The North Platte city council took a step Tuesday intended to better enforce “code” violations such as overgrown weeds, trees and bushes; obstructions, junk vehicles, and other unkept, unsafe conditions on private property.
The council modified, and then approved, a resolution to create an online publication of unresolved maintenance violations.
The website will list the violator’s name, address, and the status of a verified complaint if and when a second notification letter is sent or served, and if legal action is taken.
Properties will be removed from the listing when the violation has been resolved.
Under the city’s current process, code-compliance officers inspect a property after receiving a complaint. If a violation is confirmed, an initial notice is sent, generally allowing 7-10 days to correct the problem.
If the violation remains, a second notice is personally delivered, giving the owner five more days to comply. The case may then be referred to the city attorney.
The city has two code-compliance officers who are responsible for monitoring approximately 11,800 residential and commercial parcels, Planning Administrator Judy Clark said.
The city send an average of 900-950 violation letters per year; however, the number is tracking higher this year, with 862 letters so far.
Clark said 60-70% of property owners correct the violation after the first notice. Normally, about 125 letters a year are sent to repeat offenders. An average of 40-65 cases a year are referred to the city attorney and/or the court system.
Mayor Brandon Kelliher said the online system is intended to reduce the number of calls, emails, and visits from residents who want to know about the properties that they have reported. He said 950 annual notices of violations generate about 2,850 contacts with property owners, many of them asking what’s become of their complaint.
City officials said posting information online would promote transparency and could provide more incentive for owners to promptly resolve violations.
Council members agreed that the list could reassure residents that the city is taking actions on complaints and enforcement occurs consistently. On the other hand, some expressed concern that publishing the information could be seen as publicly shaming the violators.
Councilman Ty Lucas said the system would likely “ruffle some feathers,” but public attention could encourage owners to address longstanding problems.
Councilman Pete Volz compared it to a public blacklist, while supporting the proposal, because nuisance and weed enforcement is one of the most common complaints that council members receive.
Councilman Brad Garrick expressed concern about the public listing, as well as the tone of the city’s existing compliance letters. Garrick said he had recently received a notice for weeds at one of his properties. He said equipment problems delayed the work and described the city’s letter as threatening.
“I see this as bully tactics,” Garrick said, maintaining that threatening and publicly shaming residents could make some property owners more resistant instead of more cooperative.
Garrick said he received a similar notice from another community, which had a friendlier tone while still asking him to correct the violation. He said he immediately took care of that because the letter approached him as a responsible citizen rather than beginning with a threat of court action.
City Attorney Bill Troshynski said notices are written to follow city code. The first letter is intended as a courtesy notice, while the second is the formal notice that the city may complete the work and assess the owner’s property for the cost.
Garrick said the letter he received did not feel like a courtesy because it gave him five days to resolve the issue or face referral to the city attorney. Clark acknowledged that the standard letter is not friendly, but softer notices used in the past did not produce sufficient results.
Councilman Rod Dye questioned whether the online list would increase, rather than reduce, calls to City Hall. Upon reviewing the list, more residents might report properties they believe should be included.
Clark reiterated that all complaints are investigated before a notice is issued. A complaint alone would not place an owner on the website; code-compliance officers first confirm that the complaint is indeed a violation.
The council also discussed listing contact information for churches, volunteer groups, and other organizations that may be able to assist elderly, disabled, or financially struggling residents who cannot complete the required work.
Kelliher said the city already has a list of some available resources that can be included on the new website.
Before approving the resolution, the council amended it so a property owner will receive a second notice before their name and address are published. The original proposal would have allowed information to be posted following the initial letter.
Weed height
Weeds that are 12 inches or taller are violations of city code. For more information about such nuisances, click Here.
© 2026 The North Platte Bulletin. All rights reserved!
= No current warnings. Any past warnings have expired.
= Minor offense. Post was edited where neccessary. Yellow flags fly for 7 days.
= A more serious offense. This user can't post to Talk Back for 7 days. The offending post has been permanently blacked out. Red flags fly for 7 days.
= The most serious offense. This flag is reserved for those with multiple or particularly agregious offenses. Last step before permanent banishment. Black flags fly for 30 days.
= Banned.
Surely City government has better things to do than shaming people into compliance.
Really no different then posting publicly about the broke homeless person who stole a snickers or whatever. So obviously city govt has nothing better to do
My biggest concern about this would be fraud and identity theft. Would something like this make it easier for the wrong people to get vital information?
The Internet can be a great tool for research purposes, but when you start putting sensitive information on it you become responsible for the results of that. Has the state considered if someone on that list gets their identity stolen that they COULD potentially be liable for posting their name and address?
Not so long ago, and still, to some extent, names, addresses and phone numbers were published in telephone books for anyone to see.
Maybe the city people so anxious to make other people comply should drive out to the east edge of town. Take a look at the welcome to North Platte monument, if it can be seen through the weeds. Clean up your own backyard please..
That was before the massive advancement of tech and the huge surge in identity theft crime. The Internet and technology has made it so much easier. There is a massive difference between theives downloading that info and holding onto it and maybe even selling it to getting their hands on a physical phone book. One is much more likely. Not to mention we have been told for years not to give out sensitive material on the internet. Hackers can use it. Names… Addresses… Phone numbers… Email addresses. All of that is what is needed to reset passwords and get into accounts. A quick little jump for hackers and I’m sure they can get the phone numbers that will be attached to those people’s files. All nicely packaged like a present for them. If hackers can hack into big banks and insurance companies with massive cyber security protocols in place to steal info… I’m sure a small city of North Platte website will be no problem…🤷🏻♀️
Names, addresses and phone numbers are relative easy to find. Email addresses are often posted for all to see. Names of property owners can be found on the county assessor’s website. Most everyone on social media posts under their real name. Passwords, if properly used, keep hackers from getting personal information.
Banks, insurance companies, hospitals, businesses, government offices, agencies, moms, pops, siblings, etc. use the Internet to communicate. Yes, sometimes there is a hack, usually because passwords are too simple and/or have not been changed in a long time, from what I’ve seen. Publishing names & addresses on the city website might be embarrassing but it shouldn’t endanger the people who are named, imo.