HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Special Meeting of the Ames City Council 09/29/2010MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
The Ames City Council met in special session at 7:00 p.m. on the 29th day of September, 2010, in
the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law with Mayor Ann
Campbell presiding and the following Council members present: Davis, Goodman, Larson, Orazem,
and Wacha. Ex officio Member England was also present. Delores Betts, Pat Brown, Jeff Drury,
Gary Hunziker, Sean Morrissey, Bert Schroeder, and Al Warren, representing the Property
Maintenance Appeals Board, were also present.
Mayor Campbell noted that this meeting was one in a series of public meetings that have been held
over the last three years regarding Chapter 13 and the property maintenance code.
PRESENTATION BY THE AMES RENTAL ASSOCIATION: Kelli Excell, on behalf of the
Ames Rental Association (ARA), gave the Council a presentation regarding the proposed changes
to Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Excell said that there are unintended and cost-prohibitive
consequences due to the new code enactment. She stated that there were multiple meetings of the
Property Maintenance Appeals Board (PMAB) regarding this subject, but very little public input or
discussion was allowed.
Council Member Mahayni arrived at 7:08 p.m.
Ms. Excell stated that the ARA had two specific requests of the City Council, the first of which was
open dialogue. Ms. Excell indicated that there was little dialogue when the ARA presented to the
PMAB, and at a subsequent meeting there was none whatsoever. The ARA wants to come to the
table with the PMAB, City staff, and the Council to find common ground on these issues.. The
ARA’s second request is that the new Code not be enforced until common ground can be reached.
Ms. Excell reviewed some of the specific issues that the ARA has with the new code. She explained
that landlords are frustrated because repairs are being treated as new work or remodeling under the
new Chapter 13; they believe that this is being interpreted incorrectly.
In regards to new requirements for egress windows, the Association would like alternate wording
in the Code to allow current windows to remain in place, rather than requiring replacement. Ms.
Excell said that it is common lately for many houses on the market to not sell, so they end up turning
into rentals. She feels that there is a rich need for rentals, and under the new Code the majority of
these houses would be deemed unsafe. It is the Association’s opinion that an existing window is not
a Code violation. Ms. Excell spoke with surrounding inspectors in Ankeny and Des Moines and
found that they are interpreting the Code differently.
Ms. Excell stated that another new requirement is for some buildings to install Knox boxes. She
explained that a Knox box sits on the outside of a property, inset into the building, and the keys to
the property are inside the box. The Fire Department has a key to this box, and can use it to get into
the building in the event of a false fire alarm or similar situation. Ms. Excell stated that these boxes
are difficult to install on buildings that do not already have them, and they are costly. The ARA
would like Knox box requirements to be limited to only buildings that have secured entrances and
auto alarm systems, preferably only in new construction.
Ms. Excell indicated that the City has purged a lot of its records. She stated that a lot of landlords
have obtained acceptable variances, but those variances have been lost. The ARA would like some
wording put into Chapter 13 to allow these things to continue if they have already been approved.
In regards to the interior and exterior stair rise requirements, Ms. Excell stated that the ARA would
like the wording to be changed from 3/8 inch to 1 inch to meet the need of older buildings that settle.
She stated that the new rules are much too stringent, and she showed the Council a photo of public
steps which do not comply to these rules. She indicated that if landlords were forced to comply, they
would need to tear out interior stairs which would likely lead to a nearly complete remodel.
Ms. Excell stated that Chapter 13 now reads that it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the
property clean. She noted that landlords do not have the power to tell tenants how to live; if a tenant
is messy, the landlord can’t do anything about it. She explained that Letters of Compliance from the
City are now based on whether or not the property is “clean”. Clean is defined differently by
different people; cleanliness is not a permanent condition. Ms. Excell indicated that City inspectors
have said that a property is not clean because there are dirty clothes on the floor. The ARA would
like the word “clean” removed from the Code entirely.
Ms. Excell indicated that, under the new Code, Letters of Compliance (LOCs) from the City now
expire when a property changes hands or is deeded to another person. She stated that there is no
reasonable cause for an LOC to expire just because a property changes hands; the purpose of an
LOC should be the safety of the tenant, not the protection of the buyer.
According to Ms. Excell, the ARA also feels that the time period specified in the Code for appeals
is too short. The current time period is 20 days, and if a decision by the City is not appealed within
those 20 days, then the issue is “dead”. The ARA asked the PMAB to change the number, but the
Board elected not to.
