Residential Structure Report City of Columbia 2009

RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE & PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT 2009
INTRODUCTION
Since its inception in December 2004, the Department of Planning and Development
Services has made great strides towards implementing its goals and objectives. In the
beginning, supervisors reallocated the current Housing and Code Enforcement
Inspectors to cover the City more effectively and to focus efforts in high-violation areas.
Also, inspectors were added and cross trained to be knowledgeable of various State and
local codes and ordinances regarding property, housing, and zoning.
In April 2006, the department “went live” with tracking software called BluePrince. The
software gave the department the ability to track all aspects of code enforcement,
building inspections, plan review, and permits, and to generate reports and monitor
trends in a timely manner. This latter feature enabled the department to extract the data
from BluePrince and to plot it on a map utilizing Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
software to illustrate the location of the violation and the type of violation. A year later,
in April 2007, the department made this information available online as downloadable
reports by neighborhood; these reports include a map and list of all the respective code
violations within distinct time periods. The reports, called “The Neighborhood Reports
of Code Enforcement Violations,” can be found for each of the 102 neighborhoods as
identified by the Columbia Council of Neighborhoods (CCN). These reports considerably
increased access to this type of information to the general public and drastically reduced
the number of direct inquires to the department.
In an effort to take these resources to the next level and to enhance the effectiveness of
the department’s service to the public, the department initiated this Residential
Structure and Property Conditions Assessment in August 2007. The primary purpose of
this assessment is to evaluate the structures and properties of the approximately 28,000
single- and two-family residences within the City of Columbia. From this baseline
inventory, the department will have a more effective tool to not only identify trends in
code violations, but to have a way to quantitatively determine whether the department is
making a positive impact on the conditions and quality of life within Columbia’s
neighborhoods. In the City of Columbia, code enforcement at multi-family residential
CITY OF COLUMBIA
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1
and commercial structures and properties is the purview of the Columbia Fire
Department, Office of the Fire Marshal.
OBJECTIVE
The primary purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the structures and properties of
the approximately 28,000 single- and two-family residences within the City of Columbia
to establish a baseline inventory of the existing conditions. Then, this data can be used
to measure improvement/progress over time. Additionally, the data can help provide a
proactive direction to code enforcement by focusing on the structures and properties
that pose a potential threat to the health and well being of the general public.
While this assessment is not intended as an official notice of code violations, it does
measure each structure and property based on its compliance with existing local code –
primarily the 2003 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). While the
methodology was conducted in consultation with code enforcement and housing
inspectors of the City of Columbia, only those persons can issue notices and/or
summonses to a party responsible for the condition of the structure and property.
CASE STUDIES
This assessment is innovative in that it has not been done to such a large extent before.
Various types of housing assessments have been conducted by other municipalities with
broad quality of living, affordability, and other like indicators, generally measuring
quality of life issues, but not to the extent and magnitude of this assessment.
Of the several regional cities that were contacted regarding past housing conditions
assessments, not one demonstrated any knowledge of ever having done an assessment
of this magnitude. Few cities of similar size to that of Columbia have even attempted a
sample-based housing conditions assessment, and none of the cities contacted have ever
completed an assessment that encompasses every single- and two-family residence
within the city limits. Many of the cities that did have a rating method were looking at
the subjective physical appearance of the structure instead of using a standardized
CITY OF COLUMBIA
ratings system based on adopted codes and ordinances. As the needs of this study are
different than those within the case studies, it is necessary to consider the ideas from
those studies but impractical to use them completely. See Appendix C for more details
about the communities and organizations studied.
METHODOLOGY
To establish a baseline inventory of the existing conditions of all the single- and two-
family residential structures and properties within the City limits, an all-encompassing
assessment of each was conducted. To minimize impact and inconveniences to the
citizens, it was determined that the assessor would take a visual inspection of the
property from the street and/or very edge of the property. The visual inspection of the
structure and property was necessary to evaluate the structural integrity and overall
compliance with property maintenance code and local ordinances, as well as to establish
the baseline rating to which those evaluations can be compared over time to show
improvement or decline.
Evaluation Method
The evaluation system is primarily based on the 2003 International Property
Maintenance Code as adopted by City Council on August 17, 2005 (Ordinance 2005-
080). While City Council has since adopted the 2006 IPMC, that code does not
drastically differ from the 2003 version and would not change the results of this
assessment. The criteria evaluated were pared down to include only external features of
a structure and the associated property. Assessors evaluated 17 different features. Each
feature had five different possible severity ratings: No Violation, Minor Violation,
Violation Present, Severe, or Dangerous. In practice, not all of the different possibilities
were used for each feature. Next, the importance placed on violations of each of the
specific features was determined with consultation with city inspectors. Structural
problems (foundation walls, structural members, etc.) were weighed more heavily than
minor features (sidewalks and driveways, weeds and rodents, etc.) and aesthetic
features (decorative features, premises identification, etc.). The resulting four
groupings of features (into importance categories A-D) were based on the level of impact
CITY OF COLUMBIA
each violation would have on the overall health, safety, and well being of the resident. In
this case, category A would have the most impact and category D would have the least.
A description and each type of violation are outlined below based on the IPMC.
Importance Category A Violations:

Chimneys / Towers - All chimneys, towers, and other similar structures must
be kept structurally sound and all exposed surfaces of metal or wood shall be
protected from the elements and against decay.
Exterior Walls - All exterior walls must be free from holes, breaks, and loose or
rotting materials, as well as properly surface coated where required to prevent
deterioration.
Foundation Walls / Basement Hatchways - All foundation walls must be
plumb and free from open cracks and breaks so as to maintain structural stability
and prevent the entry of rodents and other pests.
Roofs and Drainage - The roof and flashing must be sound, tight, and not have
defects that admit rain. Roof drainage must be adequate to prevent dampness or
deterioration in the walls or interior of the structure. All drains, gutters, and
downspouts must be maintained in good repair and free from obstructions.
Water must not be discharged in a way that creates a public nuisance. The term
“roof” means any group of boards, tiles, or shingles resting on top of the roof
joists. Anything attached below the joists or on the face of the house is classified
elsewhere.
Structural Members - All structural members must be maintained free from
deterioration and must be capable of safely supporting the imposed dead and live
loads. Structural members include columns and other weight-bearing members
that would not constitute being classified as exterior walls.
Importance Category B Violations:

Accessory Structures - All accessory structures (detached garages, fences, and
walls) must remain structurally sound and in good repair.
CITY OF COLUMBIA
Overhang Extensions - Any board, tile, or brick member that rests above the
exterior walls but below the roof joists are classified as overhang extensions. All
overhang extensions, including but not limited to canopies, marquees, signs,
metal awnings, fire escapes, standpipes, and exhaust ducts, must be maintained
in good repair and properly anchored. All exposed metal or woods must be
protected from the elements against decay or rust.
Protective Treatment - All exterior surfaces must be maintained in good
condition. Exterior wood surfaces (other than decay-resistant woods) must be
protected from the elements and decay by painting or protective covering or
treatment. All siding and masonry joints must be maintained weather resistant
and kept water tight. All metal surfaces subject to rust or corrosion must be
coated to inhibit such rust and corrosion. Uncovered foundation vents are
included in this category also.
Stairways / Decks / Porches / Balconies / Handrails / Guards - Every
stairway, deck, porch, and balcony shall be kept in sound condition with proper
anchorage. All handrails and guards must be firmly fashioned and capable of
supporting normally imposed loads.
Windows / Doors - All windows and doors must be kept in sound condition
and weather tight.
Importance Category C Violations:

Grading / Drainage / Sidewalks / Driveways - All premises must be graded
and maintained to prevent erosion and accumulation of stagnant water thereon.
All sidewalks and parking areas must be kept in proper state of repair and free
from hazardous conditions.
Motor Vehicles - No inoperative or unlicensed motor vehicle must be parked,
kept, or stored on any premises, and no vehicle shall at any time be in a state of
major disassembly, disrepair, or in the process of being stripped or dismantled.
Painting of vehicles is not allowed unless conducted inside an approved spray
booth. (Inoperable Motor Vehicle: A vehicle which cannot be driven upon
the public streets for reason including but not limited to being unlicensed,
CITY OF COLUMBIA
wrecked, abandoned, in a state of disrepair, or incapable of being moved under

its own power.)
Sanitation / Rubbish / Garbage - All exterior property and premises must be
maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. All exterior property shall be
free from accumulating rubbish and garbage (including abandoned furniture,
appliances, etc.). (Garbage: The animal or vegetable waste resulting from the
handling, cooking, and consumption of food. Rubbish: Combustible and
noncombustible waste materials, except garbage; the term shall include the
residue from the burning of wood, coal, coke, and other combustible materials,
paper, rages, cartons, boxes, wood, excelsior, rubber, leather, tree branches, yard
trimmings, tin cans, metals, mineral matter, glass, crockery and dust, and other
similar materials.)
Weeds / Rodent Harborage - All grasses, annual plants, and vegetation other
than trees and shrubs provided must not grow in excess of 12 inches (not
including cultivated flowers and gardens). All structures and property must be
kept free from rodent harborage and infestation. (Weeds: All grasses, annual
plants, and vegetation, other than trees and shrubs provided; but not including
cultivated flowers and gardens.)
Importance Category D Violations:

Decorative Features - All cornices, belt courses, corbels, terra cotta trim, wall
facings and similar decorative features must be maintained in good repair with
proper anchorage and in a safe condition.
Defacement of Property - The property must not have any exterior surface
with marking, carving or graffiti.
Premises Identification - Buildings must have approved address numbers
placed in a position to be plainly legible and visible from the street or road
fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background and
be a minimum of 4 inches high and 0.5 inches wide.
CITY OF COLUMBIA
Grading Method
Each structure and property was graded using a point system. First, for each of the 17
features, the assessor determined whether the condition was No Violation, Minor
Violation, Violation Present, Severe, or Dangerous. Each of these determinations of
severity included a correlating point value based on the impact the violation had on the
structural integrity of the house and property maintenance. In other words, violations
that directly or more significantly impact the structural integrity of the house were given
more points. The corresponding point values are: No Violation (0 points), Minor
Violation (1 point), Violation Present (2 points), Severe Violation (4 points), or a
Dangerous Violation (8 points). “No Violation” meant the assessor could not observe a
violation of this type on the property. “Minor Violation” meant that a violation was
barely worth noting (e.g. a premises identification violation where the premises are
identified but the numbers are smaller than the size required by code). “Violation
Present” meant that a violation was obviously present but it did not pose any danger. A
“Severe Violation” meant that violations were found that could possibly pose a danger to
health and property in time with lack of proper repair; this classification is also used to
represent a multiplicity of violations of the same kind. Finally, a “Dangerous Violation”
meant that violations existed that could pose an immediate threat to the safety of
occupants and/or neighbors.
Next, the categories A-D were assigned an importance factor.. Category A violations
were assigned a factor of 10, category B violations were assigned a factor of 5, category C
violations were assigned a factor of 3, and category D violations were assigned a factor
of 2. Then, to calculate the number of points a violation would add to the property’s
score, the severity rating of each feature was multiplied by the importance factor
assigned to the associated category. For example, a decorative feature violation (2) that
is deemed to be severe in nature (4) would add 8 points to a property’s score (2 x 4 = 8).
This system allowed the assessor to establish a difference not only between the different
categories of violations but also between the differences found for the various types of
features. In other words, the system adds more points to a house’s rating for a roof
CITY OF COLUMBIA
problem than for a driveway problem, and the system adds more points to a severe roof
problem than for a minor roof problem.
Final Scoring and Rating System

After the structure and property have been assessed, the points are totaled to produce
the final score for that property. The total points determine how the structure and
property are rated (i.e. Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, or Very poor). For example, a house
with no violations receives a total score of 0 points, which is a Very Good overall rating.
Below is a description of the general characteristics of each rating along with the
corresponding ranges:
Very Good – (0-9) – The dwelling and property show near-perfect condition.
Very little deterioration is apparent, and the structure demonstrates a high
standard of upkeep relative to its age.
Good – (10-19) – The dwelling and property show minor deterioration. All items
are well maintained. Wear and tear is below standard relative to the structure’s
age.
Fair – (20-39) - The dwelling and property indicate wear and tear. Evidence of
slight deferred maintenance is apparent. Minor repairs and refinishing may be
necessary.
Poor – (40-79) – The dwelling and property indicate obvious deterioration, but
are generally still usable. Much repair is needed, and many items need refinishing
or overhauling. Deferred maintenance is obvious.
Very Poor (80+) – The dwelling is structurally unsound or has visible
deterioration. Property may not be usable and has excessive deferred
maintenance.
Buildings in the process of repair/construction were rated “as is” with notes added to
delineate that there was a repair/construction at the time of assessment so that a future
reassessment of the property could take place.
CITY OF COLUMBIA
Other Data Collected

The main purpose of this report was to assess the conditions of the property and
structures on each parcel. Additional information was collected, such as the assessor
name, date of assessment, number of stories of primary structure, whether it appeared
to be single or two-family, or whether or not the structure appeared to be vacant.
Due to the time required to complete the study, many houses that had violations at the
beginning of the assessment may have been repaired before the study was completed.
The dates were recorded to settle any disputes upon the release of the assessment
results. Of the houses that had a completed permit during the time of the assessment,
the houses that were rated less than Good were reassessed at the end of the study. The
results in the Field Survey Results section of this report have been updated to include
changes to a structure/property due to completed permits through September 29, 2008.
Houses ranged from one story to three stories, with half stories being recorded. For this
assessment, a half story was defined as a habitable floor which has heated square
footage that is no greater than one-half the heated square footage of the largest story. In
delineating the height of a building, the following features were excluded: chimneys,
cooling towers, elevator bulkheads, tanks, water towers, radio and television towers,
ornamental cupolas, domes or spires, and parapet walls not exceeding four feet in
height.
The determination of whether a dwelling was single-family, two-family, or multi-family

was based on the number of water meters and/or addresses visible on the structure or
property.
Software/Hardware Requirements
The Department of Planning and Development Services designed this system and
implemented the assessment utilizing primarily existing software such as Microsoft
Office, ESRI Software (ArcMap, ArcPad, and Spatial Analysts extensions) for GIS work.
Desktop computers and handheld Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) equipped with a
CITY OF COLUMBIA
Global Positioning System (GPS) were also used for this assessment. Two additional
handheld units equipped with GPS, the Trimble Juno ST, were purchased for the data
collection/field work portion of this study. For the most part, staff was knowledgeable
of the Microsoft Office software and at least one staff member was fluent in GIS. The
primary training efforts were focused on training the data collection/field staff to use
the ArcPad software and the handheld GPS units in conjunction with the evaluation
methodology.
Factors Affecting Results

Several problems were encountered that must be noted. During early testing of the
system, the two assessors produced differing results. Although the test areas selected
were anecdotally among the areas with the most violations in the City, it had been
observed that the closer the neighborhood was to Very Good, the amount of error
between assessors lessened. The differing results were eventually attributed to three
factors: errors in the GIS database with parcels, user input error, and assessor
disagreement. Familiarity with the equipment reduced much of the input error.
Familiarity also lessened discrepancies between assessors concerning placement of
parcels. The main factor remaining and the least likely to be resolved was assessor
disagreement. Every effort was made to educate assessors on the types of violations and
the method of the rating system. However, some margin of error still existed, despite
best intentions.
The system was developed in a very specific way so as to categorize observations into
certain general categories. Human judgment was made on the borders of these
groupings. As such, scores were rounded down in all uncertain situations, rather than
rounded up, to minimize the impact of human error from judgment. While error
between assessors threatened the internal validity, some level of error was acceptable.
Based on the several quality control check points throughout the data collection period
in which the assessors assessed the same few blocks for comparison, 87 percent of the
time, the assessors were within 10 points of each other. 95 percent of the time, the
assessors were within 20 points of each other. Although the goal was for the assessors to
CITY OF COLUMBIA
asses structures and property identically, discrepancies within 20 points did not
significantly affect the overall outcomes or results because, where those discrepancies
occurred, they most often occurred at properties rated Fair, Poor, or Very Poor, and
those ratings had much wider point ranges than the Very Good or Good categories.
The duration of data collection was also a factor affecting the validity of results. The
duration of collection was approximately one year, leaving a large gap in time from the
beginning of collection to the end of the collection. It is possible that in the intervening
period, factors changed. However, this concern was mitigated by the simultaneous
update of the houses with completed building permits. As such, the duration of data
collection should not have skewed the results.
Reasons for Validity

Despite the potential for complications, more compelling reasons suggest that the
results are accurate, primarily the effectiveness of the Department of Planning and
Development Services. Out of the roughly 3,200 houses in the City that were rated fair
or below, 936 had open code enforcement cases and 125 had outstanding building
permits. Of the Poor houses, 233 out of 573 had open code enforcement cases and 35
had outstanding building permits. The percentage of each rating with permits decreased
as the rating improved. The pattern expected if the data were correct is that the
department is focusing their efforts on the worst houses, and that appears to be the case,
again supporting the validity of the study. It is unlikely that all of the Poor and Very
Poor houses will receive permits every year as these cases often span multiple years, but
ideally there should at least be a case open on each of them.
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS

There were almost 32,000 data points collected during the field survey. 28,222 of these
data points are single- and two-family residences. 3,072 were vacant lots that are
residentially zoned and 553 were not in the City limits. Of the 28,222 single- and two-
family residences, 26,774 or 95 percent are single-family dwellings and 1,225 or 4
percent are duplexes. 223 or less than 1 percent were not distinguishable.
CITY OF COLUMBIA
Again, the primary focus of this study is single- and two-family residences. Exhibit A on
page 14 is an overview of all the single- and two-family structures that were inventoried
(they are color coded based on the rating). Of those 28,222 properties City-wide, 14,932
or 53 percent had no violations at the time of assessment. 67.7 percent were rated Very
Good, 21.1 percent were rated Good, 9.2 percent were rated Fair, 1.8 percent were rated
Poor, and 0.2 percent were rated Very Poor. Overall, 88.7 percent of the properties were
rated Good or better.
Over the duration of the data collection period, 1,423 properties had residential building
permits issued on them. 243 of those that were rated Good or below were reassessed
immediately following data collection1. Of the 1,423 properties that had permits issued,
70.3 percent were rated Very Good, 20.9 percent Good, 6.3 percent Fair, 2 percent
Poor, and less than 1 percent Very Poor. 204 properties had both a permit issued and a
code enforcement (CE) case on them during the assessment period (August 28, 2007
thru November 12, 2008). Therefore, one can assume that almost 15 percent of the
permits issued may have been a direct result of code enforcement. As expected, the
percentage of code enforcement cases on properties increase as the rating of the
property decreases. Table 1 illustrates these results.
TABLE 1
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor

Total Houses by Category 19,098 5,942 2610 510 62
% of Total Houses 67.7% 21.1% 9.2% 1.8% 0.2%
Total Houses with CE Cases 1,042 815 703 196 38
% of Houses with PM Cases* 5.5% 13.7% 26.9% 38.4% 61.3%
Total Houses with Permits 1,001 297 90 29 6
% of Houses with Permits 5.2% 5.0% 3.4% 5.7% 9.7%
Total Houses w/ Permit & CE Case 81 61 44 13 5
% of Cases with Permit 7.8% 7.5% 6.3% 6.6% 13.2%
* Includes only PM cases that may influence the rating of the property.
The different types of violations a property could have along with the number of
properties having each violation are illustrated in Table 2 on page 13. The most common
violations were of Protective Treatments and Sidewalks/Driveways. These violations
1
The Field survey results reflect the reassessed properties.
CITY OF COLUMBIA
made up nearly 60 percent of the total number of violations with 7,357 and 7,206
properties respectively. Nearly 25 percent of the violations were Premises
Identification, Accessory Structures, Motor Vehicles, and/or Overhang Extensions.
Category A violations only attributed to 6 percent of the total violations. Overall, there
were 3,866 minor, 19,326 present, 1,081 severe, and 26 dangerous violations.
A total of 199,101 points were assessed on the 28,222 single- and two-family residences.
The most common violations of Protective Treatments and Sidewalks/Driveways made
up more than half of the total points with 72,770 and 42,303 points respectively.
TABLE 2
TOTAL NUMBER OF NUMBER OF PROPERTIES WITHIN EACH
PROPERTIES WITH THIS
TYPE OF VIOLATION SEVERITY RATING
TOTAL MINOR PRESENT SEVERE DANGEROUS
Chimneys / Towers 30 14 14 1 1
CATEGORY Exterior Walls 440 317 93 27 3
A Foundation Walls
Roofs / Drainage
759
154
296
93
422
49
39
10
2
2
Structural Members 105 24 80 0 1
Accessory Structures 1,707 451 1,149 100 7
CATEGORY Overhang Extension 1,107 389 674 42 2
B Protective Treatments
Stairways / Decks / Etc.
7,357
62
932
13
6,045
45
377
4
3
0
Windows / Doors 824 253 420 148 3
Motor Vehicles 1,513 39 1,224 250 0

CATEGORY Sanitation / Garbage 936 349 561 26 0
C Sidewalks / Driveways 7,206 403 6,757 46 0

Weeds / Rodents 179 32 145 1 1
CATEGORY Decorative Features 95 28 65 1 1
D Defacement
Premises Identification
77
1,748
12
221
58
1,525 2
7 0
0
Council Districts
The data was further analyzed and divided into the four geographical areas that make up
the City Council Districts. District 3 had the most single- and two-family residences in
the assessment with 8,863 or 31.4 percent, followed by District 1 with 8,062 or 28.6
percent, District 4 with 7,468 or 26.5 percent, and District 2 with the least of 3,829 or
13.6 percent.
CITY OF COLUMBIA
§
¦
¨ EXHIBIT A
77
Fo
R iv D k Rd Rd
Rd
lk
er Rd oz Lo ric Bush Rd
t ch
Rd
Bo w ie Rd
t to Vie rL No
me
Glo ria Trl
lvd
m
a
Rd a rd n S Br wo
Olg
R ha
d ick R dT
e ry R w
nB
tg o m Ed Rd
d Ol
M on Killia
n
lso
M
Rd
Wi
on
Bo o k
lian Fo
t ic
Kil
Win
Ol
Ct
r
ru d
RICHLAND COUNTY
Dr
lD
el l
L ev r Na
m an
st e m
al
er A
Farrow Rd
oR
n sb
t io
La
gs
He D
tR
H
cres r na
ri n
D eer
nd
Ba be
n Rd
Ta
Rd
on
lH
o ro R
Rd
hm a
Sp
Rd
fi
t
wy
C a ug
Se
Bluff P
ll R
en
p a rk
Ja b
gs
R ea v
e
d
d
ri n
Gr
ay
d
Sp
Dr
R
He r
Dr
t
es R d
Koon Store Rd
ch
N
Rd Dial Cree
ot
o y le
o
k Rd
St
Brie
N
nD
a rd -B
Ln
D ub d
ah
o
Peachtree Dr d
nR Everybody Counts - Everybody Contributes - Everybody Benefits
Tw
eR Rd
r
r
Ted
rcliff
ey
bl a
Sa
Rd S t Slo i el
d
rn
d r ab F Fo Sp
77
o ill
Ba
Sc re
wo
Planning & Development Services Department
e
Dr
d d M Av ar
te r R r e sC
r
in Ha
D
a
ist Id a Ln re
h
W ek
c
Fairfie ld Rd
l V
d
ut
Tr lt a
t
eR
Ch
D
ic el l o Va la rie Rd A ck
C Sp a ur
ak
r
o nt Fl i lo k leb c h In t
l
in erry
th
M nt l Rd
Ln I- 2 0
Flora Dr
or
Bruto n Rd a ke K
N
Dr d
Rd
Pl
Legend
Pa tio R
t ill Rd
Kennerly Rd
n
S
s Ln
so
d Fo
Ol
Cr
em
l Rd
ing In t
an
Rd
nn
e
Cl
0
eC
Ly k
I- 2
Lo st Cree
Ru
Po w el
ea
hu
el s
Ra Rd
CITY LIMITS
bo n
rc
Ch
Bl
Sa m
d ll
nR Hi C ir
hR
ue Rd
mo unt
N
R te R d et
ol C
r nH
all
d
k Dr
Ha id Wilmet e
ge M A ik
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS
ir
Te
r St Miles Rd
n
to 20
Le
d
Rd n
Co
Pa r k
Hi
R
gr
C o ra e Fa
rp
lu
te
OTHER MUNICIPALITY
Dr
an
d
a iso
m
ga
Sh
bR
lv
la ne
d
nD
bi
gh
nB
Rd
Rd
a
r Lo
Hatten Rd
C lu
na
St
Hi
gy ea ne
iso
Rd
Dr
olo Rh D
t.
Rd
INTERSTATES
r
Ex
rb
Ge Meadow lak e Dr l
iva
Ha
Rd
rc
Jerome Dr Oa d Pe
m
k Rd Ol
Al
ho l
26
STREETS
cr lo
Rd
§
¦
¨ 20
Pi n
Po
pi
20 Plumber Rd 20 es
n
d tD
ne
fo r 20
Tre
ey
ve
aw r
Rd
20
tA
Cr O'
Wo
Pk wy N
os
r
Bo w er
DISTRICT 1 d ia D ei l
RAILROADS
Fr
od
C la u Rd
Fa
Ct
Ga
20 al
sR
iv
u lk
n Rd
Rd
Ea st
r
Br
b
D M a so rc
d
hill
ri e
Pe
ASSESSMENT LOCATIONS
b Rd
lan
oa
Hu
d
y
lu
Win Buckner Rd
Hu n t C
nn
lS
er S
dR
m
dR
De
R o of
ph
St
ive
Pr
t
l es
d
r ey
es
ep
rR
co
RATED CATEGORY
St
Pe
Dr
C
tt
De
d
ar
Coc o Rd R
d Fo
lto
ck
Fe
Rd
nt Dr
Rd
n
ain
rn
ay
er
r
ers
D
es eR D ra w
an
Dr
Bl
r
iv Am d os
a Fa Dixie Rd
di
VERY GOOD (0-9)

Sh St
vd
na
B ri
a
ain m
Dale Dr
Ka th leen Dr ck y or
Om eg
R
a rd M F
20
Ka y
N
d
Rd
d
d
Sa
R
lm R
20
GOOD (10-19)
t
St
n St
ch
ow
D
Hu
el f
up
rr
Dr
Dr
Sem St Ro
en h o
rley o
or
Fa
a
ckb nt
t
in o Ma es
Tru m
to
d
ri d
M ount ain
le D m D
Rd
ge
C
Ja r
FAIR (20-39)
r
N Tr
Rd
t
B ro
w nin Duk e Ave
st D r
7
Lamar
gR re
27
Car
FOREST
d Om a ter S
DISTRICT 4
d
POOR (40-79)
t
ke R
Lo rick Av e
ACRES
Ediso n St
n Dr
St
g La
n Rd Ar
d
so
Bentley
Dr
tR
26
Iv er ro
VERY POOR (80+)
Sy lv
in
Bush River Rd w
n
Sunset Dr
N
Rd
S h o re
na
Sp r
Dr
Lang Rd
Be
er
ve
R iv
lt l
Co
Dr
in
La ke
Dr
eB
Ha Daniel Dr
rr Ke mp er St
St
t sy iso n
lv
Be
od
Rd
d
DISTRICT 2
wo
Rd
Dr
Gr
rth
Fo rest ve
S
w
io n A
eg
No
ro
Oa k
M ar
Sk
Bu ll
e
Gr
Ar
Gregg
§ 26
gS
¦
¨
Av
y
C le
ac Pk w y
la
Pa
ern
nd
§
t
¦
¨ 126
St
ter
Rd
ms o
rk
D
Stratford Rd d
m
¦
¨ 77
r
sR
St
St
Su
re l H
n Av
12 6 a rd
La u ill
d
§
¦
¨ 26
§
¦
¨126 Gu
R
Av e St
12 6 ille
Su m
Ly o
lls
wo od Tren ho lm Rd ts v
C hesn
r
Mi
Elm Ma ple St Dr Ha
n
ter
od
St
Pi n
d
FORT
Ln
Wildca t Rd
o
Blv
St
hw
ut R d
Lin
e St
dy
St Ka
Hu g
Da ly St
n
a is
JACKSON
ks o
c o ln
v
Ge r
Sh
Devereau x
Rd
e
Rd
Ja c
r St
St
L ee
COLUMBIA
Kin g St
DISTRICTBlo3ssom St
Wa
sh ing g Rd
SM
Pi c k
De Leesbur
WEST vin d t on
n Blv St Se
Ke
eS ck so m
a in
rt J a
en s
t Fo m
pp
COLUMBIA
es
St Mo nro e St
St
Rd
St
er D
sso m Burney Dr Old L eesburg Rd
Blo
Rd
r
St S
Iv y
Pi
a l ey ck
Wh Gill Creek Pkwy Ew
Ty ler St
en St el l
sS rl y Rd
r
ts R d
Te
d
Gis
SA be
t R ober
d Blv
ss e m
r
Ke
da
t St
m bly Ho
Pa d
Ce
lt Dr g ett
h la n
St
Rd
Chevis St
Ra
w li
David L. Hatcher
Pa t
er R ic
R id g
S Ott Rd
An n so
Rd
Leitn er Dr
dr nR
Rd
ew
Prepared by:
ri ci
d
April 7, 2010
Dr
Ga lb
Teag ue
sR
e Rd
ro n
r a Dr
Lo w
d
aD
d
r
oo
D
d
By
d
i rw
nR
oo
Dr
Ke
d
Fa
ew
µ
y
nR
mo
Rd
i ew
os
Dr
Ta
r
R
Rd
r so
ll
Ha
e
a rv
Sil
sid
Pi
0 2,700 5,400 10,800
Lo
o
t te
ro n
eD
Ct
ne
Pick
if f
C le
ng
Pa
sC
By
id g
Cl
d
R
Tr
d
n ey
ir
d R
Feet
rt r
Wylie
r
Rd
r
l
ai
sR
kD
Bl
Pa
Ha ir
tla
Dr
n
r
St
oo
D
ns o
A
y
br
ne
1 inch = 7,845 feet
oh
ll
Ve
au
Rd
d
Ha
eJ
nR
M
te
r
ra
CAYCE
tt e
Blu
n so
ns
o
S Belt line Blvd Rabbit Run
Tr
St
Be
Rd
Rd
LEXINGTON COUNTY
in e
ew
DISCLAIMER:
d
ry R
Bla
t vi
tS in
e F er Co
i rs er s ng
The City of Columbia Department of Planning and
F P n
Ga r a re
Bl
Mo
eR
St
uf f
d
Development Services data represented on this
m
tley
le
Ho
Rd
d
r Sh
Ha
ie R
o
rr
pR
Rd
map or plan is the product of compilation, as
d
e ll
rl
ow
A pp a
dT
H il
ilh
produced by others. It is provided for informational

