Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council examines proposed vacant-building registration; debate centers on exemptions, timelines and enforcement
Summary
Council reviewed a consultant-drafted vacant-building registration ordinance to support downtown revitalization; members debated definitions (vacant vs. illegally occupied), reasonable listing exemptions, 90-day progress milestones, a graduated fee structure and whether to require local agent contact information.
Council conducted an extended review of a proposed vacant-building registration ordinance drafted with input from retail-development consultants. The ordinance would require owners to register long-term vacant commercial properties, report a local agent and demonstrate rehabilitation progress; it also proposes a tiered fee and penalties for noncompliance.
"The purpose isn't to be mean," Council Member Sarah Gregory said during discussion. "The purpose is... we are working really hard at redeveloping our downtown. This is just going to be another piece of the puzzle." Gregory said she supports time-limited rehabilitation plans with milestone reporting and exemptions that cannot be abused by token 'for sale' listings.
Key points under discussion included definitions (distinguishing unoccupied properties from those that are illegally occupied), whether utilities-disconnected thresholds should be 90 days and whether properties with active building permits should be exempt. Consultants recommended a 12-month rehabilitation timeline with periodic 90-day progress milestones and stricter requirements for listing-price exemptions (market-value thresholds) to prevent abuse.
Council debated penalties and fees. Staff and the consultant suggested a graduated civil-penalty approach rather than an immediate criminal misdemeanor — for example, modest civil fees at first that escalate for repeated noncompliance — and limited use of criminal penalties only for willful, repeated violations. Members also discussed whether to require proof of liability insurance for long-term vacant properties; council expressed concern about adding barriers to compliance and workload for staff to enforce insurance verification.
Other provisions discussed included a public registry of vacant commercial properties to help potential investors find opportunities (council favored making residential listings private), local-agent/contact requirements to authorize emergency repairs and an emergency-authority provision allowing the municipality to abate imminent hazards and certify costs as liens against the property.
Staff will consolidate council comments, narrow any broad exemptions (especially the economic-development exemption), refine the definition of vacancy and progress-milestone requirements, and return with a redline for formal first reading. Council discussed a phased enactment (notice/publication and a delayed enforcement start date) to allow affected owners time to comply.
