Charlotte City Council
Housing and Neighborhood Development
Committee
Summary Minutes
May 10, 2006
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
ACTION
I.
Subject:
Inventory of Boarded Up Structures
The Committee unanimously voted to direct City Staff to undertake an inventory
of boarded up structures and develop a proposed ordinance. The
recommendation will be on the May 22 Council agenda.
II.
Subject:
Neighborhood Ombudsman (Part 1) – Council Priority
The Committee took no action on the Neighborhood Ombudsman. Staff will
continue working to bring a definite design of the ombudsman role back to the
Committee at their next meeting.
Present:
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Council Members Michael Barnes, Susan Burgess, Anthony Foxx, and Don Lochman
Absent:
Council Member Patrick Mumford
Staff:
Julie Burch, Captain Vincent Cesena, Stephanie Small, Major Ruth Story and Stanley
Watkins
Others:
Time:
Vincent Frisina, Windsor Park Neighborhood Association
Ted Fillette, Legal Services of Southern Piedmont
Michael Jenkins, Neighborhood Development - Code Enforcement
Yvonne Stafford, Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now
Mary Wilson, Friendship Baptist Church Community Development
Corporation
12:15 PM – 1:35 PM
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Packet – May 10, 2006
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for May 10, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
ACTION
I.
Inventory of Boarded Up Structures
Stanley Watkins presented information on the Boarded-up Structures Inventory. Key points include
the following:
Background:
At the November 22, 2005, Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee meeting, Vincent
Frisina, acting on behalf of a Citizen Coalition, requested that the City conduct a city-wide inventory
of boarded-up structures. Mr. Frisina expressed that boarded-up structures detract from overall
community appearance. Mr. Frisina suggested that the City’s Code Enforcement staff conduct a
survey to provide a baseline of information that will be used as the prelude to further analysis of the
issue.
Analysis:
Neighborhood Development examined local practices and conducted research to learn how other
cities handle the issue of boarded-up structures. Below is a summary of our findings:
ƒ
We are not sure of the number of existing boarded-up structures in the City of Charlotte. There
is no source that collects this information. Staff estimates that there are approximately 1,500 to
1,800 boarded-up structures at any given time, out of an approximate 279,000 housing units in
the City.
ƒ
There is no local code that prevents structures from being boarded-up.
ƒ
There is a public safety benefit gained by boarding-up structures. Often times housing units are
boarded-up to prevent vandalism to the structure or due to encouragement from the city, to
prevent drug or other criminal activity, in the structure.
ƒ
The city has a process to report any housing unit for inspection, boarded-up or otherwise.
Residents can report boarded-up structures as part of our normal code enforcement process
(Petition with five signatures or a referral from a public official, i.e., community policy officer.)
ƒ
Some cities place aesthetic requirements on boarded-up structures such as requiring the boards
be painted the same color as the exterior of the house or requiring the units be boarded-up from
the inside.
ƒ
Some cities attempt to limit the time period that a housing unit can be boarded-up (i.e., six
months). Some cities require the owner to demonstrate they are trying to sell the unit at a
reasonable price, through a multiple listing services while other cities assess major fines (i.e.,
$2,500) for having a boarded-up structure.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for May 10, 2006
Page 3
If the Committee is interested in pursuing a policy regulating boarded-up structures, an inventory is
necessary to establish the magnitude of the problem. Staff has identified three options for the
Committee’s consideration:
1. Staff Conducts Inventory
1a. The City’s Code Enforcement
staff will conduct the inventory.
It is expected to take 3 – 4 weeks
to conduct the inventory. This
would include driving every
street, recording the data,
finding property information,
developing the database and
producing a final report. We
feel it would be major impact on
our housing and nuisance
enforcement efforts. Inspectors
would be taken away from their
normal duties to undertake the
inventory. This would put us
approximately 3 weeks behind in
our inspection efforts. Because
of the seasonality of work, a
December to February time
period would be best to
undertake the assignment.
2. Hire Consultant
Hire UNC-Charlotte to perform the
work. Based on conversations with
the University it may take $40,000 to
$50,000 to inventory the City.
Because of the academic calendar, the
work most likely can be accomplished
in the Fall 2006.
3. Do not conduct the Inventory
Do not undertake an inventory.
