Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts Ordinance 2025-009 to expand code enforcement tools after extended debate over "clutter," appeals and discretion
Summary
Baxter's City Council adopted Ordinance 2025-009 and an amended fee schedule to add abatement and citation tools, revise enforcement of tall grass and give the city a finding-based approach to generalized clutter; council members raised concerns about vague "clutter" wording, due-process notice methods and appeals costs.
The Baxter City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 2025-009, which amends the city code and the 2025 fee schedule to provide new tools for code enforcement including citation amounts for repeat offenses, an abatement mechanism and extended language aimed at addressing generalized clutter and tall grass.
Staff told the council the package pairs ordinance changes with a fee schedule so the city can use citations for first, second and third offenses and employ abatement authority to address chronic problems more efficiently. "The ordinance and the fee schedule together give the city new tools to establish an improved enforcement program," a staff member said, describing a shift toward a finding-based approach for clutter and expedited remedies intended to reduce prolonged cases that previously required multiple public hearings.
Council members spent more than an hour dissecting key provisions. Questions focused on how the city would notify property owners (regular mail, posting, or certified mail), the definition of "clutter" and whether visual preference enforcement risks overreach. One councilmember asked whether a fence that screens items from view would be an acceptable remedy; staff said the proposed clutter provision does not explicitly provide screening as an automatic remedy but the language can be amended.
Several speakers warned about an overzealous enforcement officer and urged clear supervisor oversight and robust appeal paths. The ordinance as presented routes appeals to an administrative hearing process; staff noted appeal-related costs and said the city attorney estimated that an appeal hearing could cost between $2,000 and $3,000 in attorney and hearing time for an 8'10 hour proceeding. Council members expressed concern that assessing recovery costs or fees could deter legitimate appeals.
Councilmembers also discussed hiring a code-enforcement officer. Staff said the position will sit in the community development department, supervised by building-department leadership; hiring was still in process at the time of the meeting. Several councilmembers stressed the need to pilot the approach, iterate definitions and retain discretion to prevent arbitrary enforcement.
After the discussion a motion to adopt Ordinance 2025-009 was made and seconded. The motion carried; one councilmember said they voted against the motion during the roll call. The ordinance will become effective according to the city's normal ordinance-adoption timetable and staff said they will return with any recommended clarifying amendments and implementation steps.
Votes at a glance: the consent agenda was approved earlier in the meeting; the council approved a budget amendment to address crack-sealing contract overruns (staff to provide the exact shortfall amount at a later date); and Ordinance 2025-009 was adopted with one recorded opposition.
