PRESCOTT – One Prescott resident has made most of the complaints that drive the city’s property code enforcement.

City Planner Carter Hayes gave a presentation to the city council on the enforcement at its meeting Monday, Oct. 10. The city’s property code enforcement is purely complaint driven, he said.

Upon receipt of a complaint, Hayes will look at the property and verify the problem.

“I’ll go out to the site myself and verify if it exists. If it does, I’ll send out a letter of violation,” he said.

That letter either gives the property owner 30 days to clear up the problem if it’s something like junk removal or 10 days for something like long grass or weeds.

If 30 days pass, and the violation still exists, the property owner is cited and a court date is set.

“After 30 days, I’ll go out to the site and check to see if the violation is still present. If it is, we’ll issue a citation. If it’s not, the violation is resolved, and that’s the bestcase scenario,” said Hayes, who coordinates issuance of the citation with the police department.

If the matter goes to municipal court, the property owner can plead guilty, not guilty or no contest. If they’re found guilty, the city will send out a letter demanding the property violation be taken care of. The property owner then has the right to either take care of the problem or ask for a hearing before the city plan commission. If no remedial action is taken, the city cleans up the property and bills the property owner.

He used an Elm Street property as an example. A letter was sent because of a May 19 complaint about junked vehicles at the site. A citation was issued in early July. The property owner didn’t show up for court and pled no contest and paid the fine. The property still wasn't cleaned up, so a remedial action letter was sent Sept. 2. On Sept. 22, the city paid to have the vehicles towed. That expense is then invoiced to the property owner.

City Clerk Jayne Brand said any invoice not paid by Nov. 1 gets put on the property tax bill for the parcel with an additional 10 percent fee.

Throughout the process, however, the city wants to work with the property owner.

“We work with the property owner to get things resolved between us,” said Hayes.

City Administrator Matt Wolf added, “Code enforcement is not a fun process for anyone involved. We try to work with property owners all the way along the route. We try to work with them to find a resolution. Unfortunately, some people don’t want to work with us and ignore the letter. Anytime we’ve had it where they reach out to us for more time, if they call and say we’ll get it taken care of. If they take care of it prior to the court date, we’ll have the citation waived. We want to the see the violations resolved so we don’t have to go through the process.”

Prior to citation, the city will also allow residents to outline how they intend to comply. He described the case of one woman who is cleaning out a home after her spouse passed away.

“She said she’s not going to be able to do it within 30 days. We’ll touch base at the end of October to see where it’s at. I require she puts tarps on things she has in the driveway,” Hayes said.

Other complaints could come from city stau to start the process. Hayes said there was a situation where vehicles were blocking road view at a commercial property, making turning dangerous.

“The bulk of the ones we have sent letters to are kind of a laundry list from one resident. It’s probably 85 percent resident complaints and the other 15 percent could be stau,” he said.

Alderperson Thomas Oss said he thinks city stau should communicate with residents prior to issuing a letter.

“We’re a small town. We’ve tried to talk to each other before some of this stuu is done. I understand the need to send out compliance letters. I just would hope there’s some way we can have a discussion or a preletter or something that could be more friendly,” he said. “Another thing I believe is there’s issues that should be front burner and there’s issues that should be back burner. I’m just hoping we have the wisdom to understand that within the city.”

Alderperson Pat Knox responded, “To add on Tom’s point, a front burner and a back burner can be a very tricky situation. Deciding what’s a front burner and a back burner is opening us to a favoritism idea. I see the liability of such a thing. In listening to what Carter said, the idea that we explain to folks what the process is and if you need help, let us know. You can’t make everybody get involved in the process, but if they will get involved in the process, you’re very willing to work with them.” Alderperson Dar Hintz said the process needs to be consistent throughout the city.

“I have a frustration with what’s going on in our industrial park in particular,” she said. “What we strive to do is make it more consistent. We’ve got some cleanup to do unfortunately. It’s going to take time. It’s going to take patience. Some people aren’t going to be happy. It’s just the way it’s going to be unfortunately.”

Wolf also pointed out that city stau can’t enter the property ahead of the ticketing process to contact the property owner.

“We have an ordinance,” Alderperson Maureen Otwell said. “If we don’t like the ordinance or if we want to soften that ordinance, we should do that, rather than putting gray areas into the process. It’s just makes it harder for Carter or the person who has to attend to the violation to muck it up a lot.”

“I 100 percent agree,” Alderperson John Peterson said. “This process looks very reasonable and fair.”