Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pierce County raises maximum civil penalties, revises code-enforcement priorities; ordinance adopted 4–2
Summary
The Council adopted O2025-571, which revises code enforcement priorities and processes, updates certain definitions, and raises the maximum civil penalty for noncompliance from $1,000 to $2,500 per day; the measure passed 4–2 after public comment raising concerns about fairness and potential overreach.
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pierce County on Dec. 9 adopted an ordinance updating code enforcement priorities and procedures and increasing the maximum civil penalty for violations from $1,000 to $2,500 per day.
Principal policy analyst Mike Krueger told the council the ordinance would repeal a 2017 policy that made nuisances (solid waste, derelict structures, junk vehicles) the county’s highest code-enforcement priority. The proposal also revises definitions—including the "innocent purchaser" definition to align with Washington law—clarifies enforcement procedures, creates penalties for submitting erroneous or misleading information to the county, and raises the maximum civil penalty from $1,000 to $2,500 per day for failure to comply with development regulations or written orders.
During public comment several residents opposed the increase as excessive and asked for more transparency about the amendment’s origins and supporting records. One caller asked that the council pull the measure for further review; another described perceived public-records delays that complicate public input. Council debate featured divergent views: opponents warned of potential abuse and disproportionate impact on residents with limited means, while supporters, led by Councilmember Denson, said the increased penalty is intended as a last resort and a tool to address repeat, willful noncompliance that harms neighborhoods. Denson said code-enforcement staff typically work with residents and reserve fines as a last measure but that higher penalties might be needed to deter repeat offenders.
The ordinance received four ayes and two nays (Kruger and Morrell), and the chair declared the motion adopted.
