Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2015-08-10 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila Community Affairs & Parks Committee O Verna Seal, Chair O Dennis Robertson O Allan Ekberg AGENDA Distribution: V. Seal C. O'Flaherty D. Robertson R. Turpin A. Ekberg L. Humphrey K. Kruller J. Hight Mayor Haggerton a. Information only. D. Cline Hoa Mai, Code Enforcement Officer MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2015 — 5:30 PM HAZELNUT CONFERENCE ROOM (formerly known as CR #3) at east entrance of City Hall Item Recommended Action Page 1. PRESENTATION(S) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a. Update on Code Enforcement abatement. a. Information only. Pg.I Hoa Mai, Code Enforcement Officer b. Update on Code Enforcement lean process. b. Information only. Pg.7 Mary Hulvey, Code Enforcement Officer c. Update on vacant property registration. c. Information only. Pg.9 Colin Pof,, Planning Intern 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. MISCELLANEOUS Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, August24, 2015 SThe City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 - 433 -1800 (TukwilaCityClerk @TukwilaWA.gov) for assistance. City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks FROM: Jack Pace, Director of Dept. of Community Development BY: Hoa Mai, Code Enforcement Officer DATE: August 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Update - Code Enforcement Abatement ISSUE Status update on Code Enforcement abatement cases. BACKGROUND Abatement is a process the City uses to abate nuisances or code violations when a property owner defaults on a Voluntary Correction Agreement (VCA), or compliance is not met by the compliance date on a Violation Notice and Order, or a written decision issued by the City's Hearing Examiner has not been complied. In some cases, the nuisances or code violations are subject to summary abatement. There are three types of abatements that the City has completed: 1. Abatement by property owners. 2. Abatement by the City. (A property lien is placed against the property upon completion of work.) 3. Abatement that requires Council approval. These cases require the City to take further legal actions against the property owners and require Superior Court approval. (A tax lien is placed against the property upon completion of work.) Code Enforcement primary attempts to work with the owner of the property to achieve code compliance. The code violation is explained to the owner in detail in order to achieve a voluntary abatement agreement. Once an understanding is reached follow -up inspections are made in a timely manner. If compliance is not agreed upon or, the voluntary abatement agreement is not pursued, then progressive legal procedures are followed to obtain compliance. In 2014, Council approved an additional Code Enforcement Officer to address the backlog of abatement cases. In March 2015, this position was filled. On January 20, 2015, at Executive Session, Council authorized court action on 5 Code Enforcement cases. We have been making progress on these cases as well as others (see attachment). • RFA11 -093 (14234 53rd Av S) — property owner has made significant improvement, close to being closed (see before /after photos in attachment). • RFA09 -345 (15026 42nd Av S) — property owner is taking some action to clean up the property. We will be monitoring progress. • RFA13 -044 (15436 42nd Av S) and RFA12 -207 (4108 S 150th St) — Violation Notices & Orders have been prepared and awaiting for City Attorney's review. • RFA13 -085 (4059 S 158th St) — property owner removed overgrowth, weeds, rubbish and debris. Issue of vacant structure still needs to be addressed. • Other progress being made (see attachment). INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 From January 2015 — June 2015, Code Enforcement was able to resolve 14 abatement cases: • 10 by property owners & 4 by the City In 2014, we completed 7 abatements by property owners. And in 2013, we completed 1 abatement by the City. NEXT STEPS Once we complete the 5 cases that were approved by City Council in January 2015, we will once again seek Council approval for additional abatement cases. The following are possible cases: 1. RFA13 -262 (13217 40th Av S) 2. RFA13 -263 (4033 S 128" St) 3. RFA05 -039 (14032 35th Av S) 4. CE14 -0024 (15808 44211 Av S) RECOMMENDATION Information only ATTACHMENTS STATUS UPDATE ON ABATEMENT CASES 2 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 STATUS UPDATE ON ABATEMENT CASES Abatements by Property Owners Properties that were abated by property owners and /or banks as a result of arduous efforts by Code Enforcement. 1. RFA10 -39S / 15010 Macadam Rd S 2. RFA12 -273 / 13112 Military Rd S 3. RFA12 -326 / 14426 42 "d Av S 4. RFA12 -399 / 5155 S 160th St 5. RFA13 -080 / 14209 58th Av S 6. RFA13 -109 / 14935 Interurban Av S 7. RFA13 -122 / 4321 S 140th St 8. RFA13 -159 / 4044 S 152nd St 9. RFA13 -265 / 11837 44th Av S 10. CE14 -0018 / 3756 S 152nd St 11. CE14 -0089 / 13862 381h Av S 12. CE14 -0210 / 148012 42nd Av S 13. CE14 -0216 / 12834 34th AV s 14. CE14 -0217 / 12909 E Marginal Wy S 15. CE14 -0275 / 4232 S 164th St 16. CE14 -0278 / 4236 S 164th St 17. CE15 -0053 / 16659 53`d Av S Abatements by City Properties that the City abated and property liens were assessed. All these were abated in 2015. 