Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs civil abatement and tougher penalties for long-running nuisance properties
Summary
Council members and staff reviewed four long-running nuisance properties, discussed limits of criminal prosecution, and asked city attorney and staff to develop abatement procedures, higher fines and follow-up protections so the city is not left bearing abatement costs.
East Bethel city staff on March 9 outlined options for dealing with four long-running nuisance properties and asked the City Council whether to shift from criminal prosecution to civil abatement for the most persistent cases.
City Administrator (Mr. Look) told the council that enforcement is complaint-driven: staff issues successive letters and citations, and only when those steps fail does the city consider prosecution. "We send out a first letter, second letter, third letter," he said, adding that many properties come into compliance after one or two notices but a handful do not. He described abatement as "the nuclear option" in which the city would hire a contractor to clean a property and bill the owner.
The council heard operational detail from Nick Schmidt, the building official and code-enforcement officer. Schmidt said criminal prosecution is unpredictable because judges may give short jail terms or dismiss cases; in some cases property owners served jail time and the court then considered the case closed while the nuisance persisted. He described the abatement workflow: court authorization, contracting for cleanup and efforts to recoup costs by obtaining a court-approved judgment against the property owner.
Several council members urged caution about selective enforcement. Council Member Mundle said she was concerned about fairness and whether the city was "picking on" one property when others look worse; Schmidt and staff replied that the city cannot act absent a complaint and that some properties have no written complaints on file. "We're a complaint-based community," the administrator said, noting the city could change that policy but would need more staff to pursue proactive enforcement.
The meeting produced several concrete points for follow-up: staff confirmed the current citation schedule (first citation $50, second $100, third $250), discussed whether fines could be increased to create greater deterrence, and asked the city attorney to advise on whether unpaid abatement costs can be assessed to property taxes. Council members also asked staff to assemble the full case files and legal analysis and to return with a recommended approach at the next work session rather than immediately authorizing abatement.
The discussion left open which properties will be prosecuted and which will be pursued civilly; staff recommended exploring abatement for two properties and prosecution for two others. The council did not vote on a formal action but directed staff to refine legal and cost recovery options and bring the matter back for a decision.
Next steps: staff will consult with the city attorney on abatement authority and tax-assessment options, prepare complete case files for the four properties, and return with a specific recommendation to the council.
