Staff outlines vacant‑property registry with $200 residential cap as aldermen discuss timing and enforcement

Salem staff presented a draft ordinance at a workshop meeting to establish a vacant‑property registry that would charge residential owners up to $200 per semiannual period and levy commercial fees based on primary floor square footage.

The draft — presented by a staff member who reviewed the ordinance language — keeps a residential cap "not to exceed $200 per semiannual period for residential property," and proposes a commercial rate of 5¢ per square foot as a starting point, the presenter said. The transcript does not specify the meeting date; speakers referred only to the session as a workshop.

Why it matters: City officials said the registry is intended to speed abatement of blighted or vacant structures and create a predictable billing system for fees. Staff also emphasized that enforcement would rely on existing Salem code: "any person found guilty of failing to pay any required fee shall incur penalties as provided in section 505.120," the staff member said, noting that the municipal code allows fines up to $500 or six months' jail for certain code violations.

Key provisions and debate

Fee structure and billing: Staff explained the draft charges residential properties a semiannual cap and ties commercial fees to square footage, using the city’s demolition permit rate as an initial model. "That rate is... what we're currently charging for demolition permits," the staff member said, adding that the 5¢ per square foot figure is intended as a starting place.

Timing of accrual: Staff recommended that fees begin on the start of the second calendar quarter after registration (Jan., Apr., July, Oct.) rather than after 30 days, arguing the quarter system "makes billing much simpler" and can give owners up to six months to come into compliance. Some aldermen voiced concern about enforcement capacity and fair notice; one committee member said she "hate[s] to pass this and then not enforce it."

Appeals and due process: The ordinance preserves two appeal levels, the staff member said: reconsideration/reinspection by the code officer and, if unresolved, an appeal to the Board of Aldermen, which staff argued provides owners time for abatement before fees accrue.

Identifying responsible parties: Staff proposed adding definitions to identify the responsible signatory when properties are held by entities such as LLCs, corporations, trusts or mortgage companies, so notices are properly served and enforcement targets a correct contact.

Boarding materials and maintenance: The staff member presented a price comparison for boarding materials and advised retaining plywood in the ordinance because of cost differences: "a half inch thick 4 by 8 sheet of CDX... is $46.18 a sheet," the staff member said, while "the same dimensions... of polycarbonate is 888 a sheet." Committee members asked who remains responsible if boards are damaged; staff said the owner remains responsible and may pursue remedies if third parties damage boarding.

Enforcement resources and timing: Staff warned of an immediate staffing constraint: the animal‑control/code‑compliance officer had resigned, and the city plans to move someone from the police department into that role who will need time to train. That prompted discussion of effective dates; staff proposed options including October 1 or January 1, and suggested scheduling two readings across upcoming meetings to increase public visibility and comment opportunities.

Next steps: Staff said they would run the complete draft by legal counsel James before scheduling readings; members suggested placing the ordinance on September agendas if counsel clears it. No formal vote or motion was taken at the workshop.

The Board of Aldermen workshop concluded with staff tasked to seek legal review and return with a calendar recommendation for readings and public notice.