Attachments

20260722-115110-515-n-wtc non-utilization tax ordinance.pdf

Depending on the situation, Warren may or may not have several real estate parcels which could fall under the town's non-utilization tax ordinance.

The council's July meeting, Town Building Official Matt Cabral presented the body with his findings upon an earlier request to identify all vacant commercial properties.

Cabral cited nine vacancies that could be considered for review via the ordinance titled "Article VI. - Real Estate Non-Utilization Tax." (The entire ordinance is attached.)

Those were: 11 Child St.; 28 Market St.; 414 Main St.; 420 Main St.; 13 Kelly St; 639 Metacom Ave.; 373 Child St.; 337 Market St.; Plat Map 9-103 (Market St. Armory).

If deemed non-compliant, the ordinance, under Sec. 7-146, "Imposition of the non-utilization tax," includes the following penalty:

A. The Town of Warren may annually impose upon any property which is vacant and abandoned, as determined by the Building Official, a non utilization tax measured by the assessed value of the real estate at a rate of ten ($10.00) dollars for each one hundred ($100.00) dollars of assessed value of the real estate as most recently returned by the Warren Tax Assessor.

B. The tax imposed under this Article shall be due and payable in the same manner as other municipal taxes are due in the Town of Warren and shall be in addition to any other taxes due and payable on the property.

The matter was brought to the floor by Council Vice President Keri Cronin, noting the ordinance was created in 2020, though it appeared to not have been acted upon since.

Cronin said, "There remains to be a number of commercial buildings in the community that have sat undeveloped for a very long time, and it's something that I hear a lot about like 'When is somebody going fix it up?' Utilize, create a business, generate some revenue for the town.

"And so I wanted to have the discussion publicly about the way that we use or don't use it, and why, and if we can use this tool to incentivize getting some development going on in town. And maybe, in the meantime, getting a little tax revenue."

Cabral said the properties he mentioned in his report could be just a sampling. There might be others he unintentionally overlooked.

"Some of these locations are under development right now, but some are not. And some are, I'm told, are under development, and that's just something that I have to work on to see if that is," Cabral continued.

He added, he would consult with Town Solicitor Anthony DeSisto going forward and how best to approach the situation.

Cabral later noted some of the parcels he listed were at differing stages of being redeveloped, like at 13 Kelly St, which was sold into receivership, but is intended to be converted into housing.

From his perspective, DeSisto said it was appropriate for the council to review the ordinance. He also told members other municipalities, such as Providence, have sternly-worded law on the topic that might assist in their future deliberations.

Councilor Louis Rego questioned why the building official was involved in the process. He said upon review of the ordinance the intention was for the town planner to intervene in such cases.

In addition, he said that most of the properties are currently listing for sale, which would make them immune from any penalty.

Cronin countered by referring to the former Second Story Theatre, which was once located inside the 28 Market St. property included in Cabral's report.

"So nothing has happened with that. I know a lot of different groups and organizations would love to do something with it. But the property owner is waiting for some unrealistic, pie in the sky amount of money," said Cronin.

She continued, "So this prime location, basically built out, ready to go, turnkey kind of operation, sits there and our community is without a place to have a theater. And there's restaurant, bar facilities in there as well. So, because some out of state property owner owns this property, we have no recourse."

Councilor John Hanley said the unfortunate reality of that specific location was that it complied with Section II of the ordinance because it is being "actively marketed" for purchase.

Cronin wondered whether the council need to amend to ordinance to "make it work for us, give it some teeth."

Rego said he was content with the existing law, noting it was a property rights issue. And although he doesn't like the idea of having so many vacant properties, he was satisfied if the owner was attempting to sell it and was meeting all other requirements of the ordinance.



Cronin eventually made a motion "that the solicitor works to find a stronger language to make this more meaningful ordinance so that the town can see some positive impact to the vacant buildings."

In supporting the motion, Council Derrik Trombley called it a "quality of life" issue for neighborhoods and residents.

Hanley interjected, saying among the reasons why the original ordinance was passed was because several mixed-use property owners left storefront vacant below the residential component.

"The people that own them, don't want to deal with the commercial, so they just leave them vacant, and they make their money on the residential above them. That was one of the big driving factors behind why we did this," he added.

The motion passed, directing the solicitor's office to return to the council an amended ordinance with said stronger language.