Fountain Green proposes local code-enforcement ordinance with $300–$500 civil citations

Speaker 1, an unidentified city representative, introduced a draft ordinance to give Fountain Green local authority to issue civil citations for repeated ordinance violations, including building, planning and zoning, and animal-code infractions. The measure would let a city code-enforcement official issue fines after outreach and attempts to secure voluntary compliance.

According to Speaker 1, citations would start at $300 and could rise to $500 per incident. He said criminal matters would remain with the county while civil enforcement would be handled locally by the city’s code officer. "We tried to work with them... that's after we've we tried to talk with them," Speaker 1 said, describing the change as a "last resort" for residents who ignore repeated notices.

City staff outlined how enforcement would work in practice. Speaker 3 said the code officer (referred to in the discussion as Amy) notifies residents and typically gives a 30-day window to come into compliance; if the resident still refuses, fees would apply and the city could pursue collection through local court. Speaker 1 confirmed the court proceedings would be held in Fountain Green City and said the judge had been briefed on the arrangement.

On revenue, Speaker 4 asked what the city expected to collect. Speaker 1 said income is not the goal and estimated the program would likely bring in less than $5,000 a year, adding that the priority is getting property owners to comply for public-safety and quality-of-life reasons: "We're not anticipating this is gonna bring probably less than $5,000 a year in," he said.

Speakers described notification and safety procedures. Amy, the code officer, generally visits residents in person and brings a copy of the ordinance to explain the violation. If Amy believes there is a safety concern she will request sheriff backup; if occupants do not answer, the city sends a certified letter. Speaker 1 said the city consults other agencies when appropriate: for vegetation hazards, staff consulted the fire department (identified as Todd) and in one Mill Creek case delayed forced removal after evaluating fire risk.

Speakers offered examples of the city’s approach to compliance. Speaker 1 recounted a motorhome that had been parked partly on city property; staff gave the owner two weeks (and later a short extension) to move it, and the vehicle was removed by the agreed date. Those examples were offered as evidence the city prefers negotiated compliance and only proposes fines when residents refuse repeated requests.

No formal motion or vote on the ordinance was recorded in the meeting transcript. Speaker 1 closed the public discussion portion and reminded attendees that the city council meeting would begin at 7:30 p.m.