We asked a few this morning, um based on thought, intent, purpose, and how it's to be uh financed and the purpose of it and also the confines of the area.

Uh if there are any questions now, uh, I would hope that you have them ready and let's just get them answered.

And if it's anything that you guys would like to see amended, let's see if we can make those changes today.

Uh get them reviewed and move forward by next Tuesday.

So, with that being said, uh members of the community uh of the committee first.

If you'd like to ask a few questions, I'll entertain that uh Gina, you want I think everybody got the um email from Ms.

Cochrane asking some questions about the plan and uh some of them have already been addressed, and I was just going back through them.

Um and I think it's worthwhile to at least go over some of these questions and answer them just you know, for everybody's um review.

Um the staffing and enforcement, all that was answered this morning.

So I don't think we need to go back over that in the financial portion of it.

I think that has been answered.

Um she gets into the potential for blight.

Um, and is that something that we are looking at?

And then on rationale, um, don't we already have the power to inspect properties and identify violations and that sort of thing?

Um then the last, let's see.

Well, that's actually pretty much it.

I I think she's just asking a lot of questions about is this really needed?

Uh is this going too far?

Uh y'all need to take a really close look at this and make sure you know what you're getting into, sort of a thing.

Um, so I think if we just go back and look at um the potential for blight, what are we looking for in these buildings?

Are they already blighted?

Is there a potential for blight?

How are we identifying the buildings?

Um and is there not already a way for us to go in and uh identify buildings that are in need of um renovation or should be in this registry?

Do we not already have the enforcement tools?

You know, those kinds of things.

And I know it's a little broad, but you probably got the email like we did, because I think it was addressed to the mayor as well.

So again, I just think it's worthwhile that we at least go through some of these.

Anyone ask the question uh look, do me a favor.

Uh why don't you ask the question one at a time and let them address?

All right.

Well, like I said, the enforcement part has been answered, the financial part I think has been answered.

Um, one of the questions was the IPMC adopted in 2017 already a tool for blight prevention.

Um so it's updated regularly to reflect advances in building science and all of those kinds of things.

Um the proposed registry ordinance is not part of the IPMC.

That's adding layers.

What are is what we are doing adding layers to something we can already do?

Um, or or are we not able to do this?

And we need, and that's why we need the registry.

Thank you, Vice President Gregory.

Uh asking those questions.

Uh, it I think this is more of a I think more of a clarity for the public than anything, but it's a good intellectual exercise, although not a practical one.

Um, so to answer your question, no, we don't have the tools to do this already because you have to think about it.

Our our inspectors now, we're not allowed to go inside these buildings and understand that this is narrowly tailored, right?

And and this goes to Mr.

Carroll's question from earlier.

You know, are we looking at an equal protection issue?

And the answer to that question is no as well.

And here's why.

Um specifically, this ordinance sets out the purpose.

Primary purpose, not being blight remediation, but is a public safety, health and welfare issue because downtown is so unique.

Nowhere else do you have uh these buildings that are so close in proximity to one another from different time periods.

So you got fire codes that had different applications for a number of years.

You could very well have a vacant commercial building.

Remember, this is tailored only to commercial buildings that are vacant, restricted to the Hank Aaron Loop.

So you could have a building that was constructed in the 1950s right next to a building that was remodeled in 2000, and they're gonna have a different application of the fire code.

Um point to the last major fire we had downtown.

Uh it it it could have gone out of hand, and I'll let the chief talk more about that.

But that's the primary purpose is the health and safety issue, and that's that's why it's set out that way.

Um, and then you have the commercially reasonable parts of this that also there.

But the short answer to your question, Vice President, is no, we don't have the ability to prevent the type of fire hazard that we're talking about with these buildings in this proximity, because as Mr.

Carroll so eloquently talked about earlier, we don't we don't require this of just everybody.

And it and if you all want, I can address the equal protection issue as well, because I think it's an important question is as well.

