Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses proposed 'blight tax' to target chronic code violators; residents ask for safeguards
Summary
Staff outlined a proposed 'blight tax' ordinance that could increase a property's millage when it meets a statutory blight definition after notice. Council and residents pressed for clarity on appeals, uniformity, displacement safeguards and use of proceeds; staff said the tool targets chronic slumlords and unsafe commercial structures.
City staff briefed council on a proposed ‘blight tax’ ordinance during the May 12 meeting that would permit an increased millage on properties legally found to be blighted under defined criteria.
Under the draft language staff presented, a property could be designated blighted if it is uninhabitable, unsafe, abandoned, lacks adequate sanitation, or has repeated illegal activity and if the conditions persist for at least one year following written notice. The ordinance would exclude properties occupied as a primary residence; staff said the intent is to target abandoned buildings and owners with repeated code violations.
Ryan (codes staff) explained the process and emphasized that property owners would have notice and court avenues to contest a blight determination. “The ordinance defines for the blight tax purposes a blighted property is uninhabitable, unsafe or abandoned, inadequate provisions for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, an imminent harm to life or other property,” Ryan said.
Residents asked how the tax would be applied and whether the city could be successfully challenged for differential millage. The tax-assessor’s office said the proposed approach does not violate uniformity if properties are valued consistently and owners retain appeal rights through the assessor and recorder’s court. Residents and some council members asked for reporting, regular review, and explicit safeguards to prevent unintended displacement of long-term, low-income residents.
Several residents used the public-comment period to raise historical concerns about how federal and local redevelopment funds had been used in past decades and to ask council to combine restitution and remediation strategies with any new enforcement tool.
What happens next: council will continue debate and return the ordinance for future consideration; staff said they will provide additional clarifying language around appeals, exemptions for owner-occupied homes, and how proceeds would be used for code enforcement and remediation.
