The primary agenda item, Ordinance 2026-12, was met with public interest, as it seeks to establish a comprehensive framework for addressing unsafe structures. The ordinance outlines definitions, inspection protocols, and remedies for dealing with such properties. During public comments, Richard Harris, a resident affected by an unsafe structure, emphasized his frustration with a decaying property near his home which has been problematic for over a decade, exacerbated by Hurricane Hela. Harris advocated for immediate demolition, mentioning a contractor ready to manage the process, including fumigation to prevent rat infestations from spreading to nearby properties. His plea highlighted the urgency of the issue and the potential benefits of removing hazardous structures.

Other residents echoed Harris’s concerns. Mark Hoey supported the ordinance, noting its potential to empower code enforcement in addressing dilapidated buildings. Sarah Pennington raised alarms about the ordinance’s vague language concerning the term “abandoned,” suggesting the need for a workshop to clarify legal options and gather community input. She also pointed out that the ordinance inadequately addresses the severe rat infestations linked to neglected properties.

Candace Quail, another resident, brought attention to a specific property at 116 85th Avenue, which she claimed had been a persistent issue for eight years. Despite accruing substantial fines, the owner reportedly rejected a low cash offer. Quail expressed frustration over the city’s inaction and stressed the need for demolition efforts to include pest control measures, questioning whether fines would continue post-demolition. Her remarks underscored the necessity for clear definitions and enforcement mechanisms within the ordinance to effectively tackle the ongoing problems.

Following the public commentary, the commission discussed the broader implications of neglect and code enforcement in Treasure Island. While identifying properties requiring immediate demolition, it was clarified that demolition would not be enforced for issues like overgrown grass or pests unless they posed a broader threat. Code enforcement was collaborating with pest control services to manage infestations before any demolition activities.

Financial considerations were also a focal point, with discussions on the implications of fines and penalties. It was noted that fines would accumulate until properties were compliant, with the city placing liens to recover expenses when properties were sold. A contentious point arose regarding the responsibility of realtors and property owners in maintaining listed properties, highlighting potential repercussions for non-compliance.

The meeting also introduced another ordinance aimed at updating code enforcement regulations. This ordinance sought to clarify procedures, define irreparable violations, and establish criteria for fine reductions. The code enforcement board’s chairperson acknowledged city staff’s efforts in refining these ordinances to enhance clarity and procedural robustness.

Revisions to the city’s code enforcement authority and related processes were a componet of the discussion. Enhancements to due process rights for violators and additional powers for the code enforcement board, including the imposition of administrative fees, were proposed. The commission clarified that requests to reduce fines and liens would be directed to them, emphasizing their authority in these matters.

There was a notable shift in legal representation dynamics, with legal counsel no longer representing the code enforcement board but assisting the city in preparing cases for the commission and magistrate. This change aims to streamline the process but raised concerns about potential additional legal expenses.

Public comments closed with a call for better communication with residents on reporting violations and the resolution timeline. The commission acknowledged the need for a simple guide to help residents navigate the reporting process.