Please do so.

So as to um I'm glad we pointed it out because it's something that you all as a legislative body have to think through.

Uh the ordinance itself in 52201 sets out the purpose.

And if you're talking about uh equal protection clause, then there's two main categories.

There's the yeah, the the particular particulars um of a protected class, which I went over the race, gender, ethnicity, all those areas, and you don't want to disparate impact, and and you don't want to harm anybody because of one of those protected uh classes.

That's not what we're dealing with here because we're talking about vacant buildings, and there's no particular class that owns those built buildings.

Um, it is confined to an area, and I think this more goes more to the heart of Mr.

Carroll's question.

Are we talking about the second category of equal protection, which is a class of one?

Um, and generally a class of one in an equal protection outlook is whether or not we're targeting a particular person, individual, or you know, a class of one, just like it says, and and that's not what we're doing here.

You'll see that when we hand out we give you all a handout, there's over 70 plus buildings in a varied number of areas located within the loop.

It is restricted to vacant commercial structures.

Um, so no one person is being targeted for what they're doing or not doing.

It is simply a way for us to increase uh the safety standard downtown, which has a lot of reasonable and rational uh purposes, and those are set out in like I said, 52 201.

Ums Gregory, does that answer your question?

Yeah, and thank you.

Yeah, and another question was um does the registry um make a distinction between the vacant properties and those that have already been basically mothballed and are meeting the current uh requirements.

No, it does not.

No, it does not.

If it's vacant, commercial.

Now, there are certain exceptions, but one that has been mothballed, that's that's not one of the exceptions that's built built in here, and so the exceptions are are are laid out in the ordinance, but that is is not one of them.

Okay, um, she mentions financial burdens, would um making owners become part of this registry and do this sort of thing.

Is there an issue of placing financial burdens on some of these property owners?

That is um maybe what William has suggested being unjust.

No, it it's it's a compliance issue.

Remember that there is a public safety concern here, but there's also the other property owners that are adjacent, the people who are keeping their property up, the people who are doing what we ask them to do to maintain their property.

Um, we have property maintenance issue codes all over the city.

That is not very different than when we ask somebody, as you all declare structures just like you did today, a nuisance.

We declare properties a nuisance on a regular basis, and there is sometimes a financial obligation that goes along with keeping your property up on the counter, there's a financial obligation with not keeping your property up.

If you don't, Mr.

Daufenbach and his team lets you know exactly what you're not doing.

We give you ample time to board it up, cut the grass and like.

If you don't, then we go in and we board it up and we make sure that that's taken care of, and then this council so aptly as it does every week, makes a declaration and/or fixes cost.

Um, no more financial burden than we would ask anyone else to do in another setting.

Hold on a second.

This the ordinance states that if the building is empty uh and secure for a period of time, then there's a fine associated with it because it's unoccupied.

It doesn't say if the city comes in and secures it, puts in a uh fire protection system and secures it, that that fine will be assessed unless unless it is saying that in addition to a fine that is placed on a building for being empty for a period of time, this fine will also be imposed.

So that's two fines that you've just outlined on a property owner that could happen.

Correct.

When I was what I was doing is making a distinction, there's no distinction between you all giving somebody a fine for one obligation versus another.

And remember, this is a public safety issue.

You have the wherewithal to be able to do so.

That's not a legal issue, that's a policy issue, um, which is still within you know you all's discretion to be able to do so.

But it's no different than being able to say, hey, look, if your building is vacant and you are preventing without fire protection, and you are putting both our employees' lives at risk if they have to come and fight that fire or the adjacent property owners, nobody else should have to bear that burden.

All right.

So there are two things going on here.

One, uh a vacant building without fire protection.

So I think that fire protection needs to be defined, whether it's a smoke detection, or you're asking for a liquid or dry fire protection system in the building to substantiate it being empty, which in some cases could be thousands and thousands of dollars depending on the size of the building.

