Council considers fines for repeat nuisance notices

During the Tuesday, Aug.18 Waseca city council meeting, council members considered a proposal by city manager Carl Sonnenberg regarding whether the city should impose fines when residents repeatedly fail to respond to “nuisance” requests.  City code lists nuisances as behaviors or activities which “unreasonably annoy, injure, or endanger the safety, health or morals, comfort or repose of any member of the public; or will tend to alarm, anger or disturb others to provoke a breach of the peace which requires the city to respond.” Examples might include not mowing their lawn, allowing yard debris to accumulate, or keeping furniture or inoperable vehicles on their property. 

 

Sonnenberg proposed creating a new element of city code meant to “regulate repeat nuisance calls for service.” He explained the purpose of this regulation would be to reduce the number of instances when law enforcement officers must visit property owners to notify them they are not complying with city code or that their behavior is unacceptable, and requesting that they change it. Under the proposed new ordinance, property owners would be fined if they fail to comply and must again be visited by law enforcement officers. 

 

Sonnenberg justified his proposal by saying it is a cost to the public when police are spending excessive amounts of time at a single residence for repeated visits, and are therefore not helping other citizens. He recommended that this order could apply to any and all residents or owners of whatever property receives too many nuisance calls. 

 

The proposed code would include a fee schedule applying to residents who have been visited by four or more city officials or police officers in a 365-day period. Possible fee levels might be $100 for the first offense; $250 for the second; $750 and $1,000 for the third and fourth, respectively. Those who would be fined would have 30 days to pay, with delinquent payments subject to late fees. Residents wishing to appeal a nuisance fee would be required to do so at the following city council meeting.

 

After hearing Sonnenberg’s summary, Mayor Randy Zimmerman suggested the first fine should be imposed after three offenses, rather than four; councilman Jeremy Conrath commented the first fine should occur after only two offenses.  Sonnenberg suggested the proposed ordinance should also include more specifications about which types of complaints would lead to the fine, or the city might be accused of targeting certain people. As discussion on the matter continued, council members seemed to be in favor of expanding the time frame during which calls are handled to 18 months or possibly two years. The council encouraged Sonnenberg to continue moving toward a public work session and to complete this plan. No vote was taken, but the topic was scheduled to be addressed at the council’s Sept. 1 meeting.