Commercial inspections at a standstill after council fails to rescind program

Jul. 28—The promise of a future workshop may be the only hope business owners have to removing the commercial inspections program from city code after council members failed to do so during their July 24 meeting. In a rare 3-3 vote, the motion to rescind the ordinance, which enables the program, had failed.

Despite pressure from the business community and strong contention from mayor Mike Hansen to end the commercial inspections program, the result of the vote keeps the program in place for a little while longer, although inspections have been suspended since March. The suspension is still in place.

Before council took a roll call vote on the third consideration to remove the commercial inspections program, Hansen said the council will have a workshop scheduled on Aug. 21 to come up with a new program. Council members were receptive to the plan, but not everyone agreed that the city be without a program.

Discussion largely centered around the process the motion was brought before the council, the purpose of the original commercial inspections program, the ad hoc committee's findings being left out of the conversation and how business owners were involved in prompting the removal of the ordinance.

AD HOC COMMITTEE LEFT IN THE DUST

The mayor assigned an ad hoc committee to review the commercial inspections at the time they were suspended. The program was only active for about two years.

Council member Evelyn George has maintained the ad hoc committee — which she and fellow council members Randy Ervin and Craig Trotter are members of — had been close to proposing a solution after meeting with business owners, but the group was never given a chance to do so.

"Just as we were prepared to share something in writing, this popped up," George said of the motion to rescind the program. "We don't have anything in writing. I don't feel comfortable voting for the citizens of Newton without anything in writing to say what impact will this have, what will be in effect."

George's claims are bolstered by the fact city staff had not provided any recommendation or a council report in all three readings. She also did not agree with removing an ordinance and not creating a replacement. Hansen said the city already has ordinances for fire and safety inspections in place.

"All those things are still in place today regardless of what goes on with this ordinance," Hansen said. "This ordinance was put in place because we were doing away with the fire marshal position, and council at that particular time decided they needed something they could use as a form of inspection."

The city subsequently hired a contracted inspection company to conduct commercial inspections. Hansen said he thought it was a great idea at the time, but it has since become "unnecessary." In addition to the state not requiring such a program, Hansen suggested inspections should mainly focus on fire and safety.

PURPOSE OF INSPECTIONS PROGRAM WAS NOT SAFETY

But fire and safety were not the priorities of the Business Property Maintenance Code Advisory Committee when it was formed in 2020.

The group consisted of members of the business community: Bob O'Brien, Julia Prendergast, Tanya Michener, Rob Kahn, Mark Allen, Jason Lauterbach and Bill Yeager. The work and feedback of this advisory committee would go on to create the framework of the current commercial inspections program in use today.

George pointed out the program went beyond just fire and safety.

According to notes from the advisory committee's meeting on Feb. 26, 2020, the program was to focus on three specific areas: curb appeal, vacant property registration and inspections and administrative procedures. The committee suggested enforcement would be crucial to the program's success.

"The council did not write this ordinance," George said. "The group ... worked with the city staff and they approved it. We had input throughout the whole process, which, again, was almost a year before it was presented to the council. And we approved what they did."

In a way, George said the proposal to remove the commercial inspections program is "disregarding" what the advisory committee did in 2020 and also what the ad hoc committee was tasked to do.

"Are you comfortable with that?" George asked.

NUISANCE CODES IN PLACE TO COVER VIOLATIONS

The advisory committee also talked about property maintenance priorities they wanted included in the program, especially those that go beyond health and safety codes. Peeling paint, overgrown weeds, trash inside or outside structures, facade maintenance and upkeep and abandoned signs were listed as examples.

City staff clarified that some of these examples would be categorized as nuisance issues that could be enforced through existing channels. But it was also noted that some issues could be better served through clarifying code updates and/or additions to the code.

If council had voted to remove the program, Hansen said nuisance violations would still be reported to staff to respond. Hansen also pushed back against George's claim that the city does not have anything in place if council removed the commercial inspections program from city code.

"To characterize that we don't have anything in place or we don't know what we would have in order to move forward is, from my perspective, not true," he said. "We do have those things in place. Again, this all came about because we eliminated the fire marshal's position."

At that time, council decided it did not have anyone on staff to conduct inspections, Hansen added.

In hindsight, Hansen maintained the program is unnecessary. Ervin even went so far as to say it is a bad ordinance, although he admitted to voting for it at the time. Outsourcing inspections did not seem like the right thing to do at that time, but Ervin was convinced the fire chief needed some help.

Hansen said, "My suggestion is that you pass this ordinance and stop this and move on to something that is reasonable and more fitting to what it is you want to do with commercial inspections."

BUSINESS COMMUNITY WENT TO MAYOR, DISAGREED WITH AD HOC

George was frustrated that council members had not received answers in writing to the questions they had raised at the previous two readings. She saw no value in "deleting this whole ordinance without knowing" what the impact might be, again noting that staff have not weighed in with a council report.

Council member Vicki Wade said, "But, Evelyn, you're basically saying you're questioning the city staff and the codes that are in place around—"

George interjected, "No. I am questioning why, as we were on a path. And you heard some verbal comments in regard to what we were going to propose, but you didn't get the written information. It was hijacked. And this was thrown on our agenda without any background information."

The council member at-large ultimately questioned and did not support the process in which this agenda item was brought before council.

George also pushed back against the mayor for not providing more information. Hansen later revealed the business community requested him to put the ordinance to a public vote. The mayor reasoned he responded to a request from the business community.

Hansen said, "What you have in this chapter is not workable for our business community. They have asked to have this removed. And that's why it's before you because they reached out to me (and said,) 'We don't like what we're hearing from the ad hoc committee that you appointed.'

"You are the ones that make the decisions. All I can do is administer this process as mayor. So I responded to every one of these people plus others than are not sitting here tonight," Hansen continued, referring to the business owners in attendance. "They asked me to do this. That's the reason why it's before you."

Ervin later commented that in discussions with business owners, the ad hoc committee found a majority of them do not have a problem with the inspections themselves but rather than inspector. He said many want the inspections conducted in-house by a fire marshal/fire prevention specialist.

"I don't know that we want to do that to the chief to bring it all back in-house," Ervin said. "...Either way we vote tonight we do have to have a meeting and we do have to break this out. Because I do think there are valid things that we discussed."

Council members Randy Ervin, Mark Hallam and Vicki Wade voted yes. Council members Melissa Dalton, Evelyn George and Craig Trotter voted no.