The Community Development Committee chaired by Henderson City Council member Garry Daeke met today at City Hall and reviewed prospective changes to the City’s Minimum Housing Ordinance of 1970.
The Community Development Committee was joined by the Community Development Advisory Committee.
Because of the number of guests at the meeting, the meeting was moved from its regular location in the City Hall Conference Room to the City Council Chambers.
Daeke started off this portion of the meeting by reviewing some of the events of the previous meeting. He said that he had had Planning & Community Development Director Erris Dunston speak about the process involved in the proposed Certificate of Occupancy, specifically, how water and sewer would be hooked up and the complaint process.
The chair of the Community Development Committee went on to say that the City has a minimum housing ordinance, but that it has been enforced by complaint. He said that the committee was looking at how to enforce it by means other than complaint. He asked if the committee wanted to enforce it as is or if it wanted to revise the ordinance.
At City Manager Jerry Moss’s suggestion, Dunston reviewed the discussion at the previous meeting to bring members who were not present “up to speed”.
Dunston reported that a proposed enforcement plan had been reviewed. She stated that the ordinance would be enforced as it is on the books. She added that enforcement would also take place in “target zones” and “major corridors”.
The Planning Director also reported that a Certificate of Occupancy method would also be used when water is disconnected. Under the plan, water would not be connected until inspection takes place.
The Certificate of Occupancy would be good for two years. If a complaint is received, Dunston said, the process is restarted.
Dunston informed members that the first inspection is at no cost to the landlord. However, any subsequent inspections would cost $50.
Inspections would be conducted with an available checklist. Dunston referred to it as a simple yes/no compliance list.
Any house with a “no” indicated on the compliance list would fail the inspection.
Dunston also stated that in the “target areas” that her department would identify houses and conduct inspections.
Moss told members that landlords were concerned that the City would “hold them up” because people tend to move in at the first of the month.
Dunston replied to the concern, stating that once her department is called to do an inspection, it would perform the inspection within two to three business days.
“We will not hold you up,” Dunston said.
The Planning Director added that in the event of a delay, a temporary occupancy certificate would be issued so that the tenant could move in.
Dunston said that it was a question of peak times, and that the Water Department had not indicated that there was a peak time.
Moss emphasized that if a house was “in shape” that it would cost the landlord nothing. He also noted that the re-inspection fee would be raised from the 1970 ordinance-stipulated amount of $4 to $50 for a subsequent inspection.
Daeke raised the issue of what would happen if a tenant was already in a property and it failed the inspection.
Dunston replied that “we can have a hearing and do it that way”.
Diane Barbario, a member of the Community Development Advisory Committee and the chair of the Clean Up Henderson Committee mentioned the controversy over the exclusion of purchased homes from the Minimum Housing Ordinance.
Daeke replied that he wanted to talk about that, but not at that particular meeting.
Dunston stated that the current ordinance on the books specifies renters.
Henry Falkner, a member of the Community Development Advisory Committee and the property manager for the Rogers Group, a local rental property management business, indicated that water connections were needed to get properties cleaned.
“It will fail if you inspect it the way the tenant left it,” Falkner complained.
Falkner indicated that for the water to be connected, the unit would have to be inspected.
Moss told Falkner that he could have the water turned on in his name as the owner of the property.
“What’s to say I won’t keep it in my name?” Falkner asked.
“The CO,” Henderson City Council member Elissa Yount replied.
Falkner then asked how closely to the original ordinance the City planned to hold the landlords. He asked if the City would require screens.
Falkner indicated that screens were archaic and that he did not have them on his own home.
The property manager stated that there are things “that are just too picky”.
“It’s setting the landlords up for failure,” Falkner said.
Daeke then stated that the committee would go through the ordinance. He indicated that City staff had been through it and recommended initial changes. He said that at the next meeting the group would go through other recommended changes.
Dunston told members that the ordinance does not address kerosene heaters. She suggested that the City address the issue and prohibit kerosene heaters from being the primary source of heat.
Dunston indicated that the current ordinance states that units must maintain a temperature of 70° Farenheit at a height of three feet on a winter’s day.
Community Development Advisory Committee member Eugene Burton asked what would happen if a landlord did not fix his or her property.
Dunston stated that it would become part of the City’s abandoned structures process.
Falkner stated that the City was doubling its number of abandoned structures.
Community Development Committee member Mary Emma Evans added, “Homeless, too.”
Yount emphasized that if the City is not enforcing minimum housing standards that it can lose HUD grants. She said that the City owes it to its citizens to have minimum decency.
