HomeMy WebLinkAboutImplement - Abate Dead & Dying Lndscp CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: APPROVAL TO IMPLEMA NABANDONED FOR C OSED PROPERTIES
DYING LANDSCAPING
SUBMITTED BY: Hart Ponder, Jr. Manager Code Compliance
DATE: February 11, 2010
CONTENTS: Foreclosure Properties— Before and After Photos
Recommendation
By Minute Motion, authorize staff to de o��abando ed Ip opert es w�h n he citpjracement
p r o c e s s t o h e l p a d d r e s s f o r e c l o s e d a n d/
Executive Summary
Approval of this proactive, early detection process will utilize private contractors to
remove the dead landscape at abandoned/foreclosed properties and replace it with
rock cover, with a lien being placed onv de e am�les�ofsp og am resultsginhanother
abatement costs. Attached photos p o p
community.
Backaround
From a municipal enforcement persp can e resent many�lo g term challenges to abocal
abandoned or that is now in foreclosure p
jurisdiction.
An absentee owner (bank or otherwise) who neglects regular property maintenance duties
can create many adverse effects in the surrounding neighborhood: lack of water to
maintain landscape; vacant appearance that may attract vandals or squatters; and vector
issues and other nuisances that can develop over time, which can impact surrounding
properties and cause a certifiable decrease in property values.
A jurisdiction must grant to the property owner due process before it can intervene to abat�
a public nuisance. Under most circ��tta violation on privatelp opertyecessary when a
jurisdiction takes action to abate or cor e
In these economic times, cost is also a conCtos uel�Lon r terml mainitenance and pkeep
properties that are abandoned and/or �n fo e 9
Abandoned/Foreclosed Property
February 11, 2010
Page 2 of 5
can be a costly proposition while the legal property owner is researched, noticed and the
issues corrected.
Early detection can help mitigate the situation, but due process must be granted a property
owner before a jurisdiction can act.
A proactive, early detection and correction plan would be the best course of action to
address these conditions in a timely fashion, which will help preserve and maintain Palm
Desert's excellent quality of life standards in its neighborhoods.
Below is a review of two current options, receivership and abatement warrants, and a staff
recommendation. Consideration is given to the timeliness of the process, the due process
requirement, and cost to achieve compliance.
Health & Safetv Receivership
Unlike the traditional concept of financial receivership, a Health & Safety Receivership is a
legal process through which title to a piece of real properry is temporarily taken from the
owner and placed with a court appointed officer - the Receiver. Authorized pursuant to
California Health & Safety Code Sections 17980 et seq., Receiverships are used primarily
for abandoned and substandard properties where the owner has a history of non-
compliance with local enforcement agency orders to abate, or where circumstances are
discovered that pose threats to health and safety.
Pros:
This legal process would grant the City the authority to keep the water turned on and
provide the needed maintenance to the structure and landscape. The City can then
generally recoup most of its costs, depending on the value of the property and other legal
claims that may encumber.
This process greatly reduces the City's exposure to potential liability that can accompany
forced actions and takeover of private property.
Cons:
According to the City Attorney, the Health & Safety Receivership process is relatively slow
and cumbersome. From the time of detection of an abandoned/foreclosed property, to the
court ordered authority to provide water and needed maintenance to the landscape, 60 to
90 days may pass. The typical life of the Receivership ranges from two to six months
depending upon the scope of the project.
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\Hart Ponder\Foreclosure Options\SR Abandoned Foreclosured Abatement Program-Final.doc
Abandoned/Foreclosed Property
February 11, 2010
Page 3 of 5
Cost is also a factor; one property could run into the tens of thousands of dollars in
attorney/staff time to obtain a Health & Safety Receivership from the court. Notifications,
court hearings and case conferences would be required. Once the receivership is granted,
a contracted maintenance agreement would be generated to maintain the properry until the
legal property owner can demonstrate ongoing, competent property management.
