Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs a scaled vacant‑building registry with slow rollout and modest fees
Summary
Community development staff presented a vacant‑building registry modeled on Springfield’s ordinance but with a slower rollout (two one‑year grace periods) and a $150 registration fee; staff framed it as a public‑safety and remediation tool while council debated discretion, fairness and incentives.
City staff urged the council to adopt a vacant‑building registry ordinance designed to address unsafe, blighted or code‑violating vacant structures while avoiding onerous penalties for ordinary vacancy.
The community development director explained the draft is modeled on Springfield’s program but ‘‘far slower’’ and less punitive: owners would have 365 days after enactment before the registry is effective, another 365 days to register, and fees start at $150 rather than Springfield’s substantially higher registration penalties. Staff emphasized the registry applies only where vacancy is paired with other code violations — overgrown weeds, accumulation, broken windows — and excludes properties in probate, listed for sale, or actively used as seasonal second homes.
On enforcement and discretion, the director said the ordinance contains more instances of "may" than "shall" to allow staff and the building inspector judgment in edge cases. Council members pushed back on subjectivity and asked about the timeline for required improvements, penalties for noncompliance, and whether the measure would unfairly target downtown properties. The director replied owners who do not voluntarily register would face the ordinance’s penalty structure and that the primary goal is to secure a plan of action that brings properties to a higher and better use.
Council did not take final action but scheduled a first reading in the coming month and signaled support for adjustments to language to reduce unintended harsh outcomes. Staff said planning and zoning had recommended the draft with modifications and that additional edits (changing some "shall" to "may") are still possible before final passage.
