Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tumwater reviews code enforcement options as staff warn property abatements are time-consuming and costly
Summary
City Administrator Parks told the council that Tumwater’s code enforcement is primarily complaint‑driven, resolves most cases through voluntary compliance, but that involuntary property abatement via court action can be lengthy and expensive.
City Administrator Parks briefed the Tumwater City Council on Feb. 11 about the city’s code enforcement process, including how the city handles complaints, voluntary compliance, and the costly court-driven procedures needed for involuntary property abatement.
Parks described the city’s typical workflow: receive a complaint, perform a site inspection, notify and educate the property owner, and attempt voluntary compliance. “I believe probably 85 to 95% of our code violation processes end in that type of voluntary compliance,” City Administrator Parks said, noting most cases are resolved without court action.
Staff described the codes commonly used — Tumwater Municipal Code Titles 8 (public health and safety), 15 (buildings and construction), 16 (zoning and environmental regulation), 12 (streets, sidewalks, public places) and 13 (stormwater and utilities). Parks said some enforcement duties also arise from the city’s Department of Ecology stormwater permit and that those permit obligations can require proactive action even without a citizen complaint.
Deputy Chief Jay Mason said the city has two dedicated code enforcement officers amounting to roughly one full-time equivalent. “Our police officers don’t respond to code enforcement issues. We have two dedicated code enforcement officers that are really half of their time each,” Mason said. He said the officers triage complaints and work with technical staff (water resources, engineering) on specialized issues.
When voluntary compliance fails, staff said the city may pursue a court-based property abatement. The court process typically requires court authorization to enter private property, preparing an abatement plan, contracting for cleanup, managing potential tenant relocation and disposal of hazardous materials, and returning to court for a final judgment and a possible lien to recover costs.
Staff gave a rough external-cost estimate for one complex property: outside legal fees could be on the order of $100,000 to $150,000 to initiate litigation and related work. Parks said that in the 2023–24 biennium the city budgeted $25,000 per year for abatement (a $50,000 biennial total) and that current budgets have been adjusted to provide approximately $50,000 per year — still far below the outside legal and cleanup costs presented for some properties.
Council members described multiple long‑running properties that neighbors say have caused safety concerns, illegal dumping, fires and other public‑health hazards. Council member Dahlhoff emphasized the impacts on neighbors, including unsellable homes, and urged the city to treat abatement as an urgent priority for properties that pose immediate risks.
Staff said there are roughly six to eight properties that could merit targeted abatement work, depending on scale and complexity. Parks asked the council whether pursuing proactive abatement for the worst offenders should be elevated in the city’s priority list and noted that such a shift would require reallocation of staff time and budget. No council vote or directive to start litigation was taken at the work session; staff said they will bring further detail and options back to the council as part of strategic planning and future budget conversations.
