HomeMy WebLinkAboutAbandoned or uninhabitable buildings - full materials.pdf Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Courtney Kramer, Historic Preservation Officer
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Policy development to address properties in extreme disrepair through
adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code or a Demolition by Neglect Ordinance.
MEETING DATE: September 27, 2010
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission review, discuss and provide guidance to
Staff and the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board regarding development of policy to
address buildings in extreme disrepair, abandoned or otherwise unoccupied.
BACKGROUND:
Since 2007, the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board (BHPAB) has sought to develop
and implement a policy or mechanism to protect historic buildings from extensive deterioration
which might render rehabilitation of the structure economically unfeasible. While a rare
occurrence in Bozeman, intentional and/or inadvertent “demolition by neglect” negatively affects the surrounding neighborhood and causes a loss of not only cultural resources but property
values and public safety.
Simultaneously, the City of Bozeman’s adopted code does not fully address how to deal with
derelict, abandoned, foreclosed or unoccupied properties unsecured by the property owners from weather and unwanted intrusion. City Planning and Building Department Code Enforcement
officers do not have sufficient tools in place to properly address buildings which are salvageable
but which have become hazardous to the public health, safety and welfare and convey the
perception of blight. The concern is not limited exclusively to historic properties; this is an issue of concern in the community regardless of construction date.
The result is commercial, industrial and residential properties in which unsecured access points
invite nuisance behavior. Further, properties which have not been properly secured and
mothballed are prone to deterioration as a consequence of weather. Undrained pipes bursting in the winter could lead to extensive damage to an unoccupied property, for example. The loss of property values extends to entire neighborhoods. A recent study found “that homes in close
proximity to vacant structures may lose more than $7,500 in value. Also, home owners near
abandoned structures may pay higher insurance premiums due to an increased risk of property
damage.”1
For buildings designated historic, damage caused by weather intrusion frequently results in structural jeopardy to the building, exacerbating the difficulty in rehabilitating the property for a new use.
Through Bozeman Municipal Code 18.28, the City of Bozeman emphasizes restoration,
rehabilitation and reuse of existing buildings, with exception of those buildings which cannot be economically reused. This caveat in municipal regulations created a loophole for property owners to skirt established regulations intended to protect the public health, welfare, safety and
historic structures. In the case of a historic structure, a property owner practicing intentional
neglect may benefit by receiving a “fix or tear down” order from the Building Department; it
enhances the property owner’s ability to make a case for the historic building’s ultimate dismantling.
In February of 2009 the BHPAB offered an outline of a demolition by neglect ordinance to the
City Commission for policy discussion. The Commission at the time was unsupportive of the
policy initiative, and the BHPAB tabled the matter until the summer of 2010 when Mayor Krauss and the Commission asked for further discussion on the matter.
In reviewing and revising the previous draft policy, the BHPAB worked with Department of
Planning and Building Department Staff, and identified a number of options the City of
Bozeman might pursue to address the issue of unoccupied or abandoned buildings. It is necessary, at this juncture, that the Commission guide the BHPAB and Staff in the direction best suited to achieve their goals.
International Property Maintenance Code:
The first option is for the City of Bozeman to adopt the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). Developed by the International Code Council, the IMPC governs “the minimum
conditions and the responsibilities of persons for maintenance of structures, equipment and
exterior property.” 2
• Chapter 1: Administration. Chapter 1 establishes the necessary legal basis for encorcement of the code by the authority having juridiction. To protect all parties from an
unfair encorcement action, this chapter also sets forth the due process that requirese
corrective actions to be accomplished in a consitutional manners. Police powers are not
unlimited and this chapter identifies those limitations.
The IPMC is broken into eight chapters, as follows:
• Chapter 2: Definitions. Chapter 2 defines key terms used in the code in order to maintan a consensus of the specific meaning of these terms.
• Chapter 3: General Requirements. Chapter 3 provides requirements that are intended
to maintain a minimum level of safety and sanitation for both the general public and the occupants of a structure, and to maintain a building’s structural and weather-resistant
performance.
• Chapter 4: Light, Ventilation and Occupancy Limitations. Chapter 4 sets forth the
requirements for minumum light, ventillation ans space based on the pysiological and psychological impact of these factors on building occupants.
