ARMSTRONG COUNTY BLIGHT TASK FORCE REPORT

Transcription

1 ARMSTRONG COUNTY BLIGHT TASK FORCE REPORT This report contains an outline of specific strategies recommended by the Blight Task Force for incorporation into the Armstrong County Blight Remediation Plan July 2017

2 I. Background The discussion of the issue of blighted property originated in the fall of 2016 when the Armstrong County Board of Commissioners hosted a series of countywide Town Hall Meetings. During those meetings, a number of municipal officials and members of the public voiced concern about the issue of blight in their respective townships and boroughs. After follow up discussion with Senator Don White, the county secured a Community Development Initiatives Program grant from the Department of Community and Economic Development. This grant will help identify the extent of blight in the county and develop an overall strategy to address the problem. In January, 2017 the county s planning department sent out a Blighted Properties Survey to all 45 municipalities in Armstrong County in an effort to collect data regarding the extent of blight and the ways in which municipalities are dealing with the problem. Of the 45 municipalities, 29 responded to the survey process. More than 200 blighted properties were identified, the majority being vacant structures. Absentee landlords were identified as the major factor contributing to blighted properties. Only 11 of the responding municipalities indicated they had property maintenance codes in place. In May 2017, the commissioners appointed a 1 Task Force to develop a series of recommendations to prevent and remediate blight. The task force was asked to review the survey results, evaluate various tools and techniques, and issue a report to the Armstrong County Commissioners by September, The 10-member task force met for the first time at the end of May Members included township, borough and school board officials, code inspection and zoning officers, business professionals in real estate and law, and members of the Armstrong County Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Armstrong. At the initial meeting, the Task Force established the following principles to guide the discussion and recommendations of the group: Blight prevention and remediation programs must have a strong education component targeting local government, county and school district officials as well as the general public. 1 Task Force Members and organizations they represent: Heidi Powell (RE/MAX Dynamic, REALTORS); Fred S. Bowser III (Redevelopment Authority of the County of Armstrong); Tyler Heller, Esq., (Mechling & Heller LLP, Attorneys at Law); Grant Kanish (Codes Enforcement); Cynthia McDermott (Apollo Borough Manager); Wayne Dobos (Mayor of Leechburg Borough); Gregory Primm (Allegheny Township Manager, Apollo Ridge School Board President); David Klingensmith (Armstrong County Planning Commission); Carol Fenyes (Ford City Borough Council President); Gregory A. McKelvey (East Franklin Township Zoning Officer). Page 1 of 7

3 The limited financial and personnel resources of local governments should be considered in the establishment of practical recommendations regarding blight prevention and remediation. II. Blight Prevention, Remediation, Redevelopment Strategies The task force reviewed 21 individual blight prevention, remediation, and redevelopment tools and techniques, and reached consensus on those which may be most effective. Three primary and four secondary strategies were identified. Much of the information provided in this document about the primary and secondary strategies has been gleaned from materials provided by The Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania specifically, FROM BLIGHT TO BRIGHT: A Comprehensive Toolkit for Pennsylvania, July Primary Strategies The three primary strategies identified by the Armstrong County Blight Task Force are as follows: Explore ways to improve delinquent tax sale procedures Creation of a land bank Adoption and enforcement of property maintenance codes Explore ways to improve delinquent tax sale procedures: Many blighted properties are tax delinquent resulting in them being subject to sale by the Armstrong County Tax Claim Bureau. The Tax Claim Bureau has been very innovative in establishing repository sale auctions and working with local municipalities interested in acquiring blighted property from the repository. Tax Claim Bureau personnel have been helpful in providing information to understand the current tax sale procedures. The task force recommends building on this relationship by formally exploring 1) ways to educate municipal officials and the general public on tax sale procedures, 2) ways to work with the real estate community to market and sale tax delinquent properties, and 3) ways to restrict bidders who have other properties that do not meet code requirements from acquiring additional property. Creation of a land bank A land bank is a governmental body that focuses on acquiring tax delinquent, foreclosed, vacant and abandoned properties for the purpose of returning them to productive use. It is particularly Page 2 of 7

