Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Code compliance: 99.5% voluntary compliance rate, request for $30,000 abatement fund
Summary
Code Enforcement reported high voluntary compliance and described a priority response system; staff requested additional abatement funds and a modest pay adjustment to remain competitive with other jurisdictions.
Get email alerts on the Code Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kent Lovelace, code‑enforcement supervisor, told the workshop Nampa’s Code Compliance team reported a very high voluntary compliance rate and described its prioritized response system for complaints.
Lovelace said the department has a five‑level priority system: Priority 1 for health and safety issues (fire hazards, open buildings, sight‑obstructing vegetation), Priority 2 for scattered debris and household garbage, Priority 3 for non‑operable/unlicensed vehicles and Priority 4 for matters the team cannot verify (for example, behind a 6‑foot fence). He said officers are assigned zones sized by the density and workload in each area.
He said the department opened and closed about 833 cases year‑to‑date, with 812 of those initiated by citizen complaints, and reported a voluntary compliance rate of 99.5% as of the presentation. The department aims for a 24‑hour response time for Priority 1 complaints and a 97% voluntary compliance rate for the year.
Lovelace requested a $30,000 increase to the abatement fund to accelerate cleanups in severe cases (such as hoarder properties) where court timelines can otherwise extend remediation for a year or longer. He also requested a $1 per hour pay increase per code officer (totaling about $17,700) to remain competitive with neighboring jurisdictions and flagged an expected increase in postage and parking‑budget costs.
Council members asked about enforcement on enclave parcels and coordination with Canyon County; Lovelace said Canyon County typically requires online complaints and addresses weeds only if they amount to a fire hazard, which can complicate enforcement where municipal and county jurisdictions meet.
No new enforcement authorities were claimed; the presentation emphasized outreach, face‑to‑face communication and interjurisdictional coordination to gain voluntary compliance.