• Chapter 5: Plumbing Facilities and Fixture Requirements. Sanitary and clean
conditions in occupied buildings are dependent upon certain basic plumbing principles,
1 (David Morley June 2010) 2 (International Code Council, Inc. 2006, 3-1)
inculding providing potable water to a buliding, providing fixutres to utilize that water
and removing waste from the building. Chapter 5 establishes the minumum criteria to
verify that these principles are maintained throughout the life of a buliding.
• Chapter 6: Mechanical and Electrical Requirements. The purpose of chapter 6 is to extablish minimum performance requirements for electrical and mechanical facilities and
to establish minimum standards for the safety of such facilities.
• Chapter 6: Fire Safety Requirements. Chapter 7 addresses those fire hazards that arise as the result of a buliding’s occupancy. It also privides minumum requirements for fire safety inssues that are most likely to arise in older buildings.
• Chapter 8: Referenced Standards. Chapter 8 contains all of the information that is
necessary to identify the specific referenced documents ised in the IPMC.
Adopting the Property Maintenance Code would help us by giving more specific guidelines to
follow and use when enforcing the code. The IPMC outlines the scope and intent of the code as it
applies to existing structures. It clarifies the law, establishes the legal basis for enforcement and
specifies procedures to enforce the code while at the same time protecting property owners from
unfair enforcement action… things that are currently dependent on IBC code interpretation by the Building Official.
The IPMC offers the code official the ability to write violation notices, as well as institute
penalties and action to abate the violation. Each municipality can adopt in part, or whole the
IPMC as well as establish what penalties for violation of the IPMC.
The City of Bozeman already has the means to address many of the items outlined in Chapter
Three of the IMPC. Examples include the following:
• The Municipal Code addreses weed control, and public safety.
• Section 110 of the International establishes enforcement tools for properties which are a
threat to human life or adjacent property. It requires the buildng to be secured from
unauthorized entry.
• Section 310 of the IFC gives specifications for secturing buildings from human entry as well.
While important measures in ensureing the public’s health, safety and welfare, these tools only
prevent entrance into a dillapidated building, not repair or abatement of the neglect of the building. Thus the building continues on a path of demolition by neglect which frequently leads
to eventual demolition; this is what the BHPAB wants to prevent.
Adoption of the IPMC by the City of Bozeman is the most straightforward and legally defensible
resolution to the problem. Amending the IPMC to existing code language requires little staff time to craft, vet and clarify with the legal department. The IPMC in Bozeman would be an
ordinance that could resolve the issue of unoccupied buildings on a city-wide level without
specifically targeting one area of town. Further, the IPMC is already established legal code
within the United States, including in Great Falls, Montana, where the City of Great Falls’ Code
Enforcement office utilizes the tool to fight blight.
Adoption of a Demolition by Neglect ordinance:
The BHPAB worked in August and September 2010 to revise the 2009 draft of the demolition by
neglect initiative, the outline of which is included with this memo. The current draft of this ordinance regulates demolition by neglect only upon structues listed individually or within a
historic district on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, this approach would only
apply to those areas of the City that contain historic structures. It would not address more
recently constructed properties that become vacant through abandonment or foreclosure.
Like the IPMC, the demolition by neglect ordinance relies upon code enforcement staff to
investigate compliaints, issue violation notices, initiate civil penalties such a fines, and
authorizes the city to repair structures and lien the property if the owner is unwilling or unable to
do so.
Creating an ordinance like this from scratch would be a huge undertaking and would require
participation from our legal department. While the IPMC provides specific direction in order to
address derelict properties, a demolition by neglect ordinance is untested in Montana.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Staff and the BHPAB respectfully request the Commission to resolve the following:
1. Are abandoned, uninhabited and neglected structures an issue of concern that merits
development of a policy requiring remediation?
1.2. Of the two policies suggested tonight, which would the commission like staff and advisory boards to research further?
a. Adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code
2.3. Adoption of a demolition by neglect ordinance. If the commission directs further
efforts towards a demolition by neglect ordinance, does the commission want the
ordinance to apply to only properties listed as historic, or city-wide? ALTERNATIVES: The commission could direct staff to set the matter aside.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Staff does not believe the fiscal or staffing impacts of adoption of the
IPMC would be significant. Development and adoption of a Demolition by Neglect ordinance would involve significant Building, Fire Planning and Legal staff resources. Enforcement of
either option could be addressed by existing Building, Fire and Planning staff.
If Commission decides to proceed with either of the policy options outlined, Staff can present a
more detailed fiscal impact analysis as part of the next step in the adoption process.
