Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County orders cleanup for 10 properties after long-running violations; resident disputes charges
Summary
Area planning staff presented 10 properties for enforcement; commissioners approved proceeding. A resident who received a notice disputed county cleanup charges and asked staff to verify amounts and photos.
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Decatur County commissioners approved proceeding with cleanup enforcement for 10 properties after area planning staff said multiple notices and follow-up inspections found ongoing ordinance violations.
Area planning staff said initial notices were sent with 30 days for compliance, follow-up inspections and second notices were issued where issues persisted, and the items were prepared for commissioner consideration. One property owner who appeared at the meeting disputed parts of the county’s record and said she had made progress cleaning her property but was assessed cleanup charges that were attached to her property tax bill.
The resident stated she had received earlier visits from county staff (identified in the record as Kenny) and that she had made repairs and cleared debris when she could but that a bill of roughly $3,600 had been placed on her taxes; county staff said the documentation in the packet showed a bill of $2,793 and that they would check administrative fees and any additional charges. Commissioners asked staff to verify the full set of invoices, administration fees and the timeline of enforcement visits and to follow up with the resident; staff agreed to send someone to re-verify the listed violations and photographs.
After discussion about the other nine properties on the list, a commissioner moved to proceed with the enforcement process for the group; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote. Staff said they would confirm which properties remain unresolved, verify compliance at Ms. Moore’s property and return updates to the board.
The county cited its nuisance/cleanup ordinance (highlighted items in the enforcement packet) as the legal basis for abatement and cost recovery; staff noted these items trigger the cleanup process when present on a property.

