Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission continues work on vacant-building program, asks staff to refine definitions and seek community input
Summary
The commission discussed examples from other cities, enforcement challenges and possible fee/waiver structures for a vacant-building program; commissioners asked staff to refine distinctions between 'vacant' and 'abandoned,' consider fee scales and waivers, and prepare outreach materials for community input.
The Goodland Planning Commission continued its discussion of a potential vacant-building program and asked staff to refine key definitions and gather community input before drafting code language.
Staff reported outreach to other municipalities and said some programs exist but are difficult to enforce. Examples included Sedgwick and Emporia, Kansas, and Austin, Minnesota; staff said some programs “sit there” if not well scoped. Staff recommended distinguishing between ‘‘vacant’’ — a property with no occupant but a reachable owner — and ‘‘abandoned’’ — where the owner cannot be located or utilities are shut off.
Commissioners explored fee structures, waivers and enforcement mechanisms. Options discussed included an annual registration/fee with escalating penalties for noncompliance, waivers where an owner is actively marketing or rehabilitating a property, and targeted use of any collected funds for demolition or building remediation. Commissioners asked staff to consider community surveying to gauge public priorities and to prepare a PowerPoint summarizing examples and options.
No formal ordinance was adopted; staff was directed to continue research, refine definitions between vacant and abandoned, and prepare draft outreach materials for the commission and public review.