sla n
Ch
lR
r
A ir
D
lo o sa
d Ba s
dy
eR
d
R
e purposes only and the City of Columbia makes no
se Rd Ly k
d
in
ou od
W
H gwo
Dr
it e Lo n
Wh
representation as to its accuracy. Its use without
2009 RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE & PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT

field verification is at the sole risk of the user.
Page 14
Table 3 below illustrates these results by each district. In comparison, the variance
between the council districts was significant. Although District 2 had the least amount of
houses, it had the highest percentage of houses (23.8 percent) within the Fair-Poor-
Very Poor ratings, and 28 of the 62 Very Poor houses were in District 2 alone. District 1
had 18 percent of the houses within the Fair-Poor-Very Poor ratings with 25 houses
rated Very Poor. District 3 is mostly made up of Very Good houses and had 9 houses
rated Very Poor. District 4 had more than 94 percent of the houses assessed Very Good,
and there were no Poor or Very Poor houses in District 4.
TABLE 3
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT

1 2 3 4
# % # % # % # %
TOTAL ASSESSED 8,062 28.6% 3,829 13.6% 8,863 31.4% 7,468 26.5%
VERY GOOD (0-9) 4,440 55.1% 1,889 49.3% 5,738 64.7% 7,031 94.1%
GOOD (10-19) 2,174 27.0% 1,028 26.8% 2,373 26.8% 367 4.9%
FAIR (20-39) 1,213 15.0% 676 17.7% 655 7.4% 66 0.9%
POOR (40-79) 210 2.6% 208 5.4% 88 1.0% 4 0.1%
VERY POOR (80+) 25 0.3% 28 0.7% 9 0.1% 0 0.0%
Good or Better 82.0% 76.2% 91.5% 99.1%
Neighborhoods
The neighborhoods of the City of Columbia displayed great variation, ranging from
perfect or near perfect to the majority of the houses not being within the very good
category. Identifying these areas will allow the department to better target their efforts.
Table 4 on pages 17 and 18 lists 92 of the 102 neighborhoods recognized by CCN. Ten
neighborhoods were excluded from the list because they constituted either an apartment
complex or condos, both of which are considered multi-family buildings and therefore
outside of the purview of the Planning and Development Services Department. Table 4
also illustrates the total number of residential structures that were assessed and within
which category they were rated. The final column provides the total percentage of the
CITY OF COLUMBIA
properties that were rated Good or better. Of the 92 neighborhoods, 22 were rated 100
percent Good or better and 46 neighborhoods were rated below the City-wide average of
88.7 percent Good or better.
Figure 1 below is an example of mapping the properties as outlined in Table 4. Maps for
each of the 92 neighborhoods are located in Appendix D. Parcels are color coded based
on their rating. The 3,072 vacant lots zoned for residential use have also been identified
on the map. Additionally, schools and parks have been identified.
FIGURE 1
CITY OF COLUMBIA
TABLE 4
CITY OF COLUMBIA
TABLE 4 (continued)
CITY OF COLUMBIA
DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER WORK

For this assessment to achieve its full potential, future assessments must be scheduled.
The first phase of this project established a baseline inventory of existing conditions.
The later phases, or future reassessments, will determine whether there is an
improvement or decline in the housing conditions and whether the department is
making an impact through code enforcement.
Assessments should be conducted on a random sample of properties on a yearly basis.

While this will allow the department to compare averages of the yearly assessment
against the 2009 City-wide assessment to determine a change in conditions, it will not
necessarily identify new trends and/or target areas. A sample is useful for determining
the condition of the City versus the benchmark. A City-wide, property-by-property
assessment should be conducted every five years, the first being in 2014, to realign the
baseline inventory of existing conditions and to determine where new efforts may need
to be reallocated.
Data must be kept as current as possible for it to be useful for decision making. To help
keep the data current, assessments need to be conducted on a monthly basis on all
properties that have had completed permits and/or have had code enforcement cases
closed on them during that period. This effort will also determine the positive change
that the department is making. More detailed information can be found in Appendix B.
Citizen Involvement
This project has been developed and implemented without direct citizen feedback,
primarily because it was determined that direct notification of every household in
Columbia would be either be uncertain and/or too costly and because the assessment
needed to occur without bias. In the field, citizen impact was minimized by conducting
as much of the assessment as possible from the public right of way. As discussed earlier,
this assessment is ongoing. This report and future iterations will be shared with the
Code Enforcement Task Force (CETF) and placed online.
CITY OF COLUMBIA
SUMMARY/DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The Department of Planning and Development Services has taken an unprecedented
step forward necessary to fixing single- and two-family property maintenance issues in
Columbia by establishing a measure to identify and quantify code violations and public
safety threats. With this measure in place, the department can document
improvements. Every effort was made by the department to be fair and accurate while
conducting these assessments.
The single- and two-family structures and properties within the City of Columbia are by
and large in good condition, with around 89 percent of the houses rated as Good or
better. Although nearly half of the properties assessed have at least one or more code
violations, code enforcement can concentrate on the nearly 11 percent of the structures
and properties with the highest number of more serious violations. This assessment will
serve as a valuable tool as it identifies those specific properties and target areas. Once
these more-problematic structures and properties are addressed, efforts can shift
toward ensuring all violations are abated.
Concentrated code enforcement is necessary in 16 neighborhoods, based on the fact that

more than 30 percent of the properties within those neighborhoods are rated less than
Good. The 16 neighborhoods listed below (numbered based on alphabetical order, not
severity) are identified on Exhibit B on page 22:
Belmont Neighborhood Association (1),
Booker Washington Heights Neighborhood (2),
College Place Community Council (3),
Colonial Heights (4),
Colonial Park (5),
Colonial West Neighborhood Association (6),
Edisto Court Community (7),
Eva P. Trezevant Neighborhood (8),
Golden Acres Neighborhood Association (9),
Granby Hill Alliance (10),
CITY OF COLUMBIA
Lincoln Park Community (11),

Lyon Street Neighborhood Association (12),
Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association (13),
Olympia Neighborhood Association (14),
Ridgewood/Monticello Neighborhood Association (15), and
Ryan Street Action Committee (16).
In addition to these neighborhoods, the assessment identified 15 target areas where