1. RFA12 -168 / 12221 44th Av S 2. CE14 -0028 / 3417 S 144th St (lien has been paid back) 3. CE14 -0219 / 13862 38th Av S 4. CE12 -090 / 13521 Macadam Rd S 3 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 4 Abatement Cases Approved by Council in January 2015 1. RFA11 -093 / 14234 53RD AV S Owner of record: Pham Issue(s): Rubbish, junk vehicles, parking, no rental license Status: A Violation Notice & Order was re- issued on 04.20.2015. Property owner and tenants have made significant improvements. Code Enforcement is still working with owner on cleaning up the rest. City Attorney will mostly likely not take any action since the property owner is taking responsibility. Photo taken 06.2015 2. RFA13 -044 / 15436 42nd AV S Owner of record: Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus Issue(s): Collapsed structure, overgrowth, graffiti Status: Violation Notice and Order awaiting for review by the City Attorney. 3. RFA12 -207 / 4108 S 1501h St Owner of record: Douglas Cottrill Issue(s): Overgrowth, junk vehicles, deteriorating structure Status: Violation Notice and Order awaiting for review by the City Attorney. 4. RFA13 -085 / 4059 S 158th St Owner of record: Thelma Baldridge Issue(s): Vacant /deteriorating structure, overgrowth, debris, graffiti Status: Property owner has cut and removed overgrowth and rubbish. The issue of deteriorating structure will be addressed. 5. RFA09 -345 / 15026 42nd AV S Owner of record: Wen Wu Lee Issue(s): Overgrowth, rubbish, graffiti, unfinished construction, vacant structure, default of Voluntary Correction Agreement Status: Graffiti removed, overgrowth is being worked on by property owner. City Attorney has filed, and granted, an Order of Default and Permanent Injunction with Superior Court. El INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 5 Future Abatement Cases for Council Aooroval Once Code Enforcement has completed the 5 cases that were approved by Council in Jan. 2015, we will request for additional abatement approval from City Council. The following properties are possible cases that we recommend for future Council approval. We believe that these will be time - consuming and difficult to resolve but, still need to be addressed. 1. RFA13 -262 / 13217 40th AV S Owner of record: Jackie Dempere Issue(s): Incomplete construction of a two -story addition to existing residence, expired permits • The first building permit was issued in 2006, there have been multiple extensions given on permit D06 -110. • Work has ceased and construction project was abandoned. Recommendation: Issue Violation Notice & Order to obtain permits to complete the construction or remove the addition, give 30 days to comply. 2. RFA13 -263 / 4033 S 1281h St Owner of record: Jackie Dempere Issue(s): Incomplete remodel of home, expired permits, overgrowth, rubbish • Remodel project started in 2003. • All permits have expired (D03 -216, D06 -317, D09 -071). • Work has ceased and project abandoned. • House is open to elements. Recommendation: Issue Violation Notice & Order to obtain permits to complete construction or secure structure, and cut /remove overgrowth and rubbish. 3. RFA05 -039 / 14032 35th AV S Owner of record: Clarice Savage Issue(s): Rubbish, junk vehicles, parking limitations, illegal wirings • Property was abated by the City in 2010. • Lien was released in 2014. • Rubbish, junk vehicles, and parking violations have come back in worse condition than before abatement. • Property owner has violated a permanent injunction set by Superior Court. • Possible foreclosure in progress. 4. CE14 -0024 / 15808 42nd AV S Owner of record: Anne Gillispie Issue(s): Weed overgrowth • Property owner is unable to maintain the property. 5 A City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Jack Pace, Director, Community Development Department BY: Mary Hulvey, Code Enforcement Officer DATE: August 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Code Enforcement LEAN Update ISSUE Update on Code Enforcement Lean Process BACKGROUND Code Enforcement is a critical component to improving neighborhood quality of life and ensuring a safe and healthy community. In September 2014 Code Enforcement began an in -depth analysis of the City's code enforcement processes through LEAN principles and tools. LEAN is a systematic approach to analyzing work processes and to identify /eliminate unnecessary steps and inefficiencies. In identifying these inefficiencies, we can then find alternative ways of accomplishing tasks in less time without sacrificing quality. We performed exercises and experiments to identify the steps and the waste in the work process. We identified challenges to be resolved and we defined our goals and our procedures. During this LEAN training staff discovered that code enforcement serves an average of 323 customers every month [over 3,500 per year] beyond our daily routine and case files. These additional customers are both internal and external that we assist by answering questions, addressing concerns or just being a support system or sound board. On January 26, 2015 Code Enforcement gave a power point presentation to the City Council on LEAN process improvement for Code Enforcement. UPDATE Code Enforcement staff worked with LEAN trainer Larisa Benson to create experiments such as a pre- notice letter to property owner's two -weeks prior to a site visit. The intent of this experiment was to have the violation corrected prior to a code enforcement site inspection. The experiment was less successful than hoped for but many lessons were learned during the process. The experiments increase our ongoing efficiency and where reviewed and adjusted for efficiency at 30 -60 -90 intervals. Some of the outcomes of the LEAN program resulted in implementing the following: 1. Creation of Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual for the department. 2. Creation of new standard forms in TRAKit to be more efficient. 3. We revised the rental housing inspection program to be available for proactive code enforcement. 4. We scheduled community clean ups to create a positive community identity and image. 