Attachments: Draft outline of a Demolition by Neglect Ordinance, by the BHPAB
February 5, 2009 Commission Policy Meeting minutes
CK/BHPAB memo to Commission for February 5, 2009 Commission Policy Meeting
Report compiled on: September 20, 2010
LINKED POLICY MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
February 5, 2009 *****************************
The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in the Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North
Rouse on Thursday, February 5, 2009. Present were Mayor Kaaren Jacobson, Cr. Eric Bryson,
Cr. Jeff Krauss, Cr. Jeff Rupp, City Manager Chris Kukulski, Finance Director Anna
Rosenberry, Staff Attorney Tim Cooper, Planning Assistant Director Chris Saunders, Planner Courtney Kramer and Deputy City Clerk Aimee Kissel.
0:00:13 A. Call to Order - Noon- 1:30 p.m. - City Commission Meeting Room, City Hall,
121 N. Rouse
0:00:13 B. Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence
0:00:49 C. Public Comment
Mayor Jacobson opened public comment. No person commented.
Mayor Jacobson closed public comment.
0:01:04 D. Round Table Discussion (Identifying potential future agenda items arising
from the prior City Commission Meeting.)
0:01:26 E. Policy Discussion
0:01:27 1. Demolition by Neglect Report (Kramer/Historic Preservation Advisory
Board)
0:01:28 Courtney Kramer
Ms. Kramer gave the staff presentation regarding a demolition by neglect Ordinance the Historic
Preservation Advisory Board has been drafting. Ms. Kramer asked for policy direction from the
commissioners and Mayor. See PowerPoint hand-out for a detailed description of a suggested definition, objectives for the Ordinance, eligibility, and the proposed process. The Board
identified the following policy questions for commission consideration and guidance: Is the
definition of demolition by neglect appropriate? Does the commission accept the application of
this policy to both historic and modern completed properties? Does the commission believe
fines are an appropriate method of enforcement of this ordinance?
0:17:49 Mayor Jacobson
Mayor Jacobson asked Ms. Kramer how many cities around the country have these kinds of
ordinances.
0:17:54 Ms. Kramer
Policy Minutes of the Bozeman City Commission, February 5, 2009
2
These types of Ordinances are usually seen in large cities. Butte has the frame-work but not
enforcement in place.
0:19:00 Chris Saunders, Asst. Planning Director This has been receiving more awareness lately because of the current issues related to foreclosed homes.
0:19:46 Cr. Bryson
Cr. Bryson asked how we levy fines to people who may not otherwise be able to keep up their house.
0:19:55Ms. Kramer
The board grappled with that issue extensively. They came to the conclusion that if you can't
afford to maintain your property, you should sell it. 0:20:25 Cr. Bryson
Cr. Bryson brought up the concept of property rights.
0:20:49 Cr. Bryson Cr. Bryson asked if this Ordinance would be applicable to public buildings.
0:20:54 Ms. Kramer
Ms. Kramer responded that city property would not be exempt from the Ordinance.
0:21:11 Cr. Bryson Cr. Bryson asked what resources would be used if the city did need to work on a property that
the owner did not take care of.
0:21:34 Ms. Kramer Ms. Kramer did not have details regarding funding sources.
0:22:17 Mr. Saunders
Over time the city would build up some resources to provide support through the brick and
mortar grants that would be offered through the BHPAB. 0:22:55 Cr. Bryson
Cr. Bryson asked about the requirements for a certificate of appropriateness for homes over 50
years old.
0:23:20 Ms. Kramer Ms. Kramer explained that houses outside of the conservation over-lay will not have to have to
get a certificate of appropriateness.
0:24:20 Cr. Bryson
Policy Minutes of the Bozeman City Commission, February 5, 2009
3
Cr. Bryson clarified that every building falling within the demolition by neglect ordinance that is
over 50 years old would need to apply for a certificate of appropriateness. Ms. Kramer
confirmed that was correct.
0:24:50 Ms. Kramer Ms. Kramer confirmed that the proposed Ordinance would apply for the entire city.
0:25:38 Mr. Saunders
Mr. Saunders clarified that if a building did not have an occupancy permit it would not eligible to fall within this ordinance.
