Kalispell council opts to tighten community-decay and junk-vehicle ordinances, track complaints instead of creating new officer

City of Kalispell staff recommended narrowing and clarifying two existing municipal codes and discussed options for a dedicated code-enforcement officer during a March 24 work session, where councilors and members of the public debated whether to fund a new position or first collect more data.

Doug Russell, a city staff member who led the presentation, described two ordinance changes staff recommends: amendments to the city’s community-decay provisions and to the junk-vehicle ordinance. Russell said the changes would streamline abatement by setting a 10-day initial notice period and then pursuing a civil infraction process that includes a court appearance window, shortening the current timeframe to roughly 31 days from notice to possible court action. He said the community-decay change would move weeds and grasses over 8 inches out of the fire code and into the community-decay ordinance, and retain several exemptions, including lots larger than 15,000 square feet, hillsides, wetlands and areas impractical to mow.

On the junk-vehicle ordinance, Russell said staff adapted language used by other Montana cities to expand the definition of discarded or inoperative motor vehicles and component parts, and to add exemptions for active repair work. “There’s an exemption for that, a 60 day exemption for a car that’s currently under work,” he said. Russell also said the draft would allow for shielding—vehicles kept in a garage or behind a view‑obscuring fence would be treated differently than those in public view.

Russell framed the question for council as a service-level decision: “So, really, what we’re looking for here is, you know, what does council want for your level of service deliveries that relates to code enforcement?” He described three implementation options: absorb enforcement into the general fund with an added full‑time employee in Development Services, create a special district funded by a small municipal levy, or continue the status quo and address complaints as time permits across departments. When asked what staffing he would recommend, Russell said, “I’d recommend a full time position, a full time position.”

Councilors and residents raised concerns about cost, scope and unintended enforcement of benign activity. Several council members said they were reluctant to ask voters for another levy this election season and preferred to gather more data before creating a permanent position. One councilor urged staff to track complaint volumes for a year and return with a report. Councilors and staff recalled that when the city previously employed a dedicated code-enforcement officer (approximately 2009), the department handled about 60 weed-and-grass complaints and roughly 15 community-decay or junk-vehicle complaints in a summer season.

Public commenters offered differing views. Jamie Quinn, a West Kalispell resident, urged enforcement as a way to improve the city’s appearance for tourism and to protect renters in unsafe housing: “If you want businesses to go in downtown, then we do need to have a community that looks appropriate when you’re coming in,” she said. Another resident, identified in the transcript as Kyle, opposed a levy and warned of overreach, calling the proposal “another government overreach. It’s another way to make money.”

Council and staff repeatedly emphasized resource limits. Russell noted that without a dedicated position, enforcement is handled piecemeal by planning, parks and public works staff and that court appearances and follow-up can pull employees from regular duties. He warned that municipal court cases could be dropped if staff are tied up elsewhere. Russell recommended that council still proceed with tightening the two ordinances even if it did not add staff, to make enforcement more consistent and to reduce procedural delays.

Outcome and next steps: Council did not vote on an ordinance or create a position during the session. The meeting record shows a consensus to proceed with drafting amendments to the community‑decay and junk‑vehicle ordinances to streamline abatement and to implement a one‑year complaint-tracking regimen for staff to report back to council. Staff said they would return with codified ordinance language and with data after the tracking period.

Clarifying note on cost estimates and figures: during the meeting staff provided a ballpark personnel cost estimate for a full‑time position, but the numeric figure in the transcript is unclear; a precise annual cost was not specified on the record and would be provided in budget materials if council requests staffing in a future budget cycle.

The council discussion also touched on related topics: the city’s existing authority under its fire code for tall weeds and grass (which staff proposed to move into community‑decay), coordination with Flathead County on noxious‑weed complaints, and exemptions for long or inaccessible properties. No formal ordinance language was adopted at the March 24 session.