[MainstreetManagers] Answers from state on vacant buildings

Wed Nov 3 10:40:08 CDT 2021

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ashley Stuart <Ashley.Stuart at okhouse.gov>
Date: Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: 2014 House Bill 2620
To: Alyssa McCleery <newkirkmainstreet at gmail.com>

Hello!

Please see the below response from our research staff, please let me know
if this helps or if you need more clarification!

Taking the questions in order, the best I can…

1)      The measure did pass, signed into law by Gov. Fallin on 5/23/2014.

2)      The measure is about 6 pages of new law, not amending preexisting
statute, and is codified as Sections 22-110.1 and 22-112.4 of Title 11.
There were 3 sections in HB2620, but only 2 with actual law, each given a
different section number.

3)      Section 22-110.1 does prohibit a municipality from enforcing,
through fees or fines or criminal penalties, any form of rule or ordinance
requiring registration of real property. The section goes on to carve out
exceptions, including that nothing in the act prohibits a municipality from
creating a list of property owners or designees, or from enacting and
enforcing rules to require property owners to comply with occupancy
standards.

4)      The next section of the measure, now at Section 22-112.4 of Title
11, goes into abandoned buildings, public nuisance, and abatement of the
nuisance. This section seems to rely on a building being abandoned, which
may not apply in cases mentioned below where a building is being used for
storage.

There is a possible path forward for the situation mentioned below, with
historic buildings being unutilized and in disrepair. Section 22-112 seems
to allow a municipal governing body to declare a structure to constitute a
public nuisance. That provision does not appear to have any requirements
about the building’s state of disrepair or use/lack of use. If the building
is completely abandoned, or has not had proper repairs done and constitutes
a safety hazard, the municipality can declare it a nuisance.

At that point the municipality can avail itself of the other provisions of
22-112.4. Abatement procedures allowed by this statute include assessments
against the property and against the owner, of actual costs of regulatory
action taken or of any police or fire protection actions taken. The city
can also assess for other actual expenses incurred, including notices,
mailings, and publications. If assessments are not paid in full, the city
can place a lien on the property. The abatement, and
charges/fees/assessments incurred to the owner for that abatement, can
continue until the building is removed from the city’s abandoned building
list.

An owner or mortgage holder of a building on an abandoned building list can
petition the municipality for removal, which then requires a hearing to
determine if the building is no longer abandoned. If the building is no
longer abandoned, the owner is still liable for payment of any and all
abatement costs prior to the determination, and the building isn’t removed
from the list until those costs are paid in full.

So, the bottom line here is that the statute identified does prohibit fees,
fines or criminal penalties being used to require **registration** of real
property, after an attempt by Oklahoma City to build a database of vacant
properties paid for by fees, but specifically does not prohibit the
municipality from creating a list of property owners. Municipal governments
are also still allowed to enforce occupancy standards, building codes,
etc., and can do so by rule or ordinance. There are also options in between
“do nothing” and “condemn and tear down.”

*From:* Alyssa McCleery <newkirkmainstreet at gmail.com>
*Sent:* Monday, July 12, 2021 5:23 PM
*To:* Ashley Stuart <Ashley.Stuart at okhouse.gov>
*Subject:* 2014 House Bill 2620

*[EXTERNAL - This message is from a source outside of the Oklahoma House of
Representatives network.]*

Hi Ashley!

I was hoping you could provide some clarity on the 2014 House Bill 2620. If
I am understanding this correctly, it did pass and is listed as 11 OK Stat
§ 11-22-110.1 (2020). Under this statute, a municipality may not pass an
ordinance that would cause the owner of a vacant building to be levied a
fee/fine for the building continuing to remain vacant? It seems that if I
am comprehending, the only resolution a municipality has for a vacant
building is to declare it abandoned/dilapidated and tear it down.

As a Main Street director, I am sure you can understand that I find this
heartbreaking as our community starts investigating avenues to discourage
the use of our historic buildings as "storage units". I currently have a
list of approximately a half a dozen individuals that would like to start a
business in the Newkirk Main Street district but I, unfortunately, do not
have any property to offer them due to owner neglect and/or
underutilization.

Thank you in advance for any guidance you can provide on this matter.

Sincerely,

Alyssa Winner McCleery

Program Director
NOTICE: The information in this email is confidential, legally privileged,
and exempt from disclosure under law. It is intended solely for the
addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any
action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and
unlawful. The Oklahoma House of Reps does not warrant any e-mail
transmission received as being virus free, and disclaims any liability for
losses or damages arising from the use of this e-mail or its attachments.
Recipients of e-mail assume the risk of possible computer virus exposure by
opening or utilizing the e-mail and its attachments, and waive any right or
recourse against the House by doing so.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onenet.net/pipermail/mainstreetmanagers/attachments/20211103/3a26cde7/attachment.html>