Abatement Warrant Process with Landscape Removal
An Abatement Warrant is a court review process that is granted before action is taken to
abate a property. The process is straight-forward enough that most jurisdictions allow code
staff to prepare and then appear before a judge to review and obtain a signed warrant to
comply with the due process requirement of entering private property and abating the cited
items. Examples of these items include: junk, trash, inoperable vehicles, weeds and dead
or dying landscape. The City Attorney has agreed that, after a case review, code staff can
prepare and obtain abatement warrants, saving the City in time and money on most code
abatement cases.)
The following process is currently used by the City of La Quinta to address foreclosed
properties that have dead or dying landscape (see attached photos):
After all notices and fines have been issued and exhausted, code staff prepares a
warrant to remove the dead landscape and replace the landscape with a rock cover.
A detailed report and photos are presented to the court for review and approval. The
City of La Quinta has been one hundred percent successful in obtaining the judge's
support in signing the abatement warrant.
A private contractor is used to remove the dead landscape and replace it with rock
cover. As depicted on the attached photos, the cost of each property abatement has
been in the $1,600 to $2,500 price range.
The property is then clouded for all costs. A Release of Lien is only granted when
the costs for abatement are received. This release is required in order for the
property to be sold.
Pros:
The Abatement Warrant process is straight forward and takes only a few hours to prepare
the necessary documents for court review and approval.
The time frame is about 30 days from detection to court review, which visibly
communicates to neighbors and surrounding communities in a timely way that the City of
Palm Desert is taking positive steps to clean-up residential areas of the city and to protect
neighborhoods which have been subjected to unsightly, dangerous conditions by absentee
or recalcitrant owners.
G:\Planning�,lanine Judy\Word Files\Hart Ponder\Foreclosure Options\SR Abandoned Foreclosured Abatement Program-Final.doc
Abandoned/Foreclosed Property
February 11, 2010
Page 4 of 5
The cost is greatly mitigated by less court enmeshment in the overall process, and less or
no attorney time spent in court. No major maintenance (watering, cutting) would be
required, saving the City hundreds of dollars in fees each month.
Staff can still pursue the existing property owner under the new foreclosure ordinance
(Chapter 8.21), which imposes serious fines and penalties for failure to comply. As with
other abatement cases, staff will continue to cloud the property title to assist in recouping
the costs for abatement.
Cons:
This process does not guarantee that a bank or legal title holder will take timely action to
correct the violations on the property, which may require additional City intervention.
The Abatement Warrant with Landscape Removal program addresses outside storage of
junk, trash and landscaping. More detailed action may be required if the residence sustains
any structural damage or needs securing.
The City's costs witl not be recovered until or unless the property is sold.
Fiscal Analvsis
So far, the abatement amount for the City of La Quinta falls into the range of $1,600 to
$2,500 per property. Staff has met with landscaping contractors, and they have affirmed
that the same process for landscape removal and application of decorative rock cover can
be archived in the same price range that the City of La Quinta pays. Code staff now
obtains its own abatement warrants (with City Attorney review), saving the City money in
legal fees.
The 2009-2010 abatement account (110-4470-412.30-55) is currently funded at
$20,000 for the year. To date, about $8,000 in abatement costs have been expended.
Staff can continue to utilize these funds and if there is an overage, Staff can come back
to the City Council to request additional funds. For comparison, total abatement costs
for 2008-2009 were $20,785.29. Staff currently clouds the property for all abatement
costs to assist in collecting abatement expenses when the property sells.
G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\Hart Ponder\Foreclosure Options\SR Abandoned Foreclosured Abatement Program-Final.doc
Abandoned/Foreclosed Property
February 11, 2010
Page 5 of 5
Submitted by: Department Head:
�_
Hart H. Ponder, Jr. Lauri Aylaian
Manager, Code Compliance Director of Community Development
i��
(1
Paul S. Gibson, Finance Director CITYCOUNCILA�'iON
APPROVF.D � DF,NTED
RECEIVED OTHER
Appr I:
�� ' MEETI G DATE ����� �
� / � AYFS: � �'� '� '�� � � Y1C�/��Z'
- - � ����/ N��S: �� -,
J M. Wohlmuth, City Manager A1�5rNT:
AI35TAIN:
V�RIFIF;D I�Y: �
Ori�in��l on �ilc with City � rlc's Office
G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\Hart Ponder\Foreclosure Options\SA Abandoned Foreclosured Abatement Program-Final.doc
,+..[. � r . . y,7
� y ��� /'1
}, � ��
�� , , �,h � i
��
s �ep
k � + {�+
s ,,,3�..,� . � e I'; s �-�,
* �
� �4 7 �� SI,.�R 5 III� I I'���'���3.� .,����
ri � _. • �, ..e, . . . :�'�..