5. We utilized the Dump Pass Program to help clean up the City. 6. Determined that additional staff was needed reduce the backlog of abatement cases. Results, hired additional Code Enforcement Officer that reduced the backlog of cases. 7 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 7. LEAN process to increase proactive code enforcement within the City and to improve overall processes for better customer service and efficiency. NEXT STEPS LEAN has provided staff with many positive benefits. The key benefit received from LEAN is how staff now views each process. Staff is constantly analyzing existing processes to fine -tune the code enforcement techniques used to make them more efficient, effective, and productive. FINANCIAL IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION Information Only ATTACHMENTS None City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor TO: Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks FROM: Jack Pace, Director of Dept. of Community Development BY: Colin Poff, Planning Intern DATE: August 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Vacant Property Registration Ordinance Issue Should the City of Tukwila adopt a Vacant Property Registration Ordinance (VPR)? Background 1. Community Affairs and Parks Committee previously requested a briefing on the need for a Vacant Property Registration Ordinance. 2. The City of Tukwila experienced increases in foreclosure rates and vacancies between 2008 and 2012. During this time, code enforcement saw an increase in maintenance and nuisance issues with these properties. However, with an improving real estate market, the number of vacancies in Tukwila has declined in recent years. 3. A Vacant Property Registration Ordinance requires vacant and /or foreclosed properties to register with the City. These properties are then required to meet maintenance criteria set forth by the ordinance, or pay a non - compliance fee. VPRs have increased greatly since the 2008 recession, and there are currently 550 such ordinances in the nation. In Washington State there are currently only 4 active ordinances. 4. Planning staff has done cursory research on VPRs. During this research, staff from the cities of Spokane and Bremerton provided feedback on their experience with the program. Summary of this correspondence, as well as other research, is summarized in attachment 1. Discussion 1. The City of Tukwila currently addresses concerns of property maintenance through citizen complaints. While this solves many issues, keeping an active database of contacts of vacant home property owners would be a benefit to the city. However, research of other cities indicates this uses staff resources intensively. Additionally, property owners, usually banks, in these cities often chose not to address maintenance issues, but rather pay in -lieu fees. 2. The City of Tukwila is one of only a few cities to have a Rental Housing Inspection Program. This program monitors the quality of Tukwila's large stock of rental housing (nearly 60 %). 3. Tukwila's abatement program mostly addresses issues related to vacant properties. !r, INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 4. Because there is no active database of vacant properties, it is unknown how large of a problem this is for the City. However, Tukwila's abatement program mostly addresses issues related to vacant properties. Options 1. Adopt Vacant Property Registration Ordinance 2. Do not adopt Vacant Property Registration Ordinance and rely on current code enforcement procedures 3. Strengthen existing maintenance code and other code enforcement procedures in lieu of Vacant Property Registry Recommendation While the City would benefit from an official list of contacts for vacant properties, a VPR in Tukwila would not substantially improve housing condition compared to current code enforcement procedures and programs. There is also not clear evidence to show that the issue of vacant and foreclosed homes in Tukwila is large enough to warrant a VPR. Staff research indicates that the net benefit of implementing a VPR may not be worth the cost of the program and therefore recommends option two at this time. Financial Impact Option two would incur no additional cost. Staff estimates that implementing a Vacant Property Registration program would require a full FTE. Attachments Vacant Property Registration Ordinances: Summary of Research 10 Vacant Property Registration Ordinances: Summary of Research July 7, 2015 1. Background The purpose of this report is to highlight findings from research done on Vacant Property Registration Ordinances (VPRs). Tukwila City Council has recently shown interest in VPRs. VPRs have increased greatly in the last decade, and there are currently 550 such ordinances. The vast majority have been enacted since the 2008 recession. In Washington State there are currently 4 active ordinances. This report will include a description of VPRs, how they have been used in Washington municipalities, conditions in Tukwila, and questions to consider. 2. What They Are Some of the main purposes of VPRs are as follows: (http; / cs .rn.�a.nityprosgr sson t/tcscsl-1--va.cant- p. r ?.p!.r:�.Y.:.r .8istr tic%n- ordin..nc s ..:.:.pages..- 25.7....p..p.) 1.) To ensure that owners of vacant properties are known to the city and other interested parties and can be reached in necessary. 2.) To ensure that owners of vacant properties are aware of the obligations of ownership under relevant codes and regulations. 3.) To ensure that owners meet minimum standards of maintenance of vacant properties. 