concentrated code enforcement efforts are needed. The target areas are based on a
cluster analysis utilizing GIS. The target areas listed below (numbered based on
geographic location, not severity) are identified on Exhibit C on page 23:
Several blocks between Wilkes Rd and Juniper St. (1),
Several blocks to the west of Frye Rd and Ames Rd. (2),
Several blocks along Rosedale Arch and Tremont Ave. (3),
Area bound by N. Main St, Colleton St, Jones St, and Lorick Ave. (4),
Area bound by Monticello Rd, Wildwood Ave, Mildred Ave, Catherine Ave, and
Lakeside Ave. (5),
Several blocks along Pineneedle Rd and Woodbridge Dr. (6),
Area along the 3000 block of Truman St. (7),
Area north of Farrow Rd to High St. (8),
Several blocks near the intersection of Farrow Rd and W. Beltline Blvd. (9),
Area generally bound by Taylor St, Pinehurst Rd, Harrison Rd and Barhamville
Rd. (10),
Several blocks south of River Dr along Northwood St, Union St, and Beaufort St.
(11),
Several blocks bound by N. Main St, Confederate Ave, Gadsden St, and Bryan St.
(12),
Area bound by Gervais St, King St, and Devine St. (13),
Several blocks south of Rosewood Dr between S. Holly St, Airport Blvd and
Superior St. (14), and
Area bound by Huger St, Catawba St, and Heyward St. (15).
CITY OF COLUMBIA
EXHIBIT B
20
RICHLAND COUNTY
20
Pond er
vd
r 20
ve iew
D
Bl
gA Park
v
Ci
d
in
e
Fairfield Rd
R
wl
ak
Bi
Flo
Wales
osa
dy
Bo
ch
Dr r
sh
rL
ia D
Park
Ju
ot
d
yd
D
ke
op
Clau
W
M
Dr
so
N
Poin t D
La
r
n
on
ilk
Av
s 20
D
ipe
ind
o
ne vie
e
tic
Rd
Tw
la
r
Frost Av
e
e
ell Ca Da
sR
rS
W
ne R
o
Do
Easte
t
d
R 20
W
d r xt.
rc
D
d
hill
es
Mir
d E
hes
d nR Rd Rd
tm
Rd Ln
Hea
Win Maso Clu b
r
o lm Exeter Hu nt
l Ct
am a
or
St
Dr
te r
Buckner Rd ow
Chatsw
nh
Roof
St rr
rn
ah Tr
e
Dr
Rd
da Fa
St
O'Nei
iny Ali
r Dr
Pre
Dr
Ln
W sc Wessex
Hu
ott
Ga
St
St
Cor
R d r
orth
m
le s eD
br
Alcott Dr
ph
l
ep ast
ie l
Rd Pe Rd Kn
wc
re
Denn y Everybody Counts - Everybody Contributes - Everybody Benefits
Ste
Kn
Rd
Ne speare ee
y
St
igh
Ro
Fr e
Ct Sh ak c
Dr
ven
tne y eR
m
rS eR d Cle d
oo
Koon Rd
fo
t ato
20
s
ve
d
n
rd
on
dw R
tA
d
Re
Av
Am
Bri
d
Coco Rd
on
be Rd
e
em
ck
Ve
r ie ld
E
20 ley
okf
r
yar
Tr
Bo
no
Rd
Dr
Bro
1
Rd r
un
es yD
dR
Be
C
er
a
d
Am r aw
t
ay S
l
Dr
Legend
Far
ar
rn
eD
la
Hertford Dr
d
on a
y
Ash
Vist
Vi
Wa
Dr
Ln
n
le
Rd
eC Alta
gew
y St
st
Cl
Rd
Spr
glo L
Pin
a
a
os
ry
y ing
Dr
bu
m
Ru
Rid
Con
ok
Ca
Ct
Dale Dr
r
r
Co
gb n
Fo
n in
Kathleen Dr
CITY LIMITS
bro
y St Dr
l
Rd
n
let
eg a
ers
Mor
g
Om
on
Fer
Lon
e
Av re
St
St
ll D
277
Ch
Dec
r es r
ail D
Rd
r
Ar
lm
an
od tr lD
Overhill Rd
DISTRICT lleg1
o St
ker
ta
d
Wo 20 e Dr
ca
Lake H ys
el
d
Pi
n
yS
s
ia C o eto Cr R
sfi
ide A
dia
ay
n
r al
OTHER MUNICIPALITY
Blv
ve b dl
t
dD
es
os
m iv
Colu tW
t
id oo
Cr
rc
Rd
ra
Av
r
t
kw
d
M o Pe
aD
w
ank S
ro Oa
ke
16 er ge
R
d
Moun tain Dr
3 w in R INTERSTATES
r
20 ad
d
Dr in Du
Bu
ld Rd
le y M G Bald Circle Dr po
Mar
Mayb
Arlin g
lD
Fo
15
St
n
Eas
Cu s
tD
re
el
n
Rd Ro
STREETS
e
ai
s
Sh
Rd r
tsh
tT
Oakfi
eed le ck
hm a
M
Pin en od bri
y
ton S t
ra
wo
Ar
dg
ore
N
Ba
St
9
ce
t
Ln do eR
Love St
l
es S
n
es
en
r ea d
D
rne
RAILROADS
R
m
Dr
r
Ga Pin r M
d
Dr
Koult
Ja
D
Jon
Sh
r
e eD
r
Duke Ave Bel l o reb
r
Circ rc d Rd
e
te
t
11
Rd
t
r
er
levie Ci Briarfi
el ook
an S
TARGET NEIGHBORHOOODS
Le
r
d
e
rest D w Dr Over
ve
St
r Dr
Rd
Sat
Om a
Lamar
cre
Palm
l
ek R d
Be
Trum
Car
ch
che
te r St Rd
5
Mee
Ave
Timle Ln
Myles e
l
tre
for
tto A
d
St
Lorick Ave ll R ab
d
Dr
ha Cr
Land
6
ir
Rd Bra
Rd
x
ve
Clem
Tor dley Fo
o
CODE NEIGHBORHOOD
rl
kC
Brady St
on
ad
Ca
d
English Ave to S Dr
Su
L ak e R
n
ru
ric
ro
Phillip s St
mm
e
St
m Dr
n t Rd
Co
Lo
High t
4 an S
Dr
St
er
St
1 Belmont Neighborhood Association
r m
rve Qu it Rd
le a
Bro
Ben tley Dr
e
Ra son
n
Ca d
Sp ring
Mc Iver R
Sylva
Fe
Dr
a
r ie
t
d St
nw x
Di
rd S
Su n set
Dr oo
Booker Washington Heights
r
Atlantic Dr Rd
Covenant
rD
Averyt Ave
Rd
d
a
Be R
2 2
Du b
d
bo
r t he
mville
e Dr
D
Neighborhood
Ar
ver l
Rd
C
Ri
Ct
hu
m St
l Ave
Stepp St
Lake Sh or
r
es
Ly
Earle
t Rd
a
ch
3 College Place Community Council
ra
Barh
Rd
l s
Fore
Wait
er Rd es R
N Trenholm Rd
Oh a
Fer
t.
Howel
Pu tn
Riv St Ex d
Broad
t
aig
Dr
dS
St
4 Colonial Heights
tili
d n
Cr
ood D
Marion St
R rde
ar
dero
NB
Ha
FOREST
St
z
d Ha
er
rr
ev
oo ison Kemp er St
er
Verner St
Colonial Park
St
5
Br
77
eltl
ww
R
Dr Rd
a
Gre
nt
Luc
r
d
Atasc
od
ro al
ACRES
ly St
Ce
in e
Ar i
wo
r
ys
lon
iu
Colonial West Neighborhood
D
Bag
Blv
rth
ton
Co
sR
er
ell
Har
Betsy Dr
6
e
Av
DISTRICT 2
No
Wav
w
e
nal
d
a te Edg
t
Association
me
Blv
Dr
d
S
der e
St
w oo Forest
Gre
en S
Cir
on
D
Castle Rd n fe
Ga
dA
Id ali
d
n Ave
Oak
der
rst R d
d Dr
i
e
Co
r
ve Mario
Un
Av
gg
xan
7 Edisto Court Community
t
Jacob
W
Ale
Sk
er
a Dr
St
York Dr
y
Bren twoo
P kw
y
ud
Wa
Pinehu
Coker St
la
8 gg
8 Eva P. Trezevant Neighborhood
Su
n
St Gre
gr
Rd
d
lla
Pa
Rea
Ma
Dr
ny
Clem
126
Elwyn Ln
ce S
r
Golden Acres Neighborhood

Rd
ve
kS
sid
Sto
sA
e
9
t
t
ner
e
ern
Av
son
idg en
Dr
Rd
Stratford Rd ck
Association
Citad el
eD St
er
Pi
c
Ma
Wa
e
Ave
Gra
rse Gr
Le
77
mt
126 egg
FORT
e
126 nv
in
yn
St H
Su
g St Co
10 Granby Hill Alliance
ill
eS
St
n
el S
t nd in Quail L St
Ave
Bla n St
JACKSON
r
t
un S
t Lau Felt
o Ro
11 Lincoln Park Community
sly
St
126 ve o
dA Calh n
12
Dr
d
w oo
le r
ve
77
sR
Lau
Belmon t Dr
Elm
Heid
eA
Lyon Street Neighborhood
ee
ill
Trenholm Rd
Wh
r
Hagood Ave
M
Tre
12
en
Woodrow St
Dean s Ln
ens
e Dr
Bar
Woodlak
Dr
Gre
St
Association
Bu tler St
Dr
eS
St
nw e
Whittaker
od
Bu ll
t
Meredit
wo
DISTRICT 4
Su m
h Ln
Martin Luther King Neighborhood
l
th
Ass
l St
d
Qu Ka
Blv
St
13
t
St
Gist
em
ee
er S
lor n
Association
Pin
n
Tay St
bly
Gre
COLUMBIA
kso
Pick
13
t
L
St
Kline St
e
t
dy
Jac
S
St
rS
gg
Rd
Rd
Semmes Rd
e
t
nR
a
ns S
e le
St
Sh
en
14
ry
Maple St
Devereau x
he
n
io
Rd
ke
St
Olympia Neighborhood Association
en
t
Sen ate
Alb
W
t
is S
ill
Wil
Ba
Br
t Lee St
S y St va
w
ton Lad Ger
oo
lia
mp
Ridgewood/Monticello
d
Cassina
Ha
Ave
Av
ms
Rd
15
Kn igh t Av
Hen
e
DISTRICT 3
Longst
St
Neighborhood Association
uda
reet R
SM
Capitol Pl
d
d
Fo
erso
Sal
Par
Cross Hill Rd
Bu ll
Holly St
t ter
ain
Da
ate S
Pu l
16 Ryan Street Action Committee

