Archiv starších výstupů ÚÚR

• Municipal Housing Stock 2010 and 2011
• Municipal Housing Stock 2009 and 2010
• Municipal Housing Stock 2008 and 2009
• Municipal Housing Stock 2007 and 2008
• Municipal Housing Stock 2006 and 2007
• Municipal Housing Stock 2005 and 2006
• Municipal Housing Stock 2004 and 2005
• Municipal Housing Stock 2003 and 2004
• Municipal Housing Stock 2002 and 2003
• Municipal Housing Stock 2001 a 2002
• Municipal Housing Stock 2000 and 2001

Results of the 2008 Questionnaire Survey in the Developments of Selected Towns’ Municipal Housing Stock

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

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

In 2008, the Brno Institute for Spatial Development carried out the 9th 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 2007. So, addressed was Prague including some of its districts, the 23 statutory cities (status as per the date of the task submission), and 30 other 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: I.e. 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 (for selected resident groups and related to all municipal dwellings) and 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 were whether indemnity was offered to those who left their dwellings, whether the private sector participated in the financing of newly built dwellings, and whether Municipalities built, or finished or started construction of, dwellings unsubsidized by the state in 2007. 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 217,781 dwellings, representing only 5.7 % of the total of 3,827,678 dwellings of permanent inhabitation in the Czech Republic (2001 census), however, at the same time, approximately 43 % 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 2007.

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 2007, is shown in Diagram 1, Development of the municipal housing stock privatisation in selected towns, 1991–2007.

The Diagram indicates that of all the dwellings transferred to the ownership of the Municipalities in 1991, at an average 44.5 % were privatised before the end of 2001, 50.2 % of them before the end of 2002, 54.9 % before the end of 2003, 60.0 % before the end of 2004, 64.1 % before the end of 2005, 68.3 % before the end of 2006, and 71.0 % before the end of 2007.

The development of the total of municipal dwellings in the towns and cities under observation (including new constructions) between 1991 and 2007 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 2007 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 the Municipalities in 1991.

Diagram 1

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

Diagram 2

Note to Diagram 2:

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 2014 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Districts of Prague 14), supposed figures for Brno as in 2015 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Brno - Bystrc 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 Districts of Severní Terasa and Neštěmice), supposed figures for Pilsen as in 2009 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Municipality for the whole city), supposed figures for towns populated 50,000 and above as in 2012 (as the latest date, mentioned by the town Zlín), supposed figures for towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 as in 2011 (in question is the latest term of the privatization end as specified by the town Hodonín), or as per the interval between 2010 and 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 Ostrava concern only selected city districts.

New constructions

Of the total number of municipal dwellings constructed between 1991 and the end of 2007, 70.2 % were built between 1991 and the end of 2002, 8.6 % during 2003, 7.3 % during 2004, 8.4 % during 2005, 1.8 % during 2006 and 3.7 % in the course of 2007.

Diagram 3, Number of newly constructed (approved) municipal dwellings in the cities/towns under observation between 1991 and December 31^st, 2007 shows the totals of newly constructed dwellings between 1991 and 2007, as per 1,000 residents, in Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, Pilsen, and in the three size categories¹⁾ of the rest of towns under observation.

Diagram 3

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

The structure of the municipal dwellings, newly built in 2006 and in 2007, is shown in Chart 1, Structure of newly constructed municipal dwellings approved in 2006 and in 2007.

Chart 1

Structure of newly constructed municipal dwellings approved in 2006 and in 2007

Cities/towns	% of newly constructed municipal dwellings, accepted in 2006		% of newly constructed municipal dwellings, accepted in 2007
	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	0,0	100,0	71,3	28,7
Brno	33,0	67,0	87,0	13,0
Ostrava	0,0	100,0	0,0	0,0
Ústí nad Labem	0,0	0,0	0,0	0,0
Pilsen - Municipality for the whole city	0,0	0,0	0,0	0,0
Cities/towns populated 50,000 and above	83,9	16,1	0,0	100,0
Towns populated 10,000 to 49,999	59,0	41,0	58,7	41,3
Towns populated 2,000 to 9,999	50,0	50,0	100,0	0,0
Mean value	81,4	18,6	66,0	34,0

