Ashley and Bradley Taylor, property owners, appeared in person
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer: This public hearing was continued from
3 weeks ago, so that Councilmember Bowie could be present for the item. She asked
that I summarize the timing of events that led to this fee. That summary is before you
and part of the public record. There are copies here for the public as well. The record
also includes a letter from the Union Park District Council, which provides a timeline
consistent with the record before you. There is commentary that is different from what I
would recommend, though.
This went into the vacant building program in the late 2010s. An accessory structure
on the property was demolished while the warehouse structure remained and was
registered as vacant. In 2022 work was done without permits and that was written up.
There was then no activity on the property until it was sold in May 2023 on a contract
for deed to the current owners, the appellants. The contract's balloon payment is next
July for $250,000. Because it's a contract for deed, I don't know if there were different
disclosures required for things like vacant building fees. The appellants stated that as
soon as they purchased the property, they were receiving letters about the vacant
building program. No letters were found that would have been sent in May, June, July,
or August of 2023. The first letter would have been sent in September and went to the
current owners. It was the annual vacant building registration letter and included the
$5,000 fee. It clearly articulated that if it were to be appealed, what the process was for
doing that. The bill was not paid and a warning letter was sent the following month,
giving an additional 2 weeks to pay the vacant building fee. It contained the same
explicit information about appealing. Because it continued to go unpaid, the fee was
then sent for processing as a tax assessment at the beginning of December.
I think this is where communication got tricky between the owners and staff from the
Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI). The owners said that in the fall, they were
working with DSI to get permits pulled and talk about getting the property out of the
vacant building program. They were told that changing it from being a warehouse to
being a doughnut shop was a significant change in use and required a building permit
review. All needed items were submitted in February and the property left the vacant
building program in March 2024, halfway through the fee period, which began in
September. The appellants stated that they asked DSI if they still owed the vacant
building fee and were told no. It sounds like they were referencing the fee they were
already assessed for, but what DSI heard is that they were asking about a new fee for
the next year.
In your record are two emails from Clint Zane and Robert Humphrey from DSI stating
that they did not indicate that the assessed vacant building fee would in any way be
forgiven. There were four opportunities for appeal, none of which were taken advantage
of: the registration letter, the warning letter, the assessment letter, and then the invoice
after the assessment is ratified can be appealed in district court. The $5,000 fee then
got added to the 2025 property tax statement. That was when DSI, Bowie's office, and
later the Legislative Hearing team received communication from the owners that they
thought the assessment was to be deleted. The letter from Union Park District Council
talks about responsibility for disclosure of what's required to get out of the vacant
building program and even that this is in the vacant building program. All of the
registration and assessment letters describe what to do if you have questions, and
what is needed for a category 2 registered vacant building, like needing a certificate of
code compliance. The appeal mechanism is also a resource for clarity.
As for the responsibility for disclosure when buying a property, I don't know what the
situation was in the contract for deed but that is a private matter. The seller reported to
buyer that the vacant building fee for the last year was paid. Some things remain
unanswered, though I don't think they necessarily impact the decision on the fee. First
