Oak Creek officials are preparing to overhaul how the town handles code enforcement, shifting nuisance cases out of the political arena and into municipal court as part of a long-anticipated effort to “clean up the town” and make local laws actually enforceable.

At the Jan. 22 meeting of the Board of Trustees, Oak Creek leaders discussed a proposal from Town Administrator Louis Fineberg to rewrite Title A of the town’s code — the section that governs abatement of nuisances such as junk accumulation, derelict buildings or other property conditions deemed unsafe or unsightly.

The proposal would replace Oak Creek’s current “quasi-judicial” enforcement system, which Fineberg said isn’t workable, with a clearer, court-based process modeled after Steamboat Springs’ civil infraction system.

“This is something we’ve been talking about for a few meetings now,” Fineberg told trustees. “As (the code) is currently written, it’s not really enforceable. It’s a quasi-judicial process that the board oversees, and that’s not a viable system for abating nuisances once things go past the voluntary point.”

Under Fineberg’s proposed changes, nuisance violations would no longer come before the Board of Trustees. Instead, the code enforcement officer would issue a written request to correct a violation within a set time — for example, seven days to secure an abandoned building or remove debris. 

If the property owner fails to cure the violation, a citation would be issued and the case would proceed to municipal court, where a judge could impose fines or other remedies. Appeals would go to a higher court, though Fineberg noted uncertainty over whether it would proceed to county or district court. 

Fineberg said the intent is to create a fairer, more legally defensible system that avoids political pressure and delivers consistent results. 

“If there’s no substance to an allegation, the court decides that,” he told trustees. “Everybody has to be on board here with the notion of enforcement … otherwise, if there’s political pressure on who gets enforced, these things tend to fall apart.”

Mayor Melissa Dobbins called the proposal “the real deal” after continued conversation among town leaders about addressing neglected properties and other long-running nuisance issues around town.

“This is the meat and potatoes of what the community is asking for,” Dobbins said. “A lot of members on this board are saying, ‘Code enforcement — we want this done appropriately, it’s time to clean up our town.'”

“But at the same time, it could create tensions for board members and for Louis (Fineberg) that we might not know at this time,” she added.

Dobbins and others urged the board to move forward together to avoid divisions once enforcement begins. 

“Some people might take new enforcement with a grain of salt and know, ‘OK, this is what I need to do,’ and others might resist it,” she said. “We need to be really ready to go down this road because it could open up legalities. But the end result and the long-term goal is making our community a safer place for everyone and hopefully, to improve our property values and character.”

In an interview with the newspaper on Wednesday, Fineberg, who was hired in June, said that improving code enforcement was mentioned in his job interview. 

“The town had let me know that they wanted to pursue code enforcement because they felt it was too lax here,” he said. 

Fineberg said the town has received “a number of complaints” about unsecured vacant buildings, accumulated junk on private property and other nuisance conditions that citizens want addressed. But the current rules, he added, make doing that nearly impossible.

“The code that the town has in place right now is very hard to enforce,” he said, referring to the code as “convoluted.” 

The most recent draft blends Oak Creek’s existing language with simplified elements from Steamboat Springs’ much longer enforcement code.

“When it comes to enforcement, it needs to be black and white,” Fineberg said at the meeting. “It can’t be open to interpretation, or it makes it harder to enforce.”

He cited as an example the current code’s reference to “unwholesome businesses,” which he said offers no clear, objective standard.

Other categories, such as “junk,” are trickier. 

“What some people call ‘junk,’ other people call ‘collector’s items,'” Fineberg said. “It’s not black and white; it’s shades of gray. You have to be really careful in how you apply these things.”

Dobbins acknowledged the undertaking could be “sensitive,” particularly for longtime residents who may struggle to comply with new or more strictly enforced rules.

“We need to be very respectful toward how this could impact community members, because it’s not going to be easy for everyone,” she said.

Trustees briefly discussed how such impacts could play out — whether as resistance from residents or practical challenges for older or less able-bodied homeowners.

“I would say elderly community members … who have been living in homes they inherited, where you’ve got years of culture and memories,” Dobbins said. “It’s not as simple as saying, ‘clean it up.'”

Fineberg agreed, emphasizing that enforcement should focus on the most serious cases, not broad crackdowns. 

“Because this code says something’s not allowed shouldn’t just be a green light to go enforce everything in town,” he said. “You have to be judicious about what actions are taken and limit it to the most extreme examples. Otherwise you get mobs with pitchforks showing up.”

Fineberg said his experience in other communities, including Taos, New Mexico, where he worked as a planning director, taught him that overextending code enforcement can backfire quickly. 

“You don’t want to be overbearing with this stuff,” he said. “You really want to reserve it for where you need to apply it.”

No formal vote was taken at the meeting. Fineberg said he would bring a revised draft back to the board’s Feb. 26 meeting after the proposed changes are reviewed by both Town Attorney Robert Weiss and Municipal Judge Jessica Ryan.

Trustee comments during the January meeting also pointed to the need for sharper definitions for terms like “noxious weeds” or “stagnant ponds” to avoid subjective disagreements once enforcement begins.

“Most challenges to these things happen on procedure,” Fineberg said. “I want to make sure that the town attorney and the judge are OK with the procedure because mistakes in procedure are where things generally tend to get thrown out and dismissed.”

His hope, he said, is to finalize the new code and have it in effect sometime this spring.

“Getting the code in place as a first step,” said Fineberg in the interview. “Going through with a code enforcement system and actually implementing it is the next step.”