Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/2002BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. April 9, 2002 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Communications a. Annual Tour - Monday, July 29 6. Unfinished Business None 7. New Business a. Truth-in-Housing Ordinance Code Amendment 8. Date of Next Meeting 9. Adjournment c:memo~RAAGEND.MEM MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL III. IV. Commissioner Tom Connelly Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Joe O'Brien Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Beth Ulrich Staff Present: Recording Secretary Present Present Absent Present Present Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Lisa Kroll APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes for July 11,2001. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Ulrich seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Pearson, Ulrich Abstention - Connelly The motion carried. APPROVAL OF AGENDA No changes to the agenda. Chairperson Fischer said commission members decided to add the issue of truth in housing to the next agenda for the meeting on May 14, 2002. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Connelly seconded. Ayes-Connelly, Fischer, Pearson, Ulrich The motion carried. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of 04-09-02 -2- V. COMMUNICATIONS None. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Larpenteur Avenue Properties Mr. Ekstrand said in 2001, Maplewood purchased three single-family homes on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street with funds from the city's Housing Replacement Program. The homes had been flooded after the pond located to the north of the properties overflowed during a rainstorm in April 2001. The flooding caused a large amount of damage to these older homes. None of the property owners were eligible for flood insurance coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust or through their private insurance companies. The purchase of the three homes by the city with the Housing Replacement Program funds helped cover some of the flooding damage expense as well as addressed an older housing stock within the city that needed upgrading. Staff is now exploring several options for redevelopment of these properties. First, the city could sell the lots for redevelopment of three new single-family homes; second, the city could rezone the properties to a higher density for the development of townhouses; and third, the city could purchase two adjacent lots allowing for a more comprehensive land use plan to include rezoning all five properties to a higher density for the development of townhouses. On July 23, 2001, the city council authorized the purchase of the properties at 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue with Housing Replacement funds. Mr. Ekstrand said recently the city received a proposal for redevelopment for the three city-owned lots by Lisa Brass of Welsh Companies and Terry Miller of T.J. Miller and Associates, Inc. The development proposal includes an 11-unit transitional housing program for woman (and their children) released from the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Shakopee or the Challenge Incarceration Program in Willow River. The city has not actively marketed the three city-owned lots or asked for request for proposals for redevelopment of the lots. This proposal was presented to the city after these two real estate professionals became aware that the city purchased the lots for redevelopment. Such a development would entail rezoning and amending the land use plan on the three lots to a higher density and may also require a conditional use permit for a state licensed residential program. This development proposal is included for discussion only. On March 4, 2002, the planning commission reviewed the redevelopment options for the Larpenteur Avenue properties. A majority of the planning commissioners agreed that redevelopment of the three lots alone should be limited to single-family housing. However, if the city was able to purchase one or both of the adjacent homes, the planning commissioners felt that rezoning the lots to a higher density would be a good redevelopment strategy. The planning commissioners were split between the higher density redevelopment options. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of 04-09-02 -3- Staff recommends the housing redevelopment authority make a recommendation on the following items: Should the city redevelop the properties with three single-family homes or redevelop the properties with town homes? Should the city negotiate the purchase of the properties at 189 Larpenteur Avenue and 1701 Adolphus Street to include in the redevelopment? If the properties are developed for town homes, should the city rezone and amend the land use classification for the properties from Single Double Dwelling Residential (R-2)? If the properties are developed for town homes, should land use classification for the properties from Single Multiple Dwelling Residential - Medium (R-3M) to allow Should the city pursue other redevelopment options redevelopment proposal? Dwelling Residential (R-l) to the city rezone and amend the Dwelling Residential (R-l) to for 6 units per acre? as seen in the Glory House Commissioner Connelly asked staff if the original homeowners received any insurance money from the flooding and did the city receive any insurance money? Ms. Coleman said the League of Minnesota Cities would not claim any responsibility or pay out any money to the homeowners and that is why the city stepped up. The city did not receive any insurance money either. The city has a lot invested in this project and there is potential there with the pond in the back. The residents at 1701 Adolphus Street are willing to sell and Ms. Coleman has a meeting with the resident at 189 Larpenteur Avenue on April 12, 2002 to see if they are interested in selling. If the city can get the other two residents to sell to the city this would make for a better scenario for a development. The three homes the city purchased on Larpenteur Avenue have been demolished. Commissioner Connelly said he votes to eliminate the Glory House proposition for women out of prison. This would be a tax-exempt building and the city wants to maximize the city's return on their money to continue this program of buying properties and rePlenishing funds. The city would get more money from having a townhouse development rather than three single-family homes. Chairperson Fischer stated that the planning commission voted that if the city had only the three lots they would be better off building three single-family homes. Commissioner Connelly asked staff if they knew how much the other two lots would sell for? Ms. Coleman said no she did not. Commissioner Ulrich asked staff if they knew what the accessed value was? Ms. Coleman said no she did not and staff should check into that but she did know that the home at 1701 Adolphus Street was recently appraised because the homeowners took out a second mortgage and it was appraised at $160,000. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if the homeowners paid for their own appraisal or did the city? Housing and Redevelopment Authority -4- Minutes of 04-09-02 Ms. Coleman said the city paid for the appraisals. Someone from the real estate community needs to work with staff and go out and look at the lots and give the city some idea of the value of the lots, which would be helpful in marketing the area. Commissioner Ulrich asked staff if the city would do the townhouse scenario would the city make oneof the units a habitat-for-humanity home? Ms. Coleman asked if habitat gets involved with townhouses? Commissioner Ulrich said yes they do. She said the developer builds the exterior and the homeowner and or volunteers build the interior. Ms. Coleman said that is definitely something for the city to consider and that will be done at the Mogren property across the street from the city. Part of her thinks it is an excellent idea and the other thinks the city needs to capitalize on this project and get the money they can to i~eeP the fund going. Chairperson Fischer asked if any of the commission members have a problem with putting town homes on this property if the city can purchase the other two lots? Commissioner Ulrich said she thinks it would fit nicely in the community. Chairperson Fischer said she thinks the town houses would go nicely too without being overwhelming. Commissioner Connelly said the whole idea of this project is to make some more money to put back into the fund and town homes would be the way to go. He asked staff if the city would have to do anything in the back of the properties where the pond is? Ms. Coleman said yes. Mr. Ekstrand said with the three lots there is room to have six units based on lot measurement that would be three two-unit buildings. Commission members agree the city wants to maximize the return from the lots purchased. If the city can get the other two lots members agree that town homes would be acceptable and if the city cannot purchase the remaining two lots then the city should go with twin homes on the three lots. Commissioner Pearson moved that the housing redevelopment authority recommend to the city council that the city maximize their return from the lots purchased. If the city can purchase the other two remaining lots then a town home development would be acceptable. If the city cannot purchase the remaining two lots then the city should develop twin homes on the three lots. Commissioner Connelly seconded. Ayes - Connelly, Fischer, Pearson, Ulrich The motion carried. Ms. Coleman said staff will come back to the HRA with this item again for discussion. