Česky English Deutsch Francais

Results of the Questionnaire Survey in the Developments of Selected Towns’ Municipal Housing Stock (2005, 2006)

For the Ministry for Regional Development, Housing Policy Dept.: Jaroslav Kubečka

For the Institute for Spatial Development: Dana Chlupová, Marie Polešáková, Ludmila Rohrerová

In 2007, the Brno Institute for Spatial Development carried out the 8th questionnaire survey of the development of municipal housing stocks, collecting and upgrading the necessary data and information on the municipal housing stock for the Ministry for Regional Development (hereafter the “MinRD”). Based on the agreement with the assignor of the research — the Housing Policy Department of the MinRD — this year’s research has taken into consideration the same sample of towns as in 2006. So, addressed was Prague plus some of its districts, the 23 statutory cities (status as per the date of the task submission), and 30 towns — "Map of Addressed Towns". As in previous years, the questionnaire survey was aimed at the exploration of 5 kinds of data which are usually not explored by the Czech Statistic Office: the privatisation of the municipal housing stock, shifts within the municipal housing stock, payments for the usage of the municipal housing stock, maintenance costs of the municipal housing stock, and additional data.

The additional part of the questionnaire focused on questions about the rent of municipal dwellings, the related filing system of the demand for municipal dwellings, and the criteria of their allocation. Other questions explored methods to decrease the numbers of rent debtors and the amounts of rent and service debts. Also scrutinized was whether indemnity is offered to those who leave their dwellings, whether the private sector participates in the financing of newly built dwellings, and whether Municipalities built dwellings unsubsidized by the state. Also, the respondents could indicate their recommendations as to what the questionnaire should be aimed at next year.

In active participation of the responding municipalities, the research has surveyed a total of 233,048 dwellings, representing only 6.1 % of the total of 3,827,678 dwellings of permanent inhabitation in the Czech Republic (2001 census), however, at the same time approximately 45 % of all municipal dwellings in the country.

The main objective of the research was to investigate the actual results of the ongoing privatisation of municipal dwellings, started in 1991, till the end of 2006.

Municipal housing stock privatisation in selected towns

The development of the privatisation, between its start with the transfer of the housing stock from the State to Municipalities in 1991 and 31 December 2006, is shown in Diagram 1, Development of the municipal housing stock privatisation in selected towns, 1991–2006.

The Diagram indicates that, at an average, 46.6 % of all the dwellings transferred to the ownership of the Municipalities were privatised before the end of 2001, 52.8 % of them before the end of 2002, 57.8 % before the end of 2003, 63.1 % before the end of 2004, 67.5 % before the end of 2005, and 71.8 % before the end of 2006.

The development of the total of municipal dwellings in the towns and cities under observation (including new constructions) between 1991 and 2006 and the supposed situation after the privatisation is shown by Diagram 2, Total number of municipal dwellings in cities/towns under observation (including recent constructions) between 1991 and 2006 and the supposed situation after the privatisation of the municipal housing stock.

The percentage of the dwellings, which the Municipalities intend to keep in their ownership, is related to the overall number of dwellings transferred from the State to municipalities in 1991.

Diagram 1

Diagram 1

Note: Data on the privatisation process in Prague, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected districts only.

Diagram 2

Diagram 2

Note:

Expected numbers of municipal dwellings after the finalisation of the municipal housing stock privatisation are specified as per the latest date of the privatisation finalisation, as specified by respondents of a given group of towns.

Supposed figures for Prague as in 2010 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Districts of Prague 10 and Prague - Letňany), supposed figures for Brno as in 2012 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Central District), supposed figures for Ostrava as in 2015 (as the latest date, mentioned by the District of Michálkovice), supposed figures for Ústí nad Labem as in 2008 (as the latest date, mentioned by the District of Neštěmice), supposed figures for Pilsen as in 2008 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Municipality for the whole city), supposed figures for towns populated 50,000 and above as in 2010 (as the latest date, mentioned by the towns Zlín, Kladno, and Frýdek - Místek), supposed figures for towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 as in 2012 (as the latest date, mentioned by Uherské Hradiště), supposed figures for towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 as in 2010 (as the latest date, mentioned by Lanškroun, Velká Bíteš, and Valtice).

The data on the development of the number of municipal dwellings in Prague, Ústí nad Labem, and in Ostrava concern only selected city districts.

New constructions

Of the total number of municipal dwellings constructed between 1991 and the end of 2006, 71.1 % were built before the end of 2002, 8.8 % during 2003, 7.0 % during 2004, 10.7 % during 2005 and 2.5 % during 2006.

Diagram 3, Number of newly constructed (approved) municipal dwellings in the cities/towns under observation between 1991 and December 31st, 2006 shows the totals of newly constructed dwellings between 1991 and 2006, as per 1,000 inhabitants, in Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, Pilsen, and in the three size categories1) of the rest of towns under observation.

Diagram 3

Diagram 3

Note: Figures approximate. Some municipalities disregard subsidized dwellings which are more than 50 % co-owned by themselves.

Data on the number of dwellings in Ostrava and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected districts only.

The structure of the municipal dwellings, newly built in 2005 and in 2006, is shown in Chart 1, Structure of newly constructed municipal dwellings approved in 2005 and in 2006.

Chart 1

Structure of newly constructed municipal dwellings approved in 2005 and in 2006

Cities/towns % of newly constructed municipal dwellings, accepted in 2005 % of newly constructed municipal dwellings, accepted in 2006
in newly constructed buildings in reconstructed buildings in newly constructed buildings in reconstructed buildings
Prague - Municipality for the whole city 100,0 0,0 100,0 0,0
Prague - for particular districts 2,3 97,7 0,0 100,0
Brno 66,5 33,5 33,0 67,0
Ostrava 85,7 14,3 0,0 100,0
Ústí nad Labem 0,0 100,0 0,0 0,0
Pilsen - Municipality for the whole city 99,5 0,5 0,0 0,0
Cities/towns populated 50,000 and above 97,8 2,2 83,9 16,1
Towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 85,4 14,6 59,0 41,0
Towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 95,5 4,5 50,0 50,0
Mean value 91,6 8,4 81,4 18,6

Developments of the total of municipal dwellings between 1991 and 2006

Between 1991 and the end of 2001, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 44.2 %, between 1991 and the end of 2002, the decrease was of 50.2 %, between 1991 and the end of 2003, the decrease was of 54.9 %. Between 1991 and the end of 2004, the decrease was of 59.9 %, between 1991 and the end of 2005 the decrease was 63.9 %, and between 1991 and the end of 2006 the decrease was 68.2 % of the total of municipal dwellings. In the course of 2002, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 10.7 %, as related to their number in 2001, in the course of 2003, there was a decrease of 9.5 % as related to 2002, in the course of 2004, the decrease was of 11.2 % as related to 2003, in the course of 2005, the decrease was 9.9 % as related to 2004, and in the course of 2006, the decrease of the total number of the municipal dwellings was 11.8 % as related to their number in 2005.

Estimated termination of the privatisation of municipal dwellings

Most respondents have supposed to finish the privatisation of municipal dwellings in 2007, 2008, and 2010. The latest of the mentioned terms were 2011 (the town Hodonín and the city Ostrava’s South District), the period between 2010 and 2012 (the town Uherské Hradiště), 2012 (the District of Central Brno and the district of Ostrava - Vítkovice), and 2015 (the City District Ostrava - Michálkovice). Some respondents still have not fixed their deadlines. 14 respondents have already terminated the privatisation, i.e. the City District Prague 9 (1999) has finished the privatisation stage I, whereas further sales have not been decided yet, the town Tišnov has finished a general privatisation in 2000, Ostrava’s District of Petřkovice has finished the privatisation of municipal dwellings in 2002, the Districts of Prague 8, Prague 13, Ostrava’s District of Polanka nad Odrou and the town of Kyjov in 2003, the Prague Districts Prague 12 and Horní Počernice in 2004, the same as the City District of Ostrava - Krásné Pole, which has not owned any municipal dwellings any more (therefore not being addressed by the questionnaire investigation); the City District Prague 11 in February 2005, whereas now it has been implementing the paid transfers under different rules; in 2005 the privatisation has also been finished in the City Districts of Prague 15, Ostrava - Svinov, and in the town Otrokovice, which has been selling its dwellings within a competition; the privatisation has also been finished by the town Teplice.

The privatisation has reached a very advanced stage in Ústí nad Labem where 95.5 % dwellings have been privatised from the 1991 transfer to the end of 2006. In towns populated 50,000 and above, the privatisation reached 87.4 % of municipal dwellings, in the city Pilsen it is 79.4 % of dwellings, in towns populated 10,000 to 49,999, 76.5 %. The capital of Prague has privatised 69.0 % of dwellings, the city of Ostrava 63.5 % of dwellings, and the towns between 2,000 and 9,999 inhabitants 53.1 %. The slowest pace of privatisation is in the city of Brno where mere 31.9 % of municipal dwellings have been privatised so far.

Share of municipal dwellings as related to all dwellings

The comparison of the numbers of municipal dwellings and the total of dwellings, as given by the censuses of 1991 and 2001, is shown in Diagram 4, Share of municipal dwellings in selected towns in 1991, 2005, and 2006.

The share of municipal dwellings is gradually decreasing. In 1991, 39.2 % of all dwellings were municipal. In 2003, 17.0 % were municipal, in 2004, 15.6 %, in 2005, 14.2 % were municipal, and in 2006, 13.0 % were municipal.

Diagram 4

Diagram 4

Note:

Numbers of municipal dwellings in 1991 were compared to the total number of dwellings as per the 1991 census. Numbers of municipal dwellings in 2005 and 2006 were compared to the total number of dwellings as per the 2001 census.

Data on the number of dwellings in Prague, Ostrava and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected districts only.

Numbers of dwellings the Municipalities intend to keep in their ownership in future

The Municipalities intend to hold in their ownership 21.9 % of the dwellings (as related to those transferred to their ownership in 1991).

As related to the number of dwellings the Municipalities owned as per 31 December 2006, they intend to keep 68.8 % of the dwellings (the number of dwellings the Municipalities owned as per 31 December 2006 is the sum of those dwellings that remained, to the Municipalities, after the privatisation of the housing stock transferred to them in 1991 and of newly built municipal dwellings).

General comments on the results of the municipal housing stock privatisation

  • In most towns, there was large demand for the privatisation of the housing stock, sometimes very intensively so. The cities of Prague and Pilsen is where the demand is reported the largest. In the town Ústí nad Labem the categories “rather interested” and “great interest” are equal. Unwanted is the privatisation in the City District of Brno - Tuřany (this is the City District with only a negligible number of municipal dwellings) and in the town Kroměříž.
  • Mostly used as technical documentation in the process of housing stock privatisation is the house passport and the revision reports (such as for electricity, elevators, heating units, fire protection, and so forth). If available, the planning documentation of the building is used too.
  • Technical conditions of the house seldom make difference in the statements of the Municipalities or, if they do, privatisation of buildings in worse technical conditions is preferred. Just the towns of Dačice and Zruč nad Sázavou and the City Districts Hošťálkovice and Hrabová in Ostrava say they have been privatising buildings in good technical conditions. The town Tábor sells houses in good technical conditions to their tenants, whereas vacant houses are sold, featuring worse technical conditions; the town Svitavy privatises brick houses in worse technical conditions and panel houses in a good technical condition, after rehabilitation. The City District Prague - Řepy has reported the technical status of houses has made no difference, however, at the same time they prefer the sale of houses in a good technical status. The town Broumov has reported they have privatised both houses in a worse technical status and those in good technical conditions, after rehabilitation.
  • The respondents’ answers indicate that if the tenants show lack of demand for the municipal flat or house they live in, the dwellings are often offered and sold to third parties (sometimes under various limitations such as the tenant’s approval, for example dwellings in the town Písek; in Pardubice, they sell dwellings in auction).

Housing policy concepts

  • By its Resolution No. 19/12 of June 24th, 2004, the Municipality of Prague has designed and acclaimed the Concept of the housing policy for 2004 and the oncoming period, with unspecified duration of the document.
  • The Municipality of Brno has designed its Housing strategy. The document was acclaimed in 2001 to be valid till 2011.
  • For the whole city, the Municipality of Ostrava is currently designing the Concept of the housing policy in the City of Ostrava.
  • The District Severní Terasa in Ústí nad Labem has elaborated its dwelling concept as a separate document (its name and validity period not being specified); the remaining three districts have not designed any concept of the housing policy yet, nor is any document of such kind being prepared.
  • The Municipality of Pilsen has designed the Amendment and new directions of the housing policy of the City of Pilsen, in force since 1999, of unspecified validity.
  • Of the other town category, 24, i.e. 49 %, have designed and acclaimed their housing concepts or other documents, independent or as parts of other documents (Olomouc, Liberec, Hradec Králové, Havířov, Zlín, Kladno, Karviná, Děčín, Chomutov, Jablonec nad Nisou, Mladá Boleslav, Tábor, Příbram, Cheb, Hodonín, Uherské Hradiště, Svitavy, Český Krumlov, Písek, Přerov, Polička, Holice, Zruč nad Sázavou, and Brtnice). Two other towns, i.e. 4 %, have only been working on preparation of their documents (České Budějovice and Lanškroun). 16 other towns, i.e. 33 %, have not had such a document and even have not been preparing it at all (Opava, Frýdek-Místek, Karlovy Vary, Česká Lípa, Třinec, Kroměříž, Otrokovice, Kyjov, Velké Meziříčí, Broumov, Tišnov, Dačice, Vodňany, Kdyně, Velká Bíteš, and Valtice); 5 respondents, i.e. 10 %, have not responded to this question (Pardubice, Teplice, Prostějov, Třebíč, and Znojmo). One town, i.e. 2 %, has not delivered the questionnaire this year (Jihlava). The city of Most, representing the remaining 2 %, has transferred a major part of the housing stock to the corporation Mostecká bytová a.s. operating according to annual business plans for given years, while the Municipality’s focus is on the support to those who build family houses on their own (plot sales, network construction).

Reactions to the questions concerning the fact how the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU, in May 2004, and therefrom following necessity to adhere to the Community law in the field of public support, influenced the housing stock privatisation process.

The respondents (111 respondents who have returned filled questionnaires) have responded to the question whether the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU, in May 2004, and therefrom following necessity to adhere to the Community law in the field of public subsidy, influenced the housing stock privatisation process in their municipality, as follows:

  • 49 % of the respondents stated this fact did not influence the process of the housing stock privatisation in their municipality on the instant. Out of which 91 % of the respondents stated it was not necessary to apply any change and 9 % of the respondents stated this fact did not influence the privatisation on the instant, however, they were preparing a change of existing conditions.
  • 23 % of the respondents stated this fact influenced the privatisation process. Out of which 48 % of the respondents stated the privatisation was discontinued, however, conditions were modified so that they would comply with the EU law in the field of public subsidy. 24 % of the respondents stated the privatisation was under way only in the form of the sale of individual dwellings to natural persons who were living in such dwellings. 12 % of the respondents stated the privatisation was discontinued, but only after verification of conditions (in the Economic Competition Protection Authority) and they were preparing a change of the conditions. 12 % of the respondents stated the privatisation was totally suspended; 4 % of the respondents stated the privatisation was suspended and where municipal dwellings would be privatised, then only for a market price.
  • 3 % of the respondents provided a response that was not given as one of the offered responses in the questionnaire. For example, that the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU, and the related necessity to comply with the community law in the field of public support, did not influence the privatisation, no change had to be applied, that since the Czech Republic's accession to the EU the privatisation has been performed only in the form of the sale of single dwellings to private persons that have been living therein.
  • 5 % of respondents did not respond to this question.
  • 14 % of respondents suspended the privatisation or did not privatise in the respective year, or do not intend to privatise, as the case may be.
  • 7 % of respondents referred to a relevant town council in this matter.

The respondents utilize the following methods how to prevent the risk of providing prohibited public subsidy:

  • 27 % of the respondents sell dwellings only to natural persons, ranking among the tenants, in compliance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll., On the Ownership of Dwellings, as last amended;
  • 4 % of the respondents sell houses to legal entities for a market price;
  • 6 % of the respondents sell houses to legal entities for such a price so as the difference between a market and real sale price of a house would not exceed the “de minimis” limit within three years;
  • 3 % of the respondents sell houses to co-operatives, consisting of tenants, that transfer the dwellings to the ownership of individual users on instant, and dissolve themselves (these are target based co-operatives as mediators of the sale of dwellings);
  • 12 % of the respondents use other procedures, for example the sale of dwellings in the form of competitive bidding or public auction (some respondents use these sales methods only for selected dwelling categories, unoccupied or dislodged flats to be an example);
  • 8 % of the respondents did not respond to this question;
  • 13 % of the respondents suspended the privatisation or did not privatise in the respective year;
  • 7 % of the respondents refer to a relevant town council in this matter;
  • 1 % of the respondents - a Town Council refers to a relevant City District;
  • 20 % of the respondents use two or more above specified methods at the same time.

Out of the total number of 111 respondents, who have returned a filled questionnaire, 19 % consulted the issue of compliance, with the Community law, of a provided public subsidy with the Economic Competition Protection Authority; 61 % did not consult this issue, 5 % of the respondents stated they had not been privatising (and therefore did not consult this issue); 6 % of the respondents did not respond to this question; 8 % of the respondents referred to a relevant Town Council in this issue.

From the total number of 111 respondents who returned the filled questionnaire, 54 % state that the increase of the “de minimis” limit from 100 to 200 thousand EUR, as of January 1st, 2007, will not influence the privatisation process in their municipality; 10 % of the respondents state that this fact will partially influence the privatisation process in their municipality, and 2 % of the respondents state that the privatisation process will be significantly influenced. 12 % of the respondents state they do not privatise, 14 % of the respondents did not respond to this question, 8 % of the respondents refer to a relevant town Council in this issue, and a Town Council refers to individual districts in this issue (1 %).

Results from the viewpoint of shifts within the housing stock, of payments for the use of the stock, and of maintenance costs, in selected towns

The results of the research in the shifts within the housing stock show that situations in larger cities (Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, Pilsen) and smaller towns are not very different. The movements are rather insignificant, at an average of below 3 % of the total number of municipal dwellings. Such situation may be considered typical for the whole country.

  • The average number of households having exchanged their municipal apartments in 2005 was 1.3 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2006, 1.3 % as well.
  • The average number of rent transfers of municipal flats was 1.7 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2005, while in 2006, 1.7 % as well.
  • The average number of newly “allocated” municipal apartments in new, vacant, or cleared dwellings, with a newly established rent, was 3.0 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2005, while in 2006, 2.9 %.
  • As per 31 December, 2005, the number of legally vacant dwellings amounted, at an average, to 0.9 % and as per 31 December, 2006, at an average, to 1.2 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings.
  • The average number of notices to quit, without assent by the court pursuant to Sec. 711(2)(a) to (e) of the Civil Code (for example due to gross violation of demeanour, non-payment of rent and services, etc.) in 2006 was 0.8 % of the total of municipal dwellings. Whereas the number of executed notices to quit an apartment amounted to 0.4 % of the total number of municipal dwellings and the number of notices to quit where a renter brought a legal action in respect of determining invalidity of the notice amounted to 0.1 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings.
  • In 2006, the number of filed motions for the Court consent to the eviction, pursuant to Sec. 711a(1)(a) to (d) of the Civil Code (for example where the lessor shall need the dwelling for himself; where the tenant discontinued the performance of a work for the lessor, etc.), amounted, at an average, to 0.2 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings.
  • In 2005 the average number of executed judicial decisions on the notices to quit was 0.6 % and in 2006 the average number was again 0.6 % of the total number of municipal dwellings.

The development of the numbers of debtors in rentals and/or services between 2001 and 2006 is shown in Diagram 5, The development index of the number of debtors in respect of municipal dwellings between 2001 and 2006 (the year 2000 = 100). The development between the years 2001 and 2006 shows that the numbers of debtors was decreasing in the specified period of time, but in 2005 this trend was interrupted in some towns/cities where in Brno, in Ostrava, and in towns populated between 10,000 and 49,999 the number of debtors increased in 2005, as compared to 2004. However, in 2006 even these towns/cities returned to the decrease trend in respect of the number of debtors. As compared to 2000, the most significant decrease of the number of debtors occurred in Prague (by 56 %) and in Ústí nad Labem (by 62 %).

Diagram 5

Diagram 5

Note: Data on the debtors in Prague, in Brno, and in Ústí nad Labem apply to selected Districts only. Data on the debtors in Ostrava apply to the whole of the city, except for those debtors registered at the Municipal Office.

The development of the number of debtors in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings in the towns/cities under observation between 2000 and 2006 is evident from Chart 2, The number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) between 2000 and 2006 - summarising table.

Chart 2

The number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) between 2000 and 2006 - summarising table

  Prague (selected districts) Brno (selected districts) Ostrava (selected districts) Ústí nad Labem (selected districts) Pilsen (whole city) Other towns
populated 50,000 and above populated 10,000 to 49,999 populated 2,000 to 9,999
Number of debtors related to the total number of municipal dwellings in cities/towns (city/town districts) under observation as per Dec 31st 2000 30,1% 18,7% 30,7% 58,5% 31,5% 32,6% 19,5% x
2001 26,9% 28,9% 29,6% 74,3% 27,3% 36,6% 19,7% x
2002 29,1% 17,6% 31,6% 75,0% 24,0% 41,9% 19,8% x
2003 26,5% 17,3% 31,3% 61,9% 18,9% 34,6% 19,3% 9,8%
2004 26,2% 18,5% 33,1% 93,1% 19,6% 26,2% 19,1% 10,2%
2005 21,3% 21,8% 41,5% 111,0% 28,1% 28,1% 22,0% 10,2%
2006 17,4% 20,0% 35,6% 85,2% 33,4% 28,3% 21,6% 12,1%
Change index of the number of debtors 2001/2000 86,3% 182,1% 91,3% 125,8% 79,7% 101,3% 94,5% x
2002/2001 102,2% 58,4% 99,2% 88,5% 84,1% 103,1% 93,3% x
2003/2002 89,4% 93,7% 92,7% 78,3% 78,3% 77,8% 90,6% x
2004/2003 93,3% 99,9% 96,9% 80,1% 95,6% 72,8% 91,8% 104,6%
2005/2004 78,6% 111,3% 110,9% 98,7% 98,4% 98,7% 112,2% 100,4%
2006/2005 75,4% 88,3% 74,4% 55,3% 100,1% 91,6% 93,5% 111,5%

Note: The share of the debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in the total number of the municipal dwellings has reached values higher than 100 % in some towns/cities, i.e. these town have had either old claims against the debtors even in relation to dwellings sold to new tenants, who are not debtors any more, in the privatisation, or they have recorded more than one debtor per one dwelling.

From the table follows that in 2006 the share of the number of debtors in the total number of municipal dwellings varied around 20 to 30 % (the same as in 2005). A lower number of debtors in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings was recorded by the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 (12.1 %) and by the city Prague (17.4 %). On the other hand, in 2006 a higher number of debtors in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings may be observed in Ostrava (35.6 %), Pilsen (33.4 %), and in particular in Ústí nad Labem (85.2 %).

However, the predictive value of the indicator of the share of debtors in the total number of municipal dwellings is markedly influenced by an advance stage of the privatisation of the municipal dwellings. Therefore this indicator is completed, in the table, by the change index of the number of debtors where, for example, the town Ústí nad Labem shows the highest decrease of the number of debtors in 2006 as compared to the previous year (the index being 55.3) and, on the other hand, in the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999, the interim increase of the debtors (the index 111.5) occurred.

Diagram 6, Development indexes of the number of municipal dwellings and of debtors in the towns under observation between 2001 and 2006 (the year 2000 = 100) without the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 shows the relation between development of the number of debtors and the development of the number of municipal dwellings in the towns under observation between 2001 and 2006. It is clear from the diagram that, within the specified period of time, the number of municipal dwellings and the number of debtors was decreasing approximately at the same pace, whereas before 2002 the decrease of the number of debtors was only gentle, while in 2003 the pace of decrease of the number of debtors significantly accelerated and caught up with the pace of decrease of the number of municipal dwellings. (The evaluation has not included the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999, out of which some where addressed within the investigation only in 2005; therefore data on the number of debtors for a longer period have not been available.)

The number of debtors in the municipal dwellings, in relation to the overall number of dwellings in the towns/cities under observation as per 31 December 2005, is given in the Diagram 7, Number of debtors in the municipal dwellings as related to the total number of the dwellings as per December 31st, 2005. The same data as per 31 December 2006 are given in the Diagram 8, Number of debtors in the municipal dwellings as related to the total number of the dwellings as per December 31st, 2006.

Diagram 6

Diagram 6

Diagram 7

Diagram 7

Diagram 8

Diagram 8

Note: Data on total dwellings, total municipal dwellings, and debtors in Prague, Brno, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected Districts only. Data on total dwellings as per the census of 1 March 2001.

The question of the numbers of debtors (in rentals and/or services) who owed payments either for November or for December, or for both, of respective years was answered by a few respondents only, as the most frequent system of evidence of debtors cannot easily identify short-term debts in specific months.

The average net rental per dwelling in 2005 was of CZK 1,652 a month, while in 2006, CZK 1,716 a month.

The average monthly payment for services per dwelling in 2005 was of CZK 1,611, while in 2006, CZK 1,732.

So, the average monthly payment for the use of a municipal apartment was of CZK 3,263 in 2005, while in 2006, of CZK 3,449.

Thus the 2006 payments for the both average net rental and average net payment for services increased, as compared to 2005, thus also the total payment for the use of an apartment.

The average debt on the net rental of a municipal apartment was of CZK 2,884 as by 31 December 2005, while of CZK 3,264 as by 31 December 2006.

The average debt on services in a municipal apartment was of CZK 2,888 as by 31 December 2005, while of CZK 3,254 as by 31 December 2006.

So, the average debt on the use of a municipal apartment was of CZK 5,772 as by 31 December 2005, while of CZK 6,518 as by 31 December 2006.

Thus the 2006 debts for both the net rental and services were higher than those of 2005. Such increase may partly be caused by the decrease in the number of municipal dwellings due to the privatisation of the housing stock.

The percentages of municipal dwellings for which applies the rental to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. is related (formerly those with the maximum basic rent pursuant to the Edict No. 176/1993 Coll. and in accordance with the Price precept of the Ministry of Finance No. 01/2002), the number of municipal dwellings the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and to the financing of which a subsidy was provided to municipalities from the state budget or from state funds (formerly those with the factually regulated rentals pursuant to the Edict No. 176/1993 Coll. and in accordance with the Price precept of the Ministry of Finance No. 01/2002), and the number of municipal dwellings with contractual rent is shown in Diagram 9, Municipal dwellings by types of applied rentals, 2005 and Diagram 10, Municipal dwellings by types of applied rentals, 2006.

The Diagrams indicate that the shares of the dwellings the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and for the financing of which subsidy was provided to municipalities from the state budget or from state funds (formerly those with factually controlled rentals pursuant to the Edict No. 176/1993 Coll. and in accordance with the Price precept of the Ministry of Finance No. 01/2002), and with the contractual rentals keep increasing, while the share of the dwellings to which shall apply the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. (formerly those with the maximum basic monthly rent pursuant to the Edict No. 176/1993 Coll. and in accordance with the Price precept of the Ministry of Finance No. 01/2002) has slightly decreased.

The share of the municipal dwellings for which applies the rental to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. is related reached 89.5 % in the towns under observation in 2005 and 87.8 % in 2006.

The share of the municipal dwellings, the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and for the financing of which the municipalities were provided a subsidy from the state budget, was 2.6 % in 2005 and 3.6 % in 2006 in the towns under observation. Significantly higher is the share of this type of dwellings for category of towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999: 14.2 % in 2005 and 16.3 % in 2006.

The share of the municipal dwellings with contractual rent was 7.9 % in 2005 and 8.6 % in 2006 in the towns under observation. Most contractually rented flats, where this share exceeded 10 %, is in Ostrava (12.8 % in 2005 and 16.7 % in 2006), in Pilsen (10,3 % in 2005 and 16.4 % in 2006) and in the category of towns populated 50,000 and above (14.9 % in 2005 and 14.1 in 2006).

Diagram 9

Diagram 9

Diagram 10

Diagram 10

Unilateral raise of rentals on the basis of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals from a flat and on the amendment of the Statute No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code, as last amended:

The data from the respondents concerning the unilateral raise of rentals on the basis of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll., where the lessor is entitled to unilaterally raise the rent once a year, as of January 1st, 2007, and subsequently always as per January 1st or later, are only preliminary as the respondents filled the questionnaires in the first or in the second quarter of 2007. Some respondents specified in their responses that, in the course of 2007, they intended to unilaterally raise the rent, but in the time of filling the questionnaire conditions for the unilateral raise were not approved yet.

Diagram 11, Unilateral raise of rentals in 2007, indicates the share of the respondents who have used, in 2007, the contingency to unilaterally raise the rentals, and the share of the respondents who have used the maximum rental increment.

Diagram 11

Diagram 11

Note:

As these are data from the current year 2007, it may be expected that some respondents will yet decide on the unilateral raise of the rentals only in the second half of the year and the share of the respondents who will use the contingency of the unilateral raise of the rentals yet in 2007 will thus increase. As well the share of the respondents applying the maximum rental increment may be higher as some respondents have not specified their response to this question in the questionnaire.

An overview of terms of the unilateral raise of rentals in the towns/municipal/city districts under observation in 2007 is contained in the Diagram 12, Respondents by the term of the unilateral raise of rentals in 2007. These are also preliminary data as it may be read from the diagram that, in particular, smaller towns used the contingency to raise the rentals right in the first quarter of 2007.

Diagram 12

Diagram 12

For a standard dwelling after the unilateral raise in 2007, the rental charges vary within the range from 13.96 CZK/m2 in Třinec to 49.67 CZK/m2 specified by the Municipality Council of the Capital Prague. For lower quality dwellings the rentals after the unilateral raise in 2007 reach the levels between 6.82 CZK/m2 in Písek and 45.35 CZK/m2 in the City District Prague 6.

Some of the respondents differentiate upon the unilateral rental raise, for example in relation to the quality of dwellings and houses, in relation to a cadastre or locality in which a dwelling is situated, or in dwellings for underprivileged; they will not raise the rentals in dwellings designated for the privatisation as no thermal insulation and change of windows has been performed there, in houses under disrepair status and in the case of dwellings provided to applicants from children's homes, from foster care families, etc.

Observations from and comments to the issue of the unilateral raise of rentals:

  • The Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. disadvantage the tenants of the dwellings that were formerly classified in category II and IV; facilities of such dwellings do not comply with the new dwelling classification recognising the standard quality (to which the category II now belongs) and lower quality classes (to which the category IV now belongs).
  • Many respondents expect a higher percentage of debtors.
  • Most of the respondents have drawn attention to the problems related to the delivery of advice notes on the raise of rentals by way of personal delivery to the tenants, or to the take-over of the advice note on the raise of rental by all collective tenants.

In most cases, towns manage their municipal housing stock through one or more specialized private businesses, hired by the municipality, entitled to a consideration for the management. In 2005, such type of care-taking was with 56.6 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2006, 54.1 %.

The average monthly costs of the management of a municipal dwelling through a caretaker were of CZK 221.64 in 2005, while of CZK 203.85 in 2006. The average costs for dwellings maintained directly by one of the Municipality’s departments were of CZK 123.78 in 2005, while of CZK 125.44 in 2006. The mean costs of the management of the municipal dwellings decreased as for the management of the municipal dwellings by means of a caretaker in 2006, as compared to 2005. The mean costs for the management of the municipal dwellings, where the towns carried out the management through a respective department, slightly increased in 2006, as compared to 2005. The limitation of the management costs growth, or even their decrease, is a positive trend. One of the reasons for the decrease may be that the towns/cities have already sold the remaining apartments in already sooner privatised houses where a town/city was one of the members of a partnership of owners (the management of single apartments in privatised houses is very costly for the towns/cities).

The average monthly costs of the management of municipal dwellings increased in 2006, compared to 2005, the same as the average income from rentals of municipal dwellings in 2006, compared to 2005. The average monthly management and maintenance costs of a municipal dwelling were CZK 1,558 in 2005, while CZK 1,629 were in question in 2006; the average monthly income from rentals of municipal dwellings was CZK 1,800 in 2005, while the amount CZK 1,858 was in question in 2006. The average costs of management and maintenance of municipal dwellings was lower than the average incomes from the rentals of municipal dwellings in both 2005 and 2006, whereas the difference between these two amounts decreased in 2006, compared to 2005.

Diagrams 13a and 13b, Comparison of respondents by their responses to the question whether the incomes from rentals enable the maintenance of the municipal housing stock so as deterioration of its technical status would not occur, show the evaluation of the responses of individual respondents to this question.

Diagram 13a

Diagram 13a

Diagram 13b

Diagram 13b

Note: Pilsen – data from the Municipality council of Pilsen for the whole city.

Selected facts from the additional part of the questionnaire

  • Of all the 111 respondents, who have returned a filled questionnaire, only 17 (i.e. 15 %) do not file applications for the allowance of municipal apartments. These are Municipality of Prague, the City Districts of Prague 11, Prague 14, Brno - Tuřany, Moravská Ostrava and Přívoz, and Stará Bělá in Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem - Severní Terasa and Central District of Ústí nad Labem (the Central District attends the application on a continuous basis), and the Municipalities of Hradec Králové, Pardubice, Kladno, Most, Opava, Teplice, Příbram, Lanškroun, and Dačice. (Of these, three respondents own very few apartments: Tuřany [Brno] 6 apartments, Stará Bělá [Ostrava] 21, Severní Terasa [Ústí nad Labem] 48.) The other 94 respondents, i.e. 85 %, keep their records, whereas four of them filing applications for the lease of certain types of apartments only, such as those for social purposes, due to dwelling substitutions, dwellings of special purpose and dwellings in buildings of special purpose.
  • The percentage of registered applications for municipal dwellings in 2005 and 2006 in all the categories of towns and cities, as related to total numbers of municipal dwellings, and such percentage in total, is shown in Diagram 14, Share of registered applications for municipal dwellings as related to total numbers of municipal dwellings, 2005 and 2006.
  • The percentage of registered applications for municipal dwellings in 2005 and 2006 in all the categories of towns and cities, as related to total numbers of all dwellings (as per the 2001 census), and such percentage in total, is shown in Diagram 15, Number of registered applications for municipal dwellings as related to total numbers of all dwellings in towns and cities under observation, 2005 and 2006.

Diagram 14

Diagram 14

Note: Figures of Prague, Brno, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected city Districts.

Diagram 15

Diagram 15

Note:Figures of Prague, Brno, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected city Districts.

  • Two respondents (the towns Česká Lípa and Cheb) specified they provided compensation money in the event the tenants returned a vacant flat.
  • Ways to decrease the numbers of debtors and the amounts of debts in rentals and services, in a comprehensive summary for all the respondents, are shown in Diagram 16, Methods to decrease the numbers of debtors and the amounts of debts in rentals and services in towns and cities under observation.

Diagram 16

Diagram 16

The issues of municipal housing have been monitored through questionnaire surveys since 2000, then exploring data of 1998 and 1999. The 2001 survey explored data of 1999 and 2000, the 2002 survey did so for 2000 and 2001, in 2003 the situation in the years 2001 and 2002 was mapped, the 2004 survey pursued the development in the years 2002 and 2003, in 2005 the survey was focused on 2003 and 2004, the last year's survey was focused to the years 2004 and 2005 and the year's one to the years 2005 and 2006. For the assignor of the task - the Ministry for Regional Development’s Housing Policy Department - such research is one of the ways to collect up-to-date information on municipal housing, for the Czech Statistic Office does not record such data.

The research of the developments in the privatisation of the municipal housing stock offers the comparison of the dynamics of this process between its beginnings in 1991 and today, giving estimations of its prospects. The results of this year’s research, i.e. for 2006, show again that the termination of the process of the municipal housing stock privatisation must be postponed. The most remote dates mentioned in this year’s research were 2011, 2012, and 2015.

The printed version of the final report of the 2007 questionnaire survey is available at the Housing Policy Department of the Ministry for Regional Development and at the Brno Institute for Spatial Development. Brief results of the research of the developments in municipal housing stocks in 2005 and 2006 are available on the Institute’s web site, www.uur.cz under the phrases “územní rozvoj” (spatial development) and “bytová politika” (housing policy).

Following the requirements of the Ministry for Regional Development, the survey will be repeated at the beginning of 2008 with the questionnaire the scope of addressed respondents updated according to the assignor’s comments.

The task of Monitoring Municipal Housing, comprehensively analysing the municipal housing stock, is an important part of the continuous activities of the Institute for Spatial Development. The results of the annually repeated research are widely used by housing policy makers.

The assignor of the task - the Housing Policy Department of the Ministry for Regional Development - and the researching staff of the Institute for Spatial Development wish to thank all the respondents for their collaborative approach and the information with which they have contributed to the final report, making thus a coherent picture of the situation of the municipal housing stock in the Czech Republic.

Note

1) Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on unilateral advance of rent from a flat and on the amendment of the Statute No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code, as last amended, and the Announcement of the MinRD No. 333/2006 Coll. on the classification of municipalities in respect of size categories according to the number of inhabitants, on the territorial classification of municipalities by grouping of cadastral districts, on the height of prices per 1 m2 of floor area of dwellings, on target values of monthly rents per 1 m2 of a dwelling floor area, on a maximum increment of a monthly rent and on the procedure when searching for a maximum rent increment for a concrete flat.

TOPlist
Kontakty Mapa stránek RSS Prohlášení o přístupnosti TOPlist
Poslední aktualizace stránky 9. 1. 2012 |© Ústav územního rozvoje , 2001–2021