Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to adopt amended property-maintenance ordinance after members raise lien, cost and retroactivity concerns
Summary
Alexander City Council on May 5 declined to approve an ordinance amending the city's building and property-maintenance provisions (chapter 18) after councilors questioned the effectiveness and cost of placing tax liens, demolition costs, and whether the ordinance should be applied retroactively to recently demolished properties.
Alexander City Council on May 5 voted not to adopt a proposed amendment to Alexander City Code (chapter 18, buildings and building regulations) that would have clarified the city’s authority to condemn unsafe structures and place liens to recover abatement costs.
The measure — described by staff as grounded in the International Property Maintenance Code language (section referenced as sec. 18-72) — prompted extended discussion among council members about the program’s costs, collection rates, and alternatives. One councilor said recent experiences show tax liens can be difficult to collect in practice: several lots with liens totaling about $7,000–$9,000, the councilor said, were unlikely to sell for enough to recover those amounts because market values were lower (example cited: lots with resale value near $5,000). Councilors noted that liens typically “roll off” after 10 years, which reduces the city’s ability to recoup expenses long-term.
Staff described the ordinance as a tool of last resort, intended to exhaust voluntary compliance and local abatement options first. Staff said the ordinance would allow the revenue commissioner to place liens on properties (a practice referenced to an earlier resolution discussed in prior years) and that the city could refile liens if needed. Staff also explained that demolition can be expensive, especially when asbestos abatement or specialty contractors are required, and that an internal demolition program had been used previously for training and operational efficiencies.
Council members asked whether the ordinance should be made retroactive to cover properties recently taken down; staff replied that because liens had not yet been filed in those cases they could not be retroactively placed without further procedural steps, and suggested returning the ordinance with clear effective dates. Following questions and debate, a motion to approve the ordinance as written was voted down; the council indicated the item would return to a future agenda with clarified dates and implementation details.
The nut graf: the vote reflects council concern about the financial practicality of relying on tax liens and attorney fees to recover abatement costs, and a preference among some members to explore demolition through internal crews or different funding/contracting arrangements before imposing liens that may be costly to pursue.
No new appropriation was approved at the May 5 meeting. Staff and council agreed to revisit the proposal at a subsequent meeting with more detailed language on effective dates and collection procedures.
