Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Properties Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Englewood reports 18 vacant residential properties; committee reviews abatement invoices and county lien recovery
Summary
The city attorney’s office provided a list of 18 vacant residential properties and a summary of abatement invoices, administrative fees and county lien recovery processes; committee members asked for clearer ownership and permit-status information for specific parcels.
Vicky, representing the city attorney’s office, told the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee that the city’s chief building officer had identified 18 vacant residential properties as of January 2025.
The committee asked for clarification on what “vacant” and “lot” mean in the list. Vicky and AJ explained that the list was generated from property-maintenance case referrals and building-office records; some entries labeled “lot” are undeveloped parcels in residential zones, and others are parcels with structures but an active property-maintenance case. The committee asked staff to follow up to confirm ownership, whether permits are active and whether properties are under active construction, and to return clearer definitions in a future report.
AJ presented abatement invoice and lien summary figures provided by finance. For 2023 AJ said the city’s abatement vendor invoice total was $51,457 and the city’s administrative fees were $12,008.64; the total invoice listed for 2023 was $64,003.21. AJ said 2024 vendor fees and administrative fees were lower overall and noted that some large abatement actions remain in process. AJ described the county lien process: when owners do not pay abatement invoices the county records liens, assesses county fees and pursues recovery; city staff said the county holds the lien and the city’s out-of-pocket costs are typically recovered through the county process.
Committee members raised neighborhood concerns about long-running construction sites, unattended dumpsters and long-standing “eyesores.” Staff pointed to Title 11 (time-for-completion and permit-voiding rules) and Title 16 (dumpster/temporary-storage rules) and the International Property Maintenance Code as the regulatory framework. Vicky said permits may be void if work has not commenced within six months of issuance unless an extension has been granted; the committee asked staff to research benchmarks other municipalities use to limit multi-year unfinished sites.
Ending: Staff agreed to provide a follow-up with property-by-property ownership and permit-status checks for the 18 items on the vacant-residential list and to bring sample permit timelines and enforcement benchmarks from peer cities back to the committee.