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of 04-09-02 -5- VII. NEW BUSINESS Hillcrest Village Smart Growth Study Update Mr. Ekstrand said over the past year, the community development staff has been involved in a "Smart Growth" study with the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council is studying six commercial neighborhoods in the metro area. The Hillcrest Shopping Center, including the contiguous part of Maplewood north of Larpenteur Avenue, is one of these. The Smart-Growth study is a new initiative that involves citizens in shaping the future growth and redevelopment of their neighborhoods. The goal is to create livable neighborhoods where homes, jobs and services are linked by walkable streets. On April 26, 2001, the Metropolitan Council, Calthorpe and Associates and HGA held a workshop at Woodland Hills Church in Maplewood. This workshop allowed area residents, business owners and St. Paul and Maplewood staff and government personnel to participate by offering their desires and preferences on how they would like this area to redevelop. On May 24, 2001, the group met again at Woodland Hills Church to present the consultants' two development alternatives to the community. Since this last session, the consultants have been working on a final development concept taking into account comments from the participants and the community. On July 24, 2001, the planning commission reviewed the two development alternatives and made comments enclosed in the staff report. On Thursday April 25, 2002, the city invites everyone to a discussion at the Woodland Hills Church in Maplewood from 6:30 until 8:30 p.m. Mr. Ekstrand said no motion was needed this was strictly informational and encourage members to attend the meeting on April 25, 2002. Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance Mr. Ekstrand said in 1987, the Minnesota State Legislature passed a law allowing cities and municipalities to pass park-closing ordinances (Minnesota Statutes, Section 327C.095). The purpose of such an ordinance is to help protect citizens living in manufactured home parks in the event of a park closing by requiring park owners to reimburse homeowners for relocation costs if their home can be moved, and if not, purchase the manufactured home. The City of Maplewood received a proposed manufactured home park-closing ordinance for the city council's review from All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC). APAC is a non-profit organization that serves as a tenant's union for manufactured home owners. They help organize park residents to understand and protect their rights as specified in state law. APAC sent a mailing to a majority of the city's park residents regarding their proposed ordinance. In the mailing they requested that the residents show their support of a park-closing ordinance by signing their name and address to a postcard and sending it to the city. To date, the city has received 190 postcards in support of the proposed ordinance. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of 04-09-02 -6- On February 25, 2002, after reviewing APAC's proposed manufactured home park-closing ordinance, the city council directed staff to review the request and forward a recommendation to them. Staff is requesting input from the Maplewood Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to assist us in our review of APAC's request, and the many manufactured home park resident's request, for the city to pass a manufactured home park-closing ordinance. The law states that a park owner must notify the city and the residents of a park closing nine months prior to the proposed closing. Once notice is received, the city must hold a public hearing to review the impacts that the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owners. The city may require payment by the park owner to be made to the displaced resident for reasonable relocation costs. If a resident cannot relocate the home to another park within 25 miles of the park that is being closed, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation costs awarded to other residents. The law further states that the city may also require that other parties, including the city, involved in the park closing provide additional compensation to residents to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon the resident. Commissioner Pearson asked if anybody on staff checked with two municipalities in Brainerd and Willmar that actually had closings of a manufactured home park but did not pass the ordinance? He would be curious as to what their concerns were and why they did not pass the ordinance. Mr. Ekstrand said no not yet. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Pearson if in the ordinance could the city tie the definitions of a HUD house to the manufactured home closing ordinance? Commissioner Pearson said maybe. Commissioner Ulrich asked Mr. Pearson what the vacancy rate is in the mobile home parks? Commissioner Pearson said it is almost non-existent. Commissioner Ulrich said if a park did close there would not be any room to move the mobile homes to then. Chairperson Fischer said unless they took the trailer and put it up at a lot up north for use as a cabin someplace. Commissioner Pearson said it is not just the trailer that needs to be moved. You would have to move the deck, steps, shed, air conditioning unit and the mobile home itself and that is very costly to do for a whole park. The other fact is that many of the mobile homes are so old that if you tried to pull one they would fall apart and could not be moved anyway. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of 04-09-02 -7- Commissioner Pearson said he runs his mobile home parks differently then other parks are run. He invites the health department in and he would like them to come at least two or three times a year. He wants to provide a clean environment and community. The garbage company and recycling company he has hired makes sure that there is no garbage or recycling items On the street and if something falls out they are to clean it up so when they leave the area it is spotless. When a resident sells their mobile home to someone else the deposit is returned to them along with a survey asking several questions regarding how the park was run, what would they change, were the restrictions strict enough or too strict, and what would they do if they were in charge of the mobile home park. This way the past resident does not feel threatened. They are getting their deposit back already and they write how they really feel and the parks use that information in how the mobile home park is run. Commissioner Pearson said that some people do not enough pride of ownership and let their property go down hill. The person in charge of the mobile home park needs to set appearance standards. Just because the person is elderly or does not have enough money to fix their mobile home up doesn't mean it can't be done. He has a program where they will provide the paint and supplies and the homeowner has to pay for the labor for someone to come in and help fix up their home. He has another program where if someone does not have the financial means to pay for supplies or labor he will help them out there too. Chairperson Fischer said maybe an idea for the annual tour could be to go through some of these mobile home parks and see what Mr. Pearson is talking about as far as mobile home parks that are run down and parks that are maintained with pride of ownership. Commission members that are not familiar with these mobile home parks can see what is acceptable and unacceptable. Commissioner Pearson said what is disheartening is that there has been a lot of work done by the Washington County HRA on Landfall but the condition of the rejuvenated new homes that were