Can an urban renewal agency tear down a building the city has condemned, even if the agency does not own the property?

Plain-English summary

Senator Trent Garner asked a follow-up to Op. Att'y Gen. 2019-043: can an urban renewal agency raze a structure that the city has condemned, even if the agency has not first acquired the structure?

The earlier opinion had said urban renewal agencies do not have independent city-style power to "order the removal or razing of, or remove or raze" property. Their built-in razing power runs only to property they have acquired in the redevelopment area. The new question was whether the city's prior condemnation order changed anything.

The AG said the answer turns on whether the agency is acting in concert with the city. Three pieces of the urban renewal subchapter create the framework:

1. Cities have the demolition power. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-203 authorizes a city or town council to order the razing of buildings "that in the opinion of the city council or town council have become dilapidated, unsightly, unsafe, unsanitary, obnoxious, or detrimental to the public welfare."

2. Urban renewal agencies can make "plans for enforcement." Ark. Code Ann. § 14-169-705(c)(2) lets an "authority" (which includes both housing authorities and urban renewal agencies) prepare "plans for the enforcement of laws, codes, and regulations relating to the use of land and the use and occupancy of buildings and improvements, and to the compulsory repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal of buildings and improvements." The AG read "enforcement" here as enforcement of city laws and codes, since urban renewal agencies have no independent enforcement authority.

3. Public bodies can contract with each other. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-169-706 authorizes any "public body" to enter agreements with other public bodies "respecting action to be taken pursuant to any of the powers granted by this subchapter." That is the bridge that lets a city and an urban renewal agency cooperate on demolition.

The opinion declines to spell out the exact scope of an agency's role under § 14-169-705(c), because the statute itself does not. The AG said an urban renewal agency "might act in concert with the city somehow, perhaps through some type of cooperative arrangement." The takeaway: the agency cannot raze on its own authority, but a cooperative agreement can give it a defined role in implementing the city's demolition order.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2019. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What did Op. Att'y Gen. 2019-043 say?
A: It held that an urban renewal agency, undertaking a redevelopment project, has the power to raze property it has acquired in the redevelopment area. It does not have city-style authority to order the demolition of property it does not own.

Q: Can a city contract out the actual demolition work to a private contractor?
A: That is not what this opinion addresses; it addresses whether the urban renewal agency itself has razing authority. Ordinary procurement of demolition services is governed by § 14-54-904 and the city's procurement rules.

Q: What does "in concert with the city" look like?
A: The opinion does not give a checklist. § 14-169-706 simply authorizes agreements between public bodies "respecting action to be taken." A formal interlocal-style agreement, an MOU, or a city ordinance assigning the agency a role in implementing condemnation orders are all plausible vehicles.

Q: What if the city has issued the condemnation order but not yet ordered demolition?
A: Even then, the city's authority is the source of the demolition power. The urban renewal agency cannot fill the gap with its own action. The agency would still need to operate alongside the city's authority.

Q: Are there similar limits on housing authorities?
A: § 14-169-705(c) treats both kinds of "authority" the same. Neither has independent demolition authority over property they do not own, but both can plan and partner.

Background and statutory framework

The Arkansas Urban Renewal Law subchapter (Title 14, Chapter 169, Subchapter 7) created a structure for blighted-area redevelopment. Section 14-169-705(c) lists planning powers, including § 14-169-705(c)(2)'s authority to make "plans for the enforcement of laws, codes, and regulations" relating to building use, occupancy, and demolition. Section 14-169-706 authorizes interagency agreements among "public bodies" relating to action under the subchapter.

The city-side authority comes from a different chapter: § 14-56-203 lets a city council order the razing of buildings deemed dilapidated, unsafe, or detrimental to public welfare. Sister provisions in §§ 14-54-901 to -904 (unsanitary conditions), §§ 14-56-201 to -203 (building regulations), and §§ 14-56-301 to -305 (zoning) round out the city's regulatory authority.

The opinion's reading of "enforcement" in § 14-169-705(c)(2) is functional: because an urban renewal agency has no enforcement powers of its own, "enforcement" must mean enforcement of the city's laws, with the agency in a planning or implementing role rather than an independent regulatory one. § 14-169-706 supplies the partnership vehicle.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-203 (city authority to order razing)
• Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-54-901 to -904 (unsanitary conditions)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-54-904 (enforcement procedures)
• Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-56-201 to -203 (building regulations)
• Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-56-301 to -305 (zoning regulations)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-169-705(c)(2) (urban renewal authority's "plans for enforcement")
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-169-706 (intergovernmental agreements)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2019-060
November 25, 2019

The Honorable Trent Garner
State Senator
P.O. Box 10487
El Dorado, AR 71730

Dear Senator Garner:

This is in response to your request for an opinion on the following question:

Can an urban renewal agency raze a structure which has been condemned by the city without first acquiring the structure?

RESPONSE

In my opinion, the answer to your question likely turns on whether the urban renewal agency is somehow acting in concert with the city, as through some type of cooperative arrangement.

DISCUSSION

Your question is a follow up to Attorney General Opinion 2019-043. As I explained in that opinion, when undertaking a redevelopment project, an urban renewal agency does not have the power of a city, acting on its own authority, to "order the removal or razing of, or remove or raze" property. The agency, instead, has the power to raze property it has acquired in the area.

The question you have now presented (regarding a structure that has been condemned by a city) requires consideration of an urban renewal agency's authority, under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-169-705(c), to "make plans for the enforcement of" measures relating to land use and buildings:

In addition to the surveys and plans which an authority is otherwise authorized to make, an authority is specifically authorized to make:

... Plans for the enforcement of laws, codes, and regulations relating to the use of land and the use and occupancy of buildings and improvements, and to the compulsory repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal of buildings and improvements.

Cities have express statutory authority to enact and enforce the "laws, codes, and regulations" referenced here, relating to land use and building use and occupancy. Specifically as regards buildings, cities are empowered to issue orders for the razing of buildings. And they may utilize statutory enforcement procedures in this regard.

I believe the word "enforcement" in this statute refers to city enforcement procedures regarding the express statutory authority already discussed. Unlike cities, urban renewal agencies have no authority to order the razing of buildings or to enforce compliance with such orders. And Ark. Code Ann. § 14-169-705(c) does not clearly invest an urban renewal agency with authority, independent of a city, to enforce the referenced laws and city codes and regulations. So I believe this statute relates to "plans" made by urban renewal agencies "for the enforcement of laws, codes, and regulations" enacted by cities.

In sum, an urban renewal agency may "make plans" for the city's enforcement of laws and regulatory measures relating to building use and occupancy within the city. The statute offers no further guidance regarding these "plans," either as to their scope or implementation. But the agency plainly is allowed some role or capacity in the city's enforcement efforts. I cannot definitively opine on what that precise role or capacity might be. But the urban renewal subchapter does authorize any "public body" to "enter into agreements ... with any other public bodies respecting action to be taken" under the subchapter. Thus, I believe an urban renewal agency might act in concert with the city somehow, perhaps through some type of cooperative arrangement. I am unable to opine further, however, absent clarification of the above statute regarding "plans for enforcement."

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General