HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Council Action form dated September 9, 2006 . f
ITEM # 1/
DATE September 9, 200E
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS
PERTAINING TO DANGEROUS BUILDINGS
BACKGROUND:
In 2005, Fire Chief Clint Petersen directed the newly hired Building Official, David
Brown, to initiate fresh enforcement action on five dangerous and dilapidated buildings
that had long histories of code violations and complaints by neighboring citizens. Part
of that directive included collecting data on the effectiveness of the City's current
enforcement tools, Ames Municipal Code Section 5.400 Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings, to identify its strengths, weaknesses and improvement opportunities.
The Building Official initiated actions on the following properties:
3520 South Duff
First known complaint— 1993;Resolved— Sept. 30, 2005 (12 yrs); Razed
by Fire Department
2030 Country Club
First known legal action — 2002; Resolved—August 7, 2007 (5 yrs);
Repaired by owner
1911 Bloomington
First known complaint— May 20, 1997; Resolved— Dec. 30, 2005 (8 yrs);
Razed by Fire Department
443 South Maple
First known complaint— 1999; Resolved — August 2008 (9 yrs); Razed by
Fire Department
3611 Ross Road
First known complaint: 1995 (Note: there are two components to this case
- the yard and the house. Yard enforcement was initiated July 2005, and is
now nearing completion after 3 years of concerted effort in court. The
dangerous building component will be initiated immediately following yard
resolution.)
On August 21, 2007, the Fire Chief and Building Official presented Council with a brief
pictorial survey of these and other dangerous buildings, explained staff concerns about
our current enforcement tools, and received direction from Council to "explore the
development of a dangerous building ordinance that would allow the City to proceed
with involuntary compliance on a more timely basis." It is staff's belief that the current
ordinance that allows elapsed times between citizen complaints and code
compliance ranging from 5 to 13 years does not provide a reasonable service to
1
the community, is excessively costly, and falls short of the City's organizational
goal to provide exceptional service to our citizens.
The staff has extensively examined our current code, a model code developed by the
International Municipal Lawyer's Association (IMLA), and the City of Sioux City's
Dangerous Building Code and developed several options from these sources for the
City Council to consider.
Dangerous building codes have two different elements. First, it is the design of these
codes to define what it is that they are to address (the substantive provisions). Second,
these codes also set forth the procedures that will be followed in addressing problems
identified under the substantive provisions (the procedural provisions). No changes are
proposed to the substantive provisions of our Code, since they are already very
adequate. The focus of this discussion is on the procedural provisions, or on how
dangerous building abatement is carried out.
It is important to note that any dangerous building abatement ordinance brings with it
possible financial risk to the City. Should the Building Official determine that a structure
is in danger of collapse and the property owner is unwilling or unable to abate the
danger, the City may undertake immediate abatement (even up to demolition) of the
structure to preserve public safety. The City may thus need to up-front the cost of such
abatement. While those costs theoretically can be recovered through tax assessment,
in reality the City may never recover those funds. Given the increasing number of
dangerous buildings within the community, therefore, it may be wise to appropriate a
certain level of funding in each year's operating budget to up-front these costs. Unused
funding could then be rolled over to the following year to continue to guard against
these unexpected but important costs.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct staff to modify Section 5.400 of the Municipal Code that deals with Dangerous
Buildings to incorporate the nuisance abatement provisions reflected in the IMLA
Model Nuisance Abatement Ordinance.
The City Council should opt for this alternative if it is believed that a new procedure
is needed that will allow the staff to respond more quickly in abating dangerous
building problems. This new procedure does provide for an expedited process, it
does require the City to upfront the costs of abatement and, hopefully, be paid back
through an assessment procedure or once the property is sold.
2. Direct staff to prepare a revision to the Municipal Code that retains the current City
of Ames Dangerous Building Code and creates a separate code chapter based upon
the IMLA Model Nuisance Abatement Ordinance, applicable not only to dangerous
buildings, but also to other possible nuisances such as junk vehicles, accumulations
of junk and debris, weeds, and other declared conditions.
