Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Peletier adopts revised nuisance ordinance, adds $175 administrative fee
Summary
The Peletier Board of Commissioners adopted amendments to its nuisance ordinance (chapter 10, divisions 1–3) after a public hearing, adding an objective grass-height standard (8 inches) and a $175 administrative fee to support abatement enforcement; the ordinance authorizes placing abatement costs on a property's tax bill if unpaid.
The Peletier Board of Commissioners voted to adopt revisions to the town's nuisance ordinance (referred to in the meeting as Chapter 10, divisions 1–3, sections 10‑1 through 10‑11) following a public hearing and discussion on enforcement mechanics.
The town attorney (S9) told the board the measure sets objective criteria (including an 8‑inch grass-height standard) and strengthens enforcement tools, including hiring contractors to abate nuisances and adding the cost of abatement to the property owner's tax bill if the owner does not pay. "The idea is not this isn't a money making deal for the town. It's let's get compliance," the attorney said, explaining the town's preference for abatement plus tax billing over pursuing civil penalties that are costly to collect.
Board members asked several questions about renters versus owners and about whether the town could add an administrative fee to recover staff time and costs. The attorney said the town can put the abatement cost on the tax bill and described timeframes for adding charges to property taxes; he also confirmed a public hearing is required if a new administrative fee is added to the ordinance.
After discussion the board approved an amendment adding a $175 administrative fee to the abatement process and then voted to adopt the ordinance as amended. Mayor (S2) called for the voice vote; the motion carried with no recorded opposition. After the vote the attorney said he would provide an updated ordinance reflecting the amendment.
Why it matters: The ordinance replaces subjective enforcement language with measurable standards and a practical abatement pathway, shifting responsibility for unpaid abatement costs to property tax records. Officials said the change is intended to increase compliance without making enforcement a revenue source for the town.
What remains: The attorney will circulate the revised ordinance language to reflect the $175 administrative fee. Board members also directed staff to coordinate with the county tax office on procedures for placing abatement charges on tax bills; the meeting record did not specify a timeline for implementation.