Ms. Excell talked about the new requirements for shared air furnaces. She stated that shared air
furnaces should not be treated differently than normal furnaces.
Ms. Excell stated that landlords want to keep their houses updated and fixed to maintain their value.
They want to care for their properties and provide a place that’s safe and affordable for the tenant
and the landlord. She reiterated that the Association wants to find some middle ground on all of
these issues.
PRESENTATION AND RECOMMENDATION BY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
APPEALS BOARD: Chair Al Warren, representing small and medium sized landlords; Sean
Morrissey, representing student tenants; Bert Schroeder, representing owner-occupants; Pat Brown,
representing owner-occupants; Jeff Drury, representing small landlords/contractors; Gary Hunziker,
representing large landlords; and De Betts, representing longtime tenants, were all present on behalf
of the Property Maintenance Appeals Board (PMAB).
Chair Al Warren reviewed the PMAB’s responses to the Ames Rental Association’s concerns. He
explained that the decision to keep the appeal time at 20 days was a legal precedent. Mr. Warren
indicated that a landlord would know on the day of inspection what items would need to be
appealed. The 20 day appeal period does not start until the inspector sends a letter to the landlord,
which is typically about 14 days after the initial inspection.
2
Mr. Warren addressed the concern about not allowing Letters of Compliance to continue under new
ownership. The Board felt that since there are a lot of changes in the Code, if a new person takes
over and is not inspected, they may be in for big surprises down the road. Board Member Brown
added that an inspection would also inform a potential buyer of possible deficiencies, so they would
know what has to be done before they buy it. Mr. Warren stated that if new owners were not required
to be inspected, it would be unfair to the current landlords who are trying to comply; they see it as
protecting existing landlords by not allowing LOCs to continue when the property changes hands.
Mr. Warren indicated that there were wide opinions expressed regarding the word “clean”, and the
Board had a lot of discussion as to what clean actually meant. The PMAB’s recommendation was
to keep the word there and move on, and a landlord could appeal a decision to the Board if he or she
felt that the interpretation was incorrect.
The Board reviewed numerous other issues contained it its report to the Council. Mr. Warren
indicated that plumbing was a “big ticket” item. The existence of “S-traps” and whether they should
be allowed to remain in rental houses was discussed at length.
In regards to shared air furnaces, Mr. Warren stated that the Board felt that most of the requirements
are “doable”. The landlord would not be required to put in two new furnaces if the shared air furnace
broke down. Board Member Drury indicated that the Code initially required replacement with two
separate furnaces; it was a large compromise between the PMAB and the City to get to this point.
Mr. Warren indicated that the PMAB believes that the language regarding below grade egress
windows should stay as is, and above grade window issues should be made appealable to the Board.
If an above grade window comes very close to compliance, then the Board could grant a variance
and allow some flexibility. This issue was discussed at length. It was noted that few homes in Ames
would comply to the new standards; however, new construction is built to comply.
In regards to the installation of Knox boxes, Board Member Hunziker stated that it makes sense to
require them in larger buildings with system alarms. The Code initially required any building with
six units or more to install a Knox box; the PMAB recommended changing that number to nine or
more units. It was noted that the cost of a Knox box would be approximately $300 plus installation,
but that cost would be offset if it prevented a door from getting kicked in by a firefighter or other
emergency responder.
Mr. Warren stated that the Board also recommended the addition of another City inspector and more
clerical staff. He said that it is unrealistic to think of one inspector and an intern being able to handle
the inspection of some 12,000 rental properties in Ames. He stated that the Board unanimously voted
to support adding one full time rental inspector and one half time clerical position in the Inspections
Division.
PUBLIC INPUT: Sharon Guber, 2931 Northwestern Avenue, Ames, Iowa, stated that she had been
at several of the public meetings, and that there was at least one landlord or representative at each
of those meetings. She understands the concern about the costs; she was on the committee to work
on the revision of the Code. She does not think that the Council should reduce the requirements in
the Code, because the Code protects the safety of renters and the legal safety of the landlords. Ms.
Guber thinks that the Council and Inspections could look at alternative Letters of Compliance that
would say that a property is in the process of being brought up to Code, and give an allowance of
3
six months to a year. She also thinks that the cost of installing a Knox box is minimal compared to
what is gained for the tenants. Ms. Guber stated that the Inspections Division has said that they will
look at things that are major safety issues first and then follow down the line. She also does not think
that the problem of turning houses that won’t sell into rental units is relevant to this discussion.
