HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.b. Housing Maintenance CodeEXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 18, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Housing Maintenance Code
AGENDA SECTION:
Information Update
Old Business
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA N�� �.,.
Ron Wasmund, Building Official
ATTACHMENTS:
APPROVED B
Memorandum
V
Attached is a memorandum outlining findings of a survey done,
including all Dakota County cities and 20 other metro area
cities.
I have also expanded on each of the seven items identified in my
earlier memo to you trying to reach a conclusion for each item.
Recommendations made within the memo are to spark discussion
only.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council direction to pursue specific code language
for adoption consideration or postponement of
formal action for further study.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Directed staff to prepare the language of a housing maintenance code.
eityof
0: Mayor Napper osernount
Council Members Klassen, Oxborough,
Stephan Jilk, City Administrator
Dean Johnson, Community Development
FROM: Ron Wasmund, Building Official
DATE: December 13, 1990
RE: Maintenance Code Study
P O BOX 510
2875 -145TH ST. W.
ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068
612-423-4411
Willcox, Wippermann
Director
At Council's direction, I have polled cities in Dakota County and
the metro area concerning maintenance codes and other treatment of
building deterioration problems.
Thirty (30) cities were polled. Ten (10) of them being in Dakota
County and twenty (20) around the Minneapolis and St. Paul area.
In selecting the cities around Minneapolis and St. Paul I tried to
select towns that would provide a wide cross-section. Some towns
were selected with population similar to Rosemount; others were
selected because of larger population and older housing stock. In
Dakota County I polled all cities that have enforcement personnel
on staff.
Of the ten (10) cities in the county, there are two that currently
have housing maintenance codes in place. These are West St. Paul
and South St. Paul. Both of these cities have housing that
averages 40-50 years old and have experienced some problems with
declining maintenance standards.
West St. Paul's code applies to all housing whether owner occupied
or rental. Until 1991, it was handled on a complaint basis only.
Starting in January, 1991 the ordinance will be enforced through a
contract with Dakota County HRA using one of their housing
inspectors. West St. Paul has established a $5,000 budget for the
firs;. year. Their existing maintenance code is 30 years old and
will undergo a complete rewrite during 1991. The Building
Inspector feels they have had only moderate success with their
program. The grossly negligent properties are taken care of, but
the lack of staff and budget allows properties to deteriorate more
before they are cited for problems. It then takes more time and
money to bring the properties into compliance.
South St. Paul has a housing maintenance code which applies only to
rental property. Owners of rental properties are required to
license each unit. The license cost is $15.00 per unit and is good
for a three-year period. Each property is inspected before a new
license is issued. Twenty percent (20%) of the building
inspector's time is budgeted for rental housing inspection for
structures containing up to four units. All buildings with over
four units are inspected by the fire department. The license fee
on 2,500 rental units generates a budget of $11,500 per year. The
building inspector for South St. Paul feels they have good success
with the rental property, but spends fifty percent (50%) of his
House Maintenance Code
December 18, 1990 Council Agenda Item 5b.
time making inspections, writing correction orders and following up
on complaints. They are considering putting the entire program
under the control of the fire department.
The other eight cities in Dakota County currently have no formal
program and respond on a complaint basis only. When they do
respond to a complaint, Sections 104(d) and Section 203 of the
Uniform Building Code are cited as the pertinent law. Both of
these sections refer to maintenance and unsafe buildings, but do
not directly regulate the exterior maintenance of the structures
for paint condition, siding and other routine maintenance items.
Some of the cities using this method have some success, but it
involves much staff time, as well as legal staff time. The repairs
cited by the inspector generally go to court and are court ordered
to be done. There is no method of recuperation of money spent by
the municipality since legal costs outweigh the amount of fine that
can be levied by misdemeanor offense.
Two of the cities (Apple Valley and Farmington) within the eight
that do not have a housing code are going to do a formal study in
1991 to consider such adoption. Two other cities have discussed
the possibility informally. They are Burnsville and Eagan;
however, they are taking a wait-and-see approach.
