Bluff leaders discuss streamlining enforcement: remove criminal penalties, adopt 30/60/90 escalation

Bluff Town Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed a chart of enforcement remedies March 20, 2025, and moved toward a civil, stepwise enforcement approach rather than criminal penalties.

The discussion opened with a review of a chart that still listed Class C misdemeanors and an update that the off‑street parking ordinance had been tabled previously. Anne (Council member, speaking during the meeting) said she had removed a number of Class C references and would finish reviewing the chart to ensure all criminal‑penalty language was flagged for possible removal. "I'll just go back through and make sure that I've noted all the any class C misdemeanor references," Anne said.

Why it matters: council and commissioners said shifting away from criminal penalties reflects the town’s limited local criminal infrastructure and focuses on compliance. Several participants endorsed a consistent escalation schedule for civil enforcement—often described as 30/60/90 days—so residents receive notice and opportunities to correct violations before stronger penalties apply.

Planning & Zoning commissioner Malia offered a practical step: commissioners who had reviewed individual ordinances would forward their annotated copies to staff to make Anne’s consolidation easier. "We each reviewed the ordinance that our name is next to, and we have potentially just separate pieces of paper that say what the existing enforcement is," Malia said, offering to send those notes.

Participants described typical escalation examples: an initial 30‑day notice, additional notices at 60 days, and stronger sanctions by 90 days. One speaker suggested late fees at 30 days and revocation of licenses by 90 days if compliance is not achieved. Amanda (speaker) summarized the intended emphasis: "The goal being compliance. The goal being giving people a lot of carrots and then the stick comes in at 60 to 90 days."

Council members also debated where to record penalties. Several favored listing most penalties in the town’s master fee schedule so the public could see both permit charges and potential penalties in one place; others recommended keeping penalties next to the specific ordinance text. "So maybe we need to pull penalties out of the master fee schedule and assign them to their specific ordinance," one participant said; another replied that including them in the fee schedule made it clearer for permit applicants.

Council members stressed that having penalties on paper is not enough without an agreed process: who issues notices, when enforcement letters are sent, and which office tracks escalations. One participant said enforcement is as much about process — who does what and when — as it is about the penalties themselves. Anne said she would add building‑permit information to the chart and return the consolidated version for review in April or May.

Also noted in the discussion: the off‑street parking ordinance appears on the chart but had been tabled earlier; Anne said she would include any remaining class‑C references for the group to consider removing. No new ordinances or formal votes were adopted at this meeting on enforcement changes.

Ending: Staff were asked to exchange their ordinance notes promptly so Anne could produce a consolidated chart that applies a consistent 30/60/90 escalation, clarifies whether penalties should live in the master fee schedule or within individual ordinances, and documents the operational process for issuing enforcement notices.