4 effective in areas that have a large, fragmented inventory of chronically blighted, abandoned or long-term tax delinquent properties. On January 17, 2013, Governor Tom Corbett signed into law PA Act 153, which enables any municipality with a population of at least 10,000 to form a land bank. Smaller municipalities that want to form a land bank may do so by entering into a joint intergovernmental agreement with other jurisdictions. A land bank may acquire properties by donation, transfer, foreclosure, or purchase from a number of sources including private owners, redevelopment authorities, municipalities or tax claim bureaus. The types of properties obtained by land banks are typically unoccupied, foreclosed, vacant and abandoned. Land banks have the power to demolish, reconstruct, rehabilitate, renovate, relocate, design, and develop acquired property. They can acquire foreclosed properties at tax sale through a negotiated intergovernmental transfer for minimal cost, and trump other tax sale bidders. Land banks can also hold acquired properties for future use when there is no market demand for property, and can eliminate property tax liens and claims subject to school district permission thereby allowing them to convey clear, marketable title to prospective buyers. It should be noted that a land bank is not a redevelopment authority, zoning, or planning entity. In Pennsylvania, land banks do not have the power of eminent domain. Funding a land bank s operations and projects can come from grants, loans, private and public sources and from property sales, rents and leasehold payments. A land bank may also collect a portion of real estate taxes on properties it conveys under an agreement with the relevant municipality(ies) and school district(s). Recapturing taxes, as permitted by state law, allows a portion of the property taxes generated by properties owned by land banks to be redirected into financing land bank operations. The portion of taxes must not exceed 50% of aggregate tax revenues and can continue for up to five years. The rationale behind tax recapture is that before acquisition by a land bank, properties are more likely to incur costs and are less likely to provide any tax revenue. After acquisition, those same properties can be revitalized and returned to the tax rolls. That means there is less public expenditure for code, fire and police protection and a likelihood of an increase in nearby property values. There are specific procedures and requirements for establishing a land bank: There must be a local ordinance in place that establishes the land bank and that includes the name of the land bank, lists the names of the board of directors and includes methods of community input as well as policies for owner-occupied properties. Land banks are also required to have an odd number of board members (between 5 and 11). The board can include public officials. However, it must include one member who is a resident not a public official or employee and a member of a civic organization. In the case of two or more jurisdictions establishing a land bank, they should adopt an intergovernmental cooperation agreement and have an agreement with the relevant school district(s) to agree to waive taxes due. An inter-municipal agreement between the relevant municipalities and the county may also be needed. Page 3 of 7

5 Once established, a land bank must be transparent and accountable in its practices and policies. It must maintain an accurate inventory of available properties for review, must keep minutes of its proceedings, and must submit an annual audit of income, expenditures, and activities. A land bank is subject to the Right to Know Law. Adoption and enforcement of property maintenance codes Data gathered from the 29 municipalities that participated in the blight survey shows less than half currently have a property maintenance code in place (11 in total eight boroughs and three townships). A property maintenance code typically requires that basic maintenance standards are met for structures built for residential, commercial or industrial use. This gives municipalities recourse in cases where property owners fail to meet established standards and are found to be in violation. One option is for municipalities to adopt the International Property Maintenance Code, which contains specific requirements concerning the maintenance of buildings. This code can be modified and adapted to suit the specific needs of a municipality. Once a property maintenance code is in place, a Quality-of-Life-Violation Ticketing Ordinance may be adopted to address violations that are visible on a property s exterior. More information on Enacting a Quality-of-Life-Violation Ticketing Ordinance can be found under the Secondary Strategies section of this document. In cases where property owners violate the property maintenance code, they should be notified in writing regarding the reasons for violation and must be given a reasonable timeframe for compliance. If the owner fails to comply, the code enforcement official or a police officer issues a code violation ticket. Unpaid fines continue to accumulate if the owner fails to resolve the situation. The task force recognizes that many municipalities do not have adequate resources to effectively enforce maintenance codes and suggests multi-municipal code enforcement be explored. Secondary Strategies Along with the three top blight remediation strategies already outlined, there were four additional strategies identified by the Blight Task Force as being valuable components in combatting blight: Requiring Presale Inspections Page 4 of 7

6 Enacting a Quality-of-Life-Violation Ticketing Ordinance Imposing criminal misdemeanor sanctions for multiple code violations Denial of permits to owners who have tax delinquency or code violations Requiring Presale Inspections: As part of Armstrong County s Blight Remediation Plan, municipalities may be encouraged to require presale inspections as a proactive approach to bringing properties up to code before they are transferred to new owners. Presale inspections also help verify a property s allowable use and compliance with zoning ordinances before sale. Municipalities should ensure there are adequate housing inspectors contracted to operate the program. Imposing presale inspections can help hold absentee owners accountable to local code standards. It also alerts potential buyers to any existing code violations before entering into a sale agreement. Once a municipality adopts the measure, sellers would then be required to pay a set inspection fee prior to the sale. If there are violations found, repairs must be made to bring the property up to code. Typically, inspections fees are paid by the seller. However, it was suggested during discussion by Task Force members that the responsibility of who pays for the repairs whether it is the buyer or seller should be negotiated at the time of a closing. After the inspection takes place, a presale report is issued. Depending on the outcome of negotiations, either the seller corrects the violations before settlement or the buyer corrects the violations within a set number of days after the settlement. A hearing should be permitted if the owner wishes to appeal a code violations finding. Enacting a Quality-of-Life-Violation Ticketing Ordinance: Quality-of-Life-Violation Ticketing can be used for offenses on all types of property and is enacted to address unsightly exterior conditions such as overgrown vegetation, abandoned vehicles, appliances, furniture and general dilapidation of structures. 2 Municipalities that have enacted a ticketing ordinance for property maintenance violations are taking a step toward halting blight in their communities. The Blight Task Force members believe that education about the process is a key factor for success. This takes into consideration a process that includes alerting property owners about the ordinance and of the consequences 2 In June 2017, Irwin Borough, Westmoreland County, approved a Quality-of-Life-Violation Ticketing Ordinance. This ordinance allows the borough to deny permits to property owners who have tax delinquencies and gives the borough the ability to take a property owner to court for repeated violations. Page 5 of 7

