Committee delays vacant‑building registration ordinance after equity and enforcement questions

The Equitable Growth and Housing Committee delayed action on a proposed vacant building registration ordinance after members asked the administration for more data on enforcement capacity, equity impacts and ownership patterns.

Chair Mark Jeffries told the committee that city data show about 2,790 properties without water service that appear vacant and that 97 percent of those properties have generated at least one police or fire call. "If you average the last five years, all the fire runs, it's about 1,700 a year, which is about 10% of the total fire runs in a year," Jeffries said, adding that the properties owe roughly $4,500,000 in back taxes.

The ordinance as presented would create a proactive registry for properties determined to be vacant, require twice‑a‑year interior inspections (and regular exterior monitoring), and establish a modest registration fee estimated at "$200 to $300," Director Dahlberg said. The proposal includes exemptions for certain government‑owned properties, owners with active building permits, owners who can demonstrate an approved maintenance plan, and so‑called "snowbirds." Dahlberg said the ordinance is intended to be an "entryway" to assess conditions and to move truly unsafe properties into the existing vacant building maintenance license (VBML) regime.

Solicitor Faulberg clarified a legal point raised during questions: "The land bank is the entity that is exempt. They are a legal entity that is separate and apart from the port and they are immune under the state law from receiving civil citations," he said, noting that some exemptions reflect limits in state law and not a city policy decision.

Committee members pressed the administration on several fronts. Council member Scotty Johnson said he was concerned about perceived inequitable enforcement and exemptions, arguing that issuing fines in some neighborhoods while exempting others would fuel complaints of unequal treatment. "If we're gonna be talking about handing out citations to citizens, then I have a problem with anybody being exempt," Johnson said. Council member Seth Walsh pressed the administration on implementation capacity: with roughly 2,800 properties identified, Walsh asked how the city would reach owners who do not respond to notices and how staff would inspect the properties in a timely way. Dahlberg replied that the city intends to use data to prioritize field verification, pursue inspection warrants through the solicitor's office when owners do not cooperate, and use collections and legal tools as needed.

Other clarifications during the discussion: - The registry would apply only after a property has been vacant for six months, Dahlberg said; the measure is not aimed at short‑term vacancies such as a home awaiting a scheduled closing. - The VBML program remains complaint‑driven and targeted to properties already found "unsafe or unfit;" the proposed registry is expressly framed as a proactive, broader screening tool to identify properties that are not yet in VBML. - The VBML fee schedule presented to the committee escalates with time vacant (administration described a stepped fee structure with higher fees for longer vacancies); the registry fee would be significantly lower than VBML fees.

After roughly 90 minutes of questions and public comment — including residents and neighborhood advocates who described hazardous vacant properties and illegal occupation of structures — Council member Walsh moved to hold the item for two weeks to allow the administration to return with additional information the committee requested. Walsh said, "I move to hold this for 2 weeks for presentation and further consideration." The motion passed on a roll call vote with the following members recorded as voting yes: Mark Jeffries; Mika Owens; J. Michelle Kearney; Scotty Johnson; Seth Walsh; Jeff Krammerding; Anna Albee; Evan Nolan; and one abstention or second not specified in the record. The chair and administration confirmed the ordinance would not be implemented immediately; staff said the city intends to delay full implementation for about a year to allow hiring and training of inspection staff.

What the committee asked the administration to return with in two weeks included a clear visual workflow comparing the existing VBML process to the proposed VBR process, data on ownership (individuals vs. LLCs, local vs. out‑of‑state owners), a plan for how the city will reach non‑responsive owners and prioritize ‘‘bad actors,’’ and an equity analysis that considers reduced fees or relief for low‑income owners or community development organizations.

The committee set no new vote date beyond scheduling the administrative return in two weeks; the motion to hold was recorded as a postponement of formal action.

The discussion reflected competing priorities: council members said they want to stop vacant properties from endangering neighbors and consuming public safety resources, while also ensuring the program does not unduly penalize small local owners or community developers awaiting financing. Administration staff and the committee agreed to provide more granular data and a more detailed implementation plan when they return.