Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Building Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goodland commissioners discuss vacant‑building registration and escalating fees to address blight
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a proposed vacant‑building registration program that would require owners to register long‑vacant structures, submit plans for reuse, and pay escalating fees (starting at $200 and doubling annually to a $3,200 cap) held in a fund for demolition; staff will tailor the draft ordinance to Goodland and return examples for further review.
The Goodland Planning Commission discussed a proposed vacant‑building registration program designed to identify long‑vacant structures, require owners to submit plans for reuse, and levy escalating annual fees to fund potential demolition or remediation.
Staff presented a draft model ordinance and said the program’s purpose is to reduce crime, public‑safety risks and property‑value declines by shifting the cost burden to owners of vacant properties. The draft includes exemptions for properties under active construction or those damaged by fire or extreme weather, and it requires owners to register a building with the Department of Zoning Compliance within 90 days of vacancy or within 30 days of notice.
The draft fee schedule proposed a $200 fee for the first year of vacancy and would double each year up to a maximum annual fee of $3,200 beginning in the fifth year; those fees would be placed in a fund to pay for demolition or abatement rather than drawing from the general fund. Commissioners raised enforcement concerns — including whether owners would pay and whether unpaid fees could be collected via tax assessments or handled through unfit‑structure procedures — and asked staff to consult with the city attorney on legal limits and assessment options.
Staff said they would provide tailored ordinance language (removing out‑of‑state references, e.g., Ohio) and examples from other Kansas communities, including Sedgwick, for commissioners to review before the next meeting. The commission asked for clearer timelines for registration, treatment of accessory versus primary structures, and a process for case‑by‑case extensions when warranted.
