Monroe City Council discusses drafting vacant-property registration ordinance

City staff on Monday described options for a vacant-property registration ordinance and asked the City Council whether to direct staff to prepare a draft for future consideration.

Assistant City Manager and Economic Development Director Mark Cochran told the council the ordinance would be a tool “to know what properties are vacant and what’s their use so that we have an actual registration from the owners of those properties,” and that the presentation was intended to “get feedback on whether this is something we should take that extra step … toward drafting and bringing back” a proposed ordinance.

Council members said they were sympathetic to the goal of reducing blight and easing the city’s administrative burden in tracking absentee owners, but raised questions about timelines, exemptions and enforcement that Cochran said staff would address in a draft. Several council members urged a longer registration window than the shortest examples Cochran reviewed, and asked staff to consider exemptions for short vacancies such as imminent sales, snowbirds and probate cases.

Cochran outlined common elements from other Michigan ordinances: a registration form submitted within a set number of days after a property becomes vacant (examples ranged from seven to 30 days), renewal typically each year if still vacant, and contact information for a local agent. He said forms often require permission for limited, notified inspections and that registration certificates commonly expire after one year.

The presentation identified standards often included in vacant-property ordinances: securing doors and windows, maintaining exterior landscaping (including shrubs and removal of large brush piles), maintaining sidewalks and snow removal, lighting (porch light dawn to dusk), winterizing water lines while keeping power for sump pumps in certain systems, and posting an emergency contact placard on the property. Cochran noted some ordinances allow weekly inspections by local owners and biweekly inspections when the owner is more than 30 miles away.

Council members pressed on several operational points. Councilwoman Vining said she was concerned the penalty for failure to register should be meaningful enough to create compliance but not so punitive as to unduly burden owners; Cochran agreed penalties would be part of the schedule-of-fees discussion. Councilmember comments suggested a preference for a longer registration window in many cases—30 to 45 days—in part to accommodate landlords finding new tenants, owners who check mail infrequently, and those dealing with probate or short-term absences. Councilwoman Stringham and others asked how staff would verify inspection requirements; Cochran said the city would typically learn of neglect through visual reports and enforcement triggers (e.g., overgrown lots), and said staff would not plan to require submission of inspection checklists.

Cochran described eviction-related provisions that some ordinances use to reduce curbside bulk debris and the city’s cleanup burden: requiring landlords to place a container for tenant belongings and remove it within a set period (24–72 hours was cited in examples) so items do not accumulate on the terrace and fall to DPS for removal. He said those eviction provisions are not currently part of the city’s ordinances and would be an added tool.

Council discussion also considered incentives (“carrots”) to encourage voluntary registration. Councilman Hader and others suggested offering services such as listing vacant commercial space on an availability page or providing targeted outreach and police checks for registered properties to make registration attractive rather than solely punitive.

Cochran said staff would pursue a public-education approach, work with realtors and the rental inspection program to notify property owners, and return with a draft ordinance that incorporates the council’s feedback. Manager Robinson framed the staff request as seeking direction before committing substantial staff time: “I don’t want to have staff spend a lot of time in something that has no life to it,” he said.

Council did not take a formal vote to adopt an ordinance during the meeting. Instead, after discussion and questions from several members, the council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance that addresses the concerns raised for future council consideration.

Looking ahead, Cochran said the draft would include proposed timelines for registration, suggested inspection frequencies, recommended fees to cover administrative costs (he suggested a modest fee such as $50 as an example), and proposed penalties for failure to register separate from standard code-enforcement penalties for property maintenance.

The council discussion ran through a variety of practical edge cases — snowbirds, short vacancy between tenants, probate, and bank-owned properties with out-of-state mortgage companies — and members repeatedly emphasized that the city’s stated goal is compliance and proactive maintenance rather than punitive enforcement.