VPWG/BAC Meeting Minutes DRAFT
May 11th, 2012
In Attendance: Darrel Rapp, Swissvale Borough; Demi Kolke, OBB; Talia Piazza, PPND; Ed Lewis, Fineview
Citizens Council; Kevin Hanley, Central Northside Neighborhood Council; Alex Pazuchanis, Office of
Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak; Emily Keebler, Office of Councilman Patrick Dowd; Jon Huck, Northside
Leadership Conference; Darla D’Anna, Mount Washington CDC; Lance Chimka, ACED; Dan Wood, Office of
Councilman Danielle Lavelle; Barb Role, Sharpsburg Borough; Jan Barbus, Sharpsburg Borough; Jay
Rickabaugh, CONNECT; Kathy Risko, CONNECT; Robert Germany, Larimer Consensus Group; Tracey Evans,
Wilkinsburg CDC; Aggie Brose; Bloomfield Garfield Corp; Bethany Davidson, PCRG; Ed Nusser, PCRG
Property Reserve Update
BDavidson updated the group on the October Treasurer’s Sale. Info request is in but results have not been
received yet.
BGC has recently faced issues when closing on properties in the Property Reserve. The reserve saves money
for groups, but when settling on one property, the city settles multiple, which creates holding costs for
organizations, which is counter to the purpose of the Reserve.
State Tools and Policies Discussion
*** Page numbers in the minutes correspond to the Housing Alliance’s report New Tools to Address Blight and
Abandonment which is available at the BAC members’ webpage*** (www.pcrg.org/programs/bac/members)
Key Definitions:
Page 8 Defines Abandonment, however, the state definition does not mean that local communities are
defining it in the same way. For consistency, communities could adopt this definition to codify what
abandonment is. Standard definitions are key to addressing the problem.
From New Tools: Abandoned Property is property that is either voluntarily surrendered or acknowledged by
the owner(s) as abandoned. Property can also be considered abandoned if a demolition lien has gone unpaid
for 6 months, or if back taxes exceed 150% of FMV. This applies to all property, lots or structure
Need for Agency and Department Coordination
Many of the tools discussed today require active code enforcement and court systems, only a handful of these
tools can be done by a municipal government or a community group alone.
Page 17:
Act 99 – Pre-Sale Inspection for Code Enforcement
If a code violation exists at sale, muni. can enforce abatement of that violation with the new owner. This
requires that code enforcement inspect the house pre-sale.
-In order for inspection, sales need to be known, how do municipalities know property is being sold, or how
can they find out?
o NSLC uses real estate listings to track when properties go from “for sale” to “under agreement.” Using
this listing, they can be notified when listing changes.
o Sharpsburg requires certificate of occupancy, this requires coordination but certificate could/should
hinge on Code Enforcement inspection.
o Pittsburgh only inspects when rehabs are occurring, doesn’t have the manpower to inspect all sales.
-In an ideal world, there would be no occupancy permit until code enforcement officer inspects. This does not
occur in Pittsburgh.
-This can be a two way street, could CDC’s or municipalities educate new buyers on this?
-In parts of the region, this tool could be seen as punitive to live-in rehabber who are putting work into their
house, but may be unable to address all code violations in the defined time period.
-Staff addressed that all the tools discussed today are targeted, surgical approaches, not blanket tools to be
used everywhere. Act 99 but could be targeted towards investors.
ACTION around Act 99:– Advocate for BBI to do pre-sale inspections
Code Enforcement – Criminal Misdemeanors
-Page 18: District Attorney’s role in this system.
-City has disruptive properties ordinance, same code violation four times can become a criminal misdemeanor
-Sharpsburg has a three strikes ordinance. 3 strikes on disruptive property ordinance and tenants are evicted
and are not allowed to move into another property in Sharpsburg. 3 strikes count as any 3 times police are
called to the same housing unit.
ACTION – Analysis of similarities/differences of Wilkinsburg, Sharpsburg, Pittsburgh, and other areas’
disruptive property ordinances
ACT 90-Omnibus legislation
3 major pieces
Asset Attachment: Allows for local municipalities to take property liens and attach to an individual’s assets,
liens follow the person, not the property as historically done.
 Can we attach to the partners of LLC’s or only to the LLC? Don’t know – for future research.
