Sean C. Morgan
The Sweet Home City Council will accept comments from the public on a proposed ordinance that would require vacant buildings to be secured and in good repair.
It requires the property owners to repair and fix the buildings at some level, said City Manager Craig Martin. It does not require them to tear down the buildings, although they could choose to do that.
The council received a recommendation to pass the ordinance from its Public Safety Committee during its regular meeting on Sept. 11.
The city received a petition on May 23 from residents of 12th Avenue and Redwood Street requesting the council consider enacting legislation to address unsightly and vacant structures.
“Number one among the list of council responsibilities is to consider and enact appropriate legislation to protect the health, safety and welfare of the city,” the residents said. “As residents of 12th Avenue and Redwood Street, we strongly believe the residence at 1133 Redwood St. is definitely a health and safety problem. It is certainly an eyesore and has been a problem for years.”
The building is vacant and has fire damage.
The council referred the request to the Public Safety Committee, which in turn directed staff to research and prepare sample legislation.
The Public Safety Committee reviewed a draft ordinance on Aug. 28, and recommended it to the council after altering the draft ordinance to apply only to buildings that are both vacant and blighted, as determined by criteria in the ordinance.
Councilor Jim Gourley had three questions and concerns about the ordinance. The ordinance specifically identifies “private” property, disregarding “public” property, which would include the partially demolished mill structures at 2210 Tamarack St., a property that city staff had suggested could be affected by the ordinance.
Further, Gourley wanted to know how it might impact different kinds of buildings, such as greenhouses, which might be vacant for six months a year. He is concerned that such a legitimate use might be affected by the ordinance.
Third, the criteria revolving around dilapidation, quality of design or construction, deterioration and obsolescence are not well-defined.
It’s kind of gray, Gourley said, and leaving it up to the code enforcement officer means a decision could go one way one time and another way another time.
And as the city manager said, an ordinance is “only as good as its definitions,” said Mayor Craig Fentiman.
With these questions, Gourley thought the council should hold a public hearing.
Fentiman agreed, although he did not want a formal hearing; rather, he is seeking public input on the ordinance.
“We need to get public involvement in this, and the sooner we get public involvement the better,” Fentiman said. The council will also hold three readings over three council meetings. The council can hold two readings of the ordinance in a single meeting, but with an ordinance like this, Fentiman said he wants to give as much opportunity to comment as he could.
After three readings, the council may decide whether to adopt the ordinance.
Present at the meeting were councilors Marybeth Angulo, Gourley, Fentiman, Scott McKee Jr. and Mike Hall. Ron Rodgers and Greg Mahler were absent.
In other business, the council:
n Approved a contract with North Santiam Paving Company for $56,495 for storm water drainage improvements in the area of Larch Street and Locust Court.