Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Nuisance Ordinance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council sends revised nuisance ordinance (91.06 a & b) back to staff for reworking

Berne City Council · July 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council members debated limits on who may file nuisance complaints, inspection authority and the use of photographs before voting to return revisions to sections 91.06(a) and (b) for redrafting.

The Berne City Council debated proposed changes to the city’s nuisance ordinance before voting to send sections 91.06(a) and (b) back for further drafting.

Council discussion focused on a proposal that would restrict formal complaint filings to people who have line‑of‑sight of the alleged nuisance. “Now the only people that can put in a complaint are those within the line eyesight of the address being complained about,” a council member said, arguing that the change would limit complaints to neighbors or business occupants. Staff and other council members raised concerns that the wording could unintentionally prevent city employees, police or nuisance‑board members from submitting complaints unless they followed a designated reporting route.

Members also debated who should perform inspections and take documentary photographs. Staff clarified that the enforcement officer conducts inspections and reports to the nuisance board, but the draft’s wording appears to let others submit photographs. “Shannon’s the enforcement officer, and then he reports back to the nuisance committee,” a staff member said, recommending that photographs be gathered by the enforcement officer or designee rather than by members of the public.

After extended discussion about complaint timing, the form submission deadline (noted as the Friday before the nuisance board meeting) and privacy concerns around resident‑taken photographs, a motion to return the ordinance language for additional reworking was moved and seconded and approved by voice vote. The council did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting; staff were directed to clarify complaint eligibility, inspection/designee language, and photographic evidence provisions before returning the draft.