Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tacoma staff outline plan to adopt national property-maintenance code, ask council how strict enforcement should be
Summary
City staff told the Community Vitality and Safety Committee that adopting the International Property Maintenance Code would consolidate standards into a condition-based framework; they asked council for direction on voluntary-compliance windows, penalty timing and escalation and will return with a draft on May 14.
City staff on March 12 told the Community Vitality and Safety Committee they plan to return in May with a draft ordinance to adopt the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) and asked council members to set the council’s enforcement preferences.
"This technology work ensures that when we adopt the IPMC, we will have the infrastructure to support it effectively and track the outcome," said Mindy Weber, Assistant Division Manager in Planning and Development Services, describing a migration of case management into the city’s Acela permitting and records system.
The staff presentation described the IPMC as a nationally recognized, condition-based model that combines building and nuisance standards into a single framework, replacing fragmented provisions now split across Tacoma Municipal Code titles. Weber and colleagues said the IPMC clarifies minimum maintenance expectations and makes enforcement more predictable for residents and staff while preserving local amendment authority and appeal pathways.
Council members pressed staff for choices about enforcement posture: whether to keep a voluntary-notice-first approach, shorten compliance windows and escalate monthly penalties into daily fines, or trigger earlier formal enforcement for repeat offenders. Weber outlined three example options and said existing authority under Tacoma’s Uniform Enforcement Code (TMC 1.82) can reach up to $10,000 per day, though staff emphasized that the final enforcement intensity and penalties are policy decisions for the council.
Several members asked for concrete examples that distinguish commercial from residential cases, the likely fiscal and staffing impacts of each enforcement option, and a clearer statement of the committee’s overarching goals for code enforcement (for example, faster resolution times or fewer open cases). Weber said staff will hold one-on-one meetings with council aides to collect direction and will present a draft code and implementation options at the committee’s May meeting (staff corrected the date during the hearing to May 14).
Staff also described a phased technology modernization: phase 1 adds new record creation to Acela and standardizes violation categories; later phases will complete workflow migration, automate intake from public reporting tools and improve public-facing case status so residents can see compliance timelines and next steps.
The committee did not vote on the draft code on March 12. Weber said, if council direction supports adoption, staff hopes to bring a council-ready ordinance in June and use the remainder of 2026 for implementation, staff training and public outreach.
The committee’s next scheduled discussion will include sample enforcement timelines and a fiscal-impact analysis for each option.
