03. Memo from Mayor on Code EnforcementIn January 2024, a five-year legal matter in criminal court concluded with most civil violations
dismissed because of documentation issues and a sentence of 1.5 days in jail for a wetland fill
violation. This outcome indicated, to me, that Scandia’s traditional approach to code enforcement
was not producing consistent results.
So, in February 2024, the city updated Chapter 32: Administrative Code Enforcement, Citations
and Civil Penalties to establish a civil process that gives the city greater control over enforcement.
Early implementation suggested that the penalties in the revised ordinance were not always
suƯicient to achieve timely compliance.
As a result, in June 2025, Chapter 32 was amended again. Penalties were increased and, in
response to concerns about the staƯ time required to administer the process, language was
added to allow the Administrator to delegate these responsibilities to additional staƯ members.
This most recent change appears to have led to immediate compliance on a number of properties.
However, I asked Kyle to add this item to our July workshop because I have also heard concerns
from residents that the process is not yet be producing enough measurable results.
I do not want to spend time revisiting past decisions or assigning blame. Our focus needs to be on
identifying lessons learned and determining how to improve the process moving forward.
I want to do two things:
1. Determine how important Code Enforcement is to the council to help staƯ prioritize this
work appropriately.
2. Examine the process to determine what (if any) changes should be considered to improve
the eƯiciency and impact/results.
To support the discussion, I have included several photos and pose several questions for
consideration:
1. What level of priority should the city assign to code enforcement given the staƯ’s overall
workload, and how proactive should the city be in responding to complaints?
2. What does current enforcement activity look like in practice, including the number of open
cases, typical time to compliance, staƯ time involved, and who is responsible?
3. What barriers are limiting stronger or more timely enforcement, and are there changes to
the ordinance or process that would improve eƯiciency, consistency, and outcomes?
4. What tracking and reporting should be in place so the Council can evaluate progress and
determine whether enforcement eƯorts are producing measurable results?
5. When should the city escalate a case beyond its current process, including referral to the
State of Minnesota or court intervention?