0:27:07 Cr. Becker
Cr. Becker asked how to reconcile this gross deviation from existing code violation procedures
and whether how this Ordinance would be implemented is legal. 0:27:52 Tim Cooper, Staff Attorney
After reviewing similar ordinances across the nation, Mr. Cooper said that there are generally
two kinds of these ordinances, historical preservation and land-mark designation. There needs to
be a substantial relationship with health, safety and morals and protection for public welfare. They usually have an anti-neglect or minimum maintenance provision with affirmative action on the part of property owners. Some are maintained by building codes. Some have tests that are
applied. One classic test is a noxious use test that tests whether a building is a nuisance created
by neglect. Some have minimum maintenance provisions. They must have consideration of
economic hardship and have a number of exceptions or relief valves. The ordinance cannot be to oppressive and must consider economic and technical feasibility. Problems arise if the ordinance is too vague or has too much discretion. It should be crafted to harmonize with other codes such
as a maintenance code or abatement code, use appropriate tool for the appropriate situation. The
ordinance also needs at least a hearing requirement before levying fines or stepping onto
property. 0:35:19 Cr. Becker
Cr. Becker said that maybe it needs to be a minimum maintenance provision to existing building
codes versus a stand-alone policy. The definition sounds very subjective. Cr. Becker felt the
definition of demolition by neglect should say before the bullet points, the structural and historical deterioration of:
0:40:51Ms. Kramer
Responding to Cr. Rupp’s inquiries, Ms. Kramer explained that she felt the current code
enforcement officer would use this ordinance but estimates of employment time had not been determined.
0:42:37Cr. Rupp
Cr. Rupp voiced concerns that we do not create additional rules that we cannot enforce.
0:42:50 Mr. Saunders
Policy Minutes of the Bozeman City Commission, February 5, 2009
4
The recommendation is to use civil penalties not criminal. A civil proceeding can minimize
resource commitment regarding enforcement. The expectation is that this ordinance would not be
used frequently.
0:45:28 Public Comment Mayor Jacobson opened public comment.
0:45:41Paula Frojae, Building Code Enforcement
Ms. Frojae would like everyone to review the international property maintenance code book written by the ICC. It would give the code enforcement officers some teeth. Since we have no property maintenance code that we have adopted, Ms. Frojae sees roofs that are leaking, mold
problems and all kinds of bad conditions. She can't do anything about them unless they concern
life safety such as lack of fire alarms. Threats of fines within time limits seem to work. She
hasn’t needed to go to attorneys in the past. 0:49:22 Richard Brown, Public Comment
Mr. Brown of 507 West Babcock is a member of the Bozeman Area Historic Preservation Board.
Mr. Brown feels that if the city had an Ordinance that had enforcement routes we could spend
less time repeatedly going back to a property to get something done. The board doesn't want this to be a hardship to take people's homes. The board approached this ordinance draft with the thought that it would be used occasionally on significant properties.
0:51:52 Cr. Krauss
Cr. Krauss thanked the board and Courtney Kramer for all their work on this draft. Cr. Krauss said that we may need a different set of rules for historic districts and then a different set for outside of those. The first objective is to preserve neighborhoods. We are really trying to stop
demolition by neglect. Neighbors do mis-behave and try to use the city to hurt neighbors. We
don't want to provide incentives for that kind of behavior or for getting money from this as
revenue. Cr. Krauss would be in favor of trying to use the international building maintenance book mentioned by Ms. Frojae and incorporating it into our code. These kinds of fines might be able to be forwarded to the treasurer for payment. Cr. Krauss said we are really dealing with two
issues here; preservation of existing buildings with historical significance within a historic
district and then the general health and welfare of the city.
1:02:34 Mayor Jacobson Mayor Jacobson relayed that she is struggling with this issue because of the hardship factors and
the idea that this sounds like the strong arm of the government.
1:03:36 Cr. Bryson Cr. Bryson brought up that there has to be a hearing process and there needs to be a hardship exemption. Cr. Bryson liked Cr. Krauss's idea that we stick to historic districts with maintenance
standards elsewhere.
1:08:12 Cr. Rupp
Policy Minutes of the Bozeman City Commission, February 5, 2009
5
Cr. Rupp brought up that most of the examples used today were more about health and housing
quality standard issues and not really about historic preservation by neglect. He is concerned
that there is no demonstratable incident that causes this intentional neglect.
1:11:29 Cr. Rupp Cr. Rupp feels we are over-reaching and he still feels concerned about the enforcement aspect
and what it would mean for city staff.
1:14:09 Chuck Winn Mr. Winn clarified that the city does already have the authority through building and fire codes to handle life and safety code issues.
