Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Code enforcement team proposes housekeeping and licensing changes to clarify penalties and move licensing enforcement to code office
Summary
Code compliance team leader Chris Bowden presented consolidated housekeeping amendments to Article 8 and a concept for licensing enforcement that would standardize procedures, remove duplicative penalty language, and shift responsibility for some licensing enforcement from the police to code enforcement.
Chris Bowden, the city’s code compliance team leader, presented a concept package to update Article 8 (the city’s code‑enforcement citation system) and a companion licensing ordinance concept intended to clarify enforcement procedures and fix outdated or conflicting penalty language.
"My name is Chris Bowden. Um, code compliance team leader uh for the code office downstairs," Bowden said as he introduced the package and explained he had "combined two ordinances essentially in this uh one workshop." He identified specific places where penalty amounts and language conflicted (he cited sections 2605, 2610, 2638, 641 and 642), and said he removed duplicative penalty language and gendered wording while proposing a standard protocol for how licensing violations would be handled.
Bowden proposed that certain licensing enforcement actions now routed to the police chief be instead handled through the code enforcement office, and that the ordinance cross‑reference a central fee schedule rather than embedding penalty amounts in multiple sections. He described the submission as a concept rather than a final draft and said staff would work with the city attorney on formal ordinance language.
City Clerk Emily Carrington clarified the limited scope of the change: it "does not change the revocation or suspension proceedings within licensing," but it would provide a path for issuing citations to licenses that are expired, nonresponsive or never applied for. Council members asked staff to return a draft with attorney review and asked that fees be referenced to appendix A (the fee schedule).
Councilors generally expressed support for moving the concept forward; the city manager and staff were directed to work with the city attorney and return a formal ordinance for placement on a future council agenda.
The workshop record indicates staff will present a formal draft ordinance for council review and public hearing at a later meeting.