And then two again, uh nuisance abatement, no matter where it is in the city, it's driven by public safety.

So I mean, I could walk by a house and uh a kid can walk by there and have the uh ability to walk in and assume or be damaged or hurt because the building is open and unsecure.

But in the cases of nuisance abatement, the city has several options.

It can either it can secure in place and assess fine to the individual owner of the property, or it can tear it down and assess cost to the individual property owner.

So, in essence, we can do the same thing with commercial property, you know, without assessing the owners a fine to the property just because they're empty.

So address the first issue is the the ordinance does specifically state what the fire monitoring is.

Um it says that out here.

So that's what we're talking about.

When I say fire protection, I'm talking about the monitoring specifically laid out in the ordinance.

But to your secondary point, it's just a matter of what tools we want to be able to give our teams to be able to protect the city.

I I don't think anyone would differ with the statement that there are a numerous amount of blighted and vacant buildings in downtown in the heart of your economic center that you know have have a disparate effect on the city and its property value downtown more than anywhere else.

I mean, it's your economic center.

The secondary part of it is nowhere else do you have this many buildings that are in such close proximity to one another.

So should a fire break out and you have an entire block burn.

Um, for the sake of public the public listening in the record, can you define fire protection as spelled out in the ordinance?

Sure.

So yeah.

So you so it says uh for purposes of definition, a discrete and separately occupied portion of the building has current certificate of occupancy or is actively occupied portion.

Um any vacant portion of the building must be protected by fire alarms that comply with section 52 209 A5.

So is that fire alarm only, or is that a fire alarm with yes?

Yeah, it's fire alarm only.

No, no, no.

Let me read it for you.

So the owner shall ensure that the vacant structure is at all times protected by a fire system that detects fires, transmits an alarm signal to the public safety answering point.

That's PSAP via UL listed central station, and then it's continuously monitored, maintained, and inspected and required by the International Fire Code 22 2021 edition section 9016 in FP72 and is currently enacted here under his amended.

The system shall be supported by dedicated power source.

And if the power source is electricity, it must comply with the city's electrical code.

So just a simple fire alarm with a monitoring system.

That's that's right.

So just a regular burglar alarm that calls the fire department if there's smoke detected or heat.

That and then that is set out in the code.

So we're talking about 164 a month for general personalists.

As much, or we're talking about zero a month and it burning without us knowing.

All right.

So um answer please, the second part of that question that I asked.

Well, is uh if you would for purposes of my memory and the public restate that.

I think I may have even forgotten.

No, just uh the second portion of it had to do with nooses abatement and public safety.

Public safety is a driver of news's abatement for all city property, residential or commercial.

They're two standards, either we can secure it in place and assess the owners of fine, or we can demolish the building.

In this case, we can do the same thing downtown, but you're asking for a fine on an empty building period that is secured in place.

So why are we doing both to a property owner downtown when we don't do the same thing anywhere else?

See, so in essence, you understand what I'm telling you.

We're charging them $4,000, whatever the cost is, plus we're charging the cost of security.

And if they have it secured, then we're still charging them $4,000 because they're looking, they could be looking for a way to develop the building.

And it takes sometimes it takes three to four years to get these projects off the ground.

So why are we assessing them a fine when they're trying to do something better for us?

Excellent question.

Nowhere other than downtown is steadied in the purpose, does it present a specific and unique fire hazard?

Right?

That's number one.

That's that's the first one.

It's the only place where you could have these buildings that are so closely aligned and so contiguous with different different versions of firewalls that one building catching fire, one vacant building catching fire of size and scale will cause an entire block to burn down.

That's unique to downtown itself.

There's the economic aspect of it, and then there's also um what happens with vacant buildings and why they catch on fire is usually somebody's trespassed and gone in there.

It may be a vagrant, maybe not.

I don't want to blame any particular population, but typically it's somebody who's unhoused or is probably participating in activity that starts a fire, either to keep warm or just going in and setting a fire.