1:16:13 F. FYI/Discussion
1:16:18 Chris Kukulski Mr. Kukulski informed everyone that on January 29th the city held internal ethics training by
IMCA. The staff's responded that it was good information but not a great way to get the
information. The charter requires we are performing some internal ethics training and working
with MSU for ethics training. 1:18:16 Aimee Kissel
Ms. Kissel responded to the Mayor's question regarding the status of the ethics board by stating
that the ethics board is ready to go but is waiting to meet until the ethic's ordinance is revised.
The City Commission made some revisions to the ethic's ordinance in October and those changes need to be drafted. One of those changes was that the ethics board has one year from the time of their first meeting to draft a hand-book, so they shouldn't meet until the revised Ordinance is
finished. Bob Planalp will come before the commission on February 23rd with that revised
Ordinance.
1:18:49 Mr. Kukulski Mr. Kukulski spoke regarding discussing in the future whether we want to look into designing
road or utility projects to prepare them to be ready to bid in light of the stimulus package and that
Senator Baucus will be the author of the next transportation bill.
1:20:15 Cr. Rupp Cr. Rupp asked for clarification regarding whether this is starting the process to be eligible for
funds through the Montana Dept. of Transportation.
1:20:35 Mr. Kukulski Mr. Kukulski confirmed Cr. Rupp's statement.
1:22:15 Mr. Kukulski
Mr. Kukulski explained that he wanted to plant the seed for future discussion about whether to
do design work on projects sooner rather than later or other steps that would put us in a better position.
Policy Minutes of the Bozeman City Commission, February 5, 2009
6
1:23:18 Debbie Arkell, Public Service Director
Ms. Arkell clarified that Rouse Avenue is a state project. Appropriations earmark that came in
from South 19th was unsolicited. The city was able to secure those funds because we had a
project that was designed and ready to go when funds became available. 1:24:08 Ms. Arkell
A community ready to use 'grab-bag' money is looked at more favorably to receive those types of
funds.
1:24:37 Cr. Krauss Cr. Krauss stated that we need to be careful with new designs to make sure they comply with the
Transportation Plan. He said that he feels we should spend money on College and the types of
projects out there that would qualify for the types of money that Ms. Arkell was discussing.
1:24:55 Cr. Becker Cr. Becker relayed that he went to a meeting yesterday with a woman with Transportation for
America on what was going on with the transportation bill. She said there would be a real multi-
modal emphasis on getting designs prepared.
1:25:31 Cr. Krauss Cr. Krauss said that the Department of Transportation yesterday at the Economic Outlook
Seminar that congestion will be an emphasis, but explained that we don't have congestion in
Montana.
1:26:48 Cr. Becker Cr. Becker asked for a copy of international maintenance code book from ICC that was
mentioned earlier in the meeting.
1:27:26 Mr. Kukulski Mr. Kukulski spoke regarding a County CIP meeting this next Wednesday to look over Sandholm's proposal of the overall law and justice center. That will be presented to the City
Commission next Monday night.
1:28:16 G. Adjournment
Commission Memorandum
Memorandum created on February 2, 2009
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
FROM: Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner and Staff Liaison to the Bozeman Historic
Preservation Advisory Board (BHPAB)
SUBJECT: Demolition by Neglect Ordinance
MEETING DATE: Thursday, February 5, 2009
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission review, discuss and provide policy guidance to the
Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board regarding the Demolition by Neglect Ordinance the
BHPAB is currently working on.
BACKGROUND:
Interest in creating a Demolition by Neglect Ordinance has grown since the fall of 2006, when the
property owner of a residence on South Grand Avenue damaged a structure in order to let the weather cause sufficient damage to make the structure unsalvageable. The work was stopped by the Building
Department and Code Enforcement Officer in September 2006. Several requests to the property owner
were made to protect the interior from the outside weather, with no success. Because of the
demolition/deconstruction performed, the house was open to the outdoor weather for an entire winter and
spring season. The resulting damage made necessary the demolition of the building to protect public safety.
