Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA028 - Nuisance Ordinance UpdateITEM #:29 DEPT:FIRE July 8, 2025 Staff Report PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE UPDATE BACKGROUND: In 2023, the City Council adopted Chapter 30 of the Municipal Code, the Public Nuisance Ordinance. The ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2024. The new ordinance consolidated existing ordinances into a single, easy-to-navigate document with consistent enforcement methods. Additionally, three new regulations were introduced: 1) Grass Height on owner-occupied properties (previously only applied to rental properties), 2) Dangerous Trees, and 3) Structural Defects. Staff has been utilizing the new ordinance for over a year now and were asked by the City Council to provide an update regarding the effectiveness of the ordinance and highlight any concerns encountered. COMPLAINT NUMBERS: In 2023, prior to the adoption of the Public Nuisance Ordinance, staff received 826 nuisance related complaints. In 2024, with the new Public Nuisance Ordinance in place, staff received 996 complaints--a 21% increase. Attachment #1 reflects the case types and number of complaints for 2024. Approximately 19% of the complaints received (189) were unfounded, meaning the property was not in violation of the ordinance at the time of inspection. Staff issued 15 citations (2%) due to non-compliance, of which 7 were for dangerous trees. In some cases, the owner had a desire to work towards compliance, but did not have the available funds, so they opted to be cited and have the trees removed through the abatement process. CONTINUED CONCERNS: A few concerns have been received from residents about issues that the new Code does not currently address. These concerns are explained below. Supporting photos can be found in Attachment #2. Vermin Staff receives complaints about neighboring properties that have conditions that harbor vermin or allow vermin to exist. When staff originally drafted the Public Nuisance Ordinance, a restriction on harborage of vermin was included. After public input was received, this language was removed by the City Council. Those who spoke at the City Council meeting questioned how vermin would be defined and what the term "conditions" means. Many other jurisdictions do have restrictions on vermin habitats. 1 Question: Does City Council want to prohibit conditions which harbor vermin or the presence of vermin on the property? Outdoor Storage Previously, the Zoning Code prohibited the outdoor storage of any goods or materials for more than 72 hours. Two separate code sections restricted the outdoor placement of indoor furniture and/or appliances. The current ordinance prohibits indoor furniture, appliances, and household items from being placed outdoors, but it does not restrict any items that fall outside of the ‘indoor use’ category. For example, the outdoor storage of bicycles, lawn mowers, coolers, etc., not specifically intended for indoor use cannot be regulated as they were under the previous Zoning Code language. Complaints about this issue typically arise when there is an abundance of items left outdoors (e.g., a single bicycle would not normally generate a complaint). Question: Does Council want to add provisions that would prohibit the Outdoor Storage of all items? Overgrown/Unmaintained Vegetation (not turf grass or noxious weeds) Prior to January 1, 2024, the Municipal Code prohibited noxious weeds and did not restrict the height of turf grasses, with the exception of rental properties which were restricted to 12 inches in height. The new ordinance continues to prohibit noxious weeds and restricts turf grasses on all properties to 12 inches in height. It does not regulate either: 1) weeds that are not deemed noxious by the State of Iowa or the City, or 2) grasses that are not considered turf grasses. Staff continues to receive complaints about general overgrowth and lack of vegetative maintenance. Question: Does Council want to add language to the Code that would restrict vegetation types, heights, or overgrowth? Noxious weeds and turf grasses over 12 inches in height would continue to be prohibited. Junked Vehicles Junked vehicles continue to be prohibited from being kept on a property for more than 48 hours or up to 30 days if concealed, enclosed, or covered with a tight-fitting vehicle cover. This standard has not changed, but staff continues to have difficulties determining if a vehicle is junked because the criteria that constitute a junked vehicle often aren’t visible, or at least not visible from the public way. The criteria for determining a Junked Vehicle can be found in Attachment #3. The concern from citizens seems to be more about vehicles parked in one place for an extended period of time, whether junked or not. Previously, the Code prohibited operable vehicles from being stored for more than 15 days. This was removed from the Code after public input and concerns over the ability to enforce on something for 15 consecutive days. Question: Does Council want to restrict the length of time vehicles can be parked on private 2 property without moving? Question: Does Council want to revise any of the criteria for defining a Junk Vehicle? Items in Right-of-Way Staff has encountered