Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outline limits of current condemnation rules and propose licensed abatement program
Summary
Fairhope building staff described challenges enforcing the city’s 2011 dangerous-structure ordinance and presented a licensed abatement program (including a draft replacement ordinance and forms) that consultants say has been used across Alabama and upheld in state courts.
Fairhope building and legal staff told the City Council that current local rules for condemning dangerous structures are narrowly defined and difficult to enforce, and they urged council consideration of a broader, licensed abatement program and a repeal-and-replace of the existing 2011 ordinance.
Eric (Building Department) described operational challenges locating absentee owners, managing properties with multiple owners, and the high evidentiary threshold in the current ordinance — which requires conditions such as leaning or listing walls or 33% or more deterioration of supporting structures before a building qualifies as condemnable. “It has to meet those requirements of 33% or more damage or deterioration,” Eric said, explaining why many unsightly or nuisance properties do not meet the ordinance’s current standard.
Eric and staff highlighted other enforcement gaps: no explicit authority in the ordinance for public-nuisance conditions such as massively overgrown yards, interior hoarding that creates a fire hazard, or clear rules for disconnecting utilities on vacant properties. Staff also raised practical problems with service of notice (certified mail to an empty property often fails to reach owners) and the time and resource burden of repeated title searches and mortgage-notice requirements.
City legal counsel summarized a proposed solution: a licensed abatement program used by other Alabama municipalities that provides customized forms, a replacement ordinance and administrative processes to document notice and compliance steps. “The current ordinance was enacted in 2011. It does a lot, but it leaves a lot of gaps,” Counsel said, adding that their firm has rolled out the program to “dozens of municipalities” and that it “has been challenged and successfully defended [in the] Alabama Supreme Court and the Court of Civil Appeals.” Counsel said the firm offers a license for the materials and forms for a flat fee (presenters cited a flat fee of $17.50 for the forms, with additional hourly rates if litigation is required).
Staff described the typical workflow: field inspection, title and mortgage searches to identify all owners of record, certified notices, a posted notice at the property, and – if the owner does not act – obtaining contractor bids, council authorization to abate, payment to the contractor and placement of a lien on the property. Staff said in many cases owners voluntarily remediate when pressured, but a minority of properties do not respond and require the city to use the formal process.
Council members broadly supported stronger tools. Councilman Conyers said he favored moving ahead and emphasized the need to enforce property conditions for the protection of neighboring property values. Several council members reiterated that an outright “mow ordinance” (a separate code authorizing city mowing of private lawns on a recurring schedule) is a different policy question and would require a separate discussion.
Ending: Staff asked council to consider adopting a replacement ordinance and to license the abatement program to provide staff with standardized forms and a defensible, court-tested process for condemning or remediating unsafe and nuisance properties. No formal vote was recorded at the work session.