 Attachment can go through Court of Common Pleas or District Magistrate
Permit Denial: allows a government agency to deny new permits to landowners who are code and/or tax
liened.
o Requires coordination between departments/agencies
o Statewide registry or database would make this tool even more effective
 DCED could be steward of this, municipalities can opt into registry, but that would force compliance
with State methods.
 Can Local municipalities have a local version of this tool, within the county or within a single
municipality?
 It is possible to pay for advanced access to property search by owner’s name. He will look into what
access ACED currently has and current methods for allowing community groups access.
 PCRG has advocated for reinstatement of name search function, PCRG has gotten access by emailing
ACED on individual case by case basis. Typically had to send Organization name, property address, and
the reason for searching.
 Could name search be a baby step to tracking LLC owners/partners?
 Articles of incorporation are filed with State, would make sense for state to track this
 Statewide or county program to track this information could be long term goal
 City requires all LLC partners to be listed in T/Sale, perhaps Sheriff’s Sale could require this as well
ACTION Revisit Discussion with the County to put the name search function back on the County assessment
website
Extradition of Property Owners (page 22)-Allows municipalities to request extradition from home state to the
state where egregious housing-related violations have occurred, to be present at court
 Very expensive process
 Doesn’t always make financial sense, but could be a useful threat.
Conservatorship: Allows another entity (government, private individual, company, nonprofit) to become the
court-appointed conservator of a vacant structure, bringing it up to code, and, eventually transferring
ownership
-If the owner of a property has died, this can create a dead end property in the current system,. This process
still requires notice be given to next of kin, so if next of kin cannot be found or if there is no next of kin,
Conservatorship does not solve the problem of dead end properties.
-This process provides for a period of time where an individual doesn’t own the property but can take care of
it, bring it up to code, etc. After a period of time expires, this individual can then petition to become full owner
o If property is sold to third party or next of kin comes forward, they must make the individual whole,
won’t compensate for time but will compensate financially.
-Why not use VPRP in county?
o Most ideal property for Conservatorship would be one without significant back taxes
o Big point of this law is that existing mortgages are eligible to be subordinated by new debt,
conservator can secure mortgage against property and that new mortgage will take first position above old
debt. Conservator must go back to original mortgage holder to request a new loan first, if they decline, then
you can pursue other financing options.
-What is process for taking ownership?
o Go back to court to petition for ownership, prove that you have contacted or attempted to contact
owner or next of kin
o Public sale: someone else can purchase but they must make conservator whole
o Can’t include profit margin in upset price, only true cost
-Most properties are more appropriate for VPRP due to tax liens
Property Donation (Page 27)
-Can always accept donations but important factor is negotiation of 3TB tax forgiveness
-Trickier outside of City of Pittsburgh in areas where municipal and school district borders don’t match up
-Deterrents:
o Municipalities are required to put properties out to bid if they are selling them, this can act a
deterrent to accepting properties in the first place
o Taxes can be taken away with negotiation but other liens remain, which can make VPRP preferable
o Govt. typically doesn’t have desire to own or capacity to maintain properties
Adverse Possession
o Comes from Old English law - If an individual can prove maintenance of next door land for 21 years,
they can become owner of it. There has been discussion of reducing time limit to 10 years.
-Is this something for the group to explore?
o Catch 22 if individuals don’t know it exists, they won’t use it
o Process does help w/ chain of title and ownership.
o How hard would it be to get this law passed? Is this a heavy lift?
 Could me much better places for the group to spend political capital
o What happens if someone fences off side yard then sells before 10 years? What about clean title?
 Clock restarts on new owners if sale occurs prior to 10 year time period. Title issues are still up for
debate since law doesn’t exist yet.
Next Steps – Reach out to Legal expert on State Tools for future topics?
County
-Begin discussion with County officials on reinstating name search function for community groups and/or
local government
Statewide
-permitting system
-land banks
-PLCM or PSATS State borough association, what are they working on?
Municipality
-Cross Training on C. Enforcement (LGA currently working on this)
Analysis
-Nuisance ordinances in Sharpsburg, Wilkinsburg, Pittsburgh
-Inspections pre-sale? How could these happen?
-Assessment formula? What is FMV and how do you get there?
There was no more discussion and the group adjourned.