different situations where the right-of-way is used for storage or living purposes and has struggled to find an effective enforcement practice. There have been a few cases in which a person is living in a vehicle that is parked on the street and personal belongings are left outside of the vehicle. Staff has posted notice on the vehicle that the items need to be removed, but does not have a process for removing and safekeeping the items if they are not voluntarily removed. Alternatively, there are situations where items are kept on the street and staff does not know to whom the items belong. These types of items include non-motorized equipment, tractors, boats, household items, etc. Question: Does Council want to prohibit any items from being placed in the ROW and establish a removal process for said items? Recreational Vehicles The current ordinance allows one travel trailer, recreational vehicle, boat, or boat trailer to be stored (over 72 hours) on private property in the rear yard or wholly in the side yard. In addition, it allows any recreational vehicle to be parked (up to 72 hours) in the driveway. Staff has met resistance to this standard primarily during the camping season (April through October). Many residents have expressed interest in an exception to allow their recreational vehicle to be stored on the driveway when not in use from April through October. Question: Does the City Council want to create an exception as outlined above? Legal Concerns In addition to the Code concerns, there are also some legal concerns staff continues to encounter. 1. Staff is limited to enforcing only violations they are able to view from the public way. Staff cannot enter private property without the owner ’s permission to view potential violations. An administrative search warrant would be required to be obtained from the Court to enter private property. Staff can view the property from a neighboring property with permission from that property owner. 2. There have been a few instances where staff has been unable to contact the property owner. Attempts to serve citations have failed, even by local law enforcement. Citations are primarily issued so that staff can request permission from the Court to enter the property and abate the violation. This cannot happen when the citation is unable to be served. In short, an owner could ignore attempts at service leaving little to no recourse for violations. 3. The legal process offers little recourse when a citation is left unpaid. Legally, a person can be found to be in contempt of Court by not paying the fine, but there still is no penalty for that unless a judge is willing to sentence them to jail time. It is unlikely this would occur, so typically the citation, and the Court costs paid by the City to file, are left 3 unpaid. Compliance Efforts Voluntary compliance is staff’s primary goal and has proven to be quite effective, since less than two percent of complaints result in a citation. As previously stated, citations are primarily issued when staff is unable to achieve compliance through normal efforts. Of the 15 citations issued, two have been unable to be served and three have agreed to the citation because they lacked the funds to comply. They understand that the City will request permission to abate and the associated costs will be assessed to their property which they can pay off over 10 years. In these cases, the citations are being used as a mechanism for compliance in the form of a loan. Additionally, staff would like clarification and direction regarding when and at what cost is it appropriate to abate a violation. For example, a homeowner has an excessive amount of peeling and chipping paint. Compliance in this case would require the home to be repainted or sided. If the owner is unable to comply and a citation is issued, should staff request abatement (permission to paint the house)? The alternative would be to issue a citation and then cite again if the property does not come into compliance. Should staff tow a recreational vehicle that is not parked in an approved area? Should staff remove several diseased ash trees in a wooded back yard at a cost of nearly $10,000? Question: Is Council interested in exploring the establishment of a grant or loan program to help with abatement so that owners have an option other than a citation? Question: What level of compliance is Council wanting to have staff achieve through abatement? Is there a monetary threshold? Complaint Process Staff currently operates primarily on a complaint-only basis. There is some proactive enforcement done in the Campustown neighborhoods to help control garbage and furniture concerns, but most of the opened cases have had complaints filed. Complaints are received by phone, email, mail, Ames on the Go, or in person. Ames on the Go has been a convenient mechanism for reporting because citizens can log the complaint in the app, include a photo and geocode the location. Since implementing Ames on the Go, the number of complaints has more than tripled. Although the app has proven useful, it may have the effect of making it too easy to file a complaint. Last summer, one citizen used Ames on the Go to file nearly 100 complaints in a short period of time (over 60 in one day) and another