Developments of the total of municipal dwellings between 1991 and 2007

Between 1991 and the end of 2001, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 41.9 % , between 1991 and the end of 2002, the decrease was of 47.3 %, between 1991 and the end of 2003, the decrease was of 51.6 %. Between 1991 and the end of 2004, the decrease was of 56.5 %, between 1991 and the end of 2005 the decrease was 60.2 %, between 1991 and the end of 2006 the decrease was 64.3 % and between 1991 and the end of 2007 the decrease was 66.9 % of the total of municipal dwellings. In the course of 2002, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 9.3 %, as related to their number in 2001, in the course of 2003, there was a decrease of 8.2 % as related to 2002, in the course of 2004, the decrease was of 10.1 % as related to 2003, in the course of 2005, the decrease was 8.5 % as related to 2004, in the course of 2006, the decrease of the total number of the municipal dwellings was 10.5 % as related to their number in 2005, and in the course of 2007 the total number of the municipal dwellings decreased by 7.2 % as related to 2006.

Estimated termination of the privatisation of municipal dwellings

Most respondents have supposed to finish the privatisation of municipal dwellings in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The latest of the mentioned terms is the period between 2010 and 2012 (the town Uherské Hradiště), as well as the years 2012 (the District of Brno - Centre, the District of Ostrava - Vítkovice and the town Zlín), 2014 (Prague 14 District), and 2015 (Brno - Bystrc District and the District of Ostrava - Michálkovice). Some respondents still have not fixed their deadlines. 17 respondents have already terminated the privatisation, i.e. the town Kroměříž finished the privatisation of the municipal dwellings in 1998; the City District Prague 9 has finished the privatisation stage I in 1999 and now does not know when the further privatisation stage will be performed; even the town Most has finished the privatisation of the municipal dwellings in 1999 (the company Mostecká bytová, a.s. does not privatise - in 2007 it has transferred 41 dwellings in accordance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll.); the town Tišnov has finished a general privatisation in 2000 and in this year also the town Teplice has finished the privatisation. In 2003 the privatisation stage I has been finished by the Prague 8 District (they wish to finish the following stage by 2010), as well as the District Prague 13, whereas final sales of houses were finished in the course of 2007, and the Ostrava’s District of Polanka nad Odrou has finished the privatisation, too; in 2004, the Prague District Horní Počernice has finished the privatisation; in 2005 the City District Prague 11 (then, a paid transfer of 274 dwellings followed), the City District of Prague 15; moreover, the City District Ostrava - Svinov, and the town Otrokovice (the dwellings are being sold within a public competition); in 2006 the towns Liberec and Velké Meziříčí, in 2007 the City District Prague 2 and the town České Budějovice where only final sales have been performed now.

The privatisation has reached a very advanced stage in Ústí nad Labem where 95.8 % of dwellings have been privatised from the 1991 transfer to the end of 2007. In towns populated 50,000 and above, the privatisation reached 83.6 % of municipal dwellings, in the city Pilsen it is 83.4 % of dwellings, in the capital Prague 73.1 % of dwellings, in towns populated 10,000 to 49,999, 69.2 %. In the city of Ostrava it is 68.2 % of dwellings, and in the towns between 2,000 and 9,999 inhabitants 58.3 %. The slowest pace of privatisation is in the city of Brno where mere 33.0 % 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, 2006, and 2007.

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, 15.5 %, in 2005, 14.1 %, in 2006, 12.9 %, were municipal, and in 2007, 12.2 % were municipal.

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 2006 and 2007 were compared to the total number of dwellings as per the 2001 census.

Data on the number of dwellings in Prague apply to selected city districts only.

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

The Municipalities intend to hold in their ownership 23.0 % 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 2007, they intend to keep 69.4 % of the dwellings (the number of dwellings the Municipalities owned as per 31 December 2007 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 towns Třinec and Vodňany.
• 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 Town District Brno - Nový Lískovec and the City Districts Ostrava - Hošťálkovice, Ostrava - Hrabová, Town District Ústí nad Labem - Neštěmice, and the town Dačice 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 3 has reported they have privatised both houses in a worse technical status and those in good technical conditions, after rehabilitation. The City District Brno - Bystrc has reported they have privatised both houses in a worse technical status and those in a good one.
• 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), or they consider such a possibility.