Princess St
Sen St
t
k
De
n St
ur
Kin g St
St
e
as
Bonh am Rd
St
St
vin
a
Rd
ki S
R
eS
Gad
Rd
Ott Rd
d
t lvd
WEST
Kilbourne
B
kson
t
S t Jac
in g
t eat David L. Hatcher
s
mS Fort
den
ss o Wh Duncan St Da
us
Blo Prepared by:
COLUMBIA
Monroe St va Wa April 7, 2010
Ho
n
St
tP sh in g
To
ve l to n
ee A
Hu g
mb
r Burney Dr Heyward St St
Bu l
En o
lv d
ee
r
Cedar Te
e
Yale Ave
SE
eB
r St
Ln
St
x t.
t y St Dr E
in
d ist
ba S ale ood Rd
Wh 0 1,300 2,600 5,200
ve
ltl
r aw ew t
ot d Cat Ros Poin Ew
nA
Tyler St
Be
A bb S
oA
n St
t ell
x Bu Foo R
Kn o
aw
d
ve
S Maple St
l
Graymont
t lS
David so
ra S Feet
dl
Flo t
Elm Ave
oo
10 Dee
W
St
ola
Oce rw
Gill Creek Pkwy

Harvard Ave
St
Cataw ba
Su ood 1 inch = 3,728 feet
e
ak
Ave
p
Su b
er
14 Dr
Dr
Dr
ior
S
Win dwan Dr ire
t
S
77
sh
er
m
t
Ho rk
Cir
lha
Co Yo
St
Oly wa SH
mp rn
Pe
r
in g r dS o ll
Rd
DISCLAIMER:
ia
D
Ave yS
t
t
ner
S
Rd t
od
Pennin gt
Joi
ue
ew o
Rd
Rd
Tr
Ch evis St
urg
7 sb
Ros
S Kilbourn e
Rd
Lee
CAYCE
Jim
St
LEXINGTON COUNTY
Blvd
on Rd
Sh
s
Ha
S Ott Rd
io
Dr
ood land
o m
Asbury Dr
An
Oh
Fa
Rd dr ilt
b ly
o
e
irm
ew nB
Ln
ltlin
dR
sR
ne Dr
Pat
lv d
Ch am
Dr
y
o
d Caroli
l
nb
Old W
Ga
nt
S Be
Fie
ne R d
ri
K
d
rn
ra
Bl ey
R
c ia
ers
wo
d
G
Timberla
purposes only and the City of Columbia makes no

u
d
Rd
nR
ff Fe
ro
k
Dr
Rd rry
oo
Ar
o
Br
Rd
Byr
2009 RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE & PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT field verification is at the sole risk of the user.
Page 22
EXHIBIT C
20
RICHLAND COUNTY
20
Pond er
vd
r 20
ve iew
D
Bl
gA Park
v
Ci
d
in
e
Fairfield Rd
R
wl
ak
Bi
Flo
Wales
1
osa
dy
Bo
ch
Dr r
sh
rL
ia D
Park
Ju
ot
d
yd
D
ke
op
Clau
W
M
Dr
so
N
Poin t D
La
r
n
on
ilk
Av
s 20
D
ipe
ind
o
ne vie
e
tic
Rd
Tw
la
r
Frost Av
e
e
ell Ca Da
sR
rS
W
ne R
o
Do
Easte
t
d
R 20
W
d r xt.
rc
D
d
hill
es
Mir
d E
hes
d nR Rd Rd
tm
Rd Ln
Hea
Win Maso Clu b
r
o lm Exeter Hu nt
l Ct
am a
or
St
Dr
te r
Buckner Rd ow
Chatsw
nh
Roof
St rr
rn
ah Tr
e
Dr
Rd
da Fa
St
O'Nei
iny Ali
r Dr
Pre
Dr
Ln
W sc Wessex
Hu
ott
Ga
St
St
Cor
R d r
orth
m
le s eD
br
Alcott Dr
ph
l
ep ast
ie l
Rd Pe Rd Kn
wc
re
Ste
Kn
Rd
Ne speare ee
y
St
igh
Ro
Fr e
Ct Sh ak c
Dr
ven
tne y eR
m
rS eR d Cle d
oo
Koon Rd
fo
t ato
20
s
ve
d n
rd
on
dw Rd
tA
Re
3
Av
Am
Bri
d
Coco Rd
on
be Rd
e
em
ck
Ve
ie ld
2es
r
E
20 ley
okf
r
yar
Tr
Bo
no
Rd
Dr
Rd Bro r
un
yD
dR
Be
C
er
a
d
Am r aw
Legend
t
ay S
l
Dr Far
ar
rn
eD
la
Hertford Dr
d
on a
y
Ash
Vist
Vi
Wa
Dr
Ln
n
le
Rd
eC Alta
gew
y St
st
Cl
Rd
Spr
glo L
Pin
a
a
os
ry
y ing
Dr
bu
m
Ru
Rid
Con
ok
Ca
Ct
Dale Dr
r
r
Co
gb n
Fo
n in
Kathleen Dr
bro
y St r
l
Rd D
n
let
ega
CITY LIMITS
ers
Mor
g
Om
on
Fer
Lon
e
Av re
St
St
ll D
277
Ch
Dec
r es r
ail D
Rd
r
Ar
m
an
od tr ol lD
Overhill Rd
DISTRICT lleg1
St
ker
a
d
e Dr
Wo 20 yst
ca
Lake H
el
Rd
Pi
on
yS
Cr
4
s
ia C o
sfi
ide A
dia
le t ay
n
r al
Blv
ve b
t
D
es
os
m d od iv
Colu tW
t
id
Cr
rc
Rd
ra
o
Av
Dr
t
kw
d
M oo Pe
w
ank S
a er Oa
ke
OTHER MUNICIPALITY
er
R
ng d
Moun tain Dr
w in R
r
20 ad
d
Dr Du
Bu
i
ld Rd
le y M G Bald Circle Dr po
Mar
Mayb
Arlin g
lD
Fo
St
n
Eas
Cu s
tD
re
el
n
Rd Ro
e
ai
s
Sh
Rd r
INTERSTATES
tsh
tT
Oakfi
eed le ck
hm a
M
Pin en od bri
y
ton S t
ra
wo
Ar
dg
ore
N
Ba
St
ce
t
Ln do eR
Love St
l
es S
n
es
en
6
r ea d
D
rne
R
m
Dr
r
Ga Pin r M
d
Dr
Koult
Ja
D
Jon
Sh
r
STREETS
e eD
r
Bel o
5
Duke Ave l reb
r
Circ rc d Rd
e
te
t Rd
t
r
er
levie Ci Briarfi
el ook
an S
Le
t Dr
d
e
7
Dr Over
ve
res
St
r Dr
Rd
Sat
Om a
Lamar
cre
Palm
l
ek R d
Be
Trum
Car
ch
RAILROADS
che
te r St Rd
Mee
Ave
Timle Ln
Myles e
l
re
for
tto A
Rd t
St
Lorick Ave a ll ab
d
Dr
Cr
Land
xh
ir
d Bra
TARGET NEIGHBORHOOODS
Rd
ve
Clem
rl R Tor dley Fo
o
kC
Brady St
on
ad
Ca
d
English Ave to S Dr
Su
L ak e R
n
ru
ric
ro
Phillip s St
mm
e
St
m Dr
n t Rd
Co
Lo
High an S
t
CLUSTERS
Dr
t
er
St rS m
rve Qu it Rd
le a
Bro
Ben tley Dr
e
Ra son
n
Ca d
Sp ring
Mc Iver R
Sylva
Fe
Dr
a
9
r ie
t
d St
nw x
Di
rd S
Su n set
MINOR OR NO CLUSTER
Dr oo
r
8
Atlantic Dr Rd
Covenant
rD
Averyt Ave
Rd
d
a
Be R
Du b
d
bo
r t he
mville
e Dr
D
Ar
ver l
Rd
C
MODERATE CLUSTER
Ri
Ct
hu
m St
l Ave
Stepp St
Lake Sh or
r
es
Ly
Earle
t Rd
a
ch
ra
Barh
Rd
l s
Fore
Wait
er Rd es R
N Trenholm Rd
Oh a
Fer
t.
Howel
Pu tn
Riv St Ex d
Broad
t
aig
Dr
dS
St
MAJOR CLUSTER
tili
d n
Cr
ood D
Marion St
R rde
ar
dero
NB
Ha
FOREST
St
z
d Ha
er
rr
ev
oo ison Kemp er St
er
Verner St
St
Br
77
eltl
ww
R
Dr Rd
a
Gre
nt
Luc
r
d
Atasc
od
ro ial
ACRES
ly St
Ce
in e
TARGET AREAS
Ar
wo
r
ys
lon
iu
D
Bag
Blv
rth
ton
Co
sR
er
ell
Har
Betsy Dr
11
e
Av
DISTRICT 2
No
Wav
w
e
nal
d
a te Edg
t
me
Blv
Dr
d
S
der e
St
w oo Forest
Gre
en S
10
ir
MAJOR TARGET
on
D
Castle Rd n fe
Ga
dA rC
Id ali
d
n Ave
Oak
rst R d
d Dr
i
e
Co
r
ve de Mario
Un
Av
gg
xan
t
Jacob
W
Ale
Sk
er
a Dr
St
York Dr
y
Bren twoo
kw
y
ud
Wa
Pinehu
Coker St gP
la
MINOR TARGET
Su
g
n
d St Gre
gr
Rd
lla
Pa
Rea
Ma
Dr
ny
Clem
126
Elwyn Ln
ce S
r
Rd
ve
kS
sid
Sto
sA
e
12
t
t
ner
e
ern
Av
son
idg en
Dr
Rd
Stratford Rd ck
Citad el
eD St
er
Pi
c
Ma
Wa
e
Ave
Gra
rse Gr
Le
77
mt
126 egg
FORT
e
126 nv
in
yn
St H
Su
g St Co ill
eS
St
n
el S
t nd in Quail L St
Ave
t
Bla on S
JACKSON
r
t
St Lau Ro
13
oun Felt sly
St
126 ve Calh n
dA Dr
d
w oo
le r
ve
77
sR
Lau
Belmon t Dr
Elm
Heid
eA
ee
ill
Trenholm Rd
Wh
r
Hagood Ave
M
Tre
en
Woodrow St
Dean s Ln
ens
e Dr
Bar
Woodlak
Dr
Gre
St
Bu tler St
Dr
eS
St
nw e
Whittaker
d
Bu ll
t
Meredit oo
DISTRICT 4
Su m
h Ln
hw
l
Ass
l St
d
Qu Ka
Blv
St
t
St
Gist
em
ee
er S
lor n
Pin
n
Tay St
bly
Gre
COLUMBIA
kso
Pick
t
L
St
Kline St
e
t
dy
Jac
S
St
rS
gg
Rd
Rd
Semmes Rd
e
t
nR
a
ns S
e le
St
Sh
en
ry
Maple St
Devereau x
he
n
io
Rd
ke
ate S t
en
t
Alb
W
t Sen
is S
ill
Wil
Ba
Br
S t St va Lee St
w
ton y Ger
Lad
oo
lia
mp
d
Cassina
Ha
Ave
Av
ms
Rd
Kn igh t Av
Hen
e
DISTRICT 3
Longst
St
uda
reet R
SM
Capitol Pl
d
d
Fo
erso
Sal
Par
Cross Hill Rd
Bu ll
Holly St
e St ter
ain
Da
Pu l
at
Princess St
Sen St
t
k
De
n St
ur
Kin g St
St
e
as
Bonh am Rd
St
St
vin
a
Rd
ki S
R
eS
Gad
Rd
Ott Rd
d
t B lvd
WEST
Kilbourne
ckson
t
t St
in g
St Ja David L. Hatcher
s
ea Fort
den
ss om Wh Duncan St Da
us
Blo
COLUMBIA Prepared by:
Monroe St va Wa April 27, 2010
Ho
n
St
tP sh in g
To
ve l to n
ee A
Hu g
mb
r Burney Dr Heyward St St
Bu l
En o
lv d
ee
r
Cedar Te
e
14
l
Yale Ave
SE
eB
r St
Ln
St
x t.
t y St Dr E
in
d ist
ba S ale ood
Wh Rd 0 1,300 2,600 5,200
ve
ltl
r aw ew t
ot d Cat Ros Poin Ew
nA
Tyler St
Be
A bb S
oA
n St
t ell
x Bu Foo R
Kn o
aw
d
ve
S Maple St
l
Graymont
t lS
David so
ra S Feet
dl
Flo t
Elm Ave
oo
Dee
W
St
ola
15
Oce rw
Gill Creek Pkwy