put in two years ago already have broken windows, dented skirting, and graffiti etc. Chairperson Fischer asked who was managing the mobile home park now? Commissioner Pearson said it is a company that was setup by HRA. They have been restoring some of the infrastructure. But the park is so bad now that when Xcel Energy comes to do work at the park they have to have someone stay on the truck while the worker does his job because people were stealing things off the Xcel Energy truck. Commissioner Connelly said maybe it is a good thing that the Ramsey County HRA did not get involved in the St. Paul Tourist Cabins before the new owners took it over if the Washington County HRA is having so many problems with the mobile home park in Landfall. Commissioner Pearson said his feeling is that if you are going to take over a park to rejuvenate it the representation is better by having a private enterprise do it then by having the government take over. He could show members a park he took over 5 years ago that was in bad shape in Mounds View. He started a pictorial of the street scenes and the crummy additions that people had and they substantially turned that park around. People that have come back into the mobile home park 5 years later have been amazed to see how great it looks now. They put up a brand new shelter in the park, they never had any signage and they put all new signs in the park. They got rid of the old mailboxes and put in security mailboxes. At the point of sale is where the mobile Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of 04-09-02 -8- home park owners have the most authority to bring the mobile home up to appearance standards and meet the codes and the owners enforce it. Commissioner Pearson said where he runs into problems is that he is not getting the same type ,of cooperation with the building inspectors in Maplewood as he does in other cities.' If the philosophy is going down the road that way then he would seriously want to take a look at the truth-in-housing. That is if it doesn't negate what the legislature passed as safety feature code requirements. Commissioner Pearson discussed with the other members the manufactured home community and its history. After much discussion the commission decided to table this item until the city receives a notification of a manufactured home park closing. They felt that since there are no proposed or pending closings at this time there is no urgency to act immediately. The committee also discussed the need verses greed aspects of the APAC's suggested ordinance. The committee would like to see further data on this issue as it is developed. Commissioner Pearson made the motion to table this item. Commissioner Connelly seconded. Ayes - Connelly, Fischer, Pearson, Ulrich The motion carried. VIII. DATE OF NEXT MEETING Because there are going to be more issues to discuss for the HRA meetings will be held the second Tuesday of every month unless they hear otherwise. The next scheduled meeting will be Tuesday, May 14, 2002. IX. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: City Manager/Director of Community Development David Fisher, Building Official Truth-In-Sale of Housing Ordinance Code Amendment May 8, 2002 INTRODUCTION The city building inspection Staff concludes that the existing truth-in-housing ordinance has served Maplewood well since the city adopted it in 1990. Staff is now considering an amendment to this code to include the inspection of manufactured homes. The city excluded manufactured homes from the original truth-in-housing ordinance at the request of the inspectors/evaluators. The purpose of this code amendment would be to maintain a higher quality of housing in al__~l areas of the city. BACKGROUND The city adopted the truth-in-housing ordinance in 1990. (Refer to the ordinance starting on page 11.) This ordinance did not require the owners of manufactured homes to have them inspected before they list or show them for sale. Specifically, Section 9-236 (Definitions) of the code excludes manufactured homes as a housing unit and thus from the truth-in-housing ordinance requirements. DISCUSSION Section 9-235 of the code states the purpose of the truth-in-housing ordinance. It says, "the purpose of this article is to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to promote decent, safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations. To help accomplish this, the city is requiring the disclosure of housing information and defects as a condition of the sale of housing. City inspectors may use this information to require the correction of code violations." The Maplewood Building Inspection Department and Minnesota State Building Code Division recently compiled a list of common violations and corrections for manufactured homes. The city could use this list as a tool for the evaluators, for inspections and for reports. (See the list starting on page 21.) The city building inspectors intend this list to be the minimum items mandatory for inspection for manufactured homes as part of the truth-in-housing report. They also suggest that the evaluators use the existing single-dwelling form when reviewing a manufactured home. Section 9-236 of the city code has the definitions in the truth-in-housing code. This includes the definition for housing unit. It reads "A single family dwelling, a double-dwelling unit, a townhouse unit, a condominium unit (as defined by Minnesota Statutes), or any other attached housing unit designed for the occupancy of one family. A housing unit shall not include a manufactured home." An important issue the city will need to consider with this proposal is that of code compliance. Should the city, the community owners (landlords) or the state require the owners of existing manufactured homes that do not meet all code requirements to update and repair them before selling their homes? If not, should the city use the inspection of manufactured homes for information to buyers on a disclosure-only basis? The city also should consider whether the current truth-in-housing evaluators would be willing or able to do the initial inspections of the manufactured homes. Staff has not yet contacted the housing inspectors to see if they would or could do inspections of manufactured homes. Another issue may be the insurance the inspectors carry. I do not know if their current insurance covers them for inspecting manufactured homes. These are all issues the city should review with the truth-in-housing evaluators. RECOMMENDATION Direct staff about the interest in adopting a code amendment about the inspection of manufactured homes. If the city determines there is interest in such an ordinance, direct staff to prepare the necessary code amendment to implement the change. This amendment would change the truth-in-housing ordinance to require the inspection of manufactured homes and the possible correction of common code violations in manufactured homes. P:/com_dvpt/ord/mobile homes tih.doc Attachments: 1. June 5, 1990 staff report 2. Existing Truth-in-sale-of-housing Code 3. Existing T-I-H Inspection Report Form 4. Proposed Manufactured Housing T-I-H Inspection Form Attachment 1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager · Director of Community Development · .Truth-in-Saleo. f Housing Ordinance. 'June 5, 1990 The City Council gave first reading to a truth-in-sale of housing ordinance on May 31. The Council needs to make several decisions before second reading. First, Council should decide on wording for high-voltage power lines. They tabled the following revised wording to section 9-238(b) (2) (i) on page 9: Whether the property is next to a high-voltage transmission line. If so, the disclosure form shall include the following statement: "This thc subjcct property is located near a high-voltage electric transmission line. Purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing'research on adverse exposure to a magnetic field generated by high-voltage lines. As of May 1990, no risk assessments have been made by scientific or health officials to resolve the health effects of lonq or short term exposures to maqnetic fields. Purchasers with concerns about the exposures should contact competent medical or health inspectors or aqencies for current risk assessment information. Secondly, the Council should approve the three housing disclosure reports. The form on page 39 is for single-family housing, the form on page 46 is for attached housing, such as town houses or condominiums, and the form on page 53 is for rental housing. Note that the bold wording on pages 42, 49 and 56 state that a City inspector may contact the owner to require compliance with the asterisked items. ThelCity's housing code requires compliance with these items. The asterisked items for single- family