7 (fines/citations) of violating the ordinance. Discussions should also be extended to local magistrates. Violations are treated like parking tickets and collected fines can be used to help pay for code enforcement costs. A first offense ticket is typically set at $25. The severity of the fine continues to rise with subsequent offenses going from $25 to $50 to $100 and so on. Quality-of-Life tickets generally have a high response rate, but when the property owner refuses to pay the fine, a citation is issued and the case ends up in court. Since the matter of enforcement was listed in the blight surveys as being a common barrier for municipalities that already had a ticketing ordinance in place, Task Force members suggested that codes enforcement training be made available for codes officers in Armstrong County. Imposing criminal misdemeanor sanctions for multiple code violations: Bringing criminal sanctions against a property owner can act as a strong incentive for repeat violators to bring their property up to code. Misdemeanor charges in these cases can include fines and jail time. Code officials file summary charges as part of routine code enforcement. Under the Municipal Housing Code Avoidance Act, a municipality can initiate a criminal prosecution case against a property owner after more than four convictions of the same code violation that threatens health, safety, or property and in instances where the owner has made no reasonable attempt to rectify the matter. Jail time may be imposed only after conviction and if an owner demonstrates a willful failure to pay fines. A second-degree misdemeanor may be charged when a code violation remains after four summary convictions. A first-degree misdemeanor may be charges for five or more summary convictions. Municipalities taking this route to prosecute chronic violators must be prepared to build a case to aid the prosecution by conducting regular inspections and keeping detailed records. This may involve the creation of a database for tracking violations and property history. Building partnerships and maintaining cooperation between code enforcement agencies and law enforcement is a critical part of the process. In some cases, an interagency task force can be set up to keep track of problem properties. In cases where criminal activity and neighborhood blight are intertwined, communication between the respective municipality, code enforcement agencies and the district attorney s office can be beneficial in addressing issues related to the problem properties. Denial of permits to owners who have tax delinquency or code violations: Municipalities that adopt a permit denial law (under Act 90 of 2010 Neighborhood Blight Reclamation and Revitalization Act) have the authority to deny municipal permits to property owners who have serious code violations or substantial real estate tax delinquencies. Permits that Page 6 of 7

8 can be denied include building, occupancy and zoning permits. Denials are issued by a zoning hearing board or other entity with jurisdiction to make decisions under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. A permit denial should not impose any costs on a municipality. Permit denial is directed at owners who invest in some of their properties while neglecting others, to the point of deterioration. Municipalities wishing to adopt a permit denial law must draft a policy outlining the procedures, and be prepared to work cooperatively with other municipalities since permit denial may be based in some instances on properties located outside a given municipality. When it comes to issuing a denial, the municipality must include in writing: the street address, municipality and county where the property is located, and the court and docket number for each parcel cited. The denial must also state that the applicant may request a letter of compliance from the relevant state agency, municipality, or school district to show that the delinquency or violation has been resolved. All municipal permit denials may remain in effect until a letter of compliance is provided or an agreement on a remediation plan is reached within 90 days. A municipality must add language to its local code that grants a privilege to deny municipal permits pursuant to Act 90. A written policy should also be written outlining procedures for permit denial. Municipalities must search magisterial district court docket sheets to identify property owners who have serious code violations. Municipalities may also require all permit applicants to complete a disclosure form listing all of their owned properties within Pennsylvania and affirming that they have no tax delinquencies or serious code violations. III. Establishing a dedicated source of funding In January 2017, Armstrong County was awarded a $100,000 Community Development Initiatives Program grant from the Department of Community and Economic Development. This grant is funding the initial effort to identify the scope the problem in the county and will be used to provide technical assistance to local municipalities and acquire and redevelop individual properties. It is clear from the municipal survey results, that the scope of the problem will require significantly more resources. The task force strongly recommends that the county create a fund dedicated exclusively to combat blight. The task force recommends that, as provided for by PA Act 152, the Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution to establish a demolition fund though an increase in recording fees. It is projected that this would generate over $50,000 annually and would provide a sustainable revenue source to demolish blighted properties. The task force also recommends that the county pursue other grant sources such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and Pennsylvania Housing Affordability and Rehabilitation Enhancement (PHARE) funds. Page 7 of 7