City council drops vacant structure registry News Staff Wed, 06/19/2024 - 4:38 pm Public, council members speak out against registry
(THOMAS WALLNER | THE GRAHAM LEADER) Jarrod Stephens, who owns multiple structures in the Downtown Development District, speaks during the public hearing regarding a city vacant structure registry. The public hearing was one of three held Tuesday, June 18 with the Graham City Council. 
(THOMAS WALLNER | THE GRAHAM LEADER) Members of the Graham City Council have discussion regarding one of three public hearing items that were on the agenda for the meeting Tuesday, June 18. Shown from left to right are council members Jack Little (front), Jeff Dickinson, Shana Wolfe, Alex Heartfield, Brant Lundgren and City Secretary/Finance Director Marci Bueno and City Manager Eric Garretty. 
(THOMAS WALLNER | THE GRAHAM LEADER) Downtown property owner Bruce Stephens speaks to the Graham City Council during a public hearing for the vacant structure registry being proposed. The public hearing was one of three held Tuesday, June 18 with the Graham City Council. 
(THOMAS WALLNER | THE GRAHAM LEADER) Graham City Council Member Jack Little speaks about the vacant structure registry which had a discussion and public hearing during the council meeting Tuesday, June 18. Shown from left to right are Little (front), Shana Wolfe, Alex Heartfield and Brant Lundgren.
Thomas Wallner editor@grahamleader.com
After a public hearing with concerns regarding a vacant structure registry within the limits of the Downtown Development District, the Graham City Council decided to not pursue the registry.
The first reading to amend the zoning ordinances to establish the registry was first tabled by the city council during their meeting Thursday, May 9 to hear additional community comments at the public hearing held Tuesday, June 18.
The city was looking to create a registry by ordinance that would require owners of properties within the district to have their vacant buildings inspected for safety and require them to pay a fee for vacant structures which meet conditions of the ordinance amendment.
Three of the five council members, as well as members of the public, were against the proposed ordinance amendment. Despite not moving forward with readings or action on the ordinance amendments, Mayor Alex Heartfield said aspects of the proposal can still be explored.
“Inspection of those buildings, I think, is something that we need to definitely address,” he said. “We need to look at what we can do from an insurance standpoint and then I would kick it back to the GEIC and the Downtown Development District to come up with incentive programs, instead of a fine as this one was called, ...to provide incentive for those that do own vacant buildings, to maybe push them over the top into renovating, repurposing, reusing, some type of an incentive program.”
Some of the advantages proposed by the city for the registry included enhancing public safety through vacant building inspections, bringing the existing structure up to code and encouraging the owner to rent out the structure.
Code Enforcement Officer BJ Cook said that vacant buildings are not inspected like occupied structures. Likewise, Graham Fire Department inspections are not completed in the same way for vacant buildings.
“We have a list that comes up on our fire program, and we run about close to 470-something fire inspections we do annually every year,” GFD Chief Jim Don Laurent said. “If it's vacant, we label it vacant and go back to do it the next year. If somebody has a new business and it's a CO (Certificate of Occupancy), then we go with BJ, we do the fire inspection with them through their CO, and then we'll get it again next year. But we do not do vacant buildings.”
Under the proposed ordinance amendment, vacant was any structure that had an inactive city utility account, was used solely for the purpose of personal/business storage or had been actively listed for sale or lease for a minimum of 90 days.
The registry would not apply to single-family structures used for residential purposes, duplex structures used for residential purposes and accessory facilities located on a parcel which serve as support facilities to the primary structure, such as storage sheds or garages.
Public comments
Five members of the public spoke and one submitted a written comment for the meeting Tuesday.
Downtown property owner Bruce Stephens wanted more to be done on the proposed ordinance, clarification on the building impacts and an explanation as to why the city would not implement insurance requirements on all buildings for safety.
Property owner Kent Pettus had concerns with many aspects of the proposed ordinance amendment including details regarding the requirement of a liability insurance coverage of $100,000.
“You said (the liability insurance is) $100,000, but you're basing it on the structure value. This is liability insurance, the structure doesn't have much to do with it. The liability is what you do to someone else, and there's no correlation between the value of your property and the damage that property might cause,” he said. “If it's filled up with dynamite and it's an outhouse it can do more damage than an empty warehouse with nothing in it that's 10,000 square feet.”
Property owner Lori Partilla said the ordinance amendment was essentially a fine, saying that for every year the building is not occupied the building owner must pay a fee.
“I think it would be better to give us incentives to fix the building, rather than fine us. Because fining me $250 is not going to give me an incentive to do anything with the building,” she said. “We're working on it. Believe me, I want to restore it and get it occupied more than you guys do. But for us, we're taking time doing it. We're restoring the building. We're not just fixing it. We're not slapping up some sheetrock and paint. We're trying to make it what it was in 1888. We're restoring it back to the brick and mortar that it was.”
With four buildings on the square, Jarrod Stephens said he liked what was being intended with the ordinance amendment but sees it as another burden on downtown property owners.
“I do feel like it is trying to push somebody into what they have to do with their own property, something that they bought, that they paid for,” he said. “I do think it kind of treads on some of our property rights. ...I see more issues with occupied buildings than unoccupied buildings.”
City Council Member Jeff Dickinson said he felt the city could propose an ordinance to inspect vacant buildings rather than the proposed ordinance amendment.
“I think from (Grant Ingram's) assistant city manager's hat he is definitely looking out for the downtown area and trying to create and find ways to make it bigger and better and that we can all enjoy,” Dickinson said. “Personally, I felt like it was a little intrusive. I don't believe that government should step into personal property, and we should all have those rights and retain those rights, and so I was one that made a motion to table it until this public hearing.”
Most Popular
Comments / 0