homes are minimal and apply only to the exterior of the home and yard. The HRA is recommending that the City not do a follow-up inspection of these items for owner-occupied housing. The HRA does recommend doing follow-up inspections for rental housing. Staff is recommending that the city do these inspections for owner occupied housing as well. The city Attorney's opinion on page 68 is that if city officials are informed of a Code violation, it is their duty and obligation to insure compliance. Since the housing inspectors would be filing their disclosure reports with the City, the City would be informed of violations. If Council agrees with the Staff recommendation, Council should adopt the forms as shown. If the Council decides not to have staff do follow-up inspections on Code violations, Council should do the following: Amend section 9-238(a) to require that housing inspectors only file disclosure reports with the city for rental housing. The City will then not be on notice that there are housing code violations for owner occupied housing. This will avoid any liability. Delete the bold wording on pages 42 and 49 and all the asterisks on these two forms. The last action needed is to adopt the resolution on page 11 that authorizes a filing fee for housing disclosure reports. If the Council deletes the filing requirement, they should not take action on this resolution. go/memo5.mem 4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Director of Community Development Truth-in-Sale of Housing Ordinance May 18, 1990 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The City Council asked the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to consider the adoption of a truth-in-sale of housing ordinance. This type of ordinance requires that a property owner have a report prepared on the condition of their house before they can sell it. This report must be done by a certified housing inspector. Some cities require that the property owner correct all city code violations before the owner can sell the property. Some cities do not require this. The main benefit of this type of ordinance is to protect home buyers. If a copy of this report is filed with the City, a City inspector must require the correction of any Code violations. The City may or may not require this as a condition of the sale of the house. Some type of follow-up enforcement would improve the quality and value of housing that is sold. BACKGROUND September 5, 1989: The Maplewood HRA held a truth-in-sale of housing forum with realtors and other interested persons to discuss the proposed ordinance. October 10, 1989: The Maplewood HRA held a meeting-to discuss the ordinance with the Board of Realtors. The HRA recommended the adoption of a truth-in-housing ordinance. October 23, 1989: The City Council held their first meeting to discuss the ordinance. The Council tabled the ordinance for further review. November 13, 1989: The City Council again discussed the ordinance. The Council referred it back to the HRA to review the disclosure forms and to include a I!ead paint warning. March 13, 1990: The HRA reviewed the ordinance and draft single- family inspection form. The HRA directed staff to revise the inspection form with their comments as well as with those received from the Board of Realtors. April 10 and May 8, 1990: The HRA again reviewed the ordinance and housing forms and made suggestions for changes and requests for additional information. 5 I ! I I DISCUSSION There are two main questions for the City to answer. Should the City use the housing report to enforce its housing maintenance ordinances or not? What types of housing should this ordinance apply to? Enforcement Using the housing report to determine code v~olations would improve the quality and value of housing sold. The disadvantage is that it would take additional time from the environmental health officer and the clerical workers. There would be additional phone calls, inspections to make and housing reports to file. Since this is a new program, it is difficult to say how much additional time would be needed. It is important to note that the City's housing maintenance code is minimal for single dwellings. It only applies to the exterior condition of the house. Most sellers try to improve the exterior condition of their home before selling to increase the value. As a result, their may not be much code enforcement work needed. The City may want to try code enforcement on a trial basis to determine how much work it would involve. If the'City decides not to do any enforcement, housing reports should not be filed with the City. The City Attorney advises us that it is the duty of administrative officials to enforce code violations that they are made aware of. (Refer to the letter on page 68.) Filing a housing report that indicates a potential code violation is notification. If inspectors do not file reports with the City, we cannot determine the degree of compliance with the ordinance. The city of St. Paul keeps the Truth-in-Housing Disclosure Reports with their division of public health. Code compliance work in St. Paul is handled by their building inspections department. Thus if a potential code violation is reveealed by a Truth-in-Housing inspection, it usually is not known by the building inspections department. An assistant St. Paul City Attorney stated that technically the Truth-in-Housing report is a notification to the City. He noted that their inspection form has enough disclaimers to protect the City from possible liability when a code compliance matter is raised. Type of Housing If the City decides to use the housing reports for follow-up enforcement work, the ordinance should include apartment buildings. If not, truth-in-sale of housing should only apply to single and double dwellings, townhouses and condominiums. The people who buy these types of buildings are generally not as' knowledgeable about housing as investors buying apartments. An enforcement program, however, would benefit apartment renters. 6 The attached ordinance requires that housing inspectors file their reports with the City. The City would then do a follow-up inspection of any potential housing maintenance code violations. The ordinance covers all types of residential buildings, including apartments. The attached Inspection Forms (pages 39, 46 and 53) include all of the applicable items covered by the St. Paul inspection form (page 35) and items of particular concern to Maplewood. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached truth-in-sale of housing ordinance and reevaluate it after it has been in effect for one year. Adopt the attached resolution on page 11 approving a $15 filing fee for each report. REFERENCE Resource Persons Minneapolis, St. Paul, South St. Paul, New Hope and St. Louis Park have adopted some type of truth-in-sale of housing ordinance. Each of these communities has had their program in effect for at least ten years. These cities are convinced that their codes have improved routine maintenance of property. They also believe that they have resulted in the correction of many small deficiencies that could have led to larger problems. Perspective home buyers have been receptive to the requirement of disclosing code deficiencies as well. The Board of Realtors supports the disclosure of housing defects, but are opposed to any follow-up code enforcement. They are particularly opposed to any enforcement that would delay the sale of a property. Representative Alice Johnson of Spring Lake Park introduced a bill in the 1988 session of the legislature about housing disclosure. The proposed law would require every seller of residential property to complete a disclosure questionnaire form. It would warranty that the seller is not aware of any other problems than those noted on the form. The bill, however, did not get much support and is now dead. Representative Johnson said that she may introduce the bill again in the future but she is not sure when that might be. The housing inspector for New Hope believes that this law would complement their code compliance inspection program. This is because some code deficiencies are not detectable by an inspector. Lawsuits An inspection cannot guarantee that a major problem will not occur. The inspector can only respond to the items that he or she can see. If a major problem arises, the buyer may try to sue to recover damages. This may happen even though the disclosure report clearly states that the inspector makes no guarantees. The suit could be against the seller, realtor, the City or all of the above. Unhappy buyers have sued New Hope and St. Louis Park because an undetected problem arose after the buyer took possession. These suits were not successful for the buyers, because the inspectors tried to identify