4.) To discourage irresponsible investment by internalizing social costs and holding property owners accountable for upkeep. A registration ordinance should include a clear record of which properties and which properties must register; the registration requirements and procedures; expectations of how the owner is to maintain the property; fees to register and penalties for non - compliance. Definitions of vacancy and abandonment may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some VPRs follow a vacancy model, which means a property will need to register after a certain period of vacancy. Others follow a foreclosure model, which means registration follows a formal notice of default. There is also a hybrid model of the two. 11 2 12 3. Examples from WA State (htt : safe uard ro erties.com Resources Vacant Pro ert Re istration /A.as x?filter =v r .......... .....p... /..................... g....................... p........... p................................................. 1............................................... 1......................................................?... ............Y.................. g....................................... 1.............................. p................... ..........................p.... ) i. Bremerton (enacted 2013) htt : safe uard ro erties.com — / n edia VPR %20Attachments 0 dinance IE�remerton %20�JA% p... � ................... g ...................... p........... p........................................................ ........ ........................... ............................................................... ......................................... .. ...... ....................... ...................................................................... ............................... 20VP R %200 rd i na nce. cdf • No fee to register • Maintenance requirements include: Removal of weeds, trash, junk, debris, graffiti. Maintenance of yards, and pools up with city standards • Registrations updated once a year, properties inspected monthly • Program is complaint- based, but properties that appear abandoned are investigated as well • Many fines and penalties were paid by banks instead of any maintenance • Finding a local contact is difficult but Safegaurd has a list of local vendors that can be used ii. Spokane htt : safe uard ro erties.com — / n edia VPR %20Attachments 0 dinance S ol<ane %20�JA %20 p...� ................... g...................... p........... p........................................................ ........ ........................... ............................................................... .............................................................................. �...... p...................................................... ............................... VPR.. � O�J.rd.in .nre.pdf • Received nearly 100 registrations so far, program not fully implemented o Currently registration is voluntary and fees are not being collected • Register includes foreclosed and vacant properties but may be moved to only foreclosed • Looking into using a vendor for an electronic registry, which could save time • "Periodic" monitoring of property • Require maintenance of property and removal of junk, secure property to prevent access by unauthorized persons • Failure to register the property is a class 1 civil infraction. Failure to maintain the property results in the issuance of a criminal misdemeanor violation iii. Tacoma ,btt.p (/ ..l<i.ng5.. cs.rn(stcsry n. s lcs l(t resrn /2 1 ( .5(t res - derelict. ,b.�aildings/ .5.!2224A. • $200 fee to register • Aimed at getting derelict properties back into working condition. Some not in condition to be occupied • Includes commercial and residential properties iv. Pierce County http;(/ oth n str %bean o csrn /n s Ics I/ rticle25865740.ht ll • Does not have a registry, although idea has been proposed recently • Requires that lots be free of grass and weeds more than 24 inches tall within 100 feet of any property • In lieu of a registry, maintenance code was strengthened 4. Conditions in Tukwila: • According to HUD data, Tukwila had a 2.9% foreclosure rate in 2008 with 112 foreclosures out of 3,868 mortgages. Foreclosures increased rapidly in 2011 -2012, but have decreased in the last couple of years due to an improved housing market. • As of 2013, 644, or 19 %, of total single - family housing stock in LDR zones is owned by a taxpayer whose address is different from the site address. Of those properties, a total of 23 were owned by a bank. However, the number of homes that are actually abandoned by the owner could be higher than this. • According to Zillow, in 2014 10.8 per 10,000 homes in Tukwila were sold as foreclosures, higher than the Seattle average of 6.3/10,000. • A Tukwila Abatement list can also be used for information o List is not up to date, conditions may have changed. One possibility is to drive through these neighborhoods to see. King County Parcel Viewer will also show if foreclosed homes have taken on a new owner. • List shows many vacant properties, 16 of which were foreclosures. • Many properties on the list come from citizen nuisance complaints. • Many comments note poor maintenance, squatters, junk or overgrowth. • Tukwila experienced many foreclosures and vacancies from the recession. With a strong real estate market now it is likely more of these properties are being maintained or occupied. S. Questions to Consider: • Do we have enough information to know if this is a problem in Tukwila? Do we need to collect more statistics? • If we target vacant properties, as well as foreclosed properties, how do we find who's responsible and who pays? • What resources will it take to have an effective VPR? • Do we accomplish any similar goals with our current code enforcement process? In other words, is our process of responding to formal complaints effective enough as it is? 3 13