Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC18-030 Staff Report 1419 Commerce 08/12/2019Page 1 of 18 DATE: August 12, 2019 APPLICANT: Ed Garland, Dept. of Housing and Neighborhood Programs ADDRESS: 1419 S Commerce FILE NUMBER: HDC18-030 COA REQUEST: Demolition PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1419 S Commerce. The property’s legal description is “Lot 5, Block 157, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house was built c 1886. The 2006 survey form states: “This simple early Colonial Revival style structure with asymmetrical front and porch between front and side wing. Front porch has been rebuilt. Typical bay window and window shutters reflect style of the structure.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for Demolition of the structure. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On October 27, 1998, a COC was approved and issued to Thomas Inner City for maintenance on the outside and interior rehab. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Page 55 of the guidelines speak of alternatives to demolitions. It states that loss of contributing buildings to the district should not occur. Demolitions of those structures diminish the overall character of the district. Care should be taken when reviewing an application for demolition. The architecture of the individual buildings and their context within the district should be reviewed carefully. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO.”A”. Location of Project Page 2 of 18 The Guidelines also state five conditions in which a demolition may be granted by the Commission. The first is public welfare. This building has been suffering demolition by neglect for the last twenty years. The current owner has owned the building since 1998. A building permit was issued in 2001 for rehab, which expired with no inspections or approvals issued. On or about September 9, 2005, a stop work order was issued for installation of new windows and siding without HDC approval or building permits. A permit was issued for rehab on March 29, 2006 for maintenance but expired with no inspections or approvals issued. It is unsure if the work was started on the 2006 permit. Housing and Neighborhood Programs has had this building on the Unsafe and Vacant list since January 24, 2012. The second point is rehabilitation or relocation possibilities. The guidelines state that it can be demolished if it is impossible due to severe structural instability or irreparable deterioration of the building. There is no eminent danger upon the building that would necessitate moving the structure to another location. Rehabilitation of the property is an alternative that will be discussed farther along in the report. All properties can be rehabbed if the desire is there. Staff does not have estimates on how much the project would cost if rehab were to be completed. Four rehab permits have been issued within 450 feet of the property. 1410 S Rock Street is currently being rehabbed with a building permit of $90,000. 1402 S Commerce which was partially burned currently was issued a rehab permit of $100,000. 515 E 15th and 517 E 15th Street were issued rehab permits issued for $83,500 each. 515 E 15th was sold this year for $195,000. The property at 1419 Commerce is currently listed as contributing to the MacArthur Park Historic District. State income tax credits of twenty-five percent of qualified expenses may be available for this structure. Federal income tax credits of twenty percent may be available if the property was income producing. The third point is economic hardship. No hardship argument has been claimed since the City of Little Rock is the applicant. The guidelines state that economic hardship relates to the value and potential return of the property, not of the financial status of the property owner. 1978 survey photo Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 3 of 18 The fourth point is if the building has lost its architectural integrity. The building has not lost its architectural integrity although it is in need of repair. The fifth point states that ‘no reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the home.’ Staff believes that there are alterative to demolition of this structure. The first would be the sale of the property to another individual. The property has been redeemed for back taxes in 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, and again in 2018. At the sale in early 2018, there was a bid on the property of $7,400. That sale was not completed since the owner redeemed the property by paying the back taxes and fees of $2,791. The bid of $7,400 proves that a private individual was interested in the property enough to win the bid on the property. This property could be donated to the City’s Landbank Program. The owner can write off the appraised value of the structure off their taxes. That program may or may not remove any existing liens from the property. Being part of the Landbank program does not require the new owner to occupy the structure for their personal use. Activity in the area has shown that in addition to four rehabilitation projects listed above, three new houses have been permitted within the last 2 years within three hundred feet of this property. 401 E Daisy Bates is a new house built in 2017 for $330,000 including land and improvements based on permit data and assessor’s sales data. 407 E Daisy Bates is also a new house currently being built for $379,000 based on same data. 603 E 15th is also a new house currently being built for $805,000 based on same data. If the property is demolished, Housing will place a lien on the property of approximately $5,500 for the demolition fees. Public Works will place another lien of approximately $2,000 for landfill charges. Liens are not necessarily forgiven by the City when the property is sold or developed. Staff believes that this property can be rehabilitated and put back into residential use. Income tax credits could be available on this property based on the work proposed to be done. It can be sold to another individual or donated to the Landbank program. Currently in the immediate area, rehabilitation permits and new single family building permits have been issued that prove that there is a market for housing in this area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommendation forthcoming. COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission. Ed Garland, Housing and Neighborhood Programs Code Enforcement Division, spoke for the item. He stated there was $423 in outstanding liens on the property now. They have been unsuccessful in obtaining a response from the current owners. It has been on the Unsafe Vacant UV list since 2012. Appearing in front of the HDC is the first step in the demolition process. He spoke of the alternative processes available. If the owner has intent to rehab the structure, the owner needs to meet with the Director of the Housing Department and provide a detailed scope of work and a timeline on when the work will be completed. They will need to have proof of financial capacity to finish the project. A 90 day “bring to code” building permit is Page 4 of 18 issued and Staff follows up after 90 days to see how much work has been done. The Housing department may extend the “bring to code” permit for additional 90 day periods. Chair Ted Holder asked if this was a finish in 90 days or just start in 90 days permit. Mr. Garland said it was to make progress on the rehab. He also stated that they take lots of photos during the project to document the building activities. Cleveland Thomas, the owner of the house, said that the tornado of 1999 tore up the house. He has had some hardship rehabbing the house. The loves the structure and does not want it to be torn down. People have wanted to buy the house in the past, but the buyer fell through. Regions Bank has approved a $95,000 loan on the house but he had not found a contractor to do it for that price. He does not have any additional money to put towards the renovation of the house. He obtained a letter from a person that was willing to buy the house. He said he would sell the house. Chair Ted Holder asked if he considered donating it to the City Land Bank. Mr. Thomas replied that he wanted the house rehabbed and that he has had trouble with homeless people. Chair Holder reiterated that Mr. Thomas would like to rehab but does not have a contractor. He continued and asked what would happen if the time expires and he cannot sell it, it could be torn down. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked why he had not put up a for sale sign on the property. Mr. Thomas said that he has in the past but it was taken down. Patricia Blick, Quapaw Quarter Association Director, said that this item was presented at the November 27 Advocacy meeting. They recommended denial of the demolition application. She quoted the guidelines and stated it does not meet the conditions. Other options should be explored before the house is demolished. She shared a metaphor of a quilt where certain pieces were missing where the quilt is the neighborhood and individual houses were pieces of the quilt. The quilt and the neighborhood cannot stay together if there are too many missing pieces. Gabe Holstrum, 2102 Louisiana, stated that he was the person that was the $7400 bidder at the tax sale. He is interested in buying it if it is to be sold. He continued that three buyers in the audience should encourage the owner to sell. Lindsey Boerner, 401 E Daisy Bates, asked the commission to defer the application in order to allow rehab of the structure to occur. She did not want it torn down and welcomes the opportunity for a new family to move into the neighborhood. Mr. Minyard stated that the staff recommendation was to defer for six months in order for the owner to either: 1) list the property for sale, 2) donate it to the Landbank or 3) start the rehabilitation process. Commissioner Dale Pekar made a motion to defer with Staff conditions. Commissioner Frances McSwain seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Frederick). STAFF UPDATE: In the almost six months since the last hearing on this item, the property owner has not contacted City Staff to discuss the property. A “For Sale” sign was not on the property at the time of this writing and Staff has not observed one there in the past. A check of the Tax Assessor’s website and the County Treasurer’s office show that the property is still in the Page 5 of 18 ownership of Cleveland Odell Thomas, hence not sold or donated to the Landbank. A building permit has not been sought to repair the property. Mr. Thomas has not completed nor initiated any of the three conditions in the approved motion since the last hearing. Staff notified the property owners in the area of influence again with certified return receipt letters on May 29th (shown on page 8 and 9 of this report) along with the “Notice of Public Hearing” Form. The letter shown on page 10 was sent both certified return receipt and plain envelope US mail. Each of the letters was mailed to all three known addresses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item will be forwarded to the Housing and Neighborhood Programs Department to review for possible condemnation and demolition. COMMISSION ACTION: June 10, 2019 The applicant, Ed Garland, of Housing and Neighborhood Programs was not present. According to the Bylaws, Article V E 9., “The applicant of each item docketed shall be present or represented at the meeting and prepared to discuss the request.” Mr. Brian Minyard, Staff, asked Sherri Latimer if she interpreted that to mean the applicant must be present. She responded yes. A motion was made by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell to defer the item until the July 8, 2019 hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lauren Frederick and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Pekar). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item will be forwarded to the Housing and Neighborhood Programs Department to review for possible condemnation and demolition. COMMISSION ACTION: June 10, 2019 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. Rick Purifoy, Housing and Neighborhood Programs, represented that department in the hearing. He submitted structural photos taken in 2018 of the roofs, the porch which is collapsing, and unsound walls. Chair Ted Holder made the point that when buildings are not in the dry, all of the flooring and joists go to mush. Mr. Purifoy stated that this was the case here. Chair Holder referred to the second guideline that if there is severe to irreparable deterioration of a building. It is his opinion that it is going to cost more to rehab the structure than it is worth. He does not believe it is economically feasible. Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked if the owner was here tonight. The response was yes. Commissioner Frances (Missy) McSwain asked if there was more that 50% of the structure gone. Mr. Purifoy replied yes and that it was almost a total rebuild. He has watched the building decline over the years. The Department of Housing and Neighborhood Programs recommendation is to demolish. Commissioner Robert Hodge asked if a person could get hurt. Mr. Purifoy said that they could with boards falling from above. Commissioner Amber Jones stated that if they ente red the building, they may fall through the floor into the crawl space. Commissioner Hodge asked if there were lots of holes in the building. Mr. Purifoy stated that there were lots in the roof. Page 6 of 18 Cleveland Thomas, the owner, stated that he was in the building on Saturday. The floor has deteriorated in places. He said that he had $175,000 from his 401k for fund the renovation. He has contacted a contractor but it may be too late for the house but he has borrowed the money already. Commissioner Frederick asked when he borrowed the money. Mr. Thomas said twenty-two days ago. There was a discussion between the applicant and Commissioner Hodge on the financial aspects of the money from his 401k. Commissioner McSwain stated there is a lot of trash that has been pulled out of the house and apparently had been burned at the curb. Mr. Thomas said that the house had been cleaned out. Mr. Thomas has a contract to fix the front porch but has not signed the contract yet. He did have to call the police on a squatter at the property. Commissioner Frederick stated that the property was at the Land Commissioners last year for a sale for back taxes. Mr. Thomas said that his land was worth $35,000 dollars. Commissioner McSwain stated that he has said that he borrowed money last month and had a contract for repair. Mr. Thomas handed her a copy of the contract. Vice Chair Russell looked at the contract and noted it was not signed. He reiterated the five points in the Guidelines for demolition and stressed the Public Safety and Welfare aspects. Chris Fletcher stated that Mr. Thomas should be given more time. Vice Chair Russell restated the health and safety concerns of the property. Mr. Fletcher commented that a permit could be issued for the porch only. Mr. Thomas stated that he should be given more time. Vice Chair Russell stated again the health and safety concerns. Paul Dodds of Urban Frontier stated that he has rehabbed more than 15 houses in the Central High neighborhood. HE talked with Mr. Thomas after the last meeting and he had fixed houses worse than this one. He said that the 50% rule for rehab to get state income tax credits may not apply in this case. Commissioner McSwain stated that is was more than 50% of new materials. Mr. Dodds asked that Mr. Thomas be given more time and a chance to rehab the house. He stated that he should do a Part One of the tax credit paperwork. If he has finding, he should be able to start. He said the City has a history of punishing houses instead of punishing owners. The City has the authority to issue fines but the city does not use that authority. Jim Rule said that he used to own 1419 Commerce in the 1970’s. He was saddened by the gradual degrading of the house. He said that the house should be brought back to life. Patricia Blick, QQA Director, stated they were opposed to demolition. She quoted the Guidelines for demolition and stated that in Number 1, it requires a report commissioned by and accepted by the HDC. She wanted to know if the report was commissioned and if she could have a copy of it. Commissioner McSwain asked if the QQA would be willing to assist the owner through the process. She also asked if it were deferred, what the timeline would be. Ms. Blick stated that the timeline should be twelve months from the first hearing (December 2018). Commissioner McSwain asked what we should expect from Mr. Thomas in that time. Ms. Blick said that there should be a Part 1 and 2 in 60 days. Commissioner McSwain stated that we do Page 7 of 18 not know if he is interested in the tax credits or not. Mr. Thomas stated that he had visited with Heritage Department and he would probably need assistance with the paperwork. Commissioner McSwain asked after having the house twenty years, if how was now dedicated to fixing the house. Mr. Thomas said yes. Ms. Blick said that she would help but if it is not fixed, it should be sold to another person that would fix it. Chair Holder said that he heard good intentions from Mr. Thomas. He has no idea if $175,000 is enough money. He noted that he knew Paul Dodds had saved houses in that condition but was unsure of what experience that Mr. Thomas had in rehab. Mr. Thomas stated that the labor would be the most expensive item. Commissioner Jones commented that the proposed contract was for $4,000. She said that it was not enough in her experience to start the rehab for the materials to get it in the dry. Mr. Thomas said that he needed it to be in the dry and to pass city inspections. Commissioner Jones asked when the contractor could start. Mr. Purifoy stated that the city was not looking at foreclosure. Andy rehab has to go through Housing and Neighborhood Programs and include a meeting with the director with the owner and the contactor. Proof must be provided that there is ample money to rehab the house and a signed contract to rehab the entirety of the house. A permit will be issued for a ninety day bring to code permit. At the end of ninety days, if sufficient progress has been made, the permit will be extended until the house is brought to code. Ms. Blick asked if the application could be deferred. She understands the conditions made by the Housing department. Commissioner McSwain stated that the HDC is respectful of all parties and demolitions like these put the HDC in a hard spot. Commissioner Frederick stated that an additional deferral will not make any difference. Mr. Dodds spoke again to the commission. He spoke of problems with the ordinance on the issue of unsafe and vacant. A property can be vacant yet still be safe. He thinks it would take $40-50,000 to get it in the dry and in a safe condition, but it would still be uninhabitable. If he reaches that point, there is no longer a hazard to the community. The project scale would be different. Chair Holder expressed concerns of the structural quality of the house even if it is put in the dry. Matt Pekar, a resident of the neighborhood, was concerned about the safety of the area. He said that he exercised common sense and did not go into vacant houses. He spoke of homeless people in the area. He stated it took several years for him to rehab his house on 11th street. Commissioner McSwain asked Mr. Thomas if he has clear title to the house. He said that he did. Vice Chair Russell suggested making a motion to defer thirty days. During that time, they must some to the meeting with Housing and meet the criteria that were stated earlier. If he has met those conditions, then a building permit would be issued. Page 8 of 18 Chair Holder asked if the City had the wherewithal to state if $175,000 was enough to rehab the property. If he is issued a permit, full inspections would have to be made of the work. Mr. Purifoy stated that proof of funds and a signed contract will be required for his director to make a decision to release a building permit on the house. Vice Chair Russell asked if the Commission was willing to defer for thirty days. During those thirty days, he would meet the Housing Departments condition of proof of funds and a signed contract and get a building permit for rehab of the complete house. At that time, he would have an additional sixty day to get it in the dry and another 180 days to be totally done. He asked how does the commission get to this point. Discussion followed. A motion was made by Vice Chair Russell to defer 1419 Commerce to the next public meeting with the owner meeting with the Housing Department and providing proof of funds to rehab the house, a signed contract for rehab, a permit or an application for a permit and a letter from Victor Turner, Director of Housing stating that the owner has met the conditions and that a permit may be issued. Commissioner Hodge seconded. Commissioner Hodge asked if Mr. Thomas understood. Mr. Thomas said he did. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no (Frederick) and 1 absent (Pekar). Commissioner McSwain stated she voted for the deferral because very clear benchmarks were stated and the owner showed intention to carry it out. Commissioner Frederick voted against because he has had twenty years to do something and why wait another thirty days. Vice Chair Russell supported one last ditch effort to try to save the house. Chair Holder said that he was close to Commissioner Frederick’s viewpoint, but the commission should not tear down houses except in a last resort. He is not sure next time how he will vote. Commissioner Jones would like to see it rehabbed but is wary that the owner may be playing both sides of the fence. Commissioner Hodge stated he was on the fence. He is upset that they are seven months down the road and nothing has been done. He said it would probably come down. He is concerned a homeless person could be lured there and it is a public safety hazard. STAFF UPDATE: Rick Purifoy and Brian Minyard meet with Mr. Thomas on site July 26, 2019 and walked through the house. Mr. Purifoy measured in order to do a report on the anticipated cost of rehabilitation. The discussion centered on rehabbing as a single family house. Mr. Thomas is supposed to meet with the Housing Staff on the 5th or 6th of August to present his contract and financial proof to rehab the house. It is not known at the time of this writing whether an appointment is set up or not. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Forthcoming to reflect the outcome of the meeting with the Director of Housing and Neighborhood Programs. COMMISSION ACTION: August 12, 2019 Page 9 of 18 Mr. Minyard stated that he spoke to Ed Garland and Rick Purifoy today about them attending the meeting. Chair Holder stated that the item cannot be heard since the applicant is not be present. Cleveland Thomas, the owner of 1419 Commerce Street, will meet with Housing and Neighborhood Programs tomorrow at 10:00 to discuss him getting a building permit. Mr. Thomas stated that he could attend a meeting at 2:00 tomorrow. The Historic District Commission adjourned the hearing until August 13, 2019 at 2:00 pursuant to the Bylaws Article IV. C. Adjourned Meetings. COMMISSION ACTION: August 13, 2019 Brian Minyard made a brief presentation including the walk through of the structure. He stated that there was a meeting between the owner and Housing at 10:00 this morning. Mr. Ed Garland, Housing and Neighborhood Programs, stated that he met with the owner, Mr. Cleveland Thomas about putting the structure back in the dry with the entire exterior completed within 60 days. He provided access to funds needed. The contractor estimated that it would take $37,000 in labor to put the structure in the dry. That would include roof, walls, new joists and flooring, new foundation, new siding, new windows and doors, and new front porch. He was informed that if there were any historic requirements that he would need to contact staff. There was a discussion on whether this would be a Certificate of Compliance or a Certificate of Appropriateness. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell would prefer a Certificate of Appropriateness. Sherri Latimer, of the City Attorney’s office was okay with the COC; Mr. Minyard suggested passing it to the Commission for their review after the owner submitted all of the materials. Sherri Latimer of the City Attorney’s office agreed that could work. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell would prefer a Certificate of Appropriateness with all drawings and specifications. Mr. Garland stated that it would take $111,000 plus to restore the house. His boss, Victor Turner, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Programs, has approved a 90-day building permit. Chair Ted Holder asked how a 90-day permit works. Mr. Garland stated that the applicant would need to have inspections and show that a significant amount of work had been done in the 90 days. Mr. Thomas says that it can be in the dry in 60 days. Based on progress made in the 90 days, Housing and Neighborhood Programs may grant an extension. Commissioner Robert Hodge asked Mr. Thomas to clarify that this contract is for labor only. Mr. Thomas said he would be providing materials. Mr. Garland stated that Mr. Thomas had provided a bank statement verification of funds for work. He feels that Mr. Thomas should be allowed to proceed. There was a discussion on what “in the dry” meant. The consensus was that it was to be airtight and all exterior work done including totally enclosed including the front porch. Vice Chair Russell is concerned about the scope of work, for example, the cinder block foundation. He is concerned if the house is going to be jacked up. He continued and spoke of the five points made in the last meeting and stated that the applicant has met the requirements. Those points were that the owner would meet with the Housing Department, provide proof of funds to rehab the house, provide a signed contract for rehab, obtain a permit or an application for a permit and obtain a letter from Victor Turner, Director of Housing stating that the owner has met the conditions and that a permit may be issued. Page 10 of 18 Patricia Blick, Director of the Quapaw Quarter Association, stated that they advocated for the preservation of the structure and would like to see the house restored. Commissioner Hodge asked if the city was withdrawing its application. Mr. Garland stated he was not sure since he was not sure what the recommendation was. He wanted the owner to have the opportunity to allow the owner to rehab the structure but keep the option open for the demolition later. Ms. Latimer stated the she did not believe that the City could do that. If there has not been sufficient work done, the city can reapply when the city feels appropriate. Mr. Hodge spoke that he wanted the option for demolition at a later date and to allow the city to withdraw its application. Cleveland Thomas entered the room at 2:24 pm. Mr. Minyard stated that the Staff recommendation was forthcoming. He stated that the St aff Recommendation was to defer for 60 days to allow progress to be made on the rehab of the house to get it in the dry. If nothing is done to the house in sixty days at the October meeting, you would then vote for or against the demolition. That way the item is still active and the city continues to use the notification list, application, etc. There was a discussion to defer for 90 days versus 60 days. Chair Holder asked if Housing thinks it is feasible to restore the house. Mr. Garland said yes. Commissioner Hodge commented that it must be sealed up and water tight. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to approve the application for demolition of 1419 Commerce as submitted. Commissioner Lauren Frederick seconded. The motion failed with a vote of 1 aye (Frederick), 4 noes, and 2 absent (Jones and Pekar). Pursuant to the By-Laws each commissioner explained why he/she voted for or against the application. Commissioner Lauren Frederick stated that it was an eyesore and it would get worse. Commissioner Hodge wanted an additional 90 days. Commissioner Frances McSwain saw the property owner working with the city. Vice Chair Russell stated that the property owner has met the conditions of the city. Chair Holder said that he agreed with the others and one of the options was that there was no reasonable alternative. He did not know if this was a reasonable alternative, but it is an alternative. After discussion, Commissioner Hodge made a motion to defer 90 days. Commissioner McSwain seconded. The motion failed with a vote of 3 ayes, 2 noes (Frederick and Russell) and 2 absent (Jones and Pekar). Vice Chair Russell stated that he would not vote for a deferral. He wants the homeowner to get started. Chair Holder stated that not deferring will hamstring the City. The 90-day time line is incentive and the deferral leaves options. Commissioner Hodge made a motion to waive the bylaws to allow applicant to withdraw the application. Commissioner McSwain seconded. The motion passed with 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell) and 2 absent (Jones and Pekar). Mr. Garland stated he wanted to withdraw the application. Page 11 of 18 Commissioner Hodge made a motion to allow the city to withdraw the application. Commissioner McSwain seconded. The motion passed with 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell) and 2 absent (Jones and Pekar). Commissioner Frederick left the room since she will be recusing from the item at 1414 Park Lane for financial conflict of interest and the Arkansas Arts Center since she is in the area of influence. Page 12 of 18 Application Page 13 of 18 Cover Letter Page 14 of 18 Notice of Public Hearing mailed May 29, 2019 Page 15 of 18 Letter accompanying Notice of Public Hearing mailed May 29, 2019 Page 16 of 18 Letter dated May 30, 2019 Page 17 of 18 Front façade photo of 2018 Front façade photo of 2006 survey North side façade photo of 2018 from the east North side façade photo of 2006 survey from the west Rear façade photo of 2018 Rear façade photo of 2006 survey Page 18 of 18 Excerpt of Guidelines page 55