deficiencies in these dwellings. Compliance with the Ordinanc~ Realtors will be the best people for making sure that housing reports are done. Sales that do not involve a realtor may not 8 have housing reports done. Realtors handle about 60 to 70 percent of the sales in the St. Paul area. These are usually higher valued homes. Minneapolis reports 100% compliance in better neighborhoods and 70% to 75% compliance in poorer neighborhoods. An inspection is in the realtor's interest, because it may reduce their liability if a problem arises after the sale of a property. Advertisement of the housing inspection requirement in the city's newsletter, sewer bill inserts and sale-by-owner magazines should improve compliance with the ordinance. Inspections St. Paul, Minneapolis and South St. Paul use city-licensed, independent inspectors for disclosure inspections. The average cost to the homeowner ranges from $80 to $110. Most inspectors can do an inspection within 24 hours if needed. St. Paul has 42 licensed inspectors. Minneapolis has 65. St. Paul receives 4,500 to 6,000 truth-in-sale of housing reports each year. New Hope and St. Louis Park use city employees to run their programs. These communities subsidize the cost of their inspection programs. They each charge $35 per property inspected. In St. Louis Park, an inspector is busy full-time with housing inspections. In New Hope, a certified building inspector charges about one-half of her time to their program. New Hope has about 250 to 300 inspections each year. The cost to New Hope is about $10,000 to $12,000 annually for this service. Structures Inspected in Other cities The code in New Hope applies to all residential units. The St. Paul code applies to single dwellings, townhouses, condominiums and mixed uses with two or fewer residential units. St. Louis Park and Minneapolis cover only single and double dwellings. South St. Paul's code only applies to single dwellings. Emphasis of Code Code Compliance: The New Hope and St. Louis Park codes require the correction of all code deficiencies before the sale of a residential property. The only time they do not require compliance before the sale is when the buyer agrees to make the corrections by a specific date after the sale. This gives the buyer time to make the required repairs. Richfield has recently adopted a similar ordinance. The age of Maplewood's housing is similar to that of New Hope and St. Louis Park. These cities use this program primarily to upgrade and maintain their housing stock. 1 I I '1 I Disclosure Versus Compliance: South St. Paul, St. Paul and Minneapolis have chosen not to require the correction of code violations. Code compliance is often not cost-effective in older cities, due to the age and number of dwellings. These cities adopted their codes to inform home buyers of any major deficiencies before they make a financial commitment. The purchasers may then take care of the problems on their own. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. TRUTH.MEM mb Attachments 1. Truth-in-Sale-of-Housing Ordinance 2. Resolution for Fees 3. Owner-occupied Housing Maintenance Code 4. Rental Housing Maintenance Code St. Paul's truth-in-sale of housing disclosure form Maplewood's single-family disclosure form Maplewood's owner-occupied attached housing disclosure form Maplewood's rental housing disclosure form HRA Minutes, October 10, 1989 HRA Minutes, March 13, 1990 HRA Minutes, April 10, 1990 HRA Minutes, May 8, 1990 City Attorney's Letter l0 Attachment 2 § 9-234 MAPLEWOOD CODE future revisions, modifications or amendments thereto, are hereby adopted by reference, except for fees which shall be established by city council resolution. With regard to such rules adopted by ref- erence, wherever the phrase "request for inspection" is used therein, substitute the words "apply for electrical permit" and wherever the words "the board" referring to the state board of electricity are used therein, substitute the words "the city." (Ord. No. 663, § 1, 4-23-90) ARTICLE XITI. TRUTH.IN-SALE-OF-HOUSING Sec. 9-235. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to promote decent, safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations. To help accomplish this, the city is requiring the disclosure of housing information and defects as a condition of the sale of housing. City inspectors may use this information to require the correction of code violations. (Ord. No. 668, § 1, 7-9-90; Ord. No. 704, § 1, 6-6-92) Sec. 9-236. Del'tuitions. For the purpose of this article, the following terms are defined as follows: Adequate water flow. Enough pressure to maintain at least a one-quarter-inch diameter (pencil-sized) flow of water from each of at least three (3) or more plumbing fLxtures at the same time. · Contractual agreement. An agreement, written or otherwise, between a buyer end seller for the conveyance of, or the intent to convey, all or part of a housing unit or residential building. A contractual agreement shall include, but not be limited to, an earnest money contract, deed or purchase agreement. Ho~sing -n£t. A single dwelling, a double-dwelling unit, a town- house unit, a condominium unit (as defined by Minnesota Stat- utes), or any other attached housing unit designed for the occu- pancy of one family. A housing unit shall not include a manufactured home. Supp. No. !0 554 11 1' t I ! i BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 9-238 Owner. A person having a vested interest in the housing unit or residential building in question. This includes his or her duly- authorized agent or attorney, before a sale. Residential building. A building containing one or more housing units. Sale. The conveyance of a housing unit or residential building to a new owner. (Ord. No. 668, § 1, 7-9-90; Ord. No. 704, § 1, 6-6-92) Sec. 9-237. Applicability. This article shall not apply to any newly constructed housing or residential building when the title is conveyed to the first owner, except that no owner shall convey or contract to convey a newly- constructed housing unit or residential building without first pro- viding to the buyer: (1) A list of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all contractors and subcontractors who constructed the building. (2) The items in section 9-238 (b) (2) a, b, c, e, f, g, h and i. (Ord. No. 668, § 1, 7-9-90; Ord. No. 683, § 1, 3-11-91; Ord. No. 704, § 1, 6-6-92) Sec. 9-236. Truth.in.sale of housing disclosure report. (a) An owner shall not show a housing unit or residential building to a prospective buyer without publicly displaying and making available a truth-in-sale-of-housing disclosure report. This report shall be at the housing unit or residential building at the time of showing and within three (3) days of listing. A copy of the disclosure report shall be issued to the buyer before the execution of a contractual agreement. A copy of such report must be filed within fifteen (15) days with the city to be valid. A double filing fee shall be collected.by the city if the report is not filed within fifteen (15) days. Co) A housing disclosure report shall be prepared by the city. It shall include: (1) An evaluation by a city-certified housing inspector of spe~ cific parts of the building and property listed on the housing Supp. No. 10 555 12 § 9-238 M.A~LEWOOD CODE disclosure report. This list shall include, but not be limited to, items addressed in the housing maintenance, siding and junk removal ordinances. The city shall be responsible for determining whether there is an ordinance violation. (2) A signed statement by the owner that includes the fol- lowing information: a. Any damage to the building or its contents by flooding or sewer backup and an), evidence of chronic water seepage of which the owner has knowledge. b. The nature, extent and cause of any water seepage or flooding of any portion o£ the property. c. Whether or not there are pending housing orders £rom the city about the property. d. Whether there is a homestead classification for real estate taxes payable. e. Any other known defects or problems that are not vis. f. Any deed restrictions or covenants running with the property. g. Whether the property is subject to the city's pipeline, shoreland or flood plain ordinances. h. The location and status of all known wells, including a map, stating whether the well is in use or abandoned and sealed. i. Whether the property is ne~ to a high-voltage trans- mission line. If so, the disclosure form shall include the following statement: "The subject property is located near a high-voltage electric transmission line. Pur- chasers should be aware that there is ongoing research on exposure to a magnetic field generated by high- voltage lines. At this time no risk assessments have been made." (c) A truth-in-sale-of-housing