Harvard Ave
St
Cataw ba
Su ood 1 inch = 3,728 feet
e
ak
Ave
p
Su b
er Dr
Dr
Dr
ior
S
Win dwan Dr ire
t
S
77
sh
er
m
t
Ho rk
Cir
lha
Co Yo
St
Oly wa SH
mp rn
Pe
r
in g r dS o ll
ia Rd
DISCLAIMER:
D
Ave yS
t
t
ner
S
Rd t
od
Pennin gt
Joi
ue
ew o
Rd
Rd
Tr
Ch evis St
sb urg
Ros
S Kilbourn e
Rd
Lee
CAYCE
Jim
St
LEXINGTON COUNTY
Blvd
on Rd
Sh
s
Ha
S Ott Rd
io
Dr
ood land
o m
Asbury Dr
An
Oh
Fa
Rd dr ilt
b ly
o
e
irm
ew nB
Ln
ltlin
dR
sR
ne Dr
Pat
lv d
Ch am
Dr
y
o
d Caroli
l
nb
Old W
Ga
nt
S Be
Fie
ne R d
ri
K
d
rn
ra
Bl ey
R
c ia
ers
wo
d
G
Timberla
w
u
d
Rd
nR
ff Fe
ro
k
Dr
Rd rry
oo
Ar
o
Br
Rd
Byr
Page 23
Lastly, the assessment identifies 62 properties that need immediate attention based on
an overall rating of Very Poor. Of concern, 24 of these properties did not have an open
code enforcement case at the time of assessment. The appropriate inspectors were
notified immediately. As of the time this report was published all of the 62 Very Poor
properties have either a case on them or the issues have been resolved without a case.
Exhibit D on page 26 illustrates all the properties rated Very Poor.
Conclusion
As best as can be determined, no other municipality has undertaken a housing and
property maintenance assessment of this magnitude or to this degree. This report
accomplishes several important tasks. First and foremost, it establishes a baseline
inventory of existing conditions and a report maintenance schedule so that the
department can quantitatively determine whether or not code enforcement efforts are
leading to improvements. Second, it provides inspectors with targeted areas and
properties so that the most-problematic areas and properties can receive the
appropriate level of attention. Lastly, it provides supervisors with actual numbers,
rather than anecdotal evidence, that enable them to ensure inspector territories are
responsibly located and sized.
The results of this report reveal several pieces of information of the City of Columbia.
First, it provides the exact number and condition of single- and two-family structures
and property within the City, each neighborhood, and council district. Cross
comparability is now possible between these various subgroups of the City. But more
importantly, this report reveals that the housing and property conditions across the City
are mostly good. Certainly, such a statement does not negate the fact that the City has
areas that need extra-ordinary attention, and this report will better facilitate that
attention. Also telling, this report documents the prevalence of minor housing
violations. Unfortunately, without similar studies conducted by other municipalities,
these results cannot be compared to other cities. However, especially within the last five
years, the City has demonstrated that code enforcement is a priority and, regardless of
CITY OF COLUMBIA
how Columbia’s numbers might have compared to other cities, efforts cannot wane until
those influences that negatively affect quality of life are eliminated.
CITY OF COLUMBIA
EXHIBIT D
20
RICHLAND COUNTY
Pond er
Rd
vd
ve D r 20
iew
Bl
w
gA Park
v
Ci
rro
d
in 20
e
Fairfield Rd
R
wl
ak
Bi
Flo
Wales
osa
dy
Bo
ch
Fa
Dr r
sh
rL
d ia D
Park
Ju
ot
yd
D
ke
op
Clau
W
M
Dr
so
N
Poin t D
La
r
n
on
ilk
Av
s 20
D
ipe
ind
o
ne vie
e
tic
Rd
Tw
la
r
Frost Av
e
e
ell Ca Da
sR
rS
W
ne R
o
Do
Easte
t
d
R 20
W
d r xt.
rc
D
d
hill
es
Mir
d E
hes
d nR Rd Rd
tm
Rd Ln
Hea
Win Maso Clu b
r
o lm Exeter Hu nt
l Ct
am a
or
St
Dr
te r
Buckner Rd ow
Chatsw
nh
Roof
St rr
rn
ah Tr
e
Dr
Rd
da Fa
St
O'Nei
iny Ali
r Dr
Pre
Dr
Ln
W sc Wessex
Hu
ott
Ga
St
St
Cor
R d r
orth
m
le s eD
br
Alcott Dr
ph
l
ep ast
ie l
Rd Pe Rd Kn
wc
re
Ste
Kn
Rd
Ne speare ee
y
St
igh
Ro
Fr e
Ct Sh ak c
Dr
ven
tne y eR
m
rS Fi eR d Cle d
oo
Koon Rd
fo
t sk ato
20
s
d n
rd
on
eS dw Rd
Re
R
t
Av
Bri
Oa
d
Coco Rd
Co
Am Rd
e
kl
ck
ie ld
E
20
let
a
be
okf
yar
nd
Bo
r
Rd
on
Dr
ley Bro r
Av
un
es yD
dR
St
Rd
Be
er
a
e
t
d
Rd Am r aw
ay S
l
Dr ine Far
ar
rn
eD
la
Hertford Gerald Dr
d
on a
y
Vist
Vi
Wa
Dr
Ln
Rd
eC Alta
gew
st
Rd
Spr
glo L
Pin
a
a
os
ry
Ste ing
Dr
t
m
Ru
Rid
bo
Con
ok
S
Ca
Ct
Dale Dr
in
r
gb n a
Fo
da
n in
Kathleen Dr
bro
y Rd le NM aD
r
n
Ne
Rd G eg
ers
Mor
g
ar Om
l
Fer
Lon
lit
y re
St
St ll D
a
Ridgewood Ave
277
Ch
Dec
r t Ave r
Ci
As
ail D
Rd
Legend
Ellio Dr
Ar
an
od tr
Overhill Rd
h
ta l
ker
d
ley
Wo 20
ca
Ave
ys
el
d
Pi
yS
Cr R
sfi
dia
ay
n
r
St
e
al
Blv
t
D
es
Av
os
C iv
n
od
DISTRICT 1 tW
Cr
ol rc
Rd
ra
o
Rya
es
t
kw
d
um oo Pe
w
ank S
m
er Oa
R
b
Hy
d
Ho
ng
Moun tain Dr
20 ia w in R
d
Dr Du
CITY LIMITS
i
Arlin g
ld Rd
y C Bald
att
le G Circle Dr po
Mar
r
ol
Mayb
lD
Fo
le n
Eas
Cr
Av
Cu s
ge tD
re
el
d Ro
av
e
e
s
Sh
Rd Dr r
dR
ton S t
H
tsh
tT
Oakfi
eed le ck
hm a
e
ya bri
n
Pin en o
ra
wo
Ar
dg
ore
tt
Ba
St
ce
n Av do eR
Love St
l
rL
en
Hillcrest Ave ea d
D
rne e
R
Dr
r
Ga Pin Dr M
d
Koult
D
Sh
r
Av
e
r
Duke Ave Bel le o reb
Dr
Circ rc d Rd
e
t
er
Rd
t
r
er
levie Ci el
t
ook
Briarfi
OTHER MUNICIPALITY
an S
r
rS
om
r
d
e
te
rest D w Joh Dr Over
ve
St
r Dr
Rd
Sat
Om a nso
ate
cre
Cr
Le
Palm
l
n ek R d
Be
Lamar
Trum
Ave Car
ch
che
te r St Rd
Mee
Ave
Timle Ln
Myles e
l
re
for
tto A
INTERSTATES
Rd ab
t
Lorick Ave a ll
St
d
Dr
Cr
St
Land
Cir
Rd Bra xh
Rd
lvd
ve
Clem
Tor dley Fo
o
rl
e
ne B on
ad
Ca
Boon
d
to S Dr
High
eltli
Su
L ak e R
n
ru
WB
ro
mm
STREETS
e
m Dr
n t Rd
Co
Cook Ave Medic St t

al Dr an S
Dr
High
er
St m
Qu it d
le a
Ben tley Dr
e
Ra on R
n
d
Sp ring
Mc s
Iver R
Sylva
Fe
Dr
r ie
t
x
RAILROADS
nw Di
rd S
t
rS
Sunset Dr oo
r
Atlantic Dr Rd
Covenant
rD
Sunset Dr
e
Averyt Ave
Rd
d
a
rv
Be
Ea
Du b
d
Ca
bo
r t
r
he
mville
e Dr
D
lew
Ar
ver l
Rd
VERY POOR PROPERTIES
C
Ri
oo
Ct
hu
m St
Stepp St
Lake Sh or
d
es
Ly
t Rd
a
ch
ra
Dr
Barh
Rd
s
Wait
l
er Rd es R Fore
N Trenholm Rd
Oh a
Fer
t.
Pu tn
Riv St Ex d
Broad
t
aig
Dr
dS
St Sligh
tili
d n
Cr
s
Marion St
St
R rde Ave
ar
dero
NB
Ha
FOREST
St
z
d Ha
er
rr
ev
oo Kemp er St
Dart
ison
er
St
Verner St
St
Br
77
eltl
ww
R
Dr Rd
a
Gre
nt
Luc
rt
d
Atasc
od
ly St
ro ial
ACRES
Ce
o
in e
Ar
uf
wo
r
ys
lon
iu
D
a
Bag
Blv
rth
er
ton
Be
Co
sR
ell
Betsy Dr
Har
Wav
Av
DISTRICT 2
No
w
e
nal
d
a te Edg
t
me
Blv
Dr
S
der e
d
w oo Forest
Gre
Cir
on
D
Castle Rd n fe
en S
Ga
dA
Id ali
d
der n Ave
rst R d
d Dr
i
e
Co
r
ve Mario
Un
Av
gg
xan
Jacob
t
d St Ale
Sk
er
a Dr
St
Rea
York Dr
y
Bren twoo
kw
y
ud
Wa
Pinehu
Coker St gP
la
Su
g
n
Gre
gr
Rd
lla
Pa
Ma
Dr
ny
Clem
126
Elwyn Ln
ce S
r
Rd
Oak
ve
kS
sid
Sto
sA
e
t
t
ner
e
ern
Av
son
idg en
Dr
Rd
St
Stratford Rd ck
Citad el
eD St
er
Pi
c
Ma
Garden
Wa
e
Ave
Gra
rse Gr
Le
77
mt
126 egg
FORT
e
126 nv
in
yn
St H
Su
St Co ill
ing
eS
St
n
St nd Quail L St
Ave
rel Bla
JACKSON
t
Lau
Plz
St Ro
oun sly
St
126 ve Calh n
dA Heid Dr
d
w oo
le r
ve
77
sR
Lau
Belmon t Dr
Elm
eA
ee
ill
Trenholm Rd
t
Wh
Tree
r
Hagood Ave
M
St
en
Woodrow St
Dean s Ln
ens
e Dr
Bar
Woodlak
Dr
Gre
Bu tler St
Dr
St
S
nw e
Whittaker
Pin
t
Bu ll
Meredit oo
DISTRICT 4
Su m
h Ln
hw
e
l
Ass
l St
d
St
Qu Ka
Blv
St
t
St
Gist
em
ee
er S
lor n
n
Tay St
bly
Gre
COLUMBIA
kso
Pick
t
L
St
Kline St
t
dy
Jac
S
rS
gg
Rd
Rd
ge S Semmes Rd
e
t
nR
e
a
ns S
Coll
e le
St
Sh
en
ry
Maple St
Devereau x
he
n
io
Rd
ke
ate S t
en
t
Alb
W
t Sen
is S
ill
Wil
Ba
Br
S t St va Lee St
w
ton y Ger
Lad
oo
lia
mp
Olive St
d
Cassina
Ha
Ave
Av
ms
Rd
Kn igh t Av
Hen
e
Kin g St
DISTRICT 3
Longst
St
uda
Blossom St reet R
SM
d
d
Fo
erso
Sal
Par
Cross Hill Rd
Bu ll
e St ter
ain
Da
at
Pu l
Sen St
t
k
De
n St
ur
St
e
Bonh am Rd
St
St
vin
as
Holly St
a
Wilmot Ave
Rd
R
eS
ki S
Gad
Rd
Ott Rd
d
t B lvd
WEST
Kilbourne
t St
Walker St ckson
t
in g
St Ja David L. Hatcher
s
ea Fort
den
ss om Wh Da
us
Blo Monroe St
Prepared by:
COLUMBIA
va Wa April 30, 2010
Ho
n
St
tP sh in g
To
ve l to n
S Sh andon St
ee A
mb
r Burney Dr St
Bu l
En o
Hu g
lv d
ee
r
Cedar Te
l
Yale Ave
SE
eB
Ln
St
e
x t.
r St
y St Dr E
in
d ist
t ale ood Rd 0 1,050 2,100 4,200
ve
ba S
ltl
r Wh ew t
ot d Ros Poin Ew
nA
aw
Tyler St
Be
A bb S
oA
n St
Cat t ell
x Bu Foo R
Kn o
aw
d
ve
S Maple St
t l lS
David so
ra S Feet
dl
Flo t la S t
Elm Ave
oo
Dee
St Oceo
ard
Try
W
w
Hey S
rw
Gill Creek Pkwy

G Harvard Ave
St
Cataw ba
re 1 inch = 3,728 feet

nS
Su ood
e
g
ak
p g
Su b
er Dr
t
St
Dr
Dr
ior
S
Win dwan Dr ire
t
S
77
sh
er
m
t
t
rk
S
Cir
lha
Ho Yo
St
Oly SH
we
mp lt
Pe
r
o ll
Ho
ia Dr Rd
DISCLAIMER:
D
Ave yS
t
ner
S
t
od
Pennin gt
Joi
ue
ew o
Rd
lv d
Rd
Tr
Ch evis St
urg
tB
sb
Ros
S Kilbourn e
Rd
Lee
CAYCE
or

St
LEXINGTON COUNTY
Blvd
on Rd
rp
Sh
s
S Ott Rd
io
Dr
ood land
o
Ai
Asbury Dr
An
Oh
Fa
Rd dr
b ly
e
irm
ew
Ln
ltlin
dR
sR
ne Dr
Pat
Ch am
Dr
y
o
d Caroli
l
nb
Old W
Ga
nt
S Be
Fie
ne R d
ri
K
d
rn
ra
Bl ey
R
c ia
ers
wo
d
G
Timberla
w
u
d
Rd
nR
ff Fe
ro
k
Dr
Rd rry
oo
Ar
o
Br
Rd
Byr
Page 26

Residential Structure Report City of Columbia 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Residential Structure Report City of Columbia 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE & PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT 2009

Importance Category A Violations:

Importance Category B Violations:

Importance Category C Violations:

wrecked, abandoned, in a state of disrepair, or incapable of being moved under

Importance Category D Violations:

Final Scoring and Rating System

Other Data Collected

The determination of whether a dwelling was single-family, two-family, or multi-family

Factors Affecting Results

Reasons for Validity

FIELD SURVEY RESULTS

Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor

CATEGORY Exterior Walls 440 317 93 27 3

Accessory Structures 1,707 451 1,149 100 7

CATEGORY Overhang Extension 1,107 389 674 42 2

Motor Vehicles 1,513 39 1,224 250 0

C Sidewalks / Driveways 7,206 403 6,757 46 0

CATEGORY Decorative Features 95 28 65 1 1

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS

VERY GOOD (0-9)

0 2,700 5,400 10,800

1 inch = 7,845 feet

produced by others. It is provided for informational

2009 RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE & PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT

FAIR (20-39) 1,213 15.0% 676 17.7% 655 7.4% 66 0.9%

POOR (40-79) 210 2.6% 208 5.4% 88 1.0% 4 0.1%

VERY POOR (80+) 25 0.3% 28 0.7% 9 0.1% 0 0.0%

Good or Better 82.0% 76.2% 91.5% 99.1%

DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER WORK

Assessments should be conducted on a random sample of properties on a yearly basis.

Concentrated code enforcement is necessary in 16 neighborhoods, based on the fact that

 Lincoln Park Community (11),

In addition to these neighborhoods, the assessment identified 15 target areas where

Colonial West Neighborhood

Golden Acres Neighborhood

16 Ryan Street Action Committee

Gill Creek Pkwy

Su ood 1 inch = 3,728 feet

purposes only and the City of Columbia makes no

Gill Creek Pkwy

Su ood 1 inch = 3,728 feet

produced by others. It is provided for informational

Cook Ave Medic St t

t ale ood Rd 0 1,050 2,100 4,200

Gill Creek Pkwy

re 1 inch = 3,728 feet

Development Services data represented on this

produced by others. It is provided for informational

You might also like

Lincoln Park Community (11),