That is that is also unique to downtown.

Typically, that doesn't happen anywhere else.

Um then you talk about you know the unsafe environment and then the way it detracts from public and private redevelopment at the buildings.

I mean, typically, and I think Mr.

Mr.

Small mentioned this earlier, he mentioned if you got a building sitting next to a 200,000 house, you know, nobody wants to necessarily invest there.

Well, the city has a real interest in people continuously investing in all of the city, but especially in the commercial district in downtown.

And so that's that's a requirement for additional regulations.

Right now, we don't have the tools to do what we're talking about doing as far as vacant buildings just sitting there.

You could have, for instance, and I won't call any names, you can have a particular owner just put up a facade, do the basic things that they need to do without a fire system inside and have that building sit there for years.

There's not a single new owner that is trying to develop something that we can think of that would fall into the Hank Aaron loop.

Um, and if they were trying to do so, do so, then there is an exception for that.

So the people that you're talking about that are actively trying to develop that are pulling permits that are conducting uh construction or that they've had weather damage, then so be it.

I uh Gina, were you finished?

I scared a couple more, but uh I still don't get it.

I've put the fire, well, let's just say it was using me for example, uh on a vacant building.

I've put a fire, I've put a fire a fire alarm on it.

All right, it's gonna take me three, four years to get it fixed up.

It has monitoring the system and the building secure, but I'm still being fined by the city for every year that I don't have someone in there because my plan isn't together and we don't have the financing, we haven't moved forward yet.

Why are we fining someone who is a clear owner who's put the alarm system in who's trying to get to a development plan, but doesn't meet the timeline that presented in this ordinance.

You're compelling them to move forward.

That's that's exactly what that's what you're doing.

You're compelling them to move forward to not let so the problem that we have here is not only the fire structure issue, which is consistent, right?

But we have delinquent owners, delinquent owners who sat there and allow their buildings to be a fire hazard for years for years, and so that's the problem that we're trying to solve, and we don't have that tool yet, and that's what we're asking for.

I understand that, but it's the good guy or lady or person who again sometimes development plans don't happen within the time scope that you guys are outlining.

So why or it's a punishment and it it's a it's an unintended punishment is what you're doing to or what we may be doing to the ones that really are trying to get things going downtown.

Let's let's take it to name names.

Let's take somebody like Wendell Quimby, who over 25 years has developed block after block downtown.

Let's just say that this was in place when he bought all those buildings downtown.

You'd be fine in him till Jesus came for all the vacant properties that he had that now are occupied and are a treasure and an asset tri city.

So you would ask actually be punishing a guy like him.

So my my question again is how do you not punish those who are putting together financial programs in order to make things get a little better.

Now I understand we do have some people downtown.

I mean, since 79, I've can name you 10 buildings on Dolphin Street that have been empty since Frederick.

I mean, over 40 years.

But we have at this point in time, we want to address that.

But look at the people that are helping us.

In essence, we're unintendedly causing them a lot of pain when they're trying to do the best they can to get financing programs put in place.

So first part, Jeff Share Bay Well, I think that was covered.

The second part is the actual fund, the funds go into.

It's a segregated account for the purpose of administration, but also for facade improvements and improvements to the buildings that were vacant and blighted.

So they can come back through on the back end and apply if they're the you know, the good actor and apply for those funds.

Yeah, but we don't also abort those funds to the people that apply.

That's uh that's uh subjective.

But you you understand there's a problem here that we need to somewhat find a way to write around it to correct for those when they're in the process of and how do you monitor to make sure they're in the process of doing these things, like we do on New Sense Abatements.

If they're pulling permits and they're working, we give them extra time.

So I think that's what you're kind of alluding to.

Yeah, but we have to define it, it needs to be defined legally what that is.

If they have at least taken a step, and as long as they are taking steps and making progress, if they go to one step and sit on it for two years, that's not making progress.

