International Property Maintenance Code
The International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) is a standardized set of property maintenance and safety standards used by cities across the country. We are considering adopting it and using it to bring several existing sections of the Tacoma Municipal Code together into a clearer, more consistent enforcement framework. The underlying expectation, that properties be kept safe and well maintained, would not change.
City Council considerations include:
- Consider adopting International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC): Point our enforcement authority to the IPMC, providing broader, clearer, and faster tools.
- Direction on the enforcement tiers described below.
- Confirm the repeat-offender framework: Higher, faster penalties and escalation for the chronic minority that drives most of the cost.
International Property Maintenance Code Adoption
We are considering adopting the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) and modernizing how it enforces property maintenance standards. This is a proposal under review. The City Council is weighing options, and no changes have been adopted. The Frequently Asked Questions below explain the effort in general terms; specifics will be shaped by Council direction as the proposal moves forward.
What the IPMC Does:
- Broadens the property conditions we can act on.
- Lets us start penalties higher and escalate faster.
- Stronger tools for repeat offenders.
- Allows for one case type to enforce on, instead of multiple.
- Aligns Tacoma with neighboring jurisdictions.
What it Doesn’t Do:
- Address nuisance conditions with chronic issues, that route requires Legal to obtain warrants for a potential abatement.
- Make enforcement pay for itself through fines.
- Expand staff resources necessary to process cases more quickly.
-
Today’s backlog requires working oldest-to-newest. Added capacity lets us reach complaints before conditions worsen, improving compliance, not just response time. The City Council is considering these options:
Tier 1: Stabilize Current Service
- Add one inspector
- Add two administrative staff
- Reduce intake backlog and stop response times from sliding further. Allows for minor improvements for re-inspection times. Increased repeat-offender tools. No proactive enforcement
- Estimated Fiscal Impact: $900,000 per year with a $500,000 startup cost
Tier 2: Balanced Modernization
- Add three inspectors
- Add two administrative staff
- 25%–30% faster initial inspection response, earlier contact means more cases corrected voluntarily. Repeat-offender tools; limited targeted proactive work (150–250 cases per year).
- Estimated Fiscal Impact: $1.3 million per year with a $650,000 startup cost
Tier 3: Targeted Proactive
- Add five inspectors
- Add three administrative staff
- 50% faster initial inspection response; dedicated proactive capacity for Council priority issues (400 or more cases per year)
- Estimated Fiscal Impact: $1.9 million per year with a $900,000 startup cost
-
Today, a single property with several violations can require multiple separate cases, each with its own timeline and enforcement path, which is confusing for property owners and inefficient for staff. The average days to inspection, after a case has been created, increased from five in 2021-2022 to 15 over the last four years, from 2023–2026. In 2016, the Regulatory Compliance Team included:
- Five administrative staff
- Nine code inspectors
In 2026, the team, which receives between 4,000-4,500 complaints a year, is operating with:
- Three inspectors
- One supervisor
In comparison, the City of Spokane employs nine inspectors and the City of Vancouver employs 10.
-
Policy Area Current Proposed Direction Repeat-offender threshold 2 violations / 12 months Base trigger maintained, 3 or more per year receives escalating civil penalties and a higher repeat offender fee. Compliance windows 18-day reinspection standard, often longer due to resource level Shorter compliance timelines for repeat offenders and standard timelines for standard complaints, with final timeframes determined based on the additional staffing allocated to the group. Penalties Bi-monthly penalties assessed based on current resource level. With a fixed fee rate. Increased/escalating penalty amount, each reinspection if still noncompliant, faster billing processing with additional Customer Service staff. Escalation triggers Case-by-case Impact-based triggers tied to objective property conditions. Abatement approach Case-by-case Escalated to abatement faster for repeat offenders and standard cases, based on objective property conditions and owner responsiveness. -
In Fall 2026, City Council will consider the ordinance and fiscal package for adoption. Residents can follow and comment on the proposal through the public City Council process.