citizen submitted nearly 80. Together, these two complainants account for 18% of the total complaints received in the year. Staff believes one of these complainants may have been the subject of a complaint, prompting them to seek out reportable violations. This created a philosophical struggle for staff since it was essentially proactive enforcement. The complaints could not be ignored, but staff was aware that the complaints were not initiated out of true concern to a neighbor. The Council may recall that in 2024, staff presented Council with a similar issue related to sidewalk complaints. Sidewalk complaints are occasionally made anonymously via letter or phone, and these complaints would be investigated. The sidewalk complaint section of Ames 4 on the Go requires a registered user to make the complaint, but the issues are not posted on the map. City staff is able to see the registered user information. Complaints logged under the "other" category, however, do not require registered user information in order to be posted. Question: Should staff continue to enforce reactively or would Council like to implement proactive enforcement? Question: Should there be restrictions on filing anonymous complaints? Vacant and Abandoned Structures City Council received a staff report on November 5, 2024, regarding vacant and abandoned structures. The report highlighted efforts from several other jurisdictions in regulating vacant and abandoned structures (See Attachment #4). These options included adding abandoned structures in the nuisance ordinance, creating a vacant structure registration program, and utilizing State Code to take title to the property. Council requested this item be placed on a future workshop agenda. Staff is including it in this report as a discussion point since it shares many of the same concerns already raised within. Question: Does Council want to add language to the Code that would regulate vacant and abandoned structures? Summary of Concerns/Direction Needed The below list includes concerns raised throughout this report that Staff would like the Council’s input on: 1. Does City Council want to prohibit conditions which harbor vermin or the presence of vermin on the property? 2. Does Council want to add provisions that would prohibit the Outdoor Storage of all items? 3. Does Council want to add language to the Code that would restrict overgrowth of vegetation in addition to the prohibition of noxious weeds and turf grasses over 12 inches in height 4. Does Council want to restrict the length of time vehicles can be parked on private property without moving? 5. Does Council want to revise any of the criteria for defining a Junk Vehicle? 6. Does Council want to prohibit any items from being placed in the ROW and establish a removal process for said items? 7. Does Council want to create an exception to allow RVs to be parked in a driveway for more than 72 hours from April to October? 8. Is Council interested in exploring the establishment of a grant or loan program to help with abatement so that owners have an option other than a citation? 9. What level of compliance is Council wanting to have staff achieve through abatement? Is there a monetary threshold? 10. Should staff continue to enforce reactively or would Council like to implement proactive enforcement? 11. Should there be restrictions on filing anonymous complaints? 12. Does Council want to add language to the Code that would regulate vacant and abandoned structures? 5 STAFF COMMNENTS: Overall, it has been very helpful to have all of the code sections that were previously spread through the Municipal Code in one section with the same fine structure and enforcement process. The concerns noted above are the result of customer concerns that that staff has not been able to resolve through the current ordinance. Staff would like direction from the City Council regarding each item listed above. For any changes that are desired, the staff will return at a later date with proposed language to address each concern. ATTACHMENT(S): Attachment 1.docx Attachment 2.docx Attachment 3.docx Attachment 4 6 Attachment A 7 Vermin Conditions Outdoor Storage 8 9 Overgrown Vegetation (not grass and not noxious weeds) 10 11 12 Junked Vehicles 13 14 Items In ROW 15 16 RV In Driveway 17 Junked Vehicle Concerns Code Sections A junked vehicle is currently defined in Chapter 30 as: Junked Vehicle. Any vehicle, trailer or semitrailer which because of any one of the following characteristics, constitutes a threat to the public health, welfare and/or safety: a) That has been rendered inoperable because of a missing or broken windshield or window glass, fender, door, bumper, hood, steering wheel, driver’s seat, trunk, fuel tank, two or more wheels, engine, drive shaft, differential, battery, generator or alternator or other component part of an electrical system, any component or structural part, or lack of current registration; b) That has become the habitat of rats, mice, snakes or any other vermin or insects; c) That is being used for storage purposes; d) That its condition constitutes a threat to the public health or safety of the public; e) That contains gasoline or any flammable fuel and is inoperable. Inoperable. Not capable of being used or operated as a