Warren council adopts vacant-property registration ordinance, approves registry agreement

The Warren City Council on Sept. 15 approved a foreclosure and vacant‑property registration ordinance and a proposed agreement with a third‑party property registry firm to identify and track foreclosed and vacant properties in the city. City staff and the vendor said the program is intended to give the city timely contact information for responsible parties and reduce neighborhood blight.

City planner/risk staffer Randy Rossi told the council that abandoned or foreclosed properties can become “a burden to the neighborhood and the city” and that property registration is a “tool in the toolbox” to protect neighborhoods and property values. He said the planning commission and the city’s redevelopment authority reviewed the proposed ordinance and recommended council approval. A recommended effective date in the ordinance is Jan. 1, 2026.

Kevin Sydella, introduced as a representative of ERA Property Registry LLC, described the company’s services: staff would build a city parcel database, monitor county foreclosure filings and register properties in foreclosure with the foreclosing party so the bank — not the occupant — is the contact for maintenance and compliance. Sydella said the vendor charges $125 per successful registration; he said that amount is retained by the vendor and the remainder of any registration fee would go to the city. He also said the vendor operates on a contingency model and that the city would receive the database “at no out‑of‑pocket expense.”

Council members asked about exemptions and technical details. Rossi and the vendor said the ordinance contains exemptions for properties actively marketed for sale and for properties under construction or renovation (the construction/remodel exemption may not exceed two years and requires permits). They also said the registry is triggered by foreclosure filings recorded at the county courthouse and that a property can be removed from the registry if the foreclosure is dismissed or the property no longer meets the ordinance definitions; staff will coordinate those removals.

Council discussion included concerns that the program is primarily aimed at residential foreclosure and neighborhood blight, not the downtown commercial revitalization the council has emphasized. One council member said the registry helps neighborhoods but “may not do enough” to incentivize downtown building reuse. Rossi and other speakers said the registry complements other tools and that funds collected could be assigned to the Redevelopment Authority for programs such as roof or sidewalk repairs.

Council made a motion to approve the ordinance and the proposed agreement with the registry service. The motion carried; the minutes state the motion “carries with 4 votes in the affirmative.” The ordinance document recommends an effective date of Jan. 1, 2026. Council members and staff said the city and the RDA will determine how any fee revenue will be used to support remediation or code‑enforcement work.

The ordinance and vendor agreement outline administrative details for registration, exemptions, a two‑year construction/remodel exemption, and a 30‑day notice provision for termination of the service agreement. City staff said they have discussed program administration and revenue uses with the redevelopment authority and other city committees that reviewed the ordinance.

The council did not provide a line‑item fiscal appropriation at the Sept. 15 meeting; staff recommended returning to council with the formal contract and final ordinance text consistent with the committee recommendations and the redevelopment authority’s role.

Notes: the vendor described its practice of registering the foreclosing entity (the bank) rather than occupants and said registration can be rescinded if foreclosure is dismissed. The council noted the program addresses residential blight and complements — but does not replace — downtown revitalization tools.