Bayport council tables overhaul to code-enforcement ordinance after hours of public comment

The Bayport City Council moved Monday to table proposed amendments to Chapter 25 — the code provisions governing abatement and recovery of city costs — after a lengthy public discussion in which residents warned the draft was overly broad and could impose large legal bills on homeowners.

The proposed language, explained by City Attorney Eric, would clarify that when the city receives a district court order allowing it to enter private property and abate extreme violations, the city could seek reimbursement for administrative, contractor and legal costs and, in some cases, assess those costs against the property. Eric told the council the recommendation grew out of a long-running case against a property owner the city described as an extreme outlier whose decade-long noncompliance led staff to conclude civil remedies were necessary.

Residents who spoke said the ordinance as written could sweep up ordinary homeowners and small businesses. “This is not a relationship the city should foster,” read resident Sarah Jerson from a prepared letter, arguing the measure would make taxpayers or property owners personally liable for significant attorney fees and other costs. Several speakers urged the council to delay action so staff and the city attorney could narrow the language and add explicit procedural safeguards, such as requiring a council authorization before civil litigation and clarifying the ordinance applies only after criminal and other enforcement avenues are exhausted.

Council members and staff repeatedly described the proposal as targeted at “the rarest of circumstances.” Eric acknowledged the packet did not include the background narrative about the Kringle case because the ordinance is meant to apply broadly in the future, but he said the case illustrated gaps the amendment would address. Several residents countered that even a narrow purpose should be reflected in the code text.

After discussion, a council member moved to table the amendment for a month to allow staff to revise the draft and to give residents and business owners additional opportunity for review and comment. The motion to table was seconded and carried by roll call vote.

The council did not vote on the substantive ordinance. City staff said they will revise the draft to include clearer limits and procedures before the council considers it again.

What’s next: The ordinance will be reworked and returned to the council for further consideration; staff indicated any new draft would explicitly reference district court actions and include more narrow triggers for the recovery of costs.