Council moves to clarify vacant-building registration ordinance, removes insurance requirement

Commerce — City staff and councilors on April 7 reviewed changes to a proposed vacant-building registration ordinance identified as Ordinance 2026-301 and instructed edits to clarify timing and to remove an insurance requirement.

At the workshop staff laid out the program’s sequence: city staff may observe a property for 30 days and then issue a written “notice of determination.” That notice begins a response period during which a property owner can present information showing the property has lawful use. "If it's a commercial property, they've got 90 days to respond to that notice of determination. If it's a residential property, they've got 180 days to respond," a council member relayed, and staff said it will add language to mirror 22-268A in section 22-269A to avoid ambiguity.

Why it matters: the clarified timeline determines when a property becomes subject to mandatory registration under the ordinance and when inspections or enforcement steps may begin. Staff said the process is intended to give owners a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate occupancy or lawful use before registration or enforcement.

Council and staff also agreed to remove paragraph 4 in section 22-269 — which called for proof of liability insurance — and to mark section 271 (required insurance) as reserved. The changes were discussed as part of a set of technical edits staff will return with the ordinance for a second reading. "Paragraph 4 will be removed," a council member said during the session, and staff confirmed the section 271 language will be reserved.

Inspecting and fees: a resident asked why a vacant-building inspection fee was proposed at a higher level than the $25 life-safety RSI inspection for occupied rental units. Staff explained that inspections for vacant buildings typically add a fire marshal and more staff time; "we're bringing a fire marshal," staff said, and current fee levels do not always cover the added cost. Staff told the council it will evaluate fees separately and may recommend adjustments through the budget process.

Enforcement and intent: section 275 retains an enforcement clause that staff said is consistent with the city’s other ordinances; paragraph C identifies violations as a class C misdemeanor and allows each day to be treated as a separate violation, but staff said multiple citations would be a last resort and the program is not intended to take ownership of properties. Staff emphasized manager-designate interpretation authority and that active building permits or reasonable marketing may be accepted as evidence a property is not vacant.

Next steps: staff will incorporate the clarifying 90/180-day language into section 22-269A, remove paragraph 4 and reserve section 271, then return the ordinance to the council’s regular meeting agenda for a second reading. The ordinance has completed first reading but is not yet effective pending the second reading.

A copy of the draft ordinance and the proposed fee schedule will be returned to council for formal consideration at the next regular meeting.