Bay City HDC discusses enforcement options for neglected historic house; staffing and follow-up emphasized

Members of the Bay City Historic District Commission spent a substantial portion of the meeting discussing enforcement options for a long-neglected historic house at Center and Johnson and the commission's capacity to follow up on approved work.

Commission members said the property has a history of incomplete repairs and contractor disputes. One commission member summarized research suggesting courts can establish a receivership to manage rents and repairs, or authorize local government access to make repairs and place a lien on the property to recover costs. That member read from a preservation-law handbook and said those options have administrative and capital implications for a municipality.

Terry, the commission's historic preservation staff member, said the city once had an account set up by court order to complete repairs and pay a contractor, but that work stalled when a contractor walked off the job, and subsequent contractors were cited for using an earlier permit. Commission discussion referenced an early contractor named Scott Crispin; speakers described him as previously engaged on the property but not currently working there.

Commissioners raised practical enforcement questions: whether the city would be willing to front repair costs and place a lien, whether liens would effectively be collected only when the property changes hands, and whether the police could assist in locating the property owner (who some members said appears reclusive). Terry and other members said the city may lack appetite or budget to undertake upfront repairs, and that Chapter 64 of the city's historic preservation regulations contains provisions addressing '2emolition by neglect'2 and required corrective actions.

The commission did not vote on enforcement steps at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to consult the city's preservation representative at the Department of the Interior for examples and precedent and to bring follow-up options back to a future meeting.

Separately, commissioners discussed staffing. Terry reported the community development director is on medical leave and that the city has lost one candidate from a recent hiring round; two candidates remain for the historic preservation officer role and a second interview was scheduled for Oct. 21. Commissioners repeatedly urged that one of the responsibilities of the new hire should be regular field follow-up on completed projects to verify compliance with approved plans.

Several members stressed that follow-up inspections could be brief but effective, and that routinely visiting two or three local cases per month would improve enforcement and case closure. Terry said those duties are part of the job description for the forthcoming position and that staff will prioritize field visits once positions are filled.

No formal action, penalties or new expenditures were approved at the meeting; the discussion produced direction to research legal precedents and to prioritize hiring and follow-up procedures.