“We’re only talking about basic minimal decency,” Yount said.
Community Development Committee member Lonnie Davis said that if the ordinance “doubles the number of delapidated houses, we have a serious problem. He went on to say that if landlords don’t want to fix the houses, [the City] has a serious problem.
Falkner countered that the inspector can “nitpick”, and that none of the houses will pass.
Barbario added that tenants have their own rights and landlords can be held liable. She said that it behooves landlords to bring up their housing stock.
Daeke steered the conversation back to the topic of kerosene heaters, stating that if a kerosene heater comes in after the inspection, the City won’t know about it. He added that he wasn’t trying to give anyone “loopholes”.
Code Compliance Director Corey Williams spoke to members regarding electrical systems in houses, informing them that the electricity needs to be on.
“And safe,” Moss added.
Williams added that his department had seen some very unsafe wiring.
Martha Thompson, a member of the Community Development Advisory Board and an employee of Progress Energy said that it was likely that electric service would be cut off during the two-year period of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Daeke replied that the City was looking for electric service for the initial inspection.
Dunston said that the idea for the electricity provision had come from cities that control electricity. She stated that the City could not fix every problem, and that it had no way of knowing if power had been disconnected without being in control of that service.
Dunston added that the City was not trying to attack landlords, but trying to assure that people know that “they don’t have to live like this”.
Other provisions mentioned by Dunston:
* Kitchen floors should be of an impervious surface, rather than carpet;
* Address numbers must be posted for use by emergency services and viewable from the road;
* Smoke detectors should be added on each floor and habitable basements and maintained in an operable condition;
* Ceiling height in habitable rooms should be a minimum of seven feet six inches in at least half of the floorspace (the half floorspace provision accounts for the possibility of pitched roofs in second-story rooms);
* Windows or door screens can be exempt if unit has central air conditioning and heat.
Near the end of the meeting, Daeke opened the floor to questions from meeting guests.
Daniel White asked about complaint-driven inspections. He asked what priority they were, and how many were received in a month.
Dunston commented that they had increased lately.
Williams said that complaints would be “worked in”.
Barbario commented that there seemed to be an “adversarial relationship” between landlords and the City. She said there shouldn’t be. She said the process was helpful for landlords and the City by raising expectations.
White asked if there was a tenant in the house and the water was cut off if there would have to be a re-inspection.
Dunston informed him that there would if the water was off for more than ten days.
White replied that he could not control what a tenant does.
“They take off the screens,” White said.
Falkner once again stated that the ordinance would put people “out of a house”.
“They’ll be homeless,” Falkner said.
Moss replied that he didn’t think the City was going to go in and run someone out of a house for a screen.
“We’ll apply common sense,” Moss said. “If it’s a good tenant, you’ll want to put the screens up.”
Falkner insisted that tenants take screens out and throw them away.
Doug Falkner commented from the audience that the pass/fail format of the checklist would create more vandalized houses.
Attorney Mike Satterwhite, who represents the landlords, then spoke at length to the committee. He said that system could work without being adversarial.
Satterwhite indicated that tenants could do their part.
The attorney stated that his personal properties are managed by the Rogers Group, and that before a tenant moves in, they look good. He went on to indicate that this is not necessary the case after a tenant moves in.
Satterwhite told the committee that the landlords were interested in meeting informally with the committee to talk about the issues and to let the committee “hear the other side” so that the ordinance could be “something that everyone could endorse”.
Satterwhite stated that he did not think the purpose of the City was to put landlords out of business.
The attorney went on to say that being a landlord is a choice, and a big investment of time and money. He stated that when the City is called, it can take two days to get a call back. He said it costs landlords several thousand dollars a day when they don’t have tenants in their properties.
“Landlords want to work together with the city,” Satterwhite said.
Moss asked after a proposal landlords were to bring to the committee six or eight weeks earlier.
Satterwhite replied that it was their position that it would be easier to work with what the City proposes.
Moss affirmed that [landlords and the City] need to work together.
Yount asked Satterwhite if the landlords would be satisfied with settling on the Section 8 standard for the Certificate of Occupancy.
Satterwhite stated he was unfamiliar with the standard.
Dunston said she had looked at Section 8, but it was not as specific as the City code. She said it would be hard to enforce.
Evans said that under Section 8, authorities can come into a house at any time, a position that Falkner affirmed.
Dunston stated that the City would get approvals to go into people’s houses.
Evans asked if an inspection could be turned down.
Dunston replied that it could not be turned down inside a “targeted area”.