You've got to be doing something.

Well, that's uh I think that well, I'm just using that.

I just think there's some better minds need to kind of think that process out.

Like I said, uh we need to do something, but we don't need to cause an unintended.

Well, if you've already got it alarmed and set for fire protection, and you were moving forward with a plan of some sort and working towards something, I think there should be a way to write around that and help those guys out.

It doesn't define it in the ordinance, but I know so there's there's there's six exceptions here in the the or exemptions, rather.

Those exemptions are are located in sections C on page eight of eight.

So if you all wanted to, you could you could add um you could elongate um one of the exemptions.

So C5, for instance, is actively marketed, commercial structures in the Henry Aaron loop purchase through an arms link transaction.

So we don't want father selling to daughter and then trying to get an additional 12 months.

Um, you know, following the date of the purchase.

And then, of course, there's uh in addition to actively marketed, we could add an uh an exemption that talked about whether it was being actively um actively working on construction or otherwise.

Now that's pointed out here.

You could do that, and as far as the fines are concerned, the amounts you can change.

It's what you all think is fair, and what you think is fair, and what will compel people to move forward and do what they need to do because we don't want something that doesn't compel people to move forward with these buildings and actively either actively market them or not allow them to sit and continue to be fire hazards in uh in an active and vibrant downtown that is continuously growing.

Okay.

If you finish up your questions, I I had a bunch more, but yeah, I I think that's it.

I I really was kind of interested in just knowing how many of these buildings we have ticketed for various fines, be it fire alarm or just blight or whatever, and and then if it's just if it's like it is in residential areas, it's got to be incredibly difficult to run these owners down and get them to pay up and do what they're supposed to do.

That is so Miss Ms.

Gregory, that's an extremely salient point.

So I think you'll see there are approximately 70 or so buildings that are identified on the on the map that you all was were were handed.

Um of those our team would be able to give you you know what we've done in the sweep, but it is incredibly difficult to track them down and make sure because one once again, these are vacant structures when nobody's living there, you don't have somebody to hand a ticket, and then some of them even whether they're owned by a corporation or or not, very very similar to when we're trying to get people to clean up their parking lots um a number of years ago.

We had to create a tool to do so.

So that's that's a really good point.

Uh Ben the definitions are actively marketed.

I've got to uh suggest a change rent.

Uh this one is too obscure, I guess.

Uh my definition with the property is actively marketed property is being promoted through consistent, proactive and direct efforts to attract and engage potential customers and buyers through methods like advertising, direct outbreak in digital platforms such as reality websites.

The term implies that the marketer is not just passively waiting for customers, but is actively taking steps to connect them, modify their approach and create a strong visible presence in the market.

So I'll be willing to offer that up.

Um also uh blight reduction definition, I think is needed as well.

I don't have to suggest that explain to be defined.

Explain why.

Um, well, let's see, life reduction is mentioned.

Here we go.

Uh regarding tax increment finance, just a one fund, and therefore you solely to repair, rehabilitate, or stabilize that construction to administer this article and an effort to support economic property rehabilitation and life reduction that Henry actually.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead.

So that's a uh reference back to the other parts of chapter 52, the the the blight system as a whole.

Um, what David does, so there's a survey annually where blighted properties identified, so it'd be the components of any of those surveyed items.

Okay, well then it needs to say that.

Okay, I got you.

Jamie, did you write this?

Uh Stephen McNair, I did, yeah.

Did you help?

Yeah.

Um, let's see.

Vacant structure shall be registered on or before 30 days after structure.

Oh, here we go.

Satisfaction of the code official.

This term is used throughout the work.

So what does that mean?

And what a satisfaction, man.

Working towards some like satisfaction is just too broad.

I think we've got to be better than satisfaction of the code official.

If you have an unreasonable code official, you're never going to get your satisfaction.

Not to say that you're unpinning or unreasonable.

I'm just saying the other side.

