Policy vs Procedures vs Codes Enforcement
In the 1/24/25 Tribune two article titles are next to each other, “Another Historic building is on the Brink” and “City, Building owner still discussing repairs for 118 E. Wall St.” We have had seven buildings in our Historic Downtown District since 2017 that have been demolished or have had structural issues that have made the building inhabitable. There have been seven different ways that the process was handled. The burden of those demolished seems to always fall back on the taxpayers in our community in some way or another. Why aren’t there policies and procedures that go step by step in dealing with these building issues.
The City paid an organization to come into our community in 2017and make recommendations to improve our community. The Fort Scott Planning Commission reviewed the findings and
came up with a proposal based off of the recommendations put forth. The Planning Commission met with the City Commission in a public hearing on October 29th, 2018 and presented a proposal for the updated 2018 Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan and future land use was adopted and approved by the governing body on November 20th, 2018, creating Ordinance 3542.
The purpose of the plan cited a number of characteristics. A physical plan, a long range comprehensive design that included the city and the county, a statement of policy, and a plan to help guide the decision making process.
Chapter Eight in the comprehensive plan references the Role of Code Enforcement or “police power” to help ensure that the health and safety of residents is not adversely affected by property conditions. (8.2) “Lack of maintenance, and sometimes willful acts, can create blighted neighborhoods, and substandard dwelling units.” Property values as well as community self-image is affected by blight and lack of maintenance. The role of a Code Enforcement
program rests upon each citizen acting as a good neighbor and also implies responsibilities.That coupled with lack of investment in infrastructure such as improved streets or sidewalks breeds an aura of negativism which impedes a desirable “community spirit.”
(8.3) “One of the main goals of any code enforcement program is to bring attention to code violations which could have a negative impact on the neighborhood or community. Through identification and education many times cooperative, responsible property owners will themselves eliminate the issue. If cooperation fails, formal enforcement including tickets or fines and/or removal of the offensive item may be necessary.”
(8.6) Some of the goals and strategies suggested an “increase code enforcement activity in order to help protect neighborhoods from decay, decline and disinvestment.” This can be accomplished with a review of all “city laws to ensure their adequate scope and coverage and appropriate penalties for lack of compliance.” Secondly, “consider strategies of direct communication with the community for notification of code violations.” Third, “schedule neighborhoods for inspections annually, and respond more timely to code violations.” Lastly, continue commitment of greater City financial resources to demolition and removal of housing and other structures which are unsafe and dangerous.
My questions are whether or not we have policies and procedures for the codes department and are they listed on our City Website? Does the City Codes department have established guidelines and processes to follow when there is an infraction. How often does the Codes Officer visit the historical buildings that are being remodeled? Is the demolition that is taking place compromising the structure and the outer walls of the building? In the historical district of the city when a building is being seriously considered to purchase, does the codes officer meet up with the individuals and go through the entire building with the codes book educating and
instructing them on what a person can and cannot do when renovating the building, giving the buyer the options of renovations and costs. This is done in other cities.
A statement was made that we do not have policy and procedures for a building that has been red tagged. Kansas State has a process for local authorities to declare a property as a public nuisance due to being vacant and/or abandoned. The timeline for their recommended action to declare a property as a public nuisance is not a drawn out process. Can we adapt these policies and procedures for our community?
This brings me to the building that had a gas leak on August 13th, 2025. The Quit Claim Deed took place on July 27th, 2023. Demolition had taken place on the inside of the building. Did the demolition compromise the outside walls of the building causing a weakness of the structure. Broken windows continued to expose the building to the conditions of outer environmental elements. This building has been under radar for more than two years. Why did the city not take a moreproactive role in the deterioration of this historical building that is right across the street from theCity hall? The excuse was that they could not get in touch with the owners. And yet in the articleprinted on January 24, 2025, the owners of the building were revealed. I am thankful that we didnot have a major catastrophe that could have caused major damage to multiple buildings.
Policies? Procedures? Enforcements? Citations? A City Court who enforces the Citations? As quoted in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, (8.1) “While in many communities the subject of code enforcement would not command its own chapter in a Comprehensive Plan, the leaders in Fort Scott feel strongly that the current situation be clearly identified so that the community can improve in the areas of nuisance and inadequate property maintenance that are found
throughout the community. This perception by community leaders of the importance of code enforcement seems to be well supported by citizens.”
That was in 2018. We are in 2025. It has been seven years. What are the intentions to achieve and sustain a higher level of this standard of living?
Deb McCoy
8/31/25