City staff and the Talent City Council spent about 30 minutes on Sept. 17 debating a proposed chronic-nuisance code that would let the city use civil procedures against properties that repeatedly cause problems for neighbors or public safety. Staff framed the proposal as a hybrid approach combining written warnings, the potential requirement of an abatement plan, and civil enforcement as a last resort.

The staff presentation opened with a reminder that "this is entirely about a civil procedure," and described a draft that would warn property owners, require an abatement plan after a threshold of qualifying incidents, and move to civil enforcement only if owners fail to comply. City staff said the draft borrows elements used in other Rogue Valley cities and aims to give the city “off-ramps” to bring properties into compliance without immediate enforcement.

Chief Tay O'Meara of the Ashland Police Department told the council his department has used its chronic-nuisance ordinance mainly as a compliance tool. "In my 10 years as police chief and to my knowledge in my 5 years as a member of the Ashland Police Department, our chronic nuisance ordinance has gone to application with the municipal court judge 0 times," he said, and added that he has written about six warning letters that typically produced compliance. He noted that Ashland’s most severe sanction — shuttering a property for 180 days — has never been used.

O'Meara said a reported incident does not always require a charged violation to qualify for chronic-nuisance consideration. "It does not have to be a charged violation ... Just that incident has to have been investigated and substantiated by the Ashland Police Department," he said.

Council members raised several concerns and clarifying questions. Councilor Nomrath and others asked whether the code could be weaponized to block group homes, residential facilities for people with behavioral-health needs or developmental disabilities, or other protected housing. Council members pressed for language in any local ordinance that would explicitly recognize existing legal protections for people with disabilities and other protected characteristics.

Staff and the chief said they had not seen the ordinance used in that way in Ashland. O'Meara said he expects law enforcement, city attorneys and any judge involved to scrutinize complaints and avoid using the ordinance as a tool against protected facilities. "I don't believe that's the intention for it," he said, adding that the original use in Ashland was largely aimed at college party houses and problematic rental properties where landlords could be pressed to act.

Council members also discussed process flexibility. Several councilors said they favored keeping multiple "off-ramps" (warnings, code enforcement, fire-department abatement, informal remedies) rather than prescribing a single required sequence of steps. Staff confirmed the draft can be revised to make an abatement plan one possible remedy rather than a mandatory step in every case.

No formal ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Council directed staff to return with draft ordinance language addressing the council’s concerns, including clarifying that protected populations must not be unfairly targeted and preserving flexibility for staff and responding agencies to use appropriate remedies before pursuing civil enforcement.

Ending: Staff said they will bring revised draft language back to the council for additional review. Councilors thanked Chief O'Meara for joining the meeting to share Ashland's experience.