Oh, well, he's actually right.

That was one of my one of mine that we're coming, but it makes it subjective to the person that's there.

So it doesn't, it doesn't go to the fact.

So it becomes subjective.

The reason that is written that way, and we can change it, but it's not it's it's is written that way, not for subjectivity, it's written that way for discretion.

What that does is that in the very same way we give discretion to our police officers, we give to our code officials, that allows them to act in their official capacity and have a level of protection.

So unless you want our employees to get sued in their official capacities, and then we have to pay for that, we want to build some discretion in.

And so what we can do is you know, talk about the standard that they're using.

Um, because they do use the standard.

I mean, that's that's that's how that's how we we don't go out willy-nilly, it's not completely subjective.

And I understand everybody doesn't go in the field with them, but I'll let Mr.

Roberts talk about that a little bit more.

That references back to the international property maintenance code.

So David is the name code official in chapter 52, doesn't it?

By the mayor, and so his discretion is allowed in IPMC.

Yes, yeah, repeat repeatedly.

Yeah, repeatedly.

Yes, and and that that is best practices to keep people from being, you know, people people from being sued in their individual capacity.

You have to give them that discretion, or you don't like it here.

But I think the best we can we can tighten that up by just saying, hey, this is subject to you know our standards.

All right, and um there's another one reasonable discretion of the code official.

I think all of that should be a little more firm.

What's that passed?

Reasonable discretion of the code official.

I again you may have some standards or reason why it's in there.

I just think when you're passing a law, you you're passing it not for the reasonable discretion of a code official, you're passing it to apply standard across the board.

So I I'll tell you what we want to do is make sure it's you know based upon standards and and the law that you you want to make sure that that's there, but you gotta give them that discretion.

All right, uh, let's see.

Okay, and on page four in section 52204 item B registration information.

Uh it it asks, it says basically at a minimum, and it lists the the uh the things that will have to be reported, the the address, the type of structure, the square footage, so on and so forth.

But then at the end it just says at a minimum.

So when we're talking about that regional reasonable discretion of a code official, you know, if you again, if you have an unreasonable code official, then they may say, Well, no, uh, you know, arbitrarily uh you gotta report something else, you know, how many outlets you have in the building, or you know, something.

So I don't know that we should say at a minimum.

So I would request to strike that.

Well, you mean the word at a minimum?

Yeah, yeah, at the end of it.

When I read that like this, this should just be steadfast.

Like these are the things that you're required.

If you're put on this registry, you gotta have these seven things.

And if a code official wants something additionally, well, then they need to come back and get the law change because I don't want it to be pute too punitive or too too much, you know, and you just have because the list grows from 15 requirements to 50 requirements.

Uh Ricardo, so no, yes, sir.

When I read that, then I read that to almost be like applying for a permit.

So it didn't seem too outrageous to me, but the at a minimum section I can understand, but some of the things that are called out are the same things that are called out when you apply for a permit, you know, what type of building it is, where it is, the address, all those things, you know, whether it's type four or type six construction, those are kind of important to know what what you're dealing with in case there is a fire or break in or damage storefront type of incident.

Uh uh the lawyers may have a different approach, but that's just how I read.

Yeah, I my thought is that it's like in that permitting process when you submit your plans to the city and then they review it one time and then they send it back to you for four specific modifications that need to be made.

You fulfill those four modifications and you submit resubmit your plans, and now there's four additional things.

Let's not knock on that door right now.

But I'm not sure.

No, no, I'm just saying that because laws are written in that ambiguous way, that's how those things can exist.

So I I agree with that a minimum, but what I'm saying, when I read it, it just read like you know, a process of things that you want when you lining out the type of building is uh Ricardo.

So what we do is you what we probably want to do is at a catch-all that's it in compliance with the code rather than at a minimum, you know, because we can we can always ask for anything that requires compliance with the code.

That's why that's there.

Um, but it more aptly should state that we can ask for anything that's in compliance with the building code.

