City staff presents draft vacant‑commercial‑building ordinance; council questions 30‑day trigger, fees and enforcement

Community and Economic Development Director Jonathan Wright presented the council with a draft ordinance intended to address vacant commercial buildings in Auburn’s commercial districts, and council members and residents spent more than an hour questioning definitions, timelines and enforcement.

Wright said the draft would require owners of commercial buildings that are vacant for a designated period to register the property, submit a statement of intent, post a local contact, and comply with monitoring and maintenance standards. The draft also anticipates cost‑recovery fees for city inspections and staff time.

“This is more or less the nuts and bolts of what that ordinance would look like,” Wright said. He told the council the proposal was intended to reduce blight, deter criminal activity and encourage investment in business districts.

Council members pressed staff on specific elements of the draft. Several councilmembers and members of the public said the ordinance’s 30‑day vacancy trigger is too short. “To me, 30 days is way too short because that barely gives them time to do anything, especially if they’re an out‑of‑town owner,” Councilwoman Dowden Covello said. Multiple councilmembers suggested 90–120 days as a more realistic threshold for enforcement.

Councilmembers also asked for clearer definitions of “ready for occupancy,” how a portion of a multiproperty structure would be treated, and how fees would be calculated to ensure the city recovers staff costs without discouraging legitimate property owners. Wright said staff had not yet developed a fee schedule and described the current document as a draft for discussion and refinement.

Public commenters urged the city to focus on long‑term vacancies and “repeat offenders.” Betty Martin, a commercial building owner who spoke during public comment, said insurance and carrying costs can make rapid turnover difficult and cautioned that short timeframes could have unintended consequences for owners trying to find suitable tenants.

Wright said the department has discussed the concept with several business groups and associations, including presentations to the Downtown Business Association and the Old Town Business Association, and that the draft had not yet been broadly circulated for formal stakeholder review. He offered to provide additional outreach materials and invited further council direction on the ordinance’s timeline and scope.

Assistant city staff reminded council that enforcement would be complaint driven and that the city’s existing nuisance provisions would remain available for serious health and safety concerns. A city attorney representative explained that longer vacancy periods can complicate administrative enforcement because the city must build a documented record of prolonged vacancy to prevail in an appeal.

Next steps: Councilmembers signaled they want more stakeholder outreach, clearer fee estimates tied to staff cost recovery and reconsideration of the vacancy timeframe. Staff said they will return with refinements informed by council feedback and additional outreach to property owners and business stakeholders.