Encourage citizens to use the normal
code enforcement process (petition
with five signatures or a referral from
a public official) to report boarded-up
structures.
2a. Variations of the above are to
only inventory the City’s 27
Challenged Neighborhood
Statistical Areas or the nine
revitalization neighborhoods.
This would have considerable
less impact on staff time and
could be accomplished in much
less time.
Questions/Answers/Comments:
Lochman:
You mentioned that some cities attempt to limit the time period that a housing unit
can be boarded-up (i.e., six months). What happens to those structures after the sixmonth period?
Watkins:
We did not do that level of research.
Lochman:
You also mentioned that some cities assess major fines (i.e., $2,500) for having a
boarded-up structure. What has been the success in collecting those major fines?
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for May 10, 2006
Page 4
Again, we did not do that level of research. We will need to do more detailed
research to answer those questions.
Barnes:
Is the cost for boarding up structures passed on to the owner?
Jenkins:
If we have a Council ordinance, the owner pays. If we do not have an ordinance the
City pays for the cost of having it boarded-up.
Barnes:
Have we employed any approaches used by other cities?
Watkins:
No, but we can employ any of these ideas. We have begun using an acquisition
strategy with some of the boarded-up structures in Druid Hills.
Lochman:
Do we have more boarded up structures than we had five years ago?
Jenkins:
Yes.
Foxx:
Have we done any research to identify why we have so many boarded up structures?
Watkins:
No.
Foxx:
You recommended using UNC-C to do the research. Why are you recommending
them rather than Johnson C. Smith University?
Watkins:
I normally use them as a benchmark, but we could obtain anyone to do the work
through a Request for Proposal process.
Burgess:
Would we only enforce this in the 27 challenged neighborhoods?
Watkins:
No, we would have to enforce it in all neighborhoods.
Lochman:
We need to know the magnitude of the problem, but we also need to start
developing a policy regarding boarded up structures.
Stafford:
There are a number of boarded-up structures in the Villa Heights neighborhood.
Watkins:
Please share those address with us and I will have Code Enforcement staff come out
and take a look at those properties.
Wilson:
The New Brooklyn Initiative Steering Committee, in conjunction with Johnson C.
Smith University’s Department of Sociology, is in the process of doing a study on
the number of boarded-up structures in several of the neighborhoods in District 2.
We will be happy to share these results when the study is complete.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for May 10, 2006
Page 5
Foxx:
Studying the problem is great, but we need to develop a timeline and action pan to
address the problem.
Watkins:
If you would like, staff can develop an ordinance to address this issue. It will take us
about 60 to 90 days to do the work.
Barnes:
What will be bumped if we direct staff to develop a policy? Also, is it possible to
increase Code Enforcement resources to address any safety issues related to boarded
up structures?
Watkins:
Code Enforcement can address any safety issues.
Fillette:
I think you already have a mechanism in place to address this issue. Section 11-40 of
the City’s Minimum Housing Ordinance: In Rem Action by Code Enforcement Official;
Placarding.
Watkins:
We do enforce the ordinance. In most cases when a house is brought into
compliance with the code, a property owner can still board-up the house.
Next Steps/Action:
Council Member Barnes made a motion recommending that staff be directed to undertake an
inventory of boarded-up structures and develop a proposed ordinance to identify the magnitude of
the problem. The Committee also asked staff to continue reviewing information on how other cities
handle the issue and continue working with community partners. Council Member Foxx seconded
the motion. There was additional discussion about the cost of the study and the appropriate area for
the study. The Committee unanimously approved the motion.
II.
Neighborhood Ombudsman (Part I)
ƒ Mr. Watkins explained that the objective of today’s discussion is to review our current service
delivery model and to get additional input from the Committee about the parameters of the
neighborhood ombudsman’s role.
ƒ
Captain Cesena explained that the role of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s (CMPD)
Community Coordinators is to work with the Community through a partnership. He explained
that CMPDs Community Coordinators meet with neighborhood groups once per month to
assist them with issues like establishing Neighborhood Crime Watch Programs and various
community problems.
Questions/Answers/Comments:
Barnes:
Do you view policing as the primary role of a Community Coordinator and serving
neighborhoods as a secondary role?
