Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br />EN HILLS <br /> <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />Agenda Item 2 B <br /> <br />May 11, 2006 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Mayor and Council <br />Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator <br /> <br />Karen Barton, Community Development Director ~ <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />Code Enforcement Discussion <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />Currently, our code enforcement program is complaint driven, with somewhat of a limited ability <br />to cnforce issues. <br /> <br />The primary complaints staff responds to are related to cars and recreational vehicles, outdoor <br />storage/refuse containers, accumulation of junk and debris, weeds and tall grass, snow removal, <br />and barking dogs. <br /> <br />The typical process involves recelVlng a complaint, investigating the complaint, writing <br />compliance orders if appropriate, and continuing follow-up until the issue is resolved. This <br />process can take anywhere from two weeks to several months. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />There are a number of ways in which a code enforcement program can be operated. One is the <br />way we currently operate, which is on a complaint basis. This type of program provides <br />response to complaints generated by citizens, neighborSj'-or others. It is reactive in nature, which <br />may seem to allow for unequal treatment. However, it does allow us to address resident <br />concerns and provide for resolution, and can be handled with a limited staff. <br /> <br />Another means by which a code enforcement program can be operated is proactive in nature. <br />This typically involves a full-time dedicated code enforcement officer to proactively seek out <br />nuisance situations and codc violations within the city. This type of a program is much more <br />