disclosure report shall be valid for no more than one year from the date of approval by the city. However, if there is substandard maintenance or subsequent damage to the building, the director of community development may require a new inspection. (Ord. No. 668, § 1, 7-9-90;, Ord. No. 704, § 1, 6-6-92) Supp. No. 10 556 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 9-240 Sec. 9-239. Limitations. (a) In making a housing inspection, the inspector shall con- sider any concealed facilities to be adequate. The inspector shall base his or her evaluation on the functional operation of the facility and the condition, of the equipment that is viewed. No other warrant is expressed or implied. (b) No one shall consider anything in a truth-in-sale-of- housing disclosure report to imply that a residential building or housing unit meets all minimum building standards. In addition, no one shall consider anything in the report to imply a warrant of the condition of the housing evaluated. The inspector warrants that he or she has used reasonable care and diligence in inspect- ing and evaluating the building. (Ord. No. 668, § 1, 7-9-90; Ord. No. 704, § 1, 6-6-92) Sec. 9-240. Certificate of competency. (a) No person shall fill out a truth-in-sale-of-housing disclo- sure report in Maplewood without having a valid certificate of competency or truth-in-housing evaluator's license from Maplewood. The city must issue the certificate of competency or license. Maplewood will only approve people as housing inspectors or evaluators who are licensed as truth-in-housing evaluators in Saint Paul or Minneapolis. The housing inspectors must submit a copy of their truth-in-housing license and any certification papers to Maplewood from the City of Saint Paul or Minneapolis. Maplewood must license each housing inspector or evaluator that works in the city. Maplewood will automatically revoke or cancel a housing inspector's license if it is revoked or cancelled for violation of law or violation of the housing evaluators code of ethics in either Saint Paul or Minneapolis. The city may require the passing of a test that shows the inspector's knowledge of the housing code. The city may then issue a certificate of competency which is valid for one year. The city may issue renewals of all such certificates. If a certificate of competency lapses for one year or more, the person who held such certificate shall reapply to Maplewood for renewal of such certificate. No holder of a certifi- cate of competency or license from Maplewood shall allow another person to use said certificate or license. Supp. No. 12 557 § 9-240 MAPLEWOOD CODE (b) The city council may revoke the certificate of competency of a housing inspector for cause. At least ten days before the hearing, the city shall send written notification to the mailing address used in the inspector's application. The notice shall list the date, time and place of the hearing and of the specific reasons for the suspension. The community development director may, at his or her discretion, suspend the certificate of competency of a housing inspector pendin§ a suspension hearing. (Ord. No. 668, § 1, 7-9-90; Ord. No. 704, § 1, 6-6-92; Ord. lqo. 761, § 1, 9-9-96) Sec. 9-241. Insurance. (a) No certificate of competency shall be issued or renewed without satisfactory proof of insurance insuring the applicant/ evaluator. (b) The city shall be included as a named insured on the required insurance and any additional cost for including the city shall be at the expense of the applicant/evaluator. (c) The applicant's/evaluator's insurance shall remain in force continuously thereafter and no certificate of competency shall be deemed to be in effect during any period of time when such insurance and proof thereof are not also in effect. (d) Each applicant/evaluator shall have an individually- named insurance policy. (e) The insurance policy shall provide coverage of not less than two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) per claim or five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) per y.e~r, aggregate, against any and all liability imposed by law resulting from the perfor- mance of the duties as a certified truth-in-sale-of-housing evalu- ator. (Ord. Iqo. 668, § 1, 7-9-90; Ord. Iqo. 677, § 1, 11-29-90; Ord. No. 704, § 1, 6-6-92) Sec. 9-242. Housing evaluation fees. The city council shall set up a fee schedule by resolution for the filing of truth-in-sale-of-housing disclosure reports. (Ord. No. 668, § 1, 7-9-90; Ord. No. 704, § 1, 6-6-92) Supp. No. 12 558 15 I I I 1 I BUILDINGS AND BUILDING i~EGULATIONS § 9-243 Sec. 9-243. Violations. Any person failing to meet and follow the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to prosecution. (Ord. No. 917, § 1, 12-13-93) Supp. No. 12 559 [The next page is 589] 16 Attachment 3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 770-4560 Fax (651) 748-3096 DISCLOSURE REPORT TRUTH-IN-SALE OF HOUSING (Carefully read this entire report) THIS REPORT IS NOT A WARRANTY, BY THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD OR BY THE EVALUATOR OF THE FUTURE USEFUL LIFE, OR THE FUTURE CONDITION OF ANY BUILDING COMPONENT OR FIXTURE. Notice: A copy of this Report must be publicly displayed at the premises when the house is shown to prospective buyers, and a copy of this Report must be provided to the buyer before the time of signing a Purchase Agreement or other contractual agreement. Address of Evaluated Dwelling: Owner's Name: Owner's Address: Listing Agent and Agency: Type of Dwelling: Single Family ~ Duplex__ Townhouse __ Condo' Other 'For condominium units this evaluation includes only those located within the residential units and does not include the common use areas, or other nonresidential areas of the structure. Comments: SELLER'S DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: To be completed by the Seller or their representative. This Report: 1. is intended to provide basic information to the home buyer and seller prior to the time of sale. Minimum standards for this report are as contained in the Maplewood City Code. 2. is not warranty, by the City of Maplewood, of the condition of the building or any building component, nor of the accuracy of this report. 3. covers only the items listed on the form and only those items visible at the time of the evaluation. The Evaluator is not required to ignite the heating plant, use a ladder to observe the condition of the roofing, disassemble items or evaluate inaccessible areas. 4. may be based upon different standards than the lender, Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA). 5. is valid for one year from the date of issue and only for the owner named on this report. Questions about this report should be directed to the evaluator, seller or the seller's agent. Complaints about this report should be directed to the Community Development Department, Maplewood City Hall, 1830 County Road B East, Maplewood, MN 55109, (651) 770-4560. EVALUATOR: DATE: Page 1 of 4 17 Property Address: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Meets minimum requirements - the item complies with the minimum Housing Code requirements. Below minimum requirements - the item is below minimum Housing Code requirements. Comments - the item cannot be adequately evaluated or it has some deficiency, but the deficiency is insufficient to make the item below minimum [equirements. Hazardous - the item in its present condition may endanger the health and safety of the occupant. Yes No Any item marked "B", "C" or "H" must have a written comment about the item. Additional comment sheets may be attached if needed. BASEMENT/CELLAR Stairs and Handrails .................................... i ......................... Basement/cellar floor ............................................................ Foundation ............................................................................ Evidence of dampness or staining ........................................ First floor, floor system .......................................................... Beams and columns .............................................................. ELECTRICAL SERVICE(S) # of Services ........................... Service size: Amps: 30~ 60.~ 100 . 150~ Other Volts: 115 ~ 115/230 ~ Electrical service installation/grounding ................................ EleCtrical wiring, outlets and fixtures ..................................... Item # Comments PLUMBING SYSTEM 10. Floor drains(s) ....................................................................... 11. Waste and vent piping ........................................................... 12. Water piping .......................................................................... 13. Gas piping (all floors) ............................................................ 