Cesena:
I don’t think you can separate the two roles.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for May 10, 2006
Page 6
Barnes:
The neighborhood ombudsman roles will be narrowly tailored to serve the
community and would not involve any policing. The neighborhood ombudsman
will be charged with tasks like identifying community leaders and establishing Home
Owners Associations. The role will be a long-term approach to solving complex
community issues rather than the short-term approach used by CMPDs Community
Coordinators.
Burgess:
How many Neighborhood Crime Watch Organizations do we have in place?
Cesena:
We have 2,600 neighborhoods. However, only about 100 of these are active
Neighborhood Watch Programs.
Burgess:
How do you evaluate the effectiveness of Neighborhood Watch Programs?
Cesena:
The active ones are very effective.
Foxx:
We understand that most people do not realize the value of a homeowners
association. Therefore, I believe that it’s our responsibility to go to them to help
them establish one rather than waiting for them to come to us.
Watkins:
This is one of the distinctions of the neighborhood ombudsman role. The
neighborhood ombudsman will work to develop the capacity of a group so that they
are sustained over the long-term.
Foxx:
I don’t feel like we have a good idea on how best to solve community problems and
we need to do something about this.
Lochman:
Communities must deal with problems from within.
Burgess:
All neighborhoods have the capacity to organize. They just need help and that’s
what I see the neighborhood ombudsman doing.
Watkins:
The neighborhood ombudsman will teach neighborhood leaders how to organize.
Foxx:
Another issue is the lack of infrastructure investment. The City has some
responsibility in making neighborhoods attractive places to live.
Foxx:
Within the parameters that we’ve given, it is important that the neighborhood
ombudsman must be flexible so that they are able to deal with a number of
community issues because all neighborhoods are different and they each have
unique issues.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for May 10, 2006
Page 7
Watkins:
Staff will continue our work and bring you back a definite design of the
neighborhood ombudsman role.
Next Steps/Action:
The Committee took no action on the Neighborhood Ombudsman. Staff will continue working to
bring a definite design of the ombudsman role back to the Committee at their next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 PM.
City Council
Housing and Neighborhood Development
Committee Meeting
Wednesday, May 10, 2006 – 12:00 Noon
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center – Room CH-14
Committee Members:
Susan Burgess, Chair
Anthony Foxx, Vice-Chair
Michael Barnes
Don Lochman
Pat Mumford
Staff Resource:
Julie Burch
DRAFT AGENDA
ITEMS FOR DISUSSION
- Inventory of Boarded Up Structures
- Neighborhood Ombudsman – Council Priority
________________________
Distribution:
Mayor/Council
Pam Syfert, City Manager
City Leadership Team
Corporate Communications
Debra Campbell - Planning
Stanley Watkins – Neigh. Dev.
Richard Woodcock – Neigh. Dev.
Stan Wilson – Neigh. Dev.
Stephanie Small – Neigh. Dev.
Walter Abernethy – Neigh. Dev.
Pat Mason – Neigh. Dev.
Ruffin Hall – Budget Office
Mike Nail – Budget Office
Anna Schleunes – City Attorney Office
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
Charles Woodyard –CHA
Pat Garrett – CMHP
Dave Stephens – CMPD
Chief Darrel Stephens – CMPD
Boarded Up Structures Inventory
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
May 10, 2006
Committee Action:
Discuss citizens’ request to conduct a city-wide inventory of boarded-up structures and advise staff on next
steps.
Background:
At the November 22, 2005, Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee meeting, Vincent
Frisina, acting on behalf of a Citizen Coalition, requested that the City conduct a city-wide survey of
boarded-up structures. Mr. Frisina expressed that boarded-up structures detract from overall community
appearance. Mr. Frisina suggested that the City’s Code Enforcement staff conduct a survey to provide a
baseline of information that will be used as the prelude to further analysis of the issue.
Analysis:
Neighborhood Development examined local practices and conducted research to learn how other cities
handle the issue of boarded-up structures. Below is a summary of our findings:
ƒ
We are not sure of the number of existing boarded-up structures in the City of Charlotte. There is no
source that collects this information. Staff estimates that there are approximately 1,500 to 1,800
boarded-up structures at any given time, out of an approximate 279,000 housing units in the City.
