Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Unsafe Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Code enforcement proposes reductions, equipment purchases and new collections process; unsafe-building fund raised for demolitions
Summary
Code enforcement presented a $40,000 reduction in the 2026 budget, reallocated funds to uniforms and equipment, and proposed an in-house collections process to recover outstanding fines.
Matthew (code enforcement) presented a reduced 2026 code-enforcement budget with several operational reallocations and a plan to improve enforcement outcomes.
Matthew said the department’s overall budget is about $40,000 lower than the prior year because the director role was consolidated and several recording-fee funds were moved into other accounts. He moved $5,000 into uniforms and about $3,000 into equipment (air compressor, nail gun, generator) to improve field operations. Building-demolition funding was moved into the city’s unsafe‑building fund rather than the general fund.
Staff told council they plan to retool enforcement and collections. Matthew said the department historically collected very little in fines but has begun retraining inspectors, adjusting fines to better match violations and using a more assertive follow-up process. He proposed an in‑house collections process: administration would send demand letters and track 30/60/90‑day delinquencies and then refer unresolved accounts to the law department after 90 days. Matthew said the department currently has about $80,000 in uncollected fines and estimated the new approach could recover about 50% of that balance.
Councilors pressed about backlogs and legal bottlenecks. Matthew said there is a six‑month review queue for unsafe-building properties and that he is exploring ways to limit waits for property reviews and legal processing; he also confirmed that the unsafe‑building commission handles hearings and code enforcement refers matters to legal as required. The jurisdiction’s unsafe fund was increased primarily by a $125,000 rise in the demolitions line to address recent fires and emergency removals; staff estimated 10–15 demolitions per year at current cost levels and said per-demolition inflation has raised unit costs.
Councilors asked for a three‑year lookback on demolitions and for more detail on the contractual-services line in code enforcement. Matthew said he would provide a lookback and additional contractual-services detail at the September follow-up.
Ending: Council and staff agreed to follow up with details on collections, demolition counts and the legal-review pipeline; members emphasized the need to ensure enforcement processes align with pending ordinance recodification work.