So which code you know, which code, because if you're saying compliance with building codes, that could go pretty far depending on well, we're talking, we're probably talking particularly building and fire fire code, all right.

Fire code, fire.

All right, right.

Uh let's see.

Oh, on page five, item 10.

Uh, if the owner is a partnership, what are these?

Are these the oh, these are these are the the reporting requirements?

If the owner is a partnership, the names, addresses, and telephone number of all we ran Joel off.

I mean, me and me and William Oh no, I'm just trying to, I'm just trying to help you along.

I mean, there are a lot of little wording things that I saw, so but I think that those things you can just write down in a list of questions and just give them to the attorneys.

All right, because you you're just wordsmithing right now.

Yeah, if the owner is a partnership, the names, addresses, and telephone number of all partners with an interest of 10% or greater, why would we limit it to 10% or greater?

Why wouldn't it just be any owner?

Because you could have you can have people everywhere.

Well, what if you have an organization that's made up of all members that have nine percent ownership?

Then they're not required to report any information.

That's right, but they would still have a registered agent.

Okay.

Um, liability insurance.

So if they're placed on this registry, they're required to have a proof of liability insurance.

That's correct.

Okay, if the the property is occupied, is there a requirement by the government that they must have a liability insurance policy?

Gonna have that anyway.

So for no, there's there isn't.

No, no.

So I got I don't know, I gotta work through that one.

I don't I don't know if that's uh too burdensome requirement there.

Well, liability insurance if it burns down and burn the neighbor's house down, you got to cover your neighbor's house.

That's all they say.

But if you're occupied and you burn your neighbor's house down and you're not required liability insurance, have we resolved the issue?

Neighbor's insurance company is gonna pay for it and then sue you.

Um the owner's plan for maintenance.

What is a plan for maintenance include?

You got to tell that could be unique.

You got to tell us how are you going to either fix your building or what you're what you're doing.

So for instance, Ms.

Gregory mentioned these mothball buildings, right?

You may be willing to do that, or as Mr.

Carroll mentioned, you may be working on um getting your building sold or developed if you tell us how are you planning to maintain it, what you're doing, so that we don't have to keep knocking on your door.

And that would just be to the satisfaction of the code officials, as long as it complies with the code.

Can I can I interject right there?

Because that was one of mine for the end, and I'll just say this.

David, can we incorporate the nuisance abatement rule about repair into this where a purchase owner purchase a building, but they are told that to in order to keep it from being torn down and secured to offer up uh a schedule of purchase date, a schedule of design, a schedule of financing, a schedule of whatever, put it all in the timeline and submit it for that portion of this this ordinance.

Can we add that language to this just like it is in the nuisance abatement?

I don't see why not.

I just think a plan for maintenance that should should should be defined where you um you know you can't say, oh, you gotta have architectural plans to come up with a plan for maintenance.

I mean, that that could if you got a somebody, some owner who's just not getting right, and the government really wants to put their thumb on them, you know, then the code officials say I'll have enough of this.

You know, you got to get architectural plans and really be punitive about it.

That's called a class of one.

You can't do that.

Ben a plan for maintenance is just a brief outline of how long it's gonna take you get to get to the point to where you're starting the repairs.

No, it's not it's not a it's not a construction uh uh plan at the looking for schedule plan of maintenance is how long is it gonna take you to get to the point where you actually repair the building.

I then I think we should define it that way.

Okay.

Uh can we incorporate that?

Um yeah, we can do that.

That we what we'll do is put it in a definition that's existing language we already have within this abatement.

And the variation between the various fee structures, what what's the reason for that?

You know, for a commercial structures used as residences with one to three units, uh the same with four to six units, mixed commercial use.

Why why is there the variations in the fee structure?

Sure.

That's because uh the bigger the problem, the bigger the cost.

So it a larger building gets the more the more complexity we're gonna have to deal with when going in looking at that building, and so uh a number of different issues.