14. Water heater(s) installation ................................................... 15. Water heater(s) venting ........................................................ 16. Plumbing fixtures .................................................................. 17. 18. HEATING SYSTEM(S) # of .................................................. Heating plant(s): Fuel: Type: a. Installation and visible condition ...................................... b. Viewed in operation .......................................................... c. Combustion venting ......................................................... The Evaluator is not required to ignite the heating plant(s). Additional heating units(s): Fuel: Type: ~ a. installation and visible condition ...................................... b. Viewed in operation ......................................................... c. Combustion venting ......................................................... 19. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS .................................................. EVALUATOR: DATE: Page 2 of 4 18 Property Address: "M" = Meets minimum requirements. "B" = Below minimum requirements. "C" = Comments. "H" = Hazardous. "Y" = Yes. "N" = No. KITCHEN 20. Walls and ceiling .................................................................. 21. Floor condition and ceiling height ....................................... 22. Evidence of dampness or staining ...................................... 23. Electrical outlets and fixtures .............................................. 24. Plumbing fixtures ................................................................ 25. Water flow, ......................................................................... 26. Window size and openable area ........................................ 27. Window condition ............................................................... LIVING AND DINING ROOM(S) 28. Walls and ceilings .............................................................. 29. Floor condition and ceiling height ...................................... 30. Evidence of dampness or staining ..................................... 31. Electrical outlets and fixtures ............................................. 32. Window size and openable area ........................................ 33. Window condition ............................................................... HALLWAYS, STAIRS AND ENTRIES 34. Walls, ceilings and floors ................................................... 35. Evidence of dampness or staining ..................................... 36. Stairs and handrails to upper floors ................................... 37. Electrical outlets and fixtures ............................................. 38. Window condition ............................................................... 39. Smoke detector(s) .............................................................. Properly located ................................................................. Hard-wired .......................................................................... BATHROOM(S) # of: Full __ Partial 40. Walls and ceiling ................................................................ 41. Floor condition ................................................................... 42. Evidence of dampness or staining ..................................... 43. Electrical outlets and fixtures ............................................. 44. Plumbing fixtures ............................................................... 45. Water flow .......................................................................... 46. Window size and openable area or mechanical exhaust... 47. Condition of windows or mechanical exhaust ..................... SLEEPING ROOM(S) # of: 48. Walls and ceilings ............................................................... 49. Floor condition, area, and ceiling height ............................. 50. Evidence of dampness or staining ...................................... 51. Electrical outlets and fixtures .............................................. 52. Window size and openable area ......................................... 53. Window condition ................................................................ ENCLOSED PORCHES AND OTHER ROOM (Evaluator shall identify each additional room separately and comment when necessary.) 54. Walls and ceiling ................................................................. 55. Evidence of dampness or staining ...................................... 56. Electrical outlets and fixtures .............................................. 57. Window condition ................................................................ ATTIC SPACE (Visible Areas) 58. Roof boards and rafters ...................................................... 59. Evidence of dampness or staining ...................................... 60. Electrical wiring/outlets/fixtures .......................................... 6i. Ventilation ........................................................................... 62. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ................................................ Item # Comments EVALUATOR: DATE: Page 3 of 4 19 ! t I I I Property Address: "M" = Meets minimum requirements. "B" = Below minimum requirements. "C" = Comments. "H" = Hazardous. "Y" = Yes. "N" = No. EXTERIOR (Visible Areas) [taz:Q~ CommerltS 63. Foundation ..................................................................... 64. BasementJcellar windows ................................................... 65. Drainage (grade) .............................................................. 66. Exterior walls ................................................................... ii.' 67. Doors Crames/storms/screens) ......................................... 68. Windows (frames/storms/screens) ...................................... 69. Open porches, stairways and decks ................................... 70. Cornice and trim .................................................................. 71. Roof covedng and flashing .................................................. 72. Gutters and downspouts ..................................................... 7'3. Chimneys ...................................... 74. Outlets, fixtures and service entrance ................................. GARAGE 75. Roof structure and covering ................................................ 76. Wall structure and covering ................................................. 77. Slab condition ...................................................................... 78. Garage doors ....................................................................... '" 79. Garage opener - (see important notice #6) .......................... - 80. Electrical wiring, outlets and fixtures ..................................... 81. Additional Comments ........................................................ "' I hereby certify that the above report is made in compliance with the Maplewood City Code, and that I have utilized the care and diligence, reasonable and ordinary, for meeting the certification standards prescribed by the Truth-In-Sale of Housing Ordinance, Article Xll of Chapter 9. I have found no instance of non-compliance with the items listed above as of the date of this report, except those designated herein. EVALUATOR: Phone Number: Date: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE NOT MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS. THEIR INCLUSION ON THIS FORM IS ONLY TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO THE BUYER. NO DETERMINATION IS MADE WHETHER THE ITEMS MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ENERGY INFORMATION INSULATION 82. Attic Insulation .................................................. 83. Foundation Insulation ....................................... 84. Kneewall insulation .......................................... 85. Rim Joist Insulation .......................................... 86. Storm Doors ..................................................... 87. Storm Windows ................................................ WEATHERSTRIPPING 88. .Doors ............................................................... 89. Windows .......................................................... FIREPLACE/VVOODSTOVES # of .................. 90. Dampers installed in fireplaces ........................ 91. installation ........................................................ 