The Ocean Shores City Council on Monday continued to revise and review proposed changes to the Ocean Shores Municipal Code that give the city more options for dealing with nuisance properties and property owners with continuing problems.

The idea is to strengthen the city’s ability to combat nuisance properties with a new section defining “chronic” nuisances and potential criminal penalties that can be imposed in addition to possible abatement action or other penalties.

Prompted by citizen concerns, Police Chief Neccie Logan last month presented the council with a revised version of the city’s current nuisance law. Following suggestions from citizen Randy Peck and the Ocean Shores Block Watch group, it includes a new section on chronic nuisance properties developed by looking at what’s being done in several other cities.

It allows the city to abate a problem property at the owner’s expense.

For chronic nuisance properties, the first violation would bring an infraction and fine, and the second violation within a 12-month period would be cause for a criminal violation.

A property would be considered a public nuisance under the new section if there are three or more incidents there within a 60-day period or seven or more incidents in a year.

But several council members had a number of questions about specific items and wording, and they were unable to make it through the full document during Monday night’s first reading.

Peck thanked the council for considering the ordinance: “It’s a long time in coming.”

He also suggested a revision that would tighten restrictions on a property owner who places items on a public right of way.

In “some places there are setbacks just behind the property line, and we have old couches and refuse dumped there, and they have been dumped there for months and months and years,” he said. “It’s like no-man’s land according to this ordinance.”

Another proposed addition was language that would allow the city to take action against a property owner who fails to have sewer, water or electrical service, causing a public safety hazard. Peck noted some derelict properties use long cords to take electricity from an adjoining property.

Resident Don Williams questioned who would be the designated authority to enforce the new laws: “Enforcement is always going to be a problem. You can’t have a Water Department employee enforcing these ordinances.”

Williams questioned a section that bars storage of unlicensed boats, asking what criteria would be used to determine a violation, and he suggested adding restrictions on the burning of residential campfires.

After taking public comment, the council then began a process of going over the proposal page by page.

“It is helpful for you to let us know what you want and you don’t want,” Mayor Crystal Dingler said. “You may not be able to make all of those decisions tonight. On a complex ordinance like this, having a second reading and maybe a third one is not a bad thing.”

Councilwoman Holly Plackett had a number of specific concerns, although she said she was “probably going to support 99 percent of everything that’s written here tonight.”

“People who create these challenges have a lot of challenges in their lives,” she said. “There are parts of this that are pretty onerous in my opinion — punitive.”

Councilman Bob Peterson noted the proposed changes came about because “some of our citizens have become concerned that we have been overly patient with enforcing some things.”

In other action, the City Council agreed 7-0 to extend moratoriums on any new marijuana business and on a potential bikini barista business in city limits. Both existing six-month moratoriums were set to run out next month without a move to extend them. The council now has an ad-hoc committee formed to address the issue and it is not yet finished with its report.