ƒ
There is no local code that prevents structures from being boarded-up.
ƒ
There is a public safety benefit gained by boarding-up structures. Often times housing units are
boarded-up to prevent vandalism to the structure or due to encouragement from the city, to prevent
drug or other criminal activity, in the structure.
ƒ
The city has a process to report any housing unit for inspection, boarded-up or otherwise. Residents
can report boarded-up structures as part of our normal code enforcement process (Petition with five
signatures or a referral from a public official, i.e., community policy officer.)
ƒ
Some cities place aesthetic requirements on boarded-up structures such as requiring the boards be
painted the same color as the exterior of the house or requiring the units be boarded-up from the
inside.
ƒ
Some cities attempt to limit the time period that a housing unit can be boarded-up (i.e., six months).
Some cities require the owner to demonstrate they are trying to sell the unit at a reasonable price,
through a multiple listing services and other cities assess major fines (i.e., $2,500) for having a boardedup structure.
If the Committee is interested in pursuing a policy regulating boarded-up structures, an inventory is
necessary to establish the magnitude of the problem. Staff has identified three options for the Committee’s
consideration:
1. Staff Conducts Inventory
1a. The City’s Code Enforcement
staff will conduct the inventory.
It is expected to take 3 – 4 weeks
to conduct the inventory. This
would include driving every
street, recording the data,
finding property information,
developing the database and
producing a final report. We
feel it would be major impact on
our housing and nuisance
enforcement efforts. Inspectors
would be taken away from their
normal duties to undertake the
inventory. This would put us
approximately 3 weeks behind in
our inspection efforts. Because
of the seasonality of work, a
December to February time
period would be best to
undertake the assignment.
2. Hire Consultant
Hire UNC-Charlotte to perform the
work. Based on conversations with
the University it may take $40,000 to
$50,000 to inventory the City.
Because of the academic calendar,
the work most likely can be
accomplished in the Fall 2006.
3. Do not conduct the Inventory
Do not undertake an inventory.
Encourage citizens to use the normal
code enforcement process (petition
with five signatures or a referral from
a public official) to report boarded-up
structures.
2a. Variations of the above are to
only inventory the City’s 27
Challenged Neighborhood
Statistical Areas or the nine
revitalization neighborhoods.
This would have considerable
less impact on staff time and
could be accomplished in much
less time.
City Staff agrees with the Coalition’s assertion that boarded up structures create blight and detract from the
value of neighborhoods. However, staff encourages boarding up houses as a temporary measure for health
and safety reasons. In addition, boarding up houses is often a response to the housing market or an
owner’s economic situation. In our revitalization neighborhoods, the City partners with non-profit agencies
to acquire, renovate and place boarded-up structures back in the market. Examples of this can be found in
the Lakewood neighborhood. Overall, there is no time limit for boarding up homes in our community.
Recommendation:
Due to Code Enforcement’s existing workload, staff recommends having a consultant perform an analysis
of the local situation. The challenge is how the City will pay for it. In the meantime, staff encourages
citizens to call 311 to report any structure they are concerned about.
Neighborhood Ombudsman
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
May 10, 2006
Committee Action:
Discuss the role and parameters of establishing a more proactive approach to non-targeted neighborhoods.
City staff will present information on how we currently engage neighborhoods and solicit feedback from
the Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee (Committee) on the proposed neighborhood
ombudsman function and bring forward recommendations at a subsequent meeting.
Background:
At the City Council February 2006 Retreat, the subject of creating a “Neighborhood Ombudsman”
function was discussed. This function would proactively address the needs of declining neighborhoods
outside of the City’s nine revitalization areas. The City Council charged the Committee with examining
this concept and reporting back to full Council.
The City staff prepared some objectives for the Committee’s consideration as part of their review. They
were to:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Assess the need for a more proactive neighborhood approach
Provide information to residents on current city programs and services
Assist neighborhoods in identifying and solving complex problems
Assist neighborhoods in understanding land use and zoning requirements
Provide training and capacity building services to strengthen neighborhood organizations
At the Committee’s March 28, 2006 meeting, they briefly discussed the parameters of such a role for the
city. The discussion included neighborhood advocacy, information and problem-solving roles and capacity
building (leadership and organization development training) functions.