Transcript PPU - Minnesota Senate

Problem Properties Unit
MN APA Conference
September 22, 2008 Duluth, Minnesota
612.673.3506
[email protected]
Problem Properties Unit Mission
To analyze and resolve property
issues that have not been responsive
to Normal processes of enforcement
– including boarded and vacant buildings
Focus Areas
1. 249 Program (Vacant, Boarded, Condemned)
2. Problem Addresses (police and housing)
3. Complex & Non-responsive (commercial)
Our Chapter 249 Program (boarded and
vacant properties)
Managing Boarded and Vacant Properties
 Monitor and Track Boarded, Vacant and Condemned
Properties



Identify properties for Vacant Building Registration
(VBR)
Conduct all inspections on VBR properties until reoccupied
Process fees associated with VBR status
 Administer the Ordinance Governing Boarded,
Vacant and Nuisance Properties (Chap. 249)



Determine appropriate abatement action – demolition
or restoration
Send Director’s Orders and process appeals
Coordinate all 249 demolitions; including specs and
sign-offs
Vacant Building Registration Criteria
and Process
 Criteria
 Condemned
 Unoccupied/unsecured
 Unoccupied/secured by means other than
normally used
 Unoccupied with housing code orders past due
 Unoccupied for 1 year with at least 1 housing
order
 Issue notice/order to owner – requests plan
and $6000 annual fee
 Re-inspect every 30-45 days to verify status
Samples of Properties “On the List”
A Case for Increasing the VBR Fee
 Analysis in late 2007 lead to increase in fee.
 Average cost of boarded/vacant properties
closer to $6000
 40% plus properties required re-board
 80% had some type of environmental
abatement (grass, weeds, rubbish)
 60% had police calls for service
 Average special assessment $1385
 Direct impact on surrounding property values
– drop of $8000
Director’s Orders – a new procedure to
manage and abate nuisance properties
 Chapter 249 amended in October 2006 to allow for
administrative determination of “Nuisance”
 Extensive notice
 21 days to appeal the order
 30 days to comply with the order
 No appeal – demolition
 Created Restoration Agreement
 Established a legislative appeal process for
expedited findings of fact
 Reduced involvement of public officials
 Allowed for more properties to be processed
More Samples of Properties“on the list”
Actual Demolitions - Comparison by
Years 2000-2008
Demolitions Regulatory Services and CPED 2005-2008
90
80
10
70
2
60
30
5
14
2
10
7
20
8
59
7
10
9
Reg Services Code
Compliance
50
40
CPED
9
34
23
22
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
Reg Services
Emergency Demo
Reg Services 249
Demo
Buildings Open To Trespass Up 477%
Buildings Requiring Boards Up 583%
Housing Authorized Board Ups 2003-2007
800
724
700
670
600
577
500
495
456
423
400
370
343
341
300
254
227
210
200
282
261
253
187
155
150
133
102
100
28
16
0
Jan
Feb
93
66
57
42
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
“On the List”
Vacant Building Registrations
Up 204%
 VBR properties more than
doubled in 2007
Number of Properties s on the Vacant Building Registration List 2003 - 2008
1000
928
900
 Increased complexity due to
foreclosures
770
800
700
600
481
500
400
 Concentrated in two areas of
the City
300
286
247
258
200
100
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Location of Boarded and Vacant
Buildings Follows Foreclosures
A Snapshot of Properties on the VBR
List
 2/3 of properties are
condemned
 1/3 vacant (not boarded
VBR Properties by Level of Service
950 Properties
or condemned)
Directors Orders (RA, Appeals,
Demo)
10%
 10% take up between
20%
Routine
Additional
100-125 hours of staff
time to manage
70%
(10%) properties require roughly 120 hours per property per year
(70%) properties require roughly 50 hours per annually per year
(20%) properties require roughly 25 hours per annually per year
Length of Time Properties Remain on
the Vacant Building List
 Approx 930 registered
Length of Time of Properties on Vacant Building Registry
4 to 5 years
9 (1%)
as vacant
3 to 4 years
17 (2%)
2 to 3 years
67 (7%)
More than 5 years
27 (3%)
Less than 6 months
202 (22%)
 Majority on the list
between 0-2 years
 4% have been Vacant
1 to 2 years
277 (30%)
5+ years
6 to 12 months
329 (35%)
City-County Demolition Collaborative

Summer 2008 – Partnered with County to Demo an Additional 50 properties

Windshield analysis of 370 condemned properties – Yes, No, Maybe

Assembled additional data and reviewed analysis









Length of time condemned
Structural problems
General condition
Fire history
Recent Permits
Lot size / zoning
House size and marketability
Preservation Analysis
After-rehab market value

Identified 99 properties for Director’s Order to Demolish

To date – 35 appealed; 54 out on bid

Batch bids in groups of 27 properties per group

Goal to have all 54 plus down by December
Looking Forward
 Continue to re-design the 249 process

Tiered approach to condemnation
 Increase the use of Restoration
Agreements
 Explore the use of Receivership to
increase rehab
 Expand our “Warning System”
 Explore options for vacant commercial