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”, the duration of the document not being specified.
• The Municipality of Brno has designed its “Housing strategy of the Brno city”. The document was acclaimed in 2001 to be valid till 2011.
• The Municipality of Ostrava has not had any dwelling concept and neither has been preparing any for the time being.
• In Ústí nad Labem none of its four town districts has elaborated its dwelling concept, 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, Hradec Králové, Havířov, Zlín, Karviná, Děčín, České Budějovice, Pardubice, Kladno, Chomutov, Přerov, Jablonec nad Nisou, Tábor, Hodonín, Uherské Hradiště, Svitavy, Český Krumlov, Cheb, Třebíč, Písek, Polička, Holice, Zruč nad Sázavou, and Brtnice). Four other towns, i.e. 8 %, have only been working on preparation of their documents (Liberec, Karlovy Vary, Příbram, and Lanškroun). 17 other towns, i.e. 35 %, have not had such a document and even have not been preparing it at all (Most, where the town has transferred a major part of the housing stock to the corporation Mostecká bytová, a.s., while the Municipality’s focus is on the support to those who build family houses on their own, i.e. plot sales, network construction etc., Opava, Frýdek-Místek, Jihlava, Mladá Boleslav, Česká Lípa, Třinec, Znojmo, Kroměříž, Otrokovice, Broumov, Tišnov, Dačice, Vodňany, Kdyně, Velká Bíteš, and Valtice); four respondents, i.e. 8 %, have not responded to this question (Teplice, Prostějov, Kyjov, Velké Meziříčí).

Chart 2, Prices in CZK/m², for which dwellings are being sold in 2008, or possibly the prices applied in 2007 on condition the privatisation has been already ended in 2007 indicates the lowest and the highest prices reported by individual respondents:

Chart 2

Prices in CZK/m², for which dwellings are being sold in 2008, or possibly the prices applied in 2007 on condition the privatisation has been already ended in 2007

City/town	2008
	the lowest price in CZK/m2 as reported by the respondents	the highest price in CZK/m2 as reported by the respondents
Prague	3 000 (CD Prague 12)	20 000 (CD Prague 4)
Brno	2 096 (CD Kohoutovice)	6 400 (CD Černovice)
Ostrava	490 (TD Slezská Ostrava)	20 174 (TD Poruba)
Ústí nad Labem	1 600 (TD Neštěmice)	3 500 (TD Neštěmice)
Pilsen	1 300 (statement for the whole town)	2 500 (statement for the whole town)
Other cities/towns populated 50,000 and above	580 (Chomutov)	39 616 (Pardubice)
Other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999	700 (Příbram)	19 950 (Tábor)
Other towns populated 2,000 to 9,999	2 000 (Broumov)	13 500 (Velká Bíteš)

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 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:

• 39 % 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.
• 27 % of the respondents stated this fact influenced the privatisation process. Out of which 57 % 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. 23 % 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. None 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. None of the respondents stated the privatisation was totally discontinued. 3 % of the respondents stated the privatisation was suspended and where municipal dwellings would be privatised, then only for a market price; 17 % of the respondents have specified another contingency.
• 4 % of the respondents provided, at once, two of the offered responses in the questionnaire. From such responses may deduced, 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; or 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, initially did not influence the privatisation, but after verification of conditions (in the Economic Competition Protection Authority) the privatisation was suspended and a change of conditions is being prepared; furthermore, 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, the privatisation was suspended, however, the conditions had been modified so as to comply with the EU law in the field of public support so that where municipal dwelling would be privatised, then always only for a market value; furthermore, 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, no change was to be applied, a new internal regulation was already being prepared and approved so as to comply with the EU law in the field of public support.
• 3 % of the respondents did not respond to this question.
• 20 % of the respondents have already suspended the privatisation or did not privatise in the respective year, or do not intend to privatise at all.
• 7 % of the respondents refer to a relevant Town Council in this matter (the City Council of Brno), or a City Council (the City Council of Ostrava) refers to individual City Districts.

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

• 26 % 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;
• 1 % of the respondents sell houses to legal entities for a market price;
• 9 % 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;
• 4 % 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);
• 8 % 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, for example in the case of unoccupied or dislodged flats in the event the tenants have not met conditions for the privatisation);
• 21 % of the respondents use two or more of the above-specified method at the same time;
• 2 % of the respondents did not respond to this question;
• 21 % of the respondents have already suspended the privatisation or did not privatise in the respective year, or do not wish to privatise at all;
• 9 % of the respondents refer to a relevant Town Council in this matter (the City Council of Brno), or a City Council (the City Council of Ostrava) refers to individual City Districts.

