Auburn council continues debate on vacant commercial building ordinance, schedules June 23 follow-up

The Auburn City Council continued a public hearing on a draft vacant commercial building ordinance and an associated fee resolution to its June 23 meeting after extended public testimony, presentations from staff and lengthy council discussion.

The ordinance is intended to address vacant storefronts and other commercial vacancies that staff says can attract blight and depress economic activity in Old Town and downtown Auburn. Community and Economic Development Director Jonathan Wright told the council that many vacancies “are not currently available for rent, not currently available for sale, are not currently in a state of construction or reconstruction… They just simply sit there.” Wright outlined changes in the draft ordinance introduced to reflect council and public feedback: a 90-day vacancy trigger (replacing an earlier 30-day proposal), a 14-day notice requirement for status changes, quarterly condition reports instead of weekly inspections, a clearer definition of “ready for occupancy,” and a fee structure tied to staff time and a separate cost-recovery monitoring fee for noncompliant properties.

Property owners and business operators urged caution. Owner and longtime downtown landlord William Pryor said the 90-day registration window was unrealistic for finding quality tenants: “To expect a building to be rented in 90 days is ludicrous,” he told the council, describing examples that took years to fill. Robert Persisci and other speakers warned about added costs and administrative burden on small property owners and urged the city to consider grants or incentives rather than penalties. The Downtown Business Association and Old Town Business Association provided outreach feedback to staff and supported the general goal of reducing blight but asked for reasonable timelines.

Council debate focused most on the vacancy trigger. Some members favored extending the period before mandatory registration; one councilmember said a six-month (180-day) trigger would be “a much more realistic number” in a slow market, while others worried that lengthening the trigger could make enforcement and evidence-gathering harder and delay response to public complaints. The city attorney and staff clarified that the ordinance would be complaint-driven: properties that create public-safety or nuisance conditions could still be addressed immediately under existing code enforcement authorities. Several councilmembers asked staff to refine fee calculations, confirm outreach results, and identify which funds (if any) could be used to help lenders or owners rehabilitate buildings.

With those questions outstanding, the council voted to continue the matter to its June 23 meeting for introduction/reading of the ordinance and consideration of the fee resolution. Staff said they will return with a revised draft, a proposed fee schedule tied to documented staff time, and summaries of outreach to property owners and business groups.

The continued hearing preserves council options to change the vacancy trigger, the registration timeline for property owners with existing vacancies, and the structure of the monitoring fee after further public input and technical refinements.