Kalispell council adopts code changes targeting egress, ingress at vacant buildings

The Kalispell City Council on Jan. 21 approved Ordinance 19-32, revising city municipal code to create a civil enforcement avenue to secure vacant buildings and address unsafe egress and ingress.

The ordinance, introduced as a first reading and moved for approval by Councilor Nunnally and seconded by Councilor Fisher, amends Ordinance 18-90 by adding new sections labeled 10-12 and 10-13 to Kalispell Municipal Code Chapter 10. The council approved the ordinance in a roll-call vote, 6-3 (Carlson, Gabrielle, Dahlmann, Fisher, Hunter, Nunnally — yes; Graham, Dowd, Mayor Johnson — no).

City staff said the change is intended to give an expedited civil process for securing vacant buildings that present safety or security risks. "We're...adding two different sections in municipal code under 10‑12 and 10‑13...codifying [the fire code] that deals with vacant structures and egress and ingress," Mr. Russell said during the staff presentation.

Why it matters: Council discussion showed sharp differences over enforcement approach and property‑rights protections. Supporters said the change fills an enforcement gap and gives the city a faster civil pathway than existing property‑maintenance procedures. Opponents warned the measure was drafted in response to a single incident and argued the topic is primarily a property‑maintenance issue better handled outside the fire code.

Councilor Dowd said he was reluctant to adopt an ordinance he viewed as "a knee‑jerk reaction to a single incident," and noted concerns about placing property‑management authority in the fire code. "I do believe...it should be in the property management section of our code instead of the fire code," he said.

Councilor Hunter said the change provides a needed tool to secure dangerous buildings that can pose a public hazard: "This is something that every city should have to secure dangerous buildings that pose a public hazard." Councilor Nunnally likewise noted the ordinance is intended to let the Fire Department act more quickly without launching a full code‑enforcement program.

Timing and enforcement details were a focus of debate. During the staff presentation, Mr. Russell described a shortened abatement timeline for the new civil procedure; later council comment repeatedly discussed a 10‑day abatement period as the operative timeline. Councilors discussed an amendment option that would allow owners to propose a plan to abate when additional time is needed, but a final textual amendment was not recorded in the meeting discussion before the roll call.

Several councilors clarified limits and tradeoffs of the approach. Staff emphasized that placing an item under the fire code does not eliminate due‑process protections; civil enforcement still provides a municipal infraction process and an opportunity to respond in court. Members also discussed longer‑term options such as creating a broader property‑maintenance code and a code‑enforcement program that would handle a wider range of issues.

The ordinance text as moved references new sections 10‑12 and 10‑13 in Chapter 10 and states the amendment is "a portion of the Fire Prevention Ordinance of the City of Kalispell" and establishes penalties and an effective date. The ordinance was approved by the council and will be treated as a civil enforcement mechanism under the chapter listed in the ordinance.

Council members stressed the ordinance is limited to ingress/egress and security of vacant structures and is not a general property‑maintenance overhaul: "This doesn't cover those other issues...This is egress and ingress of a vacant building," staff said.

What's next: The ordinance will take effect according to the language in the adopted ordinance. Council discussion indicated further work could follow later in the year if the council decides to pursue a formal property‑maintenance code or create a dedicated code‑enforcement program.