Committee refers increase to routine blight and housing fines to council after extended questioning

The Committee on Administrative Finance and Law and Public Services voted April 1 to refer to the Common Council a proposal to raise the general penalty for unspecified ordinance violations from $99 to $150.

The committee heard a presentation from department staffer Caleb, who said recent state enabling language raised the ceiling on penalties and allowed the city to revisit its maximums across blight, housing and animal/health violations. "Our sole purpose...is to educate first and enforce second," Caleb said, adding that the proposed change is intended to give enforcement "more teeth." The amendment would change the catchall general penalty (section 1-15) that applies where a section lacks a specific fine.

Members pressed staff for data and operational detail. Caleb said the city has kept ticketing records since 2014, that early years showed 171 and 394 tickets, and that the office issues roughly 400 tickets per year (plus or minus about 50). He told the committee that collection lags are common because unpaid citations become liens attached to the property and often are only paid when a property is sold. As examples he cited years when the department wrote roughly $78,000 and collected $63,000, and a more recent year in which about $105,000 in fines was issued and roughly $31,000 collected.

Members questioned whether a modest increase would materially change compliance. "If they're not paying at $99, what makes us think they're going to pay at $150?" one member asked. Staff answered that the change is meant to signal seriousness and that other tools — outreach, targeted blight sweeps and, as a last resort, clean-and-lean contractor work whose costs are placed on the property as liens — are used in tandem with citations.

The committee also sought and received a clarification that the panhandling provision (chapter 16-146 / 16-151) includes a specific $99 fine and would not be altered by raising the general catchall penalty.

After extended questioning the committee voted to refer the measure to the full council with a neutral recommendation. The transcript records a voice vote approving the referral; a roll-call tally was not recorded in the committee minutes provided.

The referral means the council will review the proposal and decide whether to adopt the increased penalties, amend them or keep existing levels.