92. Condition .......................................................... Approx. NV Type of Insulation Inches NA NV = Not Visible NA = Not Applicable IMPORTANT NOTICES Rainleaders connected to the sanitary sewer system must be disconnected. Any house built before 1950 may have lead paint on/in it. If children eat lead paint, they can be poisoned. For more information call the Environmental Health Officer, 770-4560. The City of Maplewood or the Evaluator are not responsible for the determination of the presence of airborne particles such as asbestos, noxious gases, such as radon or other conditions of air quality that may be present, nor the conditions which may cause the above. Automatic garage doors should reverse upon striking an object. If it does not reverse, it poses a serious hazard and should be repaired or replaced immediately. Page 4 of ' 20 Attachment CITY OF MAPLEWOOD TRUTH-IN-SALE INSPECTION FORM FOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING (Use in conjunction with Truth-in-sale Housing Form) The following is a list of the most common non-compliance items found in manufactured homes. These are only examples and potential non-compliances or code issues are not limited to the given examples. Non- compliances may occur after the home is out of the factory, usually during the time it is occupied or in some cases, during dealer or other alterations. o 10. Exterior receptacles have weatherproof protector covers. This includes heat tape receptacles mounted under the home. CFR 3280.808(a) and NEC 410-57(a) or (b). Complies Correction Required - Comments Nonmetallic cable added under or on the exterior of the home is protected by rigid metal conduit and conductors suitable for wet locations. CFR 3280.808(k) and NEC 410-57(a). Complies Correction Required - Comments Boxes, fittings and cabinets are securely fastened in place. Common examples are duplex receptacle boxes, electric range and clothes dryer receptacles. CFR 3280.808(n). Complies Correction Required - Comments Unprotected nonmetallic cable located 15 inches or less above the floor or nonmetallic cable likely to be damaged when exposed (i.e. wiring in closet or storage areas). CFR 3208.808(c). (This would include wiring added without permits and inspections.) Complies Correction Required - Comments Electric ranges and clothes dryers have the required 4-conductor cords and plugs. CFR 3280.809(b)(2). Complies Correction Required - Comments Solid fuel-burning fireplaces or stoves are listed for use in manufactured homes, CFR 3280.709(g), or are listed and installed correctly according to the listing or standards (i.e. chimney, doors, hearth, combustion or intake, etc.). CFR 3280.709(g)(i). Complies Correction Required - Comments Replacement gas water heaters or furnaces are listed for manufactured home use. CFR 3208.709(d). Complies Correction Required - Comments Furnace, water heater, or wood burner flue/stacks are listed for use with the appliance. CFR3208.707 and 3280.709. __Complies ~Correction Required- Comments Gas appliances (i.e. range, clothes dryer, furnace, water heater, etc.) have the required shutoff upstream of the union connector. CFR 3280.705(k)(3). The shutoff is also required to within 6 feet of a cooking appliance and within 3 feet of other appliances. ~Complies ~Correction Required- Comments Correct plastic pipefitting or materials are used for drain lines. (A commonly found violation is ABS fittings glued to PVC riflings and or pipe.) CFR 3280.610(e). __.Complies Correction Required - Comments 21 I 1 I '7 m 11. Exterior water faucets installed with backflow preventers. CFR 3280.609(b)(2). Options for correction include addition of a non-renewable vacuum breaker or removal of exterior water faucet and capping water line. Complies Correction Required - Comments 12. Water heaters have a pressure-temperature relief valve. CFR 3280.609(c)(ii). Relief valve element must relieve pressure at 150 psi and at or below a water temperature of 210°F and must also have a full size drain line with cross section area equal to that of the relief valve, extended to discharge beneath the home. CFR 3280.609(c)(iii). Complies Correction Required - Comments 13. Fire stop collars located at ceiling line on furnace and water heater flue/stack. CFR 3280.206(c). Complies Correction Required - Comments 14. Smoke detectors present. Required between bedroom areas and living areas. CFR 3280.208. Homes with bedrooms at each end and living areas in center would require a minimum of two detectors. Complies __Correction Required - Comments 15. Condition of the floor decking. (Decking should support a 40 psf uniform live load.) (A commonly found violation is rotted or decayed floor decking.) CFR 3280.305(g). Complies ~Correction Required - Comments 16. Floor decking in kitchens, bathrooms, laundry areas, and water heater compartments is protected from moisture damage. CFR 3280.306(g)(2) allows for protection of decking by sealing with an approved sealer or an overlay of nonabsorbent material. When retro fitting kitchen or bathroom areas with carpet, the decking must remain protected with one of the approved methods. Complies ~Correction Required - Comments 17. Holes in bottom board material or around pipes, ducts, etc. are sealed to resist entrance of rodents. CFR 3280.307(d) and 3280.705(a). ~Complies Correction Required - Comments 18. Holes in exterior coverings of homes or broken missing exterior doors and/or windows prevent the elements (i.e. rain, snow, etc) from exposed interior materials. CFR 3280.307(a) and (b). Complies Correction Required - Comments 19. Homes with windows remodeled or removed which do not comply with light, vent and egress requirements. CFR 3280.103, "Light and Ventilation," (a) Each habitable room requires 8% of gross floor area light and 4% ventilation. (b) Kitchens may be provided with artificial light and mechanical ventilation capable of producing an air change every 30 minutes. (c) Bathroom and toilet compartments, 1 ½ sq. ft. of openable window or ventilation system capable of a change in air every 12 minutes. Complies Correction Required - Comments CFR 3280.106, "Egress Windows," every bedroom requires a egress window a net clear opening of 22" wide and 22" high, 5 sq. ft. in area, with the bottom of window opening no more than 36" above the floor. Locks, latches, operating handles, tabs or other operational devices shall not be located more than 54" above the finished floor. Complies Correction Required - Comments 22 CFR 3280.506(c): Homes designed for use in Minnesota shall be factory equipped with storm windows or insulated glass. Complies ~Correction Required- Comments 20. Home with replaced doodpatio door glass, tub surround and shower door glass, or window glass around bathtubs; replaced with safety glazing, CFR 3280.114. Glazing in all entrance doors, sliding glass doors, unbacked mirrored wardrobe doors, shower and bathtub enclosures to a height of 6 feet above the floor, and sidelites within 12 inches of either side of an entrance door must be safety glazing materials that meet ANSI Z97.1-1984. Complies Correction Required - Comments 21. Electrical distribution panelboards re-worked or added in compliance of location and protection requirements. CFR 3280.804(f). Panelboards shall not be located in bathrooms. A minimum of 6 inches of clearance from easily ignitable materials must be maintained in front of panelboard. A clear working space of 30 inches wide and 30 inches front of panel shall be maintained. Complies Correction Required - Comments 22. Gas line piping not used for electrical ground. CFR 3280.705(I)(5). Complies Correction Required - Comments 23. Home displaying construction labels or data plates. CFR 3280.8 requires homes manufactured after June 14, 1976, to have permanently applied on the exterior of each section a HUD construction label. CFR 3280.5 requires homes manufactured after June 14, 1976, to have permanently applied to each home a data plate with the manufacturer's name/address, date of manufacturer, roof design load, wind design load, heating design and list of all major appliances installed at the manufacturer's facility. Minnesota Statute 327.32 requires a state construction label be affixed to manufactured homes manufactured between July 1, 1972 and June 14, 1976. Complies ~Correction Required - Comments 24. All alterations done with approval and meet requirements of codes and standards that affect the structures, egress, electrical, mechanical, required light/ventilation, etc. MSBC 1350.3800. __Complies Correction Required - Comments 25. Home properly anchored/stabilized. MSBC 1350.2500 through 1350.3200. ~Complies Correction Required - Comments 26. Both exits are unobstructed to the exterior. Landings, stairs, handrails and guardrails meet Uniform Building Code requirements. ~Complies Correction Required - Comments 27. Address identification is visible from the street or driveway and is in a contrasting color with the structure. Complies Correction Required - Comments EVALUATOR: Phone Number: Date: 1[ ! [ '1 I