With much of the conversation for the City Council during Monday night’s meeting being dominated by the potential establishment of a local preservation ordinance, some city residents are also voicing their concerns on the matter.

Peter Miraglia spoke during the public comment section of Monday night’s work session, saying that he was there to collect more information on the ordinance, and to express that he felt it was important for the city council to talk to property owners about it.

“I think property owners, especially downtown property owners should have the opportunity — I think they should be directly asked by the city — their thoughts on this,” Miraglia said.

Miraglia addressed the potential restoration of the Arcade building and a few others like the Mill. He reiterated the need for clear communication.

“Right now, a lot of them are sitting idle,” Miraglia said. “I don’t know what their thoughts are, if they think they’re going to get windfall down the road somewhere, but until it deteriorates that’s not going to happen. That’s the only thing I want to stress is that the city really needs to start talking with property owners about this and get their input before proceeding too far along with this.”

Director of Development, Crystal Surdyk, said her understanding is that there would be a 30-day public comment period before the Local Preservation Ordinance could be adopted. She also clarified some items discussed during the Public Safety committee meeting, including that this is the first draft, drafted by Corporation Counsel Elliot Raimondo’s office, and that it is expected for some things to be changed as they go. Additionally, the LPO is not met to restrict property owners.

“The intent of it is not to be restrictive and to kind of cut off our nose to spite our face, it’s to actually serve as an additional tool and opportunity for property owners,” Surdyk said.

Surdyk said the LPO would open property owners to benefits and state and federal funding, giving an example of if someone was replacing windows in their building with their own money they can do whatever they want, but if they were to do it through the state and with the intent of historical preservation of the building there would be some restrictions.

The LPO is also intended to help protect a building, something Surdyk said the city does not currently have the ability to do without it. An LPO is not required for national registration of a historical building but is required to protect a building as a historic landmark and to receive a state designation. Miraglia said he understood the funding and benefits aspect, reiterating his point of having the city talk with property owners.

“I think the city needs to be a little more aggressive with the property owners and start contacting them,” Miraglia said. “Public hearings are great, but a lot of people just won’t come to them. That’s what I’ve seen. And I know the department is busy, there’s a lot going on, but I think it would be really worthwhile to start approaching some of these individuals, because we’ve had buildings sitting here empty for years, and I don’t know what the owners think they’re getting out of them.”

Councilman Jeff Russell, R-At Large and chair of the public safety committee agreed with Miraglia a little while later in the meeting, saying he thinks people need to be contacted and encouraged to come to meetings.

“This whole thing is really in its infancy and I would encourage all council members to really dig into this document, dissect it and come up with as many questions or concerns on this that you can,” Russell said. “I think we really need to look hard on this before anything comes to a vote on this.”