Committee reviews options to strengthen code enforcement, forwards package to full council

The Community Vitality and Safety Committee reviewed a staff briefing on strengthening code enforcement and its fiscal impacts and voted to forward the draft package to the full council for a study session.

Cindy Weber, assistant division manager in Planning and Development Services’ Regulatory Compliance Group, told the committee the city handles about “4,100 cases per year” on average over the last three years and that “expanded enforcement … would require ongoing general fund support,” because revenue from penalties is variable and not a reliable funding source. Weber said staff proposes three tiers of enforcement: a baseline effort to stabilize current service levels; a balanced modernization that would accelerate inspections and permit a limited number of proactive cases (targeting roughly 25–30% faster initial inspections and resolutions); and a targeted, proactive model for council-priority problem areas (aiming for about 50% faster initial inspection response and more proactive capacity).

The briefing outlined operational changes staff would use under the draft code. Weber said the base repeat-offender trigger remains two violations in a 12-month period, with a proposed chronic tier for three or more violations in 12 months that would require a written mitigation plan from the property owner. Staff recommended shortening reinspection windows for repeat offenders to about 10–14 days (the current standard for many violations is expressed as 30 days) and moving to impact-based escalation tied to objective property conditions rather than subjective judgement.

Committee members said they supported stronger enforcement but pressed staff on equity and practical effects. Members asked how the code would distinguish victims (for example, property owners who board windows after a break-in) from chronic noncompliers and whether hardship or inability to pay would be accommodated. Weber said hardship could not be codified as a personal-characteristic exemption but staff could exercise administrable discretion and include uniform processes for extensions and resource referrals. The committee also discussed collections and compliance: staff suggested options such as hiring a collections officer and improving referral and lien practices to increase recovery of assessed charges.

Members discussed how the code would apply across residential and commercial properties. Weber said condition-based enforcement using the international property code provisions could be applied across building types, but consequences or incentives could be structured differently for large commercial owners versus single-family residences.

The briefing cited examples from other jurisdictions — staff referenced Spokane’s approach to long-term boarded properties as a model for treating prolonged boarding as a potential violation rather than treating all boarding as acceptable when used short-term.

After discussion, the committee agreed that, because the package raises fiscal and policy choices citywide, it was appropriate to send the draft materials to the full council for a study session rather than adopt final recommendations at the committee level. Chair moved “to move forward the full package without decisions to the full council for consideration at the first available study session,” the committee adopted the motion by voice vote and directed staff to continue one-on-one outreach with council members, refine ordinance language, and complete additional fiscal and legal analysis before bringing formal proposals to council.

The committee also noted upcoming agenda items — a May 28 presentation on court-appointed advocates and a report from the juvenile justice task force — and then adjourned.