Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maxwell council approves one‑year contract with outside code‑enforcement specialist
Summary
The Maxwell City Council voted to contract Adam Cole, a community compliance specialist, to perform third‑party code‑enforcement work, citing a desire for an independent reviewer to ensure even application of nuisance codes. Cole proposed $80 an hour with a two‑hour travel minimum and monthly reporting.
The Maxwell City Council voted to authorize a one‑year contract with Adam Cole to provide code‑enforcement services to the city.
Cole, who identified himself as a community compliance specialist for the City of West Mo, told the council he would perform exterior property inspections, review junk vehicles and dilapidated buildings, document violations by photo and deliver monthly activity spreadsheets. "We were looking for . . . an independent set of eyes" to remove the personal aspect of enforcement, Cole said, describing the goal as equal application of the ordinance.
Cole quoted an $80 hourly rate, a two‑hour travel minimum for work requiring travel, and 15‑minute billing increments beyond that. He said he would prepare a monthly spreadsheet of activity for the city and recommended one notice with timelines that vary by violation (for example, shorter timelines for inoperable vehicles and longer timelines — up to several months — for structural repairs).
Council members emphasized that abatement and legal follow‑up can create additional costs and that the city would remain the formal complainant in enforcement actions. Council discussion noted the city can place abatement costs on property tax rolls if owners fail to pay, but warned that collecting taxes and handling vacant properties can create downstream costs.
The motion to request a one‑year contract with Cole passed by roll call; council asked staff to review a drafted contract and return it for finalization.
The council did not adopt ordinance changes during the meeting; members said they would bring any proposed code amendments back to the council if they wanted to change the substantive rules.