Tentative Timeline
- Fall 2025-Spring 2026: Code modernization scoping; Council Committee briefings
- May 14, 2026: Council Committee briefing; staff requests Committee recommendation. Study Session requested by Committee
- May-June 2026: Refine ordinance language; additional fiscal analysis; begin stakeholder outreach
- July-August 2026: Full Council consideration.
- Public comment period: To be determined
- Stakeholder briefings: To be determined
- Internal staff training: To be determined
- Anticipated effective date: [To be determined pending Council action].
Frequently Asked Questions
-
Response time and proactive capacity.
-
No, abatement and board-up costs the City $550,000–$1.1 million per year, fines only cover under 10% of cost. The City recovers much of its abatement outlay through liens, but years later and unpredictably, so it can’t be budgeted as a funding source. Bigger, faster fines drive voluntary compliance, not revenue.
-
Today, Tacoma’s property maintenance rules are spread across several separate code sections, which can make enforcement slower and more confusing for everyone involved. Adopting a single, standardized code–one that most neighboring jurisdictions already use–is intended to make enforcement more consistent and efficient. The City is also taking this opportunity to look at how to modernize the program overall.
-
The City’s approach starts with voluntary compliance, many concerns are resolved by working directly with the property owner to correct the issue, and that would remain the starting point. The aim of the effort is to give staff clearer and more consistent tools, not to change the basic, cooperative way most cases are handled.
-
A small number of properties account for a large share of complaints. One goal of the effort is to give the City clearer and more effective tools to address those repeat and ongoing situations. The specific approach is still being developed and will be informed by Council direction.
-
This is still a proposal under review. Any changes will go before the full City Council for consideration.
-
Residents can follow and comment on the proposal through the public City Council process as it moves forward.
-
Property owners (residential and commercial), property managers, tenants, and anyone with an interest in property conditions in Tacoma. The updates apply citywide and to all property types, though some provisions, like the repeat-offender chronic tier, only affect properties with documented histories of violations.
-
Key changes include: a chronic-tier repeat-offender framework that adds stronger response tools when a property has three or more violations in a 12-month period; shortened compliance windows for repeat offenders;Â daily penalties beginning on Day 1Â of noncompliance for chronic cases; impact-based escalation tied to objective property conditions; a dedicated pathway for vacant, boarded, or unfit buildings; and a recurring property-condition nuisance pathway.
-
Tacoma’s current code already defines a repeat offender as two violations of identical or similar nature within 12 months, tracked by parcel and by owner across parcels. The update keeps that base definition and adds a new chronic tier: three or more violations within 12 months. Chronic cases will see shortened compliance windows, daily penalties starting on Day 1 of noncompliance, and may be required to submit a site-specific mitigation plan.
-
Vacancy alone is not a violation. The updated code ties enforcement to objective property conditions – buildings that are boarded, unsecured, unsafe, unfit, deteriorated, or otherwise creating nuisance conditions can be addressed under the new pathway, regardless of whether they are occupied. This approach is modeled in part on programs in other Washington cities.
-
The updated code establishes a recurrence pathway focused on objective property conditions; accumulated debris, fire hazards, sanitation issues, structural damage, that recur on a private property. Enforcement is tied to the condition of the property and the property owner’s responsibility for maintaining it. It is not tied to the housing status or presence of any individual.
Nuisance concerns generally include unmaintained vegetation, accumulations of trash or debris, structures in poor or unfinished condition, and vehicles stored on residential lots in ways that interfere with normal use of the property.
-
The City will issue a notice describing the violation and providing a compliance window to address the issue. If the violation isn’t addressed within the window, penalties may be assessed, and the case may escalate. Property owners can request extensions and access resource referrals where appropriate.
-
No. The updated code does not expand the City’s authority within HOA-governed properties. The City’s enforcement role is the same as it is today; private HOA disputes remain civil matters.
-
This is still being developed.