So bigger the problem, the bigger the cost.

Why wouldn't you just apply the square footage amount to you could do that?

Yeah, well, you you could we could absolutely do that.

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, yeah, it's it's to try to protect residential side, also.

We're trying to least impact on the residential.

That's why it's got the different tiers built in like that.

Least impact on residential, right?

And so why so why?

I don't understand that.

Why?

If it's a if it's a fire burden, it's fire burden.

Right, but fire risk is fire risk.

Just general policy for yours has been to have least pack impact on residential uh economic development has a different uh threshold that's always been treated that way.

The the question would be is what do you know what's gonna be residential, what's gonna be commercial?

That's determined by the owner and the end use.

Well, it's gonna be that and then business license that have been pulled previously and then current, also because there's a rental business license, there's commercial business license.

Yeah, but you're penalizing the new owner based on past performance and past ownership.

I don't think that's adequate.

Well, if it's if it's been residential, then it's gonna have you know all the previous permitting and occupancy levels have been passed through something.

It's been commercial, wouldn't have that necessarily.

But if it's gonna be new commercial, it wouldn't make a difference anyway because the residential code ain't gonna apply to it.

Right.

Well, prime example of mattress factory.

Yeah, so do you ever get to any, I mean, a wise business uh property owner could you know structure their building if they know it's gonna be vacant, they know that's gonna be part of the registry, then they would lay out a plan that's gonna be considered at the discretion of the code official that shows that it's a commercial structure used as residences with one to three units, and they could pay the 250 dollars for the first year, then 500 for the next, which could potentially negate all the other applications.

It wouldn't get to that unless they actually did the construction though.

Ben, how many more of these?

Ben, how many more of these they'd have to go to all the permit and everything?

Okay.

How many products you got to a bunch.

Tax that I want to I want to uh regarding this tax increment finance language.

So the fees that are collected are going to be collected and put into an account, and then that money will be the uh turned over to the TIFF for district one.

Okay, and here it says no district one.

Yeah, that's different.

That's different.

Um therefore used solely to repair, rehabilit, rehabilitate, or stabilize vacant structures.

But the TIFF it goes beyond that.

You can do more than like we learned this morning.

You can pave a road with TIFF funds.

I don't know about that.

Somebody said that, but I don't know about that.

I'm just saying I think it has to be earmarked.

This money has to be earmarked in a in a more structured way, not just saying it's gonna be in a segregated account within the TIFF.

It does say that, but it does say that it's gonna be a dedicated account, right?

But those funds shall be appropriated to the city's TIFF district one fund, and then it just assumes and therefore use solely to repair that and therefore does not mean that those funds cannot be used in a different way, so that just has to be earmarked in a better way, so that it only can be used to repair, rehabilitate, or stabilize vacant structures, even though it's held in a different account.

The intent there was to have it in a uh enterprise account with access to the TIFF committee to direct where it goes.

Yeah, understood.

But I'm I think in here in the ordinance, it must segregate it further to where it only can be used for that.

Yeah, you guys probably want to be careful about talking where TIFF funds go and don't go or public meetings.

I hear that's not the question.

I guess is he trying to redirect it to the building in which they came from?

No, no, no, no.

I'm not I'm just saying that if you're collecting the fees and saying it's gonna be for blight reduction, then it should it be earmarked in such a way where it only can be used for blight reduction, not we we've collected a million dollars in fees over the past five years.

It looks like we've got an extra pot of money.

Let's you know renovate the convention center.

All right any more.

If it's nothing major, can we submit it?

I mean, I I can offer just all of this up as amendments while we submit well before we do that, but I but I do want to say this that I'm in support of this action that I I want this to happen.

Don't take this as me trying to you know tangle it up in a mess and get rid of it.

I want this nobody thought that nobody thought that.

Yes, you did.

Uh but but I want to get the the wording right.

That's that's the important thing.