Although yesterday’s meeting was intended to be the final review of the controversial ordinance to amend the City’s Minimum Housing Code as well as the Certificate of Occupancy ordinance, in the end, Community Development Committee Chair Garry Daeke and Committee member Mary Emma Evans decided to schedule a meeting early next week to review final changes.
A public hearing on the ordinances has already been scheduled for August 13.
Third Committee member Lonnie Davis was not present at the evening meeting.
Council members in attendance included Ranger Wilkerson, Lynn Harper, Bobby Gupton, Elissa Yount, and Bernard Alston. City staff included City Manager Jerry Moss, City Attorney John Zollicoffer, Planning and Community Development Director Erris Dunston, and City Clerk Dianne White.
Members of the Community Development Advisory Committee were also present. These included Eugene Burton and Diane Barbario, who also chairs the Clean Up Henderson Committee.
Prominent Henderson landlords Cliff Rogers and Henry Falkner were also present, as was Attorney Michael Satterwhite, who represents the interests of 36 landlords in the City.
Before a review of changes to the Minimum Housing Code could begin in earnest, Satterwhite objected to the timing at which versions of the ordinances had been sent to him.
According to Satterwhite, a seventh version arrived after the close of business at his office on Friday, July 27 while an eighth revision was only delivered to him on Wednesday, August 1.
Satterwhite told Daeke that there were “substantial changes” that he had not had a chance to review. Daeke responded that Dunston would note changes that had occurred earlier that day.
Using a video projector, Dunston then walked committee members through each change in the ordinance to amend the Minimum Housing Code. A duplicate Microsoft Word document may be viewed here. Throughout the meeting, Dunston made changes to the documents under scrutiny, and the versions published on Home in Henderson represent the meeting’s final product.
During the course of examining the Minimum Housing document, there was a discussion as to whether or not a fireplace constituted a a heat source. Yount stated that she objected to fireplaces being included as heat sources, preferring the phrasing of “safe heating appliance”. Barbario told the committee that a fireplace was not a good source of heat unless it is “gas fed” or has an insert. She also expressed a concern over burning materials that produce creosote and create a fire hazard.
At another point, Evans asked if rules had been set regarding who can speak after Daeke denied Satterwhite’s request to ask a question. Daeke outlined the difference between committee members speaking and members of the public speaking.
In discussing a change in phrasing from “occupant” to “tenant”, Satterwhite told members that they were “losing focus” between the two ordinances. He said that the ordinance has to read “occupant” because it applies to everyone.
After reviewed the portion of the ordinance that sets criminal penalties for violation, Alston expressed incredulity that a $500 fine could be imposed for a Class 3 misdemeanor. He later concluded that it could be done, but stated that he had “never seen it done that way before”.
Responding to the review of the proposed ordinance, Satterwhite remarked that the group he represents is “fairly extensive” and that they are not all his “routine clients”. He said that some are larger landlords and some are smaller.
Satterwhite stressed that his client group is committed to good, clean, affordable housing and that he was grateful for the opportunity to participate in the process.
In an effort to “set the record straight”, Satterwhite claimed that the previous Community Development meeting was “short notice”. He said that when he arrived an hour late because of a previous commitment that he was told that the committee was not interested in hearing from him.
The landlords’ attorney stressed once again that the revisions to the ordinance sent to him the previous Friday were “substantial” and that he wanted to talk about those changes. He said that he was under the impression that only the changes made as of Friday would be discussed, not the changes made after Friday’s version.
At that point, Satterwhite responded to specific language present in the ordinance. He began stating that the definition of “inspector” should include the qualifications of the inspector and should be specific in the matter of how they are credentialed.
The attorney reinforced his statement that the code applies to everyone by stating that everyone would be subject to the $500 fine called for in the proposed ordinance.
Referring to a section on ceiling height, Satterwhite indicated that an agreement had been reached at a previous meeting that would allow for heights lower than seven feet on older houses.
Satterwhite stressed that procedures called for in both ordinances should be the same.
Regarding smoke detectors, Satterwhite argued that there is no way for a landlord or a tenant to know if the smoke detector is compliant with the manufacturer’s recommendations and listing.
Pointing out Section 21-10 of the ordinance, Satterwhite noted that it defines the responsibilities of owners and occupants. He told members that they would have to enforce the “whole code” against owners/landlords and on tenants. He said that landlords would be filing with the City and citing specific violations in the ordinance.
“Do you have the resolve to spend the money to enforce what’s on the books, much less what we’ve got here?” he asked.
Citing what he termed a “fatal flaw” in Section 21-20, Satterwhite argued that a Certificate of Occupancy would not stand a Constitutional challenge to the City saying that one could not live in one’s own house without a certificate.
Satterwhite inveighed against the criminal violations section, stating that he did not think the ordinance should make violation a criminal offense. He argued that a Class 3 misdemeanor had three levels of penalty depending on previous convictions, two of which are less than 20 days, and that the City was contravening state law by requiring 20 days of imprisonment.
As for civil penalties, Satterwhite noted that they range from $500 to $4800. He told members that he did not think they could charge more than their cost.
