockett, along with “input” from then-police chief Cal Kunz and Brown.

“It is the [Ontario City] Council that says yay or nay,” when it comes to implementing policy, Crume pointed out. “Not city staff.”

Crume said that the prior council, which included him, “went too high on the fine structure,” regarding code enforcement and that the current council needs “something more reasonable.”

In September of 2018, the current code enforcement program was implemented after the expiration of a $5 water fee on Ontario residents' water bill for public safety. An $8 street fee still applies to the resident's water bill.

Crume said that removal of the aforementioned fee by the Ontario City Council “defunded the police,” by $250,000.

Councilor Sam Baker was also contacted but did not respond by the print deadline.

Councilor Susann Mills did not receive a copy of the letter. However, when reached for comment, she said as she was not familiar with Contreras Granados’ case and that she would not be comfortable commenting on it at this time.