Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears proposal to centralize code-enforcement process into LMC Chapter 1.44
Summary
Public works staff proposed a consolidated process for notices, stop-work orders and penalties to be housed in Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 1.44 to standardize enforcement across titles; council asked procedural questions and staff scheduled follow-up steps.
Public works staff reviewed a draft amendment to Lakewood Municipal Code (LMC) Chapter 1.44 on March 17 that would centralize notice, stop-work, penalty and enforcement procedures to create a uniform code-enforcement framework across the municipal code.
Assistant director Angie Silva and Public Works Director Jeffrey Mack (presentation delivered by Mack) said the amendment is designed to provide a standard operating procedure for voluntary compliance, notices of violation, stop-work orders (immediate for life-safety or erosion-control issues), citation of the applicable code section and an identified remediation timeframe. Mack said the chapter would not eliminate substantive penalties found in other chapters but would provide a common procedural path and clarify which official may issue orders as the city manager’s designee.
Council members questioned whether the proposal should also remove or revise duplicate language in other chapters to avoid conflicting provisions. Mack said the draft focuses on putting a single procedure in place and that staff could later refine or remove redundant language in other chapters; he noted some chapters still specify criminal penalties that would remain under their existing provisions while the new chapter standardizes procedure.
Council asked about applicability to outside agencies such as the fire marshal (West Pierce Fire & Rescue personnel) and Mack replied that the city cannot impose rules on independent or contractual agencies; those entities will continue to use their own authority when applicable. The ordinance was scheduled to return for council action on April 7 under the calendar staff provided.
Council discussion was generally supportive of improving clarity and consistent enforcement but flagged concerns about cross-references, removal of conflicting text elsewhere in the code, and community notification. Staff said they would bring the ordinance back for council action and noted one upcoming public hearing date in the packet for the code amendment process.