, . I t����, � .
. �I��'��r, . .
�.
'�� . I .l��- ._' .
y. . . . . — " .I � 6'+ .
. � .�' � �*�✓ "
- ?�.y�. ��+ F v. - . .
�' �:
. ,. . : �^e�r��. �:.:
.,.. ,.. .. ...- , - __ s.,.__ `_":'.-.
� � � �
4
" ._ ` . . .__ ` . ._.. .... •_
' .: . u ,�s Q4+=�. ' � ! .. � . .
, ' � '
_ .—{ � �.
- �
_ - ._ �_— ..�`m
�6�-::4't _
. . _:��.�".
. �
� i
��e . •��rx a �� .:::':�Y .��,1.°.l�_ -.
.:��, � ��` ��'�. � . .
� + T"�. — y.:�
v
' __ _ � 1
� � — �auuuu
*� �� � . r�.�,
� , � ' . — -
=� ,
�_ t�`, - �� ��. ��_ t,,.Y,:.
_ , _
___ - ��n
y 1+,� .' 4 � ..'.. �.i� _ .. .._.�.
w:� r
�'.
'F7R�' 'r^e �". �-`�_
-_. . - ` . __.. , -_.�._._....� ...:�..._ .... ,..... .. ,v.__ ' '. .
_ -- (. �.. . .
10/05/2009
: — � -
,,
_ iy •
S� x Y S "�
`.c ' .�,.,. ;`. "�y"'��s ` As'^i..� .fs;t� ,:
e .,�` ,, � �ei.
. 'q � 'E1'..� �.. e" . a� PF. 'tF.
�
3}`. . ,i : - �
: � 1 ' � p^' j°' t " �
����' R � u� F A . ' Tt� '�� � l;:
�K�� � .. ' R: , -_ . -'� '.� 's
N
� r' !/�
�� � - ���I `� _ L� " �-�rl_. (�:.
�� . � •�-..wr�
_ "' � ����-"'^ t. _ 1, i
_ _ � �� �
_ " �
' s � z 5v�n,r �
n
� � k�+� . � � �Y � s , "
- 1 1'�'S��a� r'� �;.Y^ �'� .��'� rrm � —,._'_'—_'."_
r � u, � �'u_��S`n`5��.�'.&; r � v� �r _ . .
, . . . . `,'�;1`tr . .� r:i 4�s.:-R s�,: nl"��`,".,�M
10/19/2009
. _
�-.
, .
:�; . ;��.
Y•4 ,�
;�� � �a'��'�_.
a
±"�
",' 2
� ,y w r'.
r ' ` `''�i�y- ��1 ,
. - -�.�. y� �¢�'..4
^` �
• r i �
_. �- � �.�", t. . .. .
" \. " � � ��=-
it� - �
. . . N 7a'" i ' ..
� ' I� /
�:,� `��.rl/.",� '_
, - �4,
z�:
- . .. '��
_ ,. .
-- - i , _ -
-- �. �
1 1 11 '
Before
.. .� . . . .:;i. rt rsF Td� '
.. -'�`Y�'�
_ s.�.z..
��.._ _". �_ L
_ �y� _
�i
...�.. ,:1. .:..n.� - i "+1�-: 1 -.
l� ,l � x
��� `.Y � I
�� ;� i �i - -
i,z�� _. ��, —
,��x� ���:
' , '� ��. �.` i s�—
,,. _ ' ;. x '�
; , <tS,��C' .�S .:' ..-�r."
_ " � c . ;'� s 3ta..?ac',i Y..,i�1,`t`�''y+.�y,arr� . .. - _:��L.._
.. .___. � a� � .�.. -.: '
- _ 7
" ..� _ ., ' . .,. .__ _.� ..
After