Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission discusses nuisance‑abatement tools, redevelopment incentives and impact‑fee policy
Summary
Commissioners debated how to enforce nuisance and dangerous‑building codes, possible penalties (boarding permits and fines), and how redevelopment funds and impact‑fee policy could be used to support Main Street revitalization and housing infrastructure.
The Planning Commission spent part of its April 21 meeting reviewing enforcement options for nuisance and dangerous buildings and discussing how redevelopment tools and impact‑fee policy tie into downtown revitalization.
Chair Kim McFarland said the city has been pursuing grants and redevelopment work for years but noted that blighted properties on Main Street remain a problem: "I've been thinking of this… in order for that to be successful, we have to do some things as a city to clean up part of the town," she said, urging a carrot‑and‑stick approach combining incentives and enforceable penalties.
Staff and commissioners discussed adopting the International Code Council (ICC) abatement/dangerous‑buildings provisions and tightening nuisance penalties so the city has "teeth" to compel remediation. Commissioners cited boarding‑permit models used by other cities (examples of annual boarding fees that escalate over time) and reviewed the city's current fee schedule, which includes general nuisance fines (for example a cited figure of $500 per day as the existing general nuisance fine was discussed). Staff explained enforcement options: civil liens, filing cases in civil court, and adding cleanup costs as tax assessments if owners do not pay.
Members recommended prioritizing the most dangerous buildings (fire‑damaged structures and those that impede emergency access) and suggested exploring whether the city could use redevelopment or an enterprise/incentive fund to subsidize demolition or rehabilitation in coordination with developers. Commissioners also asked staff to review the adopted codes (including adopted international building and fire codes), summarize abatement chapters for the commission and present options at a future meeting; any code adoption or substantive changes would require public hearing and city council action.
The conversation then moved into general‑plan sections on economic development and impact fees. Staff explained impact fees are limited to certain uses (water and sewer improvements), typical amounts discussed in the meeting, and the constraints that govern how those funds may be used. Commissioners debated whether waiving or crediting impact fees could function as an incentive and noted that some redevelopment actions (for example RDA activity) can help make projects feasible but that coordination with council and financial modeling will be necessary.
No formal motions were made on code adoption during the meeting; the commission tasked staff with compiling relevant code chapters and options for future hearings.
