That Council direct Staff to prepare a report outlining the cost implications for implementing a Vacant Building Registry Program or strengthening vacant building regulations as outlined in options 2 and 3 of the Staff report, titled Vacant Properties, dated 2024 -OCT-07.
become a fire hazard. We mobilize to get the owner to upkeep it, which seems like as soon as it becomes a problem, it's reported and we go act on it anyhow. And is there any purpose, like, okay, if we know that there's as many vacant buildings maybe we can have something that incentivizes people not to have them vacant so that they're being utilized so other people can live in them or that can be available for a business. That would be another purpose, which I know there's sometimes requests in the community to deal. With that, but. I don't see that this is a pressing issue at the time other than. Once in a while, like maybe once a year, a request from it, so I'm struggling. To mobilize resources to take this any further at this
Armstrong. Yeah, thank you. I can't support either, especially when a definition. Of a vacant building is more than 30 days. We've got a lot of people that go sou. South for three or four months, and they would be subject and penalized because of this. So. I don't think it's raid, I don't think it's as big an issue, as some people think, then if we're to go down the registry road, we're going to have to have probably three or four more staff, which we're going to be looking at a bill of probably five or 600,000 by the time you look at salaries and compensations package and then software, et cetera, et cetera. We're already at space limitations at the building, and I don't think this solves the problem anymore than what we're doing now, I think. Our people do a really good job of dealing with them right away. And those are the ones we should be dealing with is the ones that are got complaints, not the ones that are being maintained. I just see it as a penalty to the law. Abiding citizens as
well. Councilor Hemmens. Thank you, worship. I tend to agree with a lot of Councillor Armstrong's. Points. However, we have at this table, over the course of a number of years, heard from a lot of residents about derelict properties. So I don't think it's a bad move to ask Steph to go. One layer deeper and get us some costing on what this would look like. Thank you. Thank
proceed with options two or three. A motion or staff. Direct staff would. Be required my read of this, and I think we'd all be pretty obtuse. And. We're not. Mr. Berry basically said we're a solution in search of a problem. Here. And frankly, I don't think the good voters of the Naimo, if they're keeping a building up to snuff, which they're entitled to do and keep. It empty if they wish. Would take kind of the concept that the local government was going to impose a fee on them. For inspection and reinspection of an empty building, which may be empty for a very good strong personal reason. So unless I'm seeing somebody move the motion. Thank
me give a very simple example. I own a commercial building, for example. And the market is down and the economy is poor and it's vacant for a year. This kind of vacant building registry or strengthening vacant building regulation are digging down deeper would require me to pay a fee to the city and then require me. To ensure that I inspected it and do all kinds of things, even though that building may be perfectly maintained, but I can't rent it out at an economic rent, and I'm prepared to wait a little while until the economy changes and I can get an economic rent for it. So basically, you're being punished here for owning property, even though you may be a perfectly respectable owner, because if you're. Introducing a vacant building registry program. You can't just say pick and choose. If it's. A vacant building. It's a vacant building whether it's a dump or whether it's a palace. And. We have heard complaints about properties, and we get complaints, we refer them to Mr. Labairs. His able department goes out, they discuss it with the fire department, and they deal with them in. The appropriate way. They come back to Councillor. We put notices on title. We have plenty of tools. Existing. Even to take the step that Councillor Hemmens and Eastmere suggesting to me when we have overburdened staff already. We're going to ask them to take on another task for something that is, frankly, Gently suggested by our staff. Who are the experts in this area? Is not a problem to me. Is just the wrong way to go, so I cannot support the motion. I'm not seeing any other speakers. All those in favor? Councilors Eastmeir, Gusselbrock and Himmons. And those opposed? Councillor Armstrong, mayor. Crow. Councillor Thorpe. Councillor. Prince. Councillor Manley. Motion is
about. The expected amount of resources, but I feel like. It's hard for us to choose one of the options tonight. Not. Having a sense of actually how much money it might cost or how many resources might be required. For that. Would it be appropriate if we were interested in exploring option two and three to request more detailed information. About. What kind of a financial commitment that would
motion to get a better sense of how much. Option two or three would cost. I think we have many vacant buildings, and I know we try to be as proactive as possible, but it does put a lot of pressure on the city. And oftentimes we are waiting for the building to become a problem, and it would be nice to kind of get ahead of it, and I do think there needs to be some onus on the owners of these vacant buildings to make sure that. They are maintaining some standard of care on the building, even if it is vacant. And I think we need to have a registry so that we have a sense of
Sorry. Right. Councillor Armstrong. For me, I'm quite fine with having read the report. My only questions. Are when you talk about will require additional staff resources if we're to look at that. Would you be able to give us
Your worship. Really? I think it depends on the scope of the options. For example, if we were looking at a registry type model like Penticton has, then that would rest on the resources of the building apartment and might have to reach out to the city of Penticton to see how resource intensive it is. And I think probably the second thing we'd have to do is have a bit further exploration of how many properties that would come into question. Because speaking of the fire department, we don't actually have a clear picture of how many properties would
be impacted by that. Legislation. I guess my second question, too, would just be based on the information you've had and that you met with the fire department, do you
not? And I guess if you want to answer, it.
It's fine. Do you not think our existing regulations cover off? Just vote everything. What? We're looking to do without
Well, from my perspective, I think our existing regulations basically deal with all the health and safety issues that were faced with it. It just doesn't have a registry, which will cost us more money. And normally those are also done by complaint driven anyhow. So you're going to get
That information without a registry. Is that not correct? I would agree with that assessment. And kind of the beauty of the response that we use in the NiMo is it's proactive to deal with properties that are problems, but we don't put a lot of resources and deal with
Fulfilled. Is there not a cost recovery aspect built into the registry program itself because the registration includes the annual fee and additional fees for inspection and reinspection, which would
go to the building owner. So through your worship, in the case of the Victoria model, the abandoned building bylaw. There is no cost recovery mechanism built in that type of bylaw, the Pentican bylaw does have a number of escalating fees. The fee for registering each year increases and they charge for inspections. I think what's important to consider in those fees is. What the incentive or purpose? Of those fees are, I would suggest, is probably to incentivize property owners to either develop them or demolish them or sell them. What those fees and those process don't do is address. The conditions that led it to become vacant in the first place. And that's why I think as we looked around the province, that the majority of municipalities use an approach similar to what we're doing that we proactively deal with. Properties that are problematic and not necessarily
worry about the rest. Sorry. Going back to Councillor Armstrong's question about whether we have any sense. We don't. Currently have a registry. Do we have an estimate of how many vacant buildings we have in Nanaimo, or is that just not something that the city has at all. Through
The terror. I can't give you a clear number. I went both to the building department of the fire department, who I thought if anybody might have a good grasp of that, but. It's just not a statistic that's enumerated