Code Enforcement warns services will shrink if proposed cuts hold; spotlights lot‑abatement costs, demolition limits, TROs

Anthony Davis, director of the Department of Code Enforcement, said the agency has doubled administrative hearings and fines compared with last year but remains constrained by an allocation far below the $16 million the department requested for 2026. Davis said the department has expanded compliance outreach and strike‑team abatements but warned proposed cuts would reduce demolition, lot cleanup and other services.

Davis offered these data points in a detailed presentation: year‑to‑date the department conducted about 3,292 administrative hearings and levied approximately $8.5 million in fines; it collected roughly $2.8 million of that amount. He said the city itself has demolished 115 properties year to date and abated more than 5,500 lots, at an average cost he estimated between $700 and $800 per lot.

Davis told the council that liens placed after abatements often go unpaid and that title‑research requirements make some adjudication cases lengthy: "We had some properties with up to 200 owners and until every one of those owners are noticed we cannot proceed to hearing," he said. He also said third‑party contracts used early in the department’s startup were reduced by moving research and other tasks in‑house.

On demolitions and legal limits, Davis warned the rise of temporary restraining orders (TROs) filed in civil court can stall or stop demolitions for months even when properties present imminent danger or repeated nuisance behavior. He asked the council and state lawmakers to consider whether judicial practice surrounding emergency TROs could be tightened to avoid public‑safety risks from stalled demolitions.

Davis proposed administrative changes and asked the council to consider restoring personnel and operating funds so the department can meet charter responsibilities. He said the department plans a compliance division to help owners return properties to compliance and wants to expand the strike team and healthy‑homes inspections, but that these plans depend on funding.

Discussion vs. decision: No formal policy changes or votes occurred at the hearing. Davis described operational priorities and flagged specific legal and budgetary constraints that may require legislative follow‑up at the state level.