Bobby Martens, 2004 Country Club Boulevard, Ames, Iowa, stated that he lives in the south campus
area, which has many rentals bordered by owner-occupied houses. Mr. Martens explained that he
purchased a rental directly behind his house because he wanted control of it. He stated that the
property had never been registered with the City as a rental. The City discovered that it was an
unregistered rental house, and he had the property registered and inspected. Mr. Martens indicated
that there were compliance issues, and he ended up spending $5,500 bringing the house up to Code.
He described the appeals process as being very frustrating. He thinks that the Code is too black and
white, and that reason and judgement need to be used in the enforcement process.
Lyle Groth, 665 Olin Avenue, Ellsworth, Iowa, said that he has rental properties in Ames. He said
that a tenant of his called the City to complain about an electrical outlet, and the City came and did
a full inspection instead of just checking the outlet. Mr. Groth indicated that he ended up making
a plumbing repair of over $1,000. He doesn’t like that tenants have the right to go to the City and
that landlords are being held accountable in a short period of time.
Chuck Winkleblack, 105 S 16th Street, Ames, Iowa, stated that many of the landlords did not attend
the previous public meetings because they had Letters of Compliance that they have had for ten
years. He indicated that many of them had no issues, no complaints from the tenants, and thought
that they were good landlords. Mr. Winkleblack stated that the landlords didn’t know about some
of the meetings, and the reason they didn’t think that the Code changes pertained to them was
because the City had verified year after year that they had good properties. He echoed the ARA’s
wish to have more dialogue with the Board and with the City. He stated that everyone has the same
goal of affordable housing that is well-maintained. Mr. Winkleblack senses that there is a feeling
that just rental properties are being “picked on”. If people are really at risk, Codes should be changed
for everyone, not just rentals.
Doug Brinkman, 404 North Dakota Avenue, Ames, Iowa, stated that he has worked in the health and
safety field for 22 years. He urged the Council to consider the cost benefit ratio of these issues. Not
all issues can be hedged under the “health and safety” category.
Matt Randall, 420 S 17th Street, Ames, Iowa, believes that this law was poorly constructed, and
thinks that it is unfair to impose solely on rental properties. He stated that “what is good for the
goose is good for the gander”. If this truly is a law that is important for the citizenry, then everyone
should have their homes inspected. He does not think that any residential homes would pass
inspection based on this Code. It is inappropriate to single out rental properties, and the Code
should be removed from the books.
Jim Gunning, 119 Hickory Drive, Ames, Iowa, stated that he attended a lot of the work sessions,
and there wasn’t much dialogue. He indicated that he brought a list of items to the Board in 2008
that he thought could be potential problems, and most of them are what is being discussed now. Mr.
Gunning stated that he empathizes with the inspectors, because they are hired to enforce the Code.
Russ McCullough, 119 Stanton Avenue, Ames, Iowa, stated that he has done a lot of projects in
4
Ames. He explained a situation in which a City inspector allowed a compromise on one of his rental
properties, but he is worried that his property could some day be considered non-compliant by a new
inspector. He thinks that the Code needs to be addressed so that inspectors don’t need to worry as
much about interpretation, or the Board should have enough discretion to allow a variance that
sounds reasonable. Mr. McCullough does not think that the old properties in Ames should be micro-
managed. He thinks that oftentimes the cost of an appeal to the Board is more costly than just
making a repair. He feels that the Board is a waste of resources, and not an efficient way of
governing the city. Mr. McCullough would like the City to leave the old properties alone - “if it’s
not broke, don’t fix it”.
Steve Vogelzang, 230 Abraham Drive, Ames, Iowa, stated that government is best when it is least.
He thinks that these rules are taking on a life of their own - they should be minimum standards, and
landlords should have some freedom. Any of these rules should apply to everybody.
City Attorney Doug Marek stated that he was asked to compare the City of Ames’ Code to that of
similar cities. He gave the Council a report, which showed the Ames Rental Code compared to that
of Cedar Falls, Iowa City, and the City of Davenport, which has a lot of older houses as rentals. Mr.
