Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council directs staff to vet batches of properties for possible civil-penalty forgiveness

Paris City Council · February 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council discussed a staff proposal to proactively bring vetted batches of properties with historic demolition-related civil penalties for possible forgiveness of penalty amounts (not liens, demolition costs, or back taxes); staff recommended presenting about 10 cases at a time for council review.

City staff told the council Aug. 10 they have identified numerous demolition orders issued between roughly 2012 and 2016 that were assessed civil penalties (often $1,000 per day). Staff asked for direction on whether to pursue a proactive program to bring vetted batches of properties to the council for possible forgiveness of those civil-penalty assessments while preserving liens, demolition costs and back‑tax obligations.

A staff representative (speaker 6) told council the city has compiled a list of approximately 1,000 properties from the earlier enforcement period, and that staff currently have actual orders for about 50 cases. The penalties in question were civil penalties assessed at $1,000 per day when owners did not comply with demolition orders within 30 days. Staff clarified they were not seeking forgiveness of demolition costs, liens, or back taxes — only the historical civil-penalty assessments in appropriate, clear-cut cases.

Councilmembers discussed alternatives. One councilmember (speaker 2) favored a case-by-case approach and asked that forgiveness happen at the council level unless a developer or buyer with a credible plan proposes to redevelop multiple lots. Others suggested batching a manageable number of cases — staff suggested 5–10 at a time and one councilmember described 10 as more manageable; another suggested 20 would be faster but recognized the workload.

Staff said the vetting process would prioritize properties already demolished and those for which penalty amounts far exceed property values, where waiving penalties could make sale or redevelopment feasible. Council gave direction to staff to prepare a vetted list (staff recommended starting with 10 per meeting) and present those properties with clear criteria so the council could act in future meetings.

No formal vote or ordinance was taken at this meeting; staff will return with recommended batches for council action.