The City Attorney briefed the council on a regulatory option to address properties that generate repeated calls for police service, commonly called a chronic-nuisance code, and councilors asked staff to work with the police chief to evaluate local needs.

Ashley Weigau, city attorney, described the tool and its usual features: a property becomes a chronic nuisance if it generates repeated criminal-activity calls (commonly three or more qualifying incidents within a 30-day period or repeated incidents over time), the owner is notified and must submit and implement an abatement or management plan, and civil fines or litigation can follow for noncompliance. "A chronic nuisance property is just typically defined as any property with 3 or more of these chronic nuisance activities ... within a 30 day period," Weigau said.

Weigau explained the distinction between general code enforcement (tall grass, noise, property-maintenance matters) and chronic nuisance measures that target criminal activity such as repeated drug activity, prostitution, assault, theft or other offenses that drive repeated police responses. She noted other municipalities have used progressive enforcement, including fines and, in extreme cases, court action to seek closure of repeatedly problematic properties.

Councilors asked for service-call data to determine whether the city faces patterns that would justify the tool and whether the city's authority should include repeated non-criminal calls (for example, false alarms or frequent EMS calls). Weigau said she would work with the police chief to gather and present call-history data and sample ordinances from other cities for council review. The council gave general direction to proceed with staff analysis; no ordinance was adopted at the meeting.