ºÝºÝߣ

Editor's Notes

• #27: By way of introduction, the Ohio Code Enforcement Officials Association, or OCEOA for short, is a non-profit, professional association for property maintenance, health, safety, and zoning code enforcement officers and agencies. We primarily focus on the education needs and technical support of our local members and their respective communities and so our interest and role in this conversation and for the overall future of this legislation is rather specific and cautionary.
• #28: The one particular section of House Bill 463 that has drawn such interest from our members ¨C relates to section 2308.031 (A) ¨C which is the provision regarding the prohibition on the use of plywood for securing structures foreclosed under the fast-track foreclosure section. As we have already heard, there are both a significant anecdotal and empirical evidence that the number of vacant properties in our communities have both economic and social costs for our communities. Though federal and state funded initiatives over the past decade or so have focused on reducing the volume of chronically vacant structures through demolition, the reality is that vacant properties will remain an issue in many of Ohio¡¯s communities for decades. Even the most conservative of figures place the number of vacant and abandoned residential units in the tens of thousands, not to mention vacant commercial and industrial sites. And as we all know, properties become vacant for a number of reasons and can remain that way for different time periods, but whether it is the result of a house fire; the death of a homeowner; the foreclosure of a mortgage; or just general neglect -- properties in all our communities can become vacant and require securing. And while this legislation specifically applies to structures that become the subject of fast-track foreclosure initiated under ORC 2308 ¨C this reality and the research being offered - make the topic of alternative methods for securing a vacant property a source of conversation that we should not shy away from. We know the prevailing method for securing vacant structures is plywood, and that the potential costs of alternatives can become an issue that many of our smaller communities are not ready to digest, but let¡¯s take a quick look at an example community and one project in particular to put this question in context.
• #29: So in preparing for this conversation, we took a quick look at one traditional Ohio community. The City of Springfield has historically been a bellwether community for many of the issues facing our state. And it is in that vein I wanted to briefly look at some of the specific impacts of this legislative change on both the immediate future and what it would mean should our communities consider expanding this blight-mitigation philosophy to other types of vacant property securing methods ¨C and also offer some thoughts and considerations for future modifications to these initiatives. In 2016 alone, this small middle-class community effected the boarding of 87 structures. That accounts for 252 separate openings, using 4,741 square feet of plywood. A review of the available data for each structure, shows that on average 30% of openings have a common/standard size ¨C this type of standardization can become important when looking at overall abatement costs and material-needs. In 2016 a little over $20,000 was spent securing these 87 structure; accounting for 1/10th the annual abatement budget for weeds/grass cutting, junk/debris removal, and demolition in this city of 60,000 residents.
• #30: Taking a note from our coastal communities ¨C we know there are alternatives to plywood for securing structures. Each has its benefits and challenges ¨C and so we looked at an average randomnly selected structure from the 2016 list and found a 1,700 square foot duplex that was built around 1871. This structure had 10 openings that were accessible from the first floor and which required securing. Under the current system ¨C plywood boards were used and the material costs alone were $106.56 ($0.37 per square foot) ¨C the costs/pricing I am referencing are prices available through either the local Lowes/Home Depot and/or vendors that supply these materials currently. If we were to obtain a film-covered plywood (similar to the disguised plywood boards that were the rave several years ago) we would see a cost of about $224.64 roughly $0.78 per square foot If we were to obtain a sheet metal covering we would see a cost of about $556.32 being roughly $2.44 per square foot. Metal security bars would cost roughly $766.08 at a little over $2.66 per square foot. If we were to obtain plexiglas material from a supplier like Lowes we would spend $1,071.36 about $3.72 per square foot on materials. I¡¯m sure these higher material costs will come down as demand increases; and while I will defer to my fellow panelists to discuss the benefits and long-term cost-savings of these more expensive products. And before I go through my last side and give up the floor ¨C I want to underscore that many of our members and myself personally see great value and potential in the future use of these newer products and believe that their strategic use can improve community safety and resilience. But we must be mindful of the full costs and impact of future changes.
• #31: In my last minute or two I want to discuss the future consideration that we at the Ohio Code Enforcement Association humbly suggest our communities leaders and legislators evaluate when determining the effectiveness of this law and future legislative amendments. The use of these newer polycarbonate materials provides an opportunity to divert materials from the waste stream as we see potential for upwards of 30% of materials being salvage and reused in future structure securing efforts. We must evaluate and work with local communities and code development entities to ensure that our model building-safety codes, local ordinances, and government abatement contracts do not conflict with these provisions in the dictation of permissible materials; both in this current application and any future local expansions. We must make sure that local emergency personnel have adequate training and awareness on methods for gaining entry to structures secured with these new products. We must be cognizant of potential needs for exemptions and exclusions associated with insurance claims and natural disasters. These alternative products and methods for securing vacant and abandoned structures, when used strategically, can truly be tools for reclaiming our communities that have seen blight run rampant ¨C but I encourage all communities listening to this presentation to consider evaluating your existing practices and ordinances - see how you can encourage the use of these types of smart redevelopment tool in your own community.