Marek noted that three differences stand out. First, the Ames Code tended to have more content
about procedure and fewer references to codes outside the Municipal Code. Other cities incorporate
by reference the International Property Maintenance Code; the City of Ames has adopted portions
of it. The second difference is the issue of whether Letters of Compliance transfer when the property
changes ownership. Mr. Marek explained that Ames is the only city that starts the process over;
however, there is a provision in the Code for prior non-conformities to continue. He noted that all
jurisdictions require notification when properties change ownership. The third major difference is
that the Ames Code has more procedures for treatment of preexisting conditions that are non-
compliant with the Code. The other cities have some provision for variances, but not retroactive
conversions. Mr. Marek indicated that Ames has adopted the least restrictive uniform standard and
portions of the International Code. He noted that Cedar Falls has adopted the International Rental
Code in its entirety.
Mr. Marek also included a general comparison of the Ames Code to other cities with Big 12
universities. He stated that, for the most part, there were more similarities than differences.
Mr. Marek was asked if the City of Ames needs to have a rental housing code. He said that the State
Code is very clear that every city with a population of 15,000 or more must adopt a rental housing
code; if you do not, the State imposes one of the other model codes on the city. A city may adopt its
own housing code provisions, as long as they are more stringent than those contained in the model
housing code that it adopts. Mr. Marek stated that a city may also provide for variances to be
granted, and the authority of the Board that grants the variances must be set out in the Code.
The Attorney’s Office was also asked if the City Council can change the Code in any way it wishes,
or if it must follow State guidelines for changes. Mr. Marek stated that the Council may amend the
current code, so long as the amendments mean that the Code continues to be more stringent than the
uniform codes that the City has adopted.
Council Member Larson said that giving more authority to the PMAB might help resolve some of
the issues. Mr. Marek indicated that the Council could codify the authority that it would grant to the
Board, along with the standards to apply. He reiterated that the Council cannot authorize something
5
that is more lenient than the model code. Council Member Orazem asked if there was a way to “pre-
state” what variances are allowable. Mr. Marek said that there is; however, if the model code states
that under no circumstances is something to be allowed, the Council cannot provide a variance to
allow it. Mr. Orazem said that the Council ought to try to build flexibility into the system where
there are repeated conflicts.
In reference to the Board’s recommendation for additional Inspections staff, Council Member Larson
asked how long a typical inspection takes, and whether they take longer now under the new Code.
Fire Chief Clint Petersen stated that inspection times vary widely, but the Code has substantially
increased the amount of time the inspector and landlord spends on scene. He indicated that
inspectors spend additional time documenting preexisting conditions, and some properties are taking
significantly more time. Though it requires more inspection time, that should be reduced after all
of the rental properties have been inspected under the new code.
Council Member Davis asked what the normal inspection cycle is. Chief Petersen said that it is
variable from one to four years; a building with severe problems might be inspected every year, but
a new building with few problems might be done every four. Mr. Davis asked about increasing the
Inspections staff. Chief Petersen said that he is in a different role in that regard; he has to go through
the budget process and find out what can be done. Inspections workload and staff time was discussed
at length.
Council Member Goodman asked what the cost of the appeals process is to an applicant/appellant.
Chief Petersen indicated that the first appeal on an issue is free annually, and staff encourages
applicants to appeal to the Building Official first before appealing to the PMAB. The cost of time
spent on the appeal would vary per person.
Mayor Campbell said that the Council will have this as an item on an agenda addressing the issues
that have been raised by both parties, and will deal with specifics at that point. City Manager Steve
Schainker said that it could go on the first regular Council meeting in October.
Council Member Goodman said that he has heard multiple times that there hasn’t been enough
discussion. He would rather have a round table meeting before putting these issues on a regular
Council agenda. The benefit of the round table forum is that people feel like they can have a
dialogue and can come to some conclusions. Mr. Goodman thinks that the Board Members
representing resident owner-occupants should be present at the round table discussion; contractors
and landlords are well represented in the Ames Rental Association.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Wacha, to direct staff to set up a round table workshop on
October 19 with the Ames Rental Association and Property Maintenance Appeals Board.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: Mr. Goodman said that the goal of this whole process has been to clarify the Code
and help people better understand what is expected of them. Running into issues like these is an
anticipated part of the process; he hopes that everyone understands that the initial goal was to help.
Council Member Wacha said that there is a balance to strike: either we have a strict Code and
owners can sleep well at night with assurance of what the future can bring, or we have a flexible
Code so that there can be compromises and appeals. He challenged those present to ask themselves
6
where that balance should be.
ADJOURNMENT: The Special Meeting adjourned at 9:47p.m.
_______________________________________________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Ann H. Campbell, Mayor
___________________________________
Emily A. Burton, Recording Secretary
7