November 4, 2011
Dear Community Development Director:
You have several questions related to the interplay between the city’s building codes and its
Slum Clearance Ordinance. I will try to handle those questions in order.
1. Should the Housing Board of Adjustments and Appeals be renamed and reauthorized to hear appeals under the new code [2006 International Property Maintenance Code]?
As the background for this question indicates, the old Standard Housing Code has pretty much disappeared from the municipal landscape in Tennessee and elsewhere. However, in Manning City of
Lebanon, 124 S.W. 3d 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), it was held that the city could demolish a dilapidated structure under either the Slum Clearance Ordinance or under the Standard Housing Code. I can think of no reason that is not true with respect to the Slum Clearance Ordinance and the2006 international
Building Code (2006 IBC). Section 115 of the2006 IBC provides for the removal of unsafe structures.
But the Slum Clearance Statute found at Tennessee Code Annotated, § 13-21-101 et seq. does not provide for an appeals board, while Section 112 of the IBC does provide for an appeals board (and
Appendix A of the IBC contains a sample ordinance for such a board]. My personal preference has always been for the handling of the demolition of unsafe and dilapidated structure through the Slum clearance Ordinance because that ordinance authorizes an administrative process to carry out that procedure and it does not require the use of an appeals board. But I can certainly see the arguments in favor of the use of an appeals board for that process. Presumably, there is no reason a city could not graft an appeals board onto the Slum clearance Ordinance without doing damage to that Ordinance. If a city chooses to go that route, it would have the option of proceeding in a structure demolition case under the Slum Clearance Ordinance or under the 2006 IBC.
2. What should be the relationship between the property maintenance code and the “Slum
Clearance Ordinance”? I am not sure that there should be much of a relationship, the Slum Clearance
Ordinance being an ordinance authorized and designed for a very specific purpose that does not depend upon the 2006 IBC. It appears to me that the Slum clearance Ordinance is more exacting with respect to the findings required to support an order of demolition than is the 2006 IBC. Another problem with the use of the use of the administrative process for structure demolition under the 2006 IBC is that I am not sure that the state’s adoption of the IBC takes care of the problem of the apparent necessity for a municipality to be able to point to some statute authorizing the administrative process in lieu of the courts, to enforce ordinances. However, as you are aware, a statue was passed two years ago that allows municipalities to enforce building code violations through an administrative process. So far, that process has not gotten off the ground, although MTAS attorneys are going to a training course on the use of that process at the end of November. But frankly, it appears to me that the administrative process it authorizes for such purposes is unnecessarily cumbersome—far more so than is the administrative process authorized to be used by municipalities under the Slum Clearance Ordinance— even if a board of appeals were to be grafted onto it. In addition, the Slum Clearance Ordinance has been successfully defended against various challenges over the years, and for that reason seems to me to be the preferred vehicle for handling serious structural repairs and demolitions arising from dilapidation.

3. How long should a property owner have to begin work to repair (or demolish) unsafe or dilapidated structure?
I have been asked this question several times over the years, and have no ironclad answer. I certainly agree that six months is too long. Neither the Slum clearance Ordinance nor the 2006 IBC contain a specific time to begin the work at issue. Tennessee Code Annotated, § 13-21-103(3)(A) and
(B), respectively give the public officer the right to set a “time specified in the order” to repair, or to demolish the structure. The 206 IBC, § 115 to set a “stipulated time” within which the structure is required to be repaired or demolished. It also says that “Such notice shall require the person thus notified to declare immediately to the building official acceptance or rejection of the terms of the order.” The time specified for repair or demolition of the structure under either the Slum Clearance
Ordinance or the 2006 IBC should probably be based upon the circumstances , and be reasonable under those circumstances. (But I note that the Property Review Commission authorized to be established in
Tennessee Code Annotated, § 13-21-201 et seq. require that commission to give the property owner of blighted or deteriorated property 90 days to abate the conditions that render I blighted, but allow extensions). If the property owner makes an appearance to contest the order or for any reason, negotiations between the building official and the property owner as to a repair or demolition schedule can occur.
4. If the property is required to be repaired under the Slum Clearance Ordinance what remedies does the city have if the property owner does not make the repairs within the prescribed time?
Tennessee code Annotated, § 13-21-103(3) prescribes the remedies the city can exercise in such an event: order the building vacated and closed, the cost of repairs or demolition done by the city can be made a lien against the property, and:
These costs shall be collected by the municipal tax collector or county trustee at the same time and in the same manner as taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalty and interest as delinquent property taxes as set for the in §§ 67-
5-2910 and 67-5-2410.
Attorney general’s Opinion outlines that remedy in more detail with respect to the “Dirty Lot
Law” found at Tennessee Code Annotated, 6-56-113, but which appears to also apply to the Slum
Clearance Ordinance as well.
In addition, an action for debt can be filed by the city to recover the cost of repair or demolition, but I know of no municipality that has used this method of recovering costs of repair or demolition. The
Slum Clearance Ordinance also declares that the property is also subject to the law of nuisance. The
Tennessee Supreme Court also suggested the application of the law of nuisance to remedy property maintenance problems in Town of Nolensville v. King, 151 S.W.3d (Tenn. 2004), but that remedy appears to generally be a costly one for a city.
Those remedies are contained within the Slum Clearance Ordinance itself; I know of no others available to a city.
5. under what circumstances might it be better to act through the Vacant Property Review
Board of acquire the property outright prior to demolition?

The answer to this question seems to me to depend more on how much money the city can afford to spend on the acquisition and maintenance of property which will become the city’s under the eminent domain statutes, not to mention the potential costs and inconvenience to the city of becoming a landlord. I have not checked to determine whether any cities use this statute and what their experiences have been with it. The acquisition of any property probably should be tied to certain clear goals and objectives of the city for both the land proposed to be obtained and the surrounding land.
The willy-nilly acquisition of blighted land all over the city merely because it is blighted could lead the city to land expenditures that it will never recover.
6. Should the Slum Clearance Ordinance process be modified to accommodate the Administrate
Haring Officer?
In my view, the answer for right now is no. As I have pointed out in the answer to Questions 1 and 2, the Slum Clearance Ordinance contains a relatively simple, and tried and test4ed method for the repair and demolition of dilapidated property. At the present, the administrative hearing officer process seems to me to add an unnecessarily complicated level to that process.