Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petoskey council adopts vacant-building registration ordinance and sets fees, authorizes enforcement
Summary
The Petoskey City Council adopted a vacant-building ordinance after second reading, approved a resolution setting registration and inspection fees with higher renewal penalties, and authorized the city attorney to pursue enforcement following a brief closed session.
Petoskey Mayor John Murphy and the City Council on Aug. 18 adopted an ordinance to regulate vacant buildings and approved a companion resolution establishing registration and inspection fees, then authorized legal enforcement actions after a brief closed session.
City Manager Horn told council the ordinance is intended to address blight, public safety and property maintenance by creating registration and inspection procedures for buildings that "exhibit evidence of vacancy," and that the draft tracks Michigan housing law. The council debated exemptions, enforcement triggers and whether owner-listed properties should qualify for a for-sale exemption.
Councilmember Nachtrob objected to a strict requirement that a property be listed only by a licensed broker to qualify for a for-sale exemption, saying that could be an undue burden and could be gamed. "I think it's a little bit of an overreach to require a vacant building owner to list it with a licensed realtor," he said. Several councilmembers and the city manager proposed allowing owner-for-sale listings if they are posted in MLS or display visible signage, as a compromise.
Councilmember Walker raised questions about the registration trigger in the draft — which requires owners of buildings vacant for more than 60 consecutive days to register within 14 days — asking whether well-maintained homes whose owners are temporarily absent (for example, in medical care) would be caught. City Attorney Laura clarified that the draft targets structures that are not legally occupied and that "exhibit evidence of vacancy," and that well-maintained vacant properties without those signs would generally not be the target of enforcement.
On the fee resolution, City Manager Horn presented staff's draft that listed residential registration and initial inspection at $150 and the packet showed a commercial line (read in the discussion as "2.50"). Council focused on making renewal/reinspection numbers meaningful. After debate, council agreed to raise renewal/reinspection amounts so they provide stronger incentive to comply; the numbers discussed and adopted were a residential renewal/reinspection of $300 and commercial renewal/reinspection of $500.
Councilmember Moore moved to adopt the vacant-building ordinance (second reading) and the motion passed on a roll-call vote, 5–0. Councilmember Shields moved to adopt the resolution establishing registration and inspection fees with the modifications discussed; the motion was seconded and passed 5–0.
Before entering a short closed session, the city attorney asked the council to correct the closed-session resolution language to remove a reference to "pending litigation" because the case is marked closed in court filings; the council revised the language to cite the attorney-client privilege statute. After reconvening, council voted 5–0 to authorize the city attorney to take the blight and property-maintenance enforcement actions recommended in closed session.
The ordinance and fee resolution are intended to balance staff workload, enforcement leverage and fairness to property owners; council members said the program could be amended after experience shows unintended consequences. The city will publish the final ordinance text and the resolution with the specific fee schedule in the city's packet and on its website.