2
The City Council should opt for this alternative if it is believed that this new model
ordinance can improve the timeliness of the enforcement of other nuisances
identified on both rental and owner-occupied properties.
3. Direct staff to revise our current dangerous building code provisions based upon the
best practices of the existing Ames and Sioux City municipal codes.
The City Council should opt for this alternative if it is believed that a new procedure
is needed that will allow the staff to respond more quickly in abating dangerous
building problems, but there is a preference to develop our own ordinance provision
rather than rely on a national model ordinance.
4. Retain the existing code provisions pertaining to the abatement of dangerous
buildings in the City.
The City Council should opt for this alternative if the members are satisfied with the
current procedure's time frame and that the current ordinance provisions better
protect the rights of all property owners.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
A comparison of the major elements of the proposed options is provided below:
Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Alternative #4
(Current Code (Create New Code (Revise Code to (Current Code
Plus IMLA Model for Abating All Combine Best Provisions
Ordinance Nuisances, Parts of Sioux City applicable to
Provisions For including and Ames Dangerous
Abating Dangerous Ordinances for Buildings)
Dangerous Buildings & Dangerous
Buildings Only) Others Buildings Only)
Who Building Official, Building Official, Building Official, Building Official,
Enforces or City Manager or City Manager or City Manager Sanitarian, Fire
designee designee designee Inspector, or
their designees
Notices Certified letter, Certified letter, Certified letter, Certified letter,
Required post on building, post on building, post on building, post on building
personal service, personal service, personal service,
Council ordinance, Council ordinance, Council ordinance,
Publish in paper Publish in paper Publish in paper
Options for City abates City abates City abates City must take
City on court action to
Failure to have authority
Abate for abatement
Owner Building Board, Building Board, Building Board, Building Board,
Appeals then court then court then court then court
Process
3
How to Pay Council resolution Council resolution Council resolution City must take
for assessing costs assessing costs assessing costs court action in
Abatement against property; against property; against property; order to have
sale of salvage sale of salvage or use owner's authority to
material; any material; any cash bond (see collect, assess,
collection method collection method last column entry, or garnish
below
Hardship cost waivers for cost waivers for None provided None provided
procedures low income or low income or
elderl optional elderly optional
Emergency City may abate City may abate City may abate City Manager
authority without prior without prior without prior may approve, in
notice, and then notice, and then notice, and then accordance
assess costs after assess costs after assess costs after w/State Code;
notice and hearing notice and hearing notice and hearing City must take
court action to
have authority
to collect,
assess, or
garnish
Stated time 30 days to abate; 30 days to abate; Start repairs w/in None stated; set
limits for extension may be extension may be 60 days; complete by Building
compliance granted by granted by w/in 6 months; Official's
Building Official Building Official extension may be judgment
ranted by Board
Cash bond None None Bond required in None
or other estimated cost of
surety demolition;
required forfeited for failure
for time to comply
extension
Because the current code does not allow the City to undertake abatement action
without first completing judicial proceedings, the current code provisions
regarding the abatement of dangerous buildings result in a very lengthy and often
times ineffective process that is extremely time-consuming for City staff and
frustrating to neighboring property owners. In keeping with one of the City
Council's priorities to improve existing neighborhoods, staff believes that a
revision to the current Municipal Code is warranted that will still maintain the
rights of involved property owners while expediting the abatement process.
While time frames under the new codes cannot be predicted with certainty, there is no
question that each of the other options will provide a much more timely response to
safety and neighborhood concerns with dangerous buildings.
In considering possible ways to accomplish these purposes, adoption of the IMLA
model code brings the advantage of having been upheld in courts across the nation.
This would strengthen the City's position when other parties challenge the procedural
elements of our dangerous building abatement ordinance.
4
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, thereby directing staff to prepare ordinance to modify Section 5.400 of
the Municipal Code that deals specifically with Abatement of Dangerous Buildings to
incorporate the nuisance abatement provisions reflected in the International Municipal
Lawyer's Association Model Nuisance Abatement Ordinance.
5