I also contacted Dakota County HRA to see if they have any
standards or inspections for their scattered sites and HRA owned
property. They do. They use HUD Housing Quality Standards, which
establish minimum requirements for a property. All homes in which
they place families are inspected prior to placement and then,
annually thereafter, as long as they have tenants placed there.
These HUD standards are minimum and don't address peeling paint
unless it is old enough to be suspect for lead.
Of the twenty cities in a ring around Minneapolis and St. Paul
(these two large cities were excluded), eight currently have a
maintenance code and two others are considering adoption in 1991.
I am not going to expand on those any further in this memo, but
will use overheads at the council meeting to provide a brief
summary.
In trying to determine the need for a code in Rosemount, I have
researched property files and water billing records to establish an
estimated 350-400 rental units. This number does not include any
rentals in Rosemount Woods or sleeping rooms. From casual
conversations with various members of the community I have reason
to believe that there could be between 50-75 sleeping rooms and
manufactured homes rented, also.
We do receive complaints about properties. Some are rental, others
deal with owner -occupied units. A combination of the two results
in approximately ten calls per year. When such a complaint is
filed, in writing, I will investigate to determine what the
existing condition is and what can be done. I have not pursued
issues that couldn't be covered with specific language in the
2
House Maintenance Code
December 18, 1990 Council Agenda Item 5b.
Building Code or Zoning Ordinance. The complaints vary from
outdoor storage of junk and debris to aesthetic appearance of the
dwelling. I have been involved with two "garbage" house complaints
and one rodent infestation case in the last two years. In two of
the three cases, I was able to get cooperation of the owner or
tenant, therefore being successful in gaining compliance. The
third case is still in limbo because I didn't have sufficient
reason to gain access through a search warrant.
I do feel that there is some need in the community to have some
form of code or language to gain compliance. In order to address
all issues received by complaint, the comprehensiveness of coverage
would have to include aesthetics, energy, life safety, health and
environment. Most housing ordinances, when written, do incorporate
standards for compliance with all of these issues. With the
standards defined in a written code, compliance is gained by citing
specific language which has been adopted into local law. There is
still an opportunity for these cases to go to court, but by having
written ordinances to provide to the judge or defense attorney,
most often the length of the case is shortened, thus saving staff
time and legal fees, which otherwise would be spent constructing a
case.
The scope of application has to be decided by Council and the
community. Staff can and will work with whomever by providing
input and developing a list of examples, if needed. The City of
Columbia Heights recently adopted a Rental Housing Ordinance which
is enforced only on rental property since July of 1990. Now they
are facing cries of discrimination and threats of legal action from
a landlord's organization within their town.
Staffing is one of the biggest issues to consider in all of this
discussion. I am not going to use this opportunity to grumble
about work schedules, but it must be realized that any effective
enforcement policy does require a commitment of time. Of the ten
out of 30 cities polled that are enforcing a maintenance code, the
average staff is 1.5 people, not including those using full time
fire fighters to do some inspections. I feel that in order to do
an effective job of enforcement, even on a rental only level, we
would have to commit one person's time to enforcement. This
requirement will vary depending on the scope of application.
Income from the various existing codes in other cities varied
greatly. All income generated was from either rental license fees
or point of sale inspections. The highest license fee was $50.00
for a single unit and the lowest was $5.00 for a single unit. They
varied with all amounts in between. I averaged them and found
$22.21 to be the midpoint. By taking the estimated 400 rental
units at $22.21 each, we would generate $8,884.00 in revenue from
license fees. This is one-fourth of the average budget determined
by the survey. There may be other ways of generating income, but I
am unprepared to discuss them at this point.
There would undoubtably be a need for a commitment from the City
Council for some funding out of the general budget. This amount
3
House Maintenance Code
December 18, 1990 Council Agenda Item 5b.
would vary with the scope of application and our abilities to be
creative with other methods of funding.
The impact on the community would have to be measured by methods
other than the complaints that any kind of maintenance code would
generate. The newer the housing stock at the time of adoption,
typically the fewer the problems encountered. The fewer the
problems we have the fewer disgruntled people there are.