This incident pointed out a gap in the City of Bozeman’s code and code enforcement tools. Demolition by
neglect has been, at best, an inadvertent but sometimes intentional, means of avoiding municipal design
review and building department laws. Michael Buhler, an attorney for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, noted that demolition by neglect is “a difficult issue, because it's so incremental and takes
place over a long period of time. There’s no specific act that you are trying to prevent, just general
neglect."1
The incident mentioned above heightened the awareness of the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board to issues of demolition by neglect in the community. Discussion amongst the group generally
focused on protecting existing buildings which are historically significant but soon evolved into
discussions about recent construction that is finished but abandoned or unmaintained by the owner. The
problems with foreclosure and abandoned homes across the country is a particular point of emphasis of
this problem. The board recognizes the difference in preventing deterioration of an existing structure, demolition by neglect) and ensuring completion of a project (bonding, or otherwise guaranteeing
completion of new construction).
In drafting the structure for an ordinance, the BHPAB identified the following objectives:
1 Gemmet, Andrea. “All Fall Down: Demolition by neglect: By allowing a historic building to fall apart, can property owners
flout preservation rules?” The Almanac. Feb. 9. 2005 http://www.almanacnews.com/morgue/2005/2005_02_09.neglect.shtml
Commission Memorandum
Memorandum created on February 2, 2009
1. An ordinance which preserves neighborhoods and the built environment.
2. An ordinance which protects the public’s health, safety and welfare.
3. The desire to prevent Demolition by Neglect in identified Historic Districts and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
4. An ordinance which protects neighborhood’s property values.
5. An ordinance that is proactive works with neighborhoods to preserve the character of the
neighborhood.
6. An ordinance that encourages neighborhood involvement. 7. An ordinance which strives to identify properties in danger of demolition by neglect and
offers a path to ensure the preservation of the property and its value.
8. An ordinance that is broad enough to uniformly apply to all property types within the City
of Bozeman.
9. An ordinance that provides a procedural and enforcement process. 10. An ordinance that reflects the City of Bozeman’s intent to maintain the physical integrity
of its built environment.
11. To give the City of Bozeman legal options for protecting and preserving historic resources.
12. An ordinance which shall prevent overt and intentional neglect.
13. An ordinance that keeps buildings standing and is not an opportunity for people to justify demolition.
It may also be important to clarify a bit of the terminology; this ordinance intends to prevent demolition
by neglect.
The BHPAB’s working draft of the ordinance outlines the following (Please note that these are working
items and are open to suggestion):
Definition of Demolition by Neglect:
Demolition by neglect shall be defined as neglect in the maintenance, repair or security of
a site, building or structure, causing significant decay from its original quality of construction, including but not limited to, any of the following conditions which may
impact the structural and/or historical integrity of the property:
The deterioration of:
• Exterior walls or other vertical supports;
• The deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members;
• The deterioration of exterior chimneys;
• The deterioration of exterior plaster or mortar;
• The ineffective weatherproofing of exterior walls, roofs and foundations, including
broken windows and doors; or
• The serious deterioration of any documented exterior architectural feature or significant landscape feature which in the judgment of the City produces a detrimental effect upon
the character of the district.
Commission Memorandum
Memorandum created on February 2, 2009
Eligibility: Any form of building or structure, including but not limited to those used for
commercial, residential, and institutional uses, within the City of Bozeman, which at one point
was occupied or received an occupancy permit.
Areas under review: Exterior features which, as a whole, comprise the structural integrity of a
building.
Process: I will outline the process in detail on February 5, 2009.
Property identification and qualification
Notice of violation
Options for property owners responding to notice of violation
Temporary weatherproof and secure the property before applying for any necessary
zoning permits
Appropriately and properly mothballing the structure to prevent further damage
Ramifications for property owners who do not respond to the notice of violation
Secondary notice
Fines and notice of violation on the property title
Doubling of fines and a moratorium of demolition permits
Use of any funds generated through the ordinance (after City of Bozeman costs) shall go to
bricks and mortar grants offered through the BHPAB
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:
The BHPAB identified the following policy questions for commission consideration and guidance: 1. Is the definition of demolition by neglect appropriate?
2. Does the commission accept the application of this policy to both historic and modern completed
properties (as indicated by an occupancy permit)?
3. Does the commission believe fines are an appropriate method of enforcement of this ordinance?
FISCAL EFFECTS: Demolition by neglect effects the City of Bozeman’s revenue as properties lose value for being in neglect
or adjacent to a property in neglect. Enforcement of this title, as it is currently drafted, would fall upon the
Code Enforcement Officer, the City of Bozeman’s legal staff and the City of Bozeman’s Planning Staff,
and would require staff time.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please email Courtney Kramer at ckramer@bozeman.net if you have any questions prior to
the public meeting.
APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager