CARIBOU, Maine — The Caribou City Council on Monday approved two ordinances aimed at addressing property blight and public nuisances, taking specific edits after public comment to avoid forcing residents to file written complaints that could be subject to public‑records requests.

At public hearings on Ordinance 1 (anti‑blight) and Ordinance 2 (anti‑nuisance), members of the public and councilors raised concerns that proposed language requiring complaints to be submitted in writing (city code references: section 4‑407 and section 6‑504(a) in drafts) could expose complainant names and addresses to Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) requests and could deter people from reporting problems.

City staff told the council that "as it is now, we do not require people to put their complaints in writing," and that staff routinely investigates complaints received by phone. Staff recommended removing or revising the sentence that would have required written and signed complaints.

On the nuisance ordinance, councilors also reviewed a draft clause that would have limited certain complaints to residents "living within 500 feet" of an alleged nuisance; several councilors and members of the public urged striking that proximity limitation as unnecessary. One councilor described the change as a minor wording tweak: striking the words "written" and "living within 500 feet thereof" would leave the code enforcement officer able to act on complaints from any resident or city official.

After discussion, the council accepted Ordinance 1 as proposed with an edit to section 4‑408 and then approved Ordinance 2 with the recommended changes (removing the written‑complaint requirement and dropping the 500‑foot limit). Both measures passed after motions at the July meeting. Supporters said the edits would preserve staff ability to investigate anonymous or verbal complaints and avoid discouraging reporting; opponents mainly raised concerns about possible redundancy with the property maintenance code and the need to harmonize language.

Planning board members and the city attorney had previously flagged redundancy between the proposed ordinances and the existing property maintenance code; the council said it would send language questions back to the planning board where appropriate so zoning and enforcement provisions are aligned.

What’s next: City staff will reconcile the new ordinance language with existing property‑maintenance code provisions and return any recommended edits to the planning board or council as needed.