Out of the total number of 112 addressed respondents, 13 % consulted, in the previous period, the issue of compliance, with the Community law, of a provided public subsidy with the Economic Competition Protection Authority; 54 % did not consult this issue, 20 % of the respondents stated they had not been privatising (and therefore did not consult this issue); 4 % of the respondents did not respond to this question; 9 % of the respondents refer to a relevant Town Council in this issue (the City Council of Brno), or a City Council (the City Council of Ostrava) possibly refers to individual City Districts.

From the total number of 112 addressed respondents, 53 % state that the increase of the “de minimis” limit from 100 to 200 thousand EUR, as of January 1^st, 2007, did not influence the privatisation process in their municipality; 7 % of the respondents state that this fact partially influenced the privatisation process in their municipality, and 3 % of the respondents state that the privatisation process was significantly influenced. 21 % of the respondents state they do not privatise, 6 % of the respondents did not respond to this question, 11 % of the respondents refer to a relevant Town Council (the City Council of Brno) in this issue, and a City Council (the City Council of Ostrava) refers to individual City Districts in this issue.

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 2 % 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 2006 was 1.2 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2007, 1.2 % as well.
• The average number of rent transfers of municipal flats was 2.0 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2006, while in 2007, it was 1.7 %.
• The average number of newly “allocated” municipal apartments in new and vacant or cleared dwellings, with a newly established rent (the dwellings the construction or additional construction was approved after 30 June, 1993 and for the financing of which a subsidy was provided to municipalities from the national budget or from national funds), was 0.4 % of the total number of municipal dwellings in 2006 and 0.4 % in 2007 as well.
• The average number of newly “allocated” municipal apartments in new and vacant or cleared dwellings, with a newly established rent (the dwellings with contractual rent), was 1.4 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2006, while in 2007 it was 1.7 %.
• As per 31 December, 2006, the number of legally vacant dwellings amounted, at an average, to 1.3 % and as per 31 December, 2007, at an average, to 1.4 % 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.) was 0.7 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2006 and 1.0 % in 2007. Whereas in 2006 the number of executed notices to quit an apartment amounted to 0.3 % of the total number of municipal dwellings and the number of notices to quit where a tenant brought a legal action in respect of determining invalidity of the notice amounted to 0.1 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings and the number of tenants who did not respect the notice to quit, without assent by the court, amounted to 0.2 %. In 2007 the number of executed notices to quit an apartment amounted to 0.4 % of the total number of municipal dwellings, the number of notices to quit where a tenant brought a legal action in respect of determining invalidity of the notice amounted to 0.1 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings and the number of tenants who did not respect the notice to quit, without assent by the court, amounted to 0.5 %.
• The number of filed motions for the Court consent to the eviction, pursuant to Sec. 711a(1)(b) to (d) of the Civil Code, amounted, at an average, to 0.1 % in 2006 and in 2007, at an average, as well 0.1 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings.
• In 2006 the average number of cleared apartments was 0.5 % and it amounted to 0.6 % of the total number of municipal dwellings in 2007.
• The development of the numbers of debtors in rentals and/or in price of services between 2001 and 2007 is shown in Diagram 5, The development index of the number of debtors in respect of municipal dwellings between 2001 and 2007 (the year 2000 = 100). The development between the years 2001 and 2007 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, which continued even in 2007 (except for Pilsen where a 2.0 % increase of the number of debtors occurred, as compared to 2006). As compared to 2000, the most significant decrease of the number of debtors occurred in Prague (by 77 %) and in Ústí nad Labem (by 68 %).
• The development of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings in the towns/cities under observation between 2000 and 2007 is evident from Chart 3, The number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) between 2000 and 2007 (summarising table).

Diagram 5

Note: Data on the debtors in Prague, 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.

Chart 3

The number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) between 2000 and 2007 (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
Share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings in cities/towns (city/town districts) under observation as per Dec 31st	2000	33,1 %	18,6 %	30,7 %	58,5 %	31,5 %	32,6 %	18,6 %	x
	2001	27,7 %	29,1 %	29,6 %	74,3 %	27,3 %	36,6 %	19,5 %	x
	2002	23,5 %	17,3 %	31,6 %	75,0 %	24,0 %	41,9 %	21,1 %	x
	2003	21,3 %	16,7 %	31,3 %	61,9 %	18,9 %	34,6 %	21,0 %	9,8 %
	2004	23,6 %	18,1 %	33,1 %	93,1 %	19,6 %	26,2 %	20,8 %	10,2 %
	2005	16,9 %	21,4 %	41,5 %	111,0 %	28,1 %	28,1 %	22,9 %	10,2 %
	2006	12,8 %	19,5 %	37,8 %	85,2 %	33,4 %	28,2 %	22,2 %	11,8 %
	2007	14,0 %	13,4 %	41,4 %	76,4 %	41,6 %	25,8 %	19,7 %	13,4 %
Change index of the number of debtors	2001/2000	79,9	184,3	91,3	125,8	79,7	101,3	94,8	x
	2002/2001	79,3	57,0	99,2	88,5	84,1	103,1	97,1	x
	2003/2002	85,9	92,2	92,7	78,3	78,3	77,8	90,3	x
	2004/2003	106,1	102,2	96,9	80,1	95,6	72,8	90,9	104,6
	2005/2004	68,3	112,4	110,9	98,7	98,4	98,7	105,6	100,4
	2006/2005	67,4	87,6	79,1	55,3	100,1	91,6	92,2	109,4
	2007/2006	88,2	67,6	97,9	82,8	103,3	89,6	81,9	109,8

Note: The share of the debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) in the total number of the municipal dwellings has reached values higher than 100 % in some towns/cities, i.e. these towns 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, since 2000, in the towns/cities under observation (hand-in-hand with the proceeding privatisation) the difference of the values of the indicator “share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings” has increased. In 2007 the share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings, in the towns/cities under observation, varied between 13.4 % (the City of Brno and other towns populated 2,000 to 9,999) and 76.4 % (the town Ústí nad Labem).

However, the predictive value of the indicator of the share of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings is markedly influenced by an advanced 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”; in 2007 the highest decrease of the number of debtors is shown by the City of Brno as compared to the previous year (the index being 67.6) and, on the other hand, in the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999, the interim increase of the debtors (the index 109.8) occurred.

Diagram 6, Development indexes of the number of municipal dwellings and of debtors in the towns under observation between 2001 and 2007 (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 2007. 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 2006, 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 31^st, 2006. The same data as per 31 December 2007 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 31^st, 2007.

Diagram 6

Diagram 7

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 “short-term” debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) who did not meet the condition to be given notice to quit, by the lessor, without assent by the court pursuant to Sec. 711(b) of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll., was answered by a few respondents only, as the most frequent system of evidence of debtors cannot easily identify “short-term” debtors.

The average prescribed net rental per dwelling in 2006 was of 1,688 CZK/dwelling/month, while in 2007, 1,898 CZK/dwelling/month were in question.

The average prescribed monthly payment for services per dwelling in 2006 was of 1,723 CZK/dwelling/month, while in 2007, 1,742 CZK/dwelling/month were in question.

So, the average monthly payment for the use of a municipal apartment was of 3,411 CZK/dwelling/month in 2006, while in 2007, of 3,640 CZK/dwelling/month.

Thus the 2007 payments for the both average prescribed net rental and average prescribed net payment for services increased, as compared to 2006, thus also the total amount to be paid for the use of an apartment.

The average debt on the net rental per a municipal apartment was of CZK 3,177 as by 31 December 2006, while of CZK 3,334 as by 31 December 2007.

The average debt on services in a municipal apartment was of CZK 3,164 as by 31 December 2006, while of CZK 3,459 as by 31 December 2007.

So, the average debt on the use of a municipal apartment was of CZK 6,341 as by 31 December 2006, while of CZK 6,794 as by 31 December 2007.

Thus the 2007 mean debts for both the net rental and services per one municipal apartment were higher than those of 2006. 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, 2006 and Diagram 10, Municipal dwellings by types of applied rentals, 2007.

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 gradually, 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 been gradually decreasing.

As related to the total number of municipal dwellings, 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 2006 and 87.4 % in 2007.

As compared to the total number of the municipal dwellings, the share of the municipal dwellings, the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30^th, 1993 and for the financing of which the municipalities were provided a subsidy from the state budget, was 3.9 % in 2006 and 4.9 % in 2007 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: 25.9 % in 2006 and 25.5 % in 2007.

The share of the municipal dwellings with contractual rent was 6.6 % in 2006 and 7.7 % in 2007 in the towns under observation. The share of the contractually rented flats, exceeded 10 % in Ostrava (15.2 % in 2006 and 17.6 % in 2007), in Pilsen (16.4 % in 2006 and 26.6 % in 2007) and in the category of towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 (16.3 % in 2006 and 18.8 % in 2007). In Ústí nad Labem the share of dwellings with contractual rent exceeded the 10 % value only in 2007 (14.1 %) and in 2007 this value was as well exceeded in the towns populated 50,000 and above and in the towns populated between 10,000 and 49,999 where, however, this value was exceeded only by several tenths of per cent.

Diagram 9

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 where the lessor is entitled to increase the rent once a year as of January 1^st, 2007 and, after that, always as per January 1st or later:

Chart 4, The share of dwellings owned by municipalities (for that the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. shall apply), for which the system of the unilateral increase of rent was used in 2007, and Diagram 11, Respondents according to the replies to the question, whether they utilised the maximum increase of rent in 2007, indicate the attitude of the respondents to the unilateral increase of rent in 2007.

Chart 4

The share of dwellings owned by municipalities (for that the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. shall apply), for which the system of the unilateral increase of rent was used in 2007

Town/city	The share of dwellings owned by municipalities, for which the system of the unilateral increase of rent was used in 2007
	0 - 24 %	25 - 49 %	50 - 74 %	75 - 99 %	100 %
	Number of respondents	Number of respondents	Number of respondents	Number of respondents	Number of respondents
Prague	1	1	1	9	6
Brno	0	0	0	7	12
Ostrava	1	1	1	4	7
Ústí nad Labem	1	0	0	0	2
Pilsen	0	0	0	0	1
Other cities/towns populated 50,000 and above	3	1	4	4	5
Other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999	2	1	4	3	10
Other towns populated 2,000 to 9,999	1	3	2	2	4
Total	9	7	12	29	47
Share in %	8,65 %	6,73 %	11,54 %	27,88 %	45,19 %

Note:

Prague - one respondent did not specify any answer, one respondent specified he used the unilateral increase of the rent for 0 % of dwellings.

Brno - three respondents did not specify any answer.

Ostrava - one respondent did not specify any answer, three respondents do not have any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. would apply.

Ústí nad Labem - one respondent did not specify any answer.

Pilsen City - data for the whole city as delivered by the City Council of Pilsen.

Towns/cities populated 50,000 and above - three respondents did not unilaterally increase the rent in municipal dwellings in 2007.

Towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 - one respondent did not unilaterally increase the rent in municipal dwellings in 2007.

The table shows that in 2007 nearly a half of the respondents unilaterally increased the rent in all municipal dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied. In total, five respondents who own dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied, did not utilise the contingency to unilaterally increase the rent in 2007, i.e. the City District Prague 10, Karlovy Vary, Děčín, Teplice, and Příbram.

Diagram 11

Note:

Ostrava City - three respondents do not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals would apply; therefore they have not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions.

Pilsen City - data for the whole City provided by the City Council of Pilsen.

From the diagram follows that the majority of respondents (78 %) utilised the maximum increase of the rent in all localities in 2007. Totally 6 % of respondents used the maximum increase of rent, however, not in all localities. Further 11 % of respondents did not use the maximum increase of rent (including 5 % of respondents who did not increase the rent in municipal dwellings in 2007).

The highest share of respondents who did not use the maximum possible increase of rent in 2007 was in Brno, particularly 23 % of the respondents. In Brno the highest share (14 %) of respondents was also recorded who used the maximum increase of rent only in selected localities. This may be related to the privatisation, which has been the least advanced in Brno.

The interest of the towns/cities in the unilateral increase of the rent in 2008 is documented by the Diagram 12 Unilateral raise of rentals in 2008. From the diagram follows that in 2008 as much as 91 % of respondents used the contingency of the unilateral raise of the rentals in the municipal dwellings. 4 % of the respondents did not specify any answer to this question and only 5 % of the respondents (City District Brno - sever, City District Brno - jih, City District Ústí nad Labem - Severní Terasa, Karlovy Vary, Děčín, and Teplice) did not raise the rentals unilaterally in the municipal dwellings in 2008.

Most of the city/town councils (74 %) raised the rentals as early as in the 1st quarter, particularly as per January 1st, 2008 - see the Diagram 13 Respondents by the term of the unilateral raise of rentals in 2008.

Diagram 12

Note:

Pilsen City - data for the whole City provided by the City Council of Pilsen.

Ostrava City - three respondents do not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals would apply, therefore they have not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions.

Diagram 13

Note to Diagram 13:

Prague City - one respondent did not answer this question.

Brno City - the City Council replies this issue is in power of city districts. One city district will raise the rentals only as per January 1st, 2009. Two respondents will not unilaterally raise the rentals in the municipal dwellings in 2008.

Ostrava City - three respondents do not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals would apply, therefore they have not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions.

Ústí nad Labem - one respondent will not unilaterally raise the rentals in the municipal dwellings in 2008.

Pilsen City - data for the whole City provided by the City Council of Pilsen.

Towns populated 50,000 and above - three respondents will not unilaterally raise rentals in the municipal dwellings in 2008. One respondent did not answer this question.

Towns populated between 10,000 and 49,999 - two respondents did not answer this question.

Towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 - three respondents did not answer this question.

For a standard dwelling after the unilateral raise in 2007, the rental charges varied within the range from 13.96 CZK/m² in Třinec to 49.67 CZK/m² specified by the Municipality Council of the Capital Prague and, in 2008, they varied within the range from 12.37 CZK/m² in the town Most to 70.00 CZK/m² referred to in the City District Prague 4. For lower quality dwellings the rentals after the unilateral raise in 2007 reached the levels between 6.82 CZK/m² in Písek and 45.35 CZK/m² in the City District Prague 6 and, in 2008, they varied within the range from 7.89 CZK/m² in Teplice to 54.82 CZK/m² as referred by the City District Prague - Řepy.

From the comparison of the rentals after the unilateral raise of 2008 and of the rentals in dwellings built with a state subsidy and with contractual rentals may be deduced that the highest dispersion of values, between the minimum and maximum amount of the rent in individual groups of towns/town districts/city districts, is recorded for the contractual rentals.

From the knowledge and comments of respondents to the issue of the unilateral raise of rentals may be collectively stated:

• Tenants criticise the height of rentals in some cadastral areas and in busy streets;
• Increasing is the number of tenants in dwellings owned by other entities, who apply for the letting of a municipal dwelling; as well increasing is the number of tenants in dwellings who apply for an exchange of their present flat for a smaller one;
• Due to the increase of the rentals in municipal dwellings the interest of tenants increased in respect of the sale of dwellings to corporal possession;
• Problematic is the delivery of advice notes on the raise of rentals (a higher number of tenants do not take-over mail; therefore the advice notes on the raise of rentals must be delivered repeatedly); this should be done without the condition of personal delivery to a tenant, a publication on a public board of a district should suffice;
• Unblocking of rentals in special purpose dwellings has not been solved;
• The determined per cent of the unilateral raise is low;
• It is recommended that the notice to quit could follow as early as after two months of default rentals and, in such a case, the notice period would be maximally two months. The existing status bases a more than half-a-year default. When a legal action follows, further months for the clearance of a dwelling follow.

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 2006, such type of care-taking was with 48.3 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2007, 49.0 %.

The average monthly costs of the management of a municipal dwelling through a caretaker were of CZK 187.98 per dwelling/month in 2006, while of CZK 210.98 in 2007. The average costs for dwellings maintained directly by one of the Municipality’s departments were of CZK 117.72 per dwelling/month in 2006, while of CZK 156.77 in 2007. The mean costs of the management of the municipal dwellings increased as for the management of the municipal dwellings by means of a caretaker in 2007, as compared to 2006. The mean costs for the management of the municipal dwellings, where the towns carried out the management through a respective department, increased as well in 2007, as compared to 2006. From the given data follows that if a town manages its dwellings by its own, through a respective department, is cheaper than the provision of the municipal dwellings management through a caretaker.

The average monthly costs of the management of municipal dwellings increased in 2007, compared to 2006, the same as the average income from rentals of municipal dwellings in 2007, compared to 2006. The average monthly management and maintenance costs of a municipal dwelling were CZK 1,506 in 2006, while CZK 1,689 were in question in 2007; the average monthly income from rentals of municipal dwellings was CZK 1,818 in 2006, while the amount CZK 2,146 was in question in 2007. The average costs of management and maintenance of municipal dwellings was lower than the average incomes from the rentals of municipal dwellings in both 2006 and 2007, whereas the difference between these two amounts increased in 2007, compared to 2006.

Diagrams 14a and 14b, Comparison of respondents by their responses to the question whether the incomes from rentals cover the maintenance costs 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 14a

Note: Pilsen - the Municipality Council of Pilsen did not provide reply to this question for the whole city.

Diagram 14b

Note: Pilsen - the Municipality Council of Pilsen did not provide reply to this question for the whole city.

Selected facts from the additional part of the questionnaire

The issue of letting municipal dwellings to selected groups of residents and related to all municipal dwellings:

• Individual respondents who keep records on applications for tenancy of municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents specify that they keep records on applications for the following groups of residents:
  • Applications for apartments in nursing homes or in houses with protected dwellings;
  • Applications of citizens who have reached age decisive for awarding old age pensions or who are receivers of full disability pension, live alone and their health and social conditions give a reason for the need of a day care;
  • Applications for special purpose dwellings and barrier-free dwellings;
  • Applications of unseeing people;
  • Applications of children leaving children's homes and foster care;
  • Applications for initial dwellings according to a MinRD scheme;
  • Applications of battered persons;
  • Applications for tenancy of dwellings for residents receiving material distress, for residents in social need (lacking property);
  • Applications of tenants living in large flats and applying for an exchange for smaller ones;
  • Applications for substitute dwellings after divorce and for other substitute dwellings;
  • Teachers, police.
• Of all the 112 addressed respondents 56, i.e. 50 %, keep separate records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents, 55 of them, i.e. 49 %, do not keep separate records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents and one respondent, i.e. 1 %, did not specify any reply to this question.
• Of all the 112 addressed respondents 81, i.e. 72 %, keep records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings related to all municipal dwellings, 30 of them, i.e. 27 %, do not keep records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings related to all municipal dwellings and one respondent, i.e. 1 %, did not specify any reply to this question.
• 37 respondents, i.e. 33 %, keep the both above-specified records of the applications for the tenancy and 11 respondents, i.e. 10 %, do not keep any of the above-specified records of applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling.
• The per cent share of the recorded applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling for the selected groups of residents, for all respondents in total, was 7.7 % in 2006, while in 2007 it was 8.9 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings. In 2006 the per cent share of the recorded applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling for the selected groups of residents, for all respondents in total, was 1.1 % of all dwellings as per the 2001 census, while in 2007 it was 1.3 % of all the dwellings as per the 2001 census.
• The percentage of registered applications for municipal dwellings in 2006 and 2007 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 15, Share of all registered applications for municipal dwellings as related to total numbers of municipal dwellings, 2006 and 2007.
• The percentage of registered applications for municipal dwellings in 2006 and 2007 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 16, Number of all registered applications for municipal dwellings as related to total numbers of all dwellings in towns and cities under observation, 2006 and 2007.

Diagram 15

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

Diagram 16

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

• Three respondents (the towns Česká Lípa, Cheb, and Velká Bíteš) 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 17, Methods to decrease the numbers of debtors and the amounts of debts in rentals and services in towns and cities under observation.

Diagram 17

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, in 2006 the investigation was focused to the years 2004 and 2005, the last year's research pursued the years 2005 and 2006 and the this year's investigation the years 2006 and 2007. For the assignor of the task - the MinRD’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. From the this year's research (i.e. for 2007) followed that most respondents expect the termination of the process of the municipal dwellings privatisation in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The most remote dates mentioned in this year’s research were 2012, 2014, and 2015. The most remote term of the expected termination of the privatisation, in 2015, remained the same as in the last year.

The printed version of the final report of the 2008 questionnaire survey is available at the Housing Policy Department of the MinRD and at the Brno Institute for Spatial Development. A brief report from the research “Results of the Questionnaire Survey in the Developments of Selected Towns’ Municipal Housing Stock (2006, 2007)” is 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 MinRD, the survey will be repeated at the beginning of 2009. Together with the task assignor, the questions in the questionnaire and the scope of addressed respondents will be updated.

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.