motor vehicle. Chapter 30 declares junked vehicles public nuisances: 30.5(21) Junked vehicles stored outdoors on private property for more than 48 hours. Exceptions: a) Junked vehicles stored within a garage or other enclosed structure. b) One (1) junked vehicle per property may be stored outdoors for no more than 30 days cumulative per vehicle per calendar year in compliance with Ames Municipal Code Section 29.304(3) Prohibited Uses when concealed and enclosed behind an opaque wall at least six feet in heigh, or completely covered by a tight-fitting opaque cloth vehicle cover or tight-fitting cloth tarpaulin. c) Junked vehicles stored upon the premises of a duly authorized salvage yard or junk yard and meeting the requirements of the Ames Municipal Code. Concerns 18 1. Many of the vehicle components that render a vehicle inoperable are not visible (fuel tank, engine, drive shaft, batter, etc.). The only way to verify these components are present would be for the owner to voluntarily show staff or for staff to obtain a search warrant from the court to enter the property and investigate the vehicle. The presence of jacks under a vehicle do not prove inoperability. 2. Enforcement can only be conducted from the public way or a neighboring property with that owner’s permission. Many vehicles are situated in a way that staff are unable to verify any of the criteria to render the vehicle junked. 3. Lack of current registration is one component that can render a vehicle inoperable. If this is the only thing the vehicle is lacking, the owner is able to update registration and keep the vehicle in place. This does not resolve the complainant’s concern regarding the vehicle so is it necessary to require? 4. Many of the complaints staff receive are regarding the presence of the vehicle in one spot for an extended period of time. Typically, these vehicles do not meet the criteria to be junked, or, if they do, it is due to lack of registration which can be resolved without moving or changing the vehicle. Under the previous ordinance, vehicles were prohibited from remaining in a driveway without moving for more than 72 hours. This standard was removed after much debate and public input. Questions 1. Should the criteria for a junked vehicle be changed so that components have to be visible from the exterior (remove all references to interior components)? 2. Is the City Council supportive of having staff utilize administrative search warrants to verify a vehicle’s status? 3. Should current registration continue to be a requirement for an operable vehicle parked in a driveway? If there is not a prohibition on storage time in the driveway does requiring current registration make sense? Some owners choose not to register vehicles while the primary driveway is away or unable to operate the vehicle, but the vehicle is still in an operable condition. 4. Does City Council want to revisit the storage timeframe for vehicles parked in a driveway? 19 1 ITEM # Staff Report VACANT AND ABANDONED STRUCTURES November 5, 2024 BACKGROUND: At the October 22nd City Council meeting, the Council discussed an email from Jennifer Harris regarding the property located at 913 Carroll Avenue. Ms. Harris’ email refers to the property as a ‘nuisance’ and ‘abandoned’ and has requested the Council look into an ordinance addressing vacant and abandoned properties. CURRENT CODE: The Public Nuisance Ordinance (Chapter 30) that went into effect on January 1, 2024 requires unoccupied buildings to be secured. It does not prohibit the existence of unoccupied or abandoned structures. In the case of 913 Carroll, the property is unoccupied but not abandoned. Staff has been in communication with the property owner and is working with him to resolve the complaint of items stored outdoors. There was an additional complaint of groundhogs at the property which is also not a violation of the Municipal Code. The owner recently took advantage of the free yard waste day and removed much of the overgrown vegetation from the front of the property and painted the front door. OTHER JURISDICTIONS: Staff reviewed several jurisdictions in the metro area and found that many jurisdictions similar to Ames prohibit abandoned buildings within their nuisance ordinances in some manner. Des Moines The City of Des Moines has a registration program for vacant structures. Their ordinance requires all vacant structures to register and submit an $87.50 application fee. The registration information requires the person responsible to reside within Polk, or a contiguous county, and provide their contact information. If they do not reside within that area, they must submit information for a contact over 18 that has responsibility for the property. This property manager must agree to inspect the property every 30 days to 20 2 verify code compliance and to submit notice to the City if not in compliance. They must begin abating the issue within ten days and be in compliance within 30 days. Inspections completed by the City to verify compliance incur an additional inspection fee of $87.50 for the first inspection and $103 for subsequent inspections. Iowa City Iowa City was also found to have a vacant property registration ordinance similar to Des Moines. Their ordinance includes a registration fee of $50 and an annual inspection fee of $80. Iowa City also declares abandoned and/or vacant structures a public nuisance and allows for abatement of such. West Des Moines The City of West Des Moines deems any abandoned building a nuisance and allows abatement of such nuisances, though it is not clear how an abandoned building is abated. Additionally, the City has a program for the registration of properties that have been the subject of foreclosure. Like the City of Des Moines, this registration requires a local contact responsible for keeping the property in compliance with the Municipal Code. Staff was unable to find any other ordinances prohibiting vacant structures which have not been subject to foreclosure. 