Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Duval staff propose rewrite of hearing-examiner and code-enforcement rules to streamline complaints
Summary
City staff recommended repealing and replacing the hearing‑examiner and code‑enforcement chapters to create a hybrid system that distinguishes administrative violations from civil infractions, publish a public flowchart, and add an online complaint form. Staff seek feedback through March 31 and aim for April adoption steps.
Larissa Grindell, deputy director of public works and the city engineer, on March 17 presented a proposed repeal-and-replace of Duval’s hearing‑examiner and code‑enforcement chapters to make enforcement procedures clearer and more user friendly.
"We moved the key changes to our hearing examiner section and our code‑enforcement chapter to completely repeal and replace them — it’s a cleaner way to do this code that is pretty old," Larissa said, describing a hybrid system in which administrative violations are handled first and infraction filings (municipal court) are secondary. She said the update will align internal procedures with Washington state law and improve due‑process protections.
Staff said the rewrite would: clarify the distinction between civil violations and infractions; define roles and procedures for the hearing examiner and appeal process; streamline public notice and voluntary correction agreements; and provide a public‑facing diagram and an online complaint form through the city’s OpenGov permit system.
In questions from council, staff described enforcement frequency and examples. Larissa said stormwater and sewer cases drive most infractions — "a handful, 6, maybe 8 a year" — and noted about three active civil‑violation cases now would likely go to the hearing examiner because they involve unsafe rental conditions or semi‑abandoned properties. She said lower‑level complaints such as litter, noise or parking are often resolved through verbal contact, letters, or voluntary compliance.
Staff also explained the formal process when voluntary compliance fails: written notices, reinspections and, if necessary, either filing a civil infraction through municipal court or issuing a notice of civil violation that can proceed to a hearing examiner. For immediate threats to public health or safety, staff said they would issue stop‑work orders and pursue expedited remedies.
Next steps and public input: staff requested policy feedback by March 31, will incorporate scrivener corrections, and plan to send a complete draft to the city attorney after the first touch; Larissa said she aims to bring a final adoption package to council around the April 21 meeting. The presentation did not include proposed ordinance text or a final schedule for hearings; staff asked council for policy feedback prior to attorney review.
Ending: Council thanked staff for the work and asked for clarifications on complaint intake and timelines; the item remains in the staff review process pending public feedback and legal review.