I estimate the average age of homes in Rosemount to be 15-20 years.
By preliminary census figures it's estimated there are a total of
2,863 housing units within the City. We all know that we have
homes older and newer than that 15-20 year range. This is a common
age group when structures start needing maintenance such as roofs,
paint, window repair, door repair, carpets, furnaces, water heaters
and even some water or drain pipe repair or replacement.
By keeping the standards of housing up while relatively young, the
impact on staff and the community is less. By initiating some kind
of program now, the necessary tools would be there if needed.
This memo is, once again, very broad in areas covered. I would be
very glad to discuss any options, concerns or desires that any of
you may have concerning this matter.
I have also attached some general information relating to the
survey I did to help substantiate my examples. I will use them as
overheads at the Council Meeting during our discussion.
Thank you.
4
.MMOA
104 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
which will cause the existing building or structure to be in violation of any of the
provisions of this code nor shall such additions or alterations cause the existing
buildine or structure to become unsafe. An unsafe condition shall be deemed to
have been created if an addition or alteration will cause the existing building or
structure to become structurally unsafe or overloaded: will not provide adequate
egress in compliance with the provisions of this code or will obstruct existing
exits: will create a fire hazard; will reduce required fire resistance or will other-
wise create conditions dangerous to human life. Any building so altered. which
involves a change in use or occupancy, shall not exceed the height, number of
stories and area permitted for new buildings. Any building plus nem, additions
shall not exceed the height, number of stories and area specified for new build-
inL,s. Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing building or structure
when such existing building or structure is not in full compliance with the
provisions of this code except \vhen such addition or alteration will result in the
existing building or structure being no more hazardous based on life safety. fire
safety and sanitation, than before such additions or alterations are undertaken.
[See also Section 911 (c) for Group H. Division 6 Occupancies. ]
.Alterations or repairs to an existing building or structure which are nonstruc-
tural and do not adversely affect any structural member or any part of the building
or structure having required fire resistance may be made with the same materials
of which the building or structure is constructed. The installation or replacement
of Blass shall be as required for new installations.
(c) Existing Installations. Buildings in existence at the time of the adoption of
this code may have their existing use or occupancy continued, if such use or
occupancy was legal at the time of the adoption of this code, provided such
continued use is not dangerous to life.
Anv chance in the use or occupancy of any existing building or structure shall
comply with the provisions of Sections 307 and 502 of this code.
For existing buildings. see Appendix Chapter 1.
(d) Maintenance. All buildings and structures. both existing and new. and all
parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. All devices or
safezuards which are required by this code shall be maintained in conformance
with the code edition under which installed. The owner or his designated agent
shall be responsible for the maintenance of buildings and structures. To determine
compliance with this subsection. the building official may cause any structure to
be reinspected.
(e) Moved Buildings and Temporary Buildings. Buildings or structures
moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code
for new buildings or structures.
Temporary structures such as reviewing stands and other miscellaneous struc-
tures. sheds. canopies or fences used for the protection of the public around and in
conjunction with construction work may be erected by special permit from the
building official for a limited period of time. Such buildings or structures need not
comply with the type of construction or fire -resistive time periods required by this
1305.0400 SECTION 203.
UBC Section 203 is amended to read as follows:
UBC Section 203. All buildings or structures regulated by this code which
are structurally unsafe or not provided with adequate egress, or which constitute
a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life are, for the purpose of
this section, unsafe. Any use of buildings or structures constituting a hazard to
safety, health, or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance,
dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage, or abandonment arc,
for the purpose of this section, unsafe uses. Parapet walls, cornices, spires, towers,
tanks, statuary, and other appendages or structural members which are supported
by, attached to, or part of a building and which are in deteriorated condition
_1 or otherwise unable to sustain the design loads which are specified in the code
are unsafe building appendages. All unsafe buildings, structures, or appendages
are public nuisances and must be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition,
or removal in accordance with the procedures set forth in Minnesota Statutes,
section 463.15 to 463.26.
1988 U.B.C. Minnesota State Amendments Page 6
0