At the July 21, 2026 Council meeting, staff proposed a fee structure and amendments to the City's Fee Schedule tied to the recently enacted ordinance regulating vacant and blighted properties within Coos Bay.  Following a robust discussion, staff was asked to pose several questions to legal counsel and present that feedback and potential modifications to the proposed fees.

If it pleases Council, adopt Resolution 26-28 establishing Vacant and Blighted Property Program Fees. 

At the July 7, 2026 Council meeting, an ordinance was enacted to expand the City's authority to address vacant and blighted properties.  The new regulations modernize the program, expand it to address blighted properties, and improve administrative and enforcement procedures while continuing to encourage property maintenance and neighborhood stabilization.  During that meeting, a proposed fee schedule was discussed, and alternatives were suggested.  Following discussion, it was requested that staff return with comparative information from other Oregon cities and alternative fee calculation methods.

At the July 21, 2026 Council meeting, staff prepared these comparisons (other cities and alternative calculation methods), for discussion and ultimately for approval.  The proposed fee schedule was based upon a hybrid model that supported several important aspects, while intentionally balancing cost recovery with outcomes.  Again, following a great discussion, several questions were posed, with request to have the fee schedule review by legal counsel, as well as inquire about a few areas of interest:  subjectivity of fees, ability to double the 24+ months fee line, and addition of a modifier for property within an urban renewal district.

Staff presented the the requested information to the City's legal counsel for review and feedback, generally, and specifically for the three areas of interest.  Legal review provided the following feedback specific to the areas of interest, with no other concerns or modifications identified:

• the fact that there is some subjectivity in determining what fees will be imposed is really not that unusual, and should not create a legal issue; and
• with regard to the 24+ month vacancies, as the idea behind the fee is to encourage the owner to have the property occupied, there is not a known legal impediment to doubling that fee; and
• adding a modifier to properties located in the URA has a rational basis, with the idea behind having a URA district is to remediate blighted properties, so enhancing the fees for properties within the URA is consistent with the overall purposes of the URA.

As a result of legal review, modifications were made to the previously proposed schedule, presented for discussion and potential adoption.

Unknown at this time.