Neighborhood Resources Department
MEMORANDUM
|
TO: |
|
Mike Wildgen, City Manager |
|
|
|
|
|
THRU: |
|
Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager |
|
|
|
|
|
FROM: |
|
Victor Torres, Neighborhood Resources Director |
|
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
|
Amendments to the Health and Sanitation Code |
|
|
|
|
|
DATE: |
|
June 8, 2004 |
Six members of the community attended the public meeting held May 10 to comment on proposed amendments to the Health and Sanitation Code. The comments received included a request for additional clarification, request to expedite the abatement process and general comments about the enforcement process. One person indicated the Oread Neighborhood Association is in favor of the amendment prohibiting the placement of indoor furniture on porches or other outdoor locations. One person sent an email that included comments on the proposed changes.
As a result of public comment, Section 9-606.1 is revised to delete “bicycles” and “lawn mowers” from the code. Currently both are in the existing code, with the intent of identifying items that may accumulate in a yard or porch. Another item discussed was a “certificate of mailing” as opposed to certified mail when notifying property owners of violations. Legal staff recommends continuing with the certified mail procedure when notifying property owners. Minutes from the meeting and the email are attached to this memorandum, as well as an amended code (section 9) and a summary of the proposed amendments.
Proposed Amendments
The purpose of the amendments is to provide clear language in the code for effective enforcement; three sections are amended to conform to changes in state statutes. Staff reviewed the existing section of the code and identified areas that lack clarity or are vague. For example, Section 9-407 and 9-408 are amended to include the removal of trash receptacles within 24 hours after the collection crew departs the property. This section provides a specific timeframe for the removal of receptacles; the current ordinance does not include a timeframe, resulting in containers remaining at the curb all week at some locations. A provision is included to address the removal of dead or dying trees. The department receives numerous complaints regarding dead trees and the danger posed by the tree falling on adjacent property.
Amendments to the environmental code addressing structural blight are described in Section 9-605. Striking the language…”commensurate with the character of the neighborhood” will allow a violation to be identified regardless of the condition of other properties. Reducing the amount of time to correct violations will help identify much more quickly if the property owner is willing to make the necessary improvements and increasing the penalty for a violation may also be a deterrent to owners that allow properties to deteriorate. These proposed changes include language for an enforceable code; however additional action may be required to address structures that are currently in a blighted condition. A summary of the proposed amendments is attached.
Structural Blight Options
The following options are presented for consideration to further address blight issues in the City’s neighborhoods:
Blight Abatement Program
A new program that will specifically address structural blight may be an option to identify deteriorating structures in an effort to reduce structural blight. This formal program would include new staff and a budget to make necessary repairs to structures. The city code is amended in Section 9-203 and 9-204 regarding the declaration of a nuisance and the procedures for collecting costs associated with the abatement. Although the provisions will ensure the city recovers all expenses incurred for the abatement through the tax roll of the county, the funds may not be realized by the city for up to a year after the occurrence of the expense. As a result of the delayed receipt of funds, monies need to be allocated in a sum sufficient to cover costs of abatement. This program is a proactive approach to actively seek out structural blight properties.
Staff Reassignment
The reassignment of existing staff is another option to specifically focus on structural blight. However it is important to note, reducing enforcement staff in one area may result in limited service or enforcement activity. For example, the department currently employs two environmental inspectors. A reassignment of one inspector to structural blight cases may reduce the total number of environmental cases processed. Prior to 2001, the department employed one environmental inspector and hired a temporary inspector for the additional caseload of weed complaints (over 400 weed complaints in 2003).
An alternative to consider may be a reassignment of the rental inspectors currently providing enforcement activities for the rental housing inspection program. In addition to providing rental housing inspections both staff members hired for this program also provide inspection services related to ADA and minimum housing standards inspections. It may be possible to allocate one inspector to a structural blight program on a part-time basis.
Neighborhood Revitalization Act
This option encourages a property owner to improve their property while potentially reducing structural blight in the community. The Act allows tax rebates for property owners who renovate or make improvements to their property. During the 1994 legislative session, lawmakers passed SB 732, known as the Neighborhood Revitalization Act (NRA). Local governments are authorized under the Act to cooperate in offering property tax rebates to owners that invest money in their property resulting in an increase in value. The rebate is offered for any additional property taxes assessed as a result of property improvements. Each municipality must adopt a plan and designate an area in which they want to promote revitalization and development or redevelopment. The major advantage for the property owner is the tax rebate associated with the additional tax burden resulting from improvements on deteriorating structures or development. Since the tax rebates do not interfere with current tax revenue, local government entities participating in the plan may benefit from a long term increase in tax revenue. This option provides a property owner the incentive to renovate their property and potentially reducing structural blight in the community.
Conclusion
Amending the existing Health and Sanitation code as recommended in the attachments will support staff in their enforcement efforts to identify properties that may potentially result in structural blight if violations are not corrected. Structural blight cases typically require more attention as staff works with property owners to correct problems. A formal program to proactively and effectively address the issue, as noted in the aforementioned Blight Abatement Program, might be appropriate. Several municipalities have such programs along with the required staff and are able to proactively reduce structural blight in their communities (Fairfax County, Virginia, Philadelphia, Penn., Bristol, CT., Imperial Beach, California). The proposed amendments are one component of a set of tools to effectively address environmental and structural blight issues. An enforceable environmental code coupled with a formal Blight Abatement Program and strengthened by the adoption and implementation of the Neighborhood Revitalization Act for certain locations within the community will provide the necessary tools that together will reduce if not eliminate demolition by neglect in the community. Let me know if you would like to consider any of the options discussed above.
|
Att. |
Chapter IX, Health and Sanitation code as amended (summary) |
|
|
Chapter IX, Health and Sanitation code as amended |
|
|
May 10, Public Meeting minutes |
|
|
Email from Maryanne L. Leone |