He said the committee was “trying to fool all the taxpayers”.
Satterwhite stated that he did not feel that the City was ready for the ordinance already on the books, much less the new one.
Calling it “Big Brother to the finest”, Satterwhite objected to language in the ordinance that calls for specific types of trash cans. He also said that occupant responsibility for providing trash cans had been removed.
Concluding his remarks, Satterwhite called the ordinance “a work in progress”. Citing claims in The Daily Dispatch and “other media” that he is stalling until October 1 when perhaps state law will change, he emphasized a need to correct the ordinance and things in it that are “legally impermissible”.
Satterwhite also noted that he does not want [the Certificate of Occupancy ordinance].
The committee then moved on to a review of the changes made to the Certificate of Occupancy ordinance. Once again, the document linked in the previous sentence incorporates all changes made during the course of the meeting as well as those made before the meeting took place.
A major feature of the revision of this proposed ordinance is that language indicating a penalty was removed. For example, the word “penalties” was removed in favor of the term “inspection fee”. The term “civil penalty” was changed to “civil liability”. Zollicoffer explained that the change was an attempt to keep the monetary assessment from being a penalty per se.
At the end of the review, Harper stated that the language contained in the ordinance came from a similar Greensboro ordinance, one that has been in effect since 2004 and has never been challenged judicially.
Once again stating that the committee was going over revisions that Daeke had agreed not to review, Satterwhite criticized members for not involving the City Attorney sooner. He said that the fact that Zollicoffer did not have a “red-line copy” caused the “tediousness” of reviewing the documents.
Satterwhite said that he had asked the committee to consider the ordinances of more local neighbors rather than that of Greensboro.
Making reference to the preamble to the ordinance, he asked the committee to consider if it is really true that a series of inspections is the best method for achieving its aims. He said that enforcing minimum housing was a better way.
Satterwhite made the point that tenants are not “the only class of citizen” in Henderson.
The attorney argued that there was a lack of parity in the two ordinances when it came to right-of-entry and the hearing process.
Regarding a section having to do with the revocation of the occupancy permit, Satterwhite questioned who is an “appropriate designee” of the Code Compliance Director.
He also stated that the ordinance contains no process for going to the Planning Board.
Once again asking the committee to give “serious consideration” to not criminalizing the ordinance, he said that landlords would have serious recruitment problems for on-site management because of the criminal penalties the ordinance calls for. He once again argued that the 20 days imprisonment the ordinance calls for is in violation of state statute.
Yount argued that since the ordinance specifically calls for “up to 20 days”, that both the committee and Satterwhite were correct on the point.
Satterwhite asked for language in the ordinance to allay fears that houses built to previous code specifications would not have to be rebuilt. He said the language had “popped out” between Friday and Monday. This is a point to which the committee agreed.
Regarding the assessment of fines over time, Satterwhite argued that there was no definition as to when they start. He implied they should not start during the appeals process, as an owner could win the appeal.
As to the public hearing scheduled for August 13, Satterwhite pointed out that the ordinance was not yet out of committee and that changes had been made without the advice or consent of Evans, a member of the committee.
Yount replied to Satterwhite’s remarks about criminalization of the ordinance by stating that criminal penalties apply “far down in the process”. Satterwhite replied that it should be “set out”.
Replying to Satterwhite’s remarks about looking at ordinances from immediate localities, Yount asked if neighboring cities have as much blighted housing. Satterwhite replied that he did not have those figures, but that those regions have similar socio-economic conditions.
He added that Roanoke Rapids has made “terrific strides” and “they have nothing like this”.
Satterwhite went on to say that the City has had “30 years” but not the resolve to enforce what is on the books. He argued that to enact something “totally different” would burden the staff.
Satterwhite agreed with Yount in that they possess the same goals, but differ on the method for achieving those goals.
Barbario claimed that Henderson has 2,000 houses more than it needs. She asked what [the City] was supposed to do with the excess homes.
Evans said that Zollicoffer had been asked to help and check with other cities. She said that members have received “a letter” from Zollicoffer that had not been referred to during deliberation on the ordinances.
Zollicoffer confirmed that the letter he had sent had been marked “Confidential”. The attorney/client privilege between the City Council and its attorney allows communications to be withheld from public record.
Evans said that some problems come from residents, and that the issue “needs more study”. She said the ordinances would result in a “group that can do what it wants and a group that can’t”.
Moss explained that the type of trash can is defined by City code.
Harper remarked that minimum housing applies to everyone. She said that although there had been discussion of the economy, that “our people” are no less deserving.
Harper stated that [the City’s] responsibility, as stated by Henderson Mayor Clem Seifert, was to make sure that every citizen has a clean, safe place to live.
Harper went on to say that she wants something to make landlords who are not providing to make sure that they comply. She went on to say that she wanted a workable ordinance.
At the end of the meeting, a subsequent meeting was set for Tuesday, August 7, at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall. Daeke said he would have no objection to hearing comments from non-members at that meeting.
Harper suggested that copies be sent out so that parties have 24 hours to read revisions.