657A Chapter 657A of The State Code of Iowa regulates abandoned buildings and gives the ability for local jurisdictions and counties to petition the court for ownership of the property for the purpose of preservation or abatement. ‘Abandoned’ is defined as: 657A.1.1 “Abandoned” of “abandonment” means that a building is vacant, or is occupied only by trespassers, and in violation of the housing code or building code of the city in which the property is located or the housing code or building code applicable in the county in which the property is located if outside the limits of a city. Once a complaint is received of an abandoned property, the City must make an inspection of the exterior of the structure. If the City determines that the structure is likely abandoned, they must notify the owner to request an inspection of the interior. In the event an owner refuses or contact cannot be made, the City must obtain an administrative search warrant to enter. If the City determines that the property is a public nuisance and/or is abandoned they may request the court file an injunction requiring the owner to correct the nuisance or deem it abandoned. If this is unsuccessful, the court can appoint a receiver to abate 21 3 the issues. Alternatively, a city or county can petition the court to enter judgment awarding the title to the abandoned property to the city or county. The Court uses the following criteria to help determine if the property is abandoned: o Whether taxes or special assessments are delinquent o Whether utilities are currently provided o Whether the building is unoccupied by the owner o Whether the building is fit for occupancy in accordance with the local housing/building code o Whether the building is exposed to the elements to such a point it is causing deterioration o Whether the building is boarded up or otherwise unsecured o Past efforts to rehabilitate the building and grounds o The presence of vermin, accumulation of debris, and uncut vegetation o The effort expended by the City to maintain the building and grounds o Past and current compliance with orders of the housing or code official o Any other evidence the court deems relevant In lieu of the above criteria, the Court may accept evidence that all parties have been properly notified and have consented to an order awarding title to the city. If the court finds that the property is abandoned, they can then award title, free and clear, to the petitioner. After the title is awarded, the City must act to abate the nuisance. These actions could be in the form of demolition, property sale, or any other actions to return the property to a compliant state (mowing, replacing windows, securing the structure, etc.). The costs associated with bringing the property into compliance would incurred by the City and then ideally recovered when the property is able to be sold. However, it’s possible the costs will not be realized for several years. The process utilized after the title is obtained is explained further in specific case examples later in this report. Other Options Staff found several other jurisdictions including Johnston, Waukee, Urbandale and Altoona that utilize State Code 657A to help determine if a property is abandoned . Their codes specifically prohibit, or declare as public nuisances locally, properties that meet the definition of ‘abandoned’ in 657A. Properties that fall into this category are then enforced through the local ordinance to obtain compliance. 22 4 Some cities, such as Iowa City and Cedar Falls have created their own definitions and do not refer to 657A. Iowa City ‘Abandoned/Vacant Building: Any building or portion of a building which is: a) unoccupied and unsecured; or b) unoccupied and secured by means other than those used in the design of the building; or c) declared a dangerous building under the uniform code for the abatement of dangerous buildings; or d) unoccupied and unfit for occupancy as determined by a government agency; or e) unoccupied and has housing and building code violations; or f) unoccupied for a continuous period of time over one hundred eighty (180) calendar days.’ Cedar Falls Declares ‘Unoccupied buildings or unoccupied portions of buildings which are unsecured or abandoned’ as a public nuisance. This is very similar to Ames where we declare ‘Unoccupied buildings or unoccupied portions of buildings which are unsecured’ as a public nuisance. Ames does not include the word abandoned. Staff was unable to find ordinances for some cities including Waterloo, Bondurant and Ankeny. If such ordinance does exist, it was not included in the typical chapters that were reviewed. Staff did reach out to Ankeny for clarification but has not received a response. SPECIFIC EXAMPLES 913 Carroll The property that sparked the request for this staff report is located at 913 Carroll Avenue. A recent complaint cited concerns with items stored outdoors and groundhogs creating a habitat at the property. Staff worked with the owner to resolve the outdoor storage issue but is not able to address the groundhog concern because there is no ordinance prohibiting the presence of groundhogs or conditions that create a harbor for groundhogs. The property does not meet the criteria to be a public nuisance because, while not occupied, it is secured. It is also not abandoned because the owner has been responsive to correspondence from staff. Without a change in the ordinance, there is no way to compel the owner to regularly occupy the structure or inspect for maintenance code compliance. 23 5 3323 Tripp In May of 2024, staff was made aware that the property at 3323 Tripp was without water or electricity. Subsequently, the property was declared unfit for habitation and all occupants were required to vacate the structure. Once vacated, the property was left unsecured and was declared dangerous on July 1st. Staff boarded the windows and doors to secure the structure from entry. At the August 5th meeting of the Building Board of Appeals, the Board granted the City authorization to abate the violations and/or demolish the structure in accordance with Chapter 5 of the Ames Municipal Code. The owners of the property are both deceased so staff contacted a few of the owner’s family members and found that there was no estate and that the presence of any will was unknown. The lack of a living owner or estate has posed some major challenges with enforcement. The Legal Department has worked to identify other possible heirs, but cannot, with confidence, confirm that all possible heirs have been identified. This leaves concerns with demolition since an unknown heir could claim they were not notified and had interest in the property prior to demolition, essentially leaving the city to pay the demolition costs and maybe more. Staff has prepared information to submit to the court requesting title through 657A. The intent would be to obtain the title and sell the property to someone with interest in rehabbing or demolishing the structure. There are concerns with the potential for additional liens and the ability to produce a clear title with the uncertainty of heirs which could delay a sale. If the city were to obtain the title and the sale was delayed for a few years, the city would be responsible for maintain the property. In this case, staff would request direction on whether Council would prefer to demolish the structure and incur the cost or to allow the structure to remain until the property is able to be sold. The city would also be required to pay for lawn maintenance and snow removal until the property can be sold. 201 Dotson The property owner of 201 Dotson passed away in the Spring of 2023. Since then, the property has been vacant and not maintained. Staff secured the property from entry in the Fall of 2023 once they were made aware the structure was vacant and unsecured. Many efforts have been, and continue to be, made to identify possible heirs of the owner. Again, without an estate it is difficult to establish interested parties. Staff has the same concerns with this property as with 3323 Tripp with the major difference being the property has not been declared dangerous and is not subject to demolition. It is likely staff will petition the court for the deed in the near future , but, due 24 6 to the concerns above, may not be able to sell the property until the potential for additional liens and heirs has passed (approximately 5 years since date of death). Staff would be required to maintain the property until a sale was possible and would anticipate recovering the maintenance costs through the sale. Several communities have been successful in utilizing 657A to address abandoned properties. However, staff has been unable to find a community that has done so on a property in which the owners were deceased and there was no estate. While not impossible to accomplish, this hurdle does present some scenarios that could be costly for the city and should be taken into consideration. Should the Council have interest in adopting an ordinance that will regulate vacant and/or abandoned properties, they will also want to consider the following: o The length of time before a property is deemed vacant o The difference between ‘vacant’ and ‘abandoned’ o Whether the property is listed for sale o Will this encompass residential, commercial and industrial o Does it have a current building permit o What the penalty will be and if the City assumes that cost (boarding windows, securing locks, etc) NEXT STEPS Provided City Council has interest in an ordinance regulating vacant and abandoned structures, staff recommends a workshop to talk through the many details and options within such an ordinance. One of the most important questions to answer will be how far Council is willing to go to bring a structure into compliance with a new ordinance. 25