Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Blight Inspection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee advances $250 blight inspection fee; DPW says abatement needs separate funding
Summary
The Budget & Finance Subcommittee voted to forward an ordinance establishing a $250 blight inspection fee to the full Board, while DPW and the budget office warned the fee covers inspections only and abatement would require additional funding and interdepartmental coordination with DBI.
The Budget & Finance Subcommittee forwarded a trailing ordinance to the full Board on April 29 that would authorize the Department of Public Works to charge $250 to inspect properties found blighted under last year’s Community Preservation and Blight Reduction Act.
Department of Public Works Director Ed Riskin told the committee the legislation is the “trailing fee establishment” required to implement the blight ordinance passed last year, and that the $250 amount was set to recover DPW’s inspection costs. "The fees would allow us to recover our costs of inspection," Riskin said, adding that fines collected from noncompliant owners could later fund abatement activities but that there would be an initial lag before abatements could be financed.
Budget analyst Harvey Rose recommended the departments coordinate to avoid duplicative inspections and disputed roles between DPW and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI). Rose flagged a pending, separate DBI proposal that would establish a $52 inspection fee and cautioned that overlapping work could confuse property owners. Rose also recommended amending the ordinance language on page 1 to substitute the word ‘‘abatement’’ for ‘‘enforcement’’ with respect to the fund description.
Supervisors raised concerns about charging owners who are victims of repeated tagging or who are cash-poor seniors, and discussed adding discretion or a hardship standard. Riskin noted the legislation as drafted uses "shall" to require cost recovery and that changing the language to "may" could permit standards for waivers. Public commenter Stephen Currier urged the Board to pass the ordinance to provide enforcement tools for extreme blight cases cited in his neighborhood.
The committee moved the item to the full Board with a recommendation; supervisors signaled they expect amendments to clarify waiver standards for graffiti victims and reporting on the Category 6 special fund that will hold revenues.
The full Board will receive the ordinance for consideration; any amendments or schedule were not decided at the subcommittee meeting.
