VPRO comments divided during Ordinance Committee meeting

Havre City Council Ordinance Committee took no action on a proposed vacant property registration ordinance Tuesday after numerous people spoke and some complained about the language of the proposed ordinance.

The proposed ordinance would require people to register properties deemed vacant under its definition, and show they are working to improve, rent or sell the properties or face fees or fines.

Committee chair Caleb Hutchins said ordinance development is still very early in the process, and the committee need time to finalize the document before it goes to the council. He added that there will be more meetings in the future to discuss the ordinance.

Hutchins said that after the ordinance is passed through the Ordinance Committee it will then go to Havre City Council for first and second readings before being voted on.

He said he will be reaching out to some of the people who spoke during Tuesday’s meeting.

The council created the ad-hoc committee in June 2017 after Montana State University-Northern grant writer Samantha Clawson, who is also the wife of Hutchins, raised concerns at council meetings about vacant properties being allowed to deteriorate. Her concerns included multiple properties that Sunrise Financial had obtained by buying tax liens and had not maintained, and the corporation had either refused to sell to interested buyers or asked prices higher than the market value.

The ad-hoc committee met with the Ordinance Committee June 28 and presented a comprehensive list of requests for the ordinance. During that meeting, Mayor Tim Solomon and the Ordinance Committee requested that the ad-hoc committee speak to the county attorney to make sure the requests were legal.

Ordinance Committee member Karen Swenson said during Tuesday’s meeting that some language discrepancy exist in the VPRO proposal.

Hutchins said, for consistency purposes within the document, he will make the change.

He said the city attorney has not specifically looked at this language for the ordinance. During the previous Ordinance Committee meeting, when former council member Andrew Brekke was still on the council serving as chair of the committee, he suggested sending an outline and some of the features to the city attorney and see if everything within the document would be legal.

“At that time, she said, ‘There is nothing in the Montana code annotated that would prevent us from doing this,’” Hutchins said.

That would be the next step, he said, the Ordinance Committee, after agreeing on the language for the VPRO, would be send a copy to the city attorney for review.

Public Works Director Dave Peterson said the enforcement officer would need to be a separate position than what exists. He added that the position will need additional funding to what is collected through the VPRO, paying for a part-time or full-time position year-round.

“I just think that there is a lot in this ordinance that would require a person to do, you know, some serious work,” he said.

He added that identifying vacant properties to the specifications of the VPRO is not something that can be quickly observed such as identifying unkempt weeds on properties.

Council member Lindsey Ratliff said Hutchins and the ad-hoc committee should work on narrowing the definition of vacant properties to lessen the burden for the VPRO officer.

Hutchins said during the meeting a decision of determining the enforcement officer has to be determined at a later time. City government would have to decide whether the matter is under Havre Public Works or with the Havre Police Department.

“It would definitely require some rearrangement of duties and that is something that we would have to figure out,” he said. “But I don’t think that is a good enough reason to say let’s forget about the whole idea. I think that is work that’s worth trying to figure out.”

He added that how the ordinance is written just because a building is unoccupied does not mean it automatically qualifies as a vacant property and would need the VPRO enforcement officer to determine what qualifies.

“If the property is being maintained and somebody is taking care of it and it is not causing any problems, then we may never know about it,” Hutchins said. “Then if we don’t know about it, I guess it’s not that big a deal. But there are definitely some problematic properties in town that everybody knows about. We all know what the problems are, we all know that they are causing issues in their neighborhoods and driving down property values surrounding them.”

Anybody can make a complaint about vacant property, he said.

He added that property owners can also request exemptions.

“If people own this house and are invested in the future of the property they won’t let the place fall apart,” Swenson said. “… It’s for those houses that nobody wants to do anything with that they are just letting them go to pieces and you can drive down, and we all know where they are, drive down and see what they look like.”

Council member Sara McKinney said action being taken from the city on vacant properties betters Havre as a whole, adding that vacant properties increase crime and depression as well as put the public at risk.

“I think that is an investment that we can take a chance on this,” she said. “I mean, Havre is so much better than just a loophole for people to claim on their taxes. So this is a small thing, it’s not going to be perfect … there is really no reason to be offended or worried or anything, all we can do is just to try to beautify Havre and make these neighborhoods feel safe and welcoming.”

Council member Erik Meis said he believes the VPRO is micromanaging what people do with their properties and the city has no right infringing on their right.

“I think for too long we’ve had ordinances passed in this town that shouldn’t have been passed just because of a couple of instances,” Meis said.

Ratliff said the VPRO is a process and she thinks it needs to continue. The VPRO proposal is not set in stone and can still be worked on, she said.

Public Comment

Clawson said that, as a property owner and mother, the VPRO is important for the well-being of Havre.

“It’s true there is going to be cost associated with this, but it is a huge safety hazard in the communities that these buildings are in,” she said.

She agreed that some of the language in the VPRO needed to be revisited and revised.

She said that as a mother who lives less than a block away from a vacant property, which often is not secured and has broken windows and broken glass, it poses a danger to kids. Vacant properties are often involved in criminal activity as well as causing a risk of fire or collapse, she added.

Clawson said the these properties also cost the city money, costing much more than the cost of remedying the situation.

“Just because something is expensive doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it,” she said.

Jeff Ralph, property owner, landlord and business owner, said he believes in Havre and purchases many different properties, spending money bringing them up to code.

“I think what you are trying to do is good; I understand the purpose of it,” he said. “I think that you have some issues with the wording in your writing.”

According to the language of the VPRO, Ralph said, a few of his properties are in violation and would be required to be registered, he said. He added that he also recently declined to buy a property due to the threat the of VPRO being passed.

“I don’t want to keep going back and forth, personally, asking for exemptions because, I think, what I am trying to do right now, as a member of the community, should be good enough,” he said.

Ralph said the community already has rules that help take care of these issues and the city should take care of it as it is, adding that the VPRO is not encouraging him to put money toward purchasing properties.

Hutchins told Ralph that he is clearly working on the properties that he owns, “which is fantastic,” and would qualify for an exemption.

He said many property owners are not investing in their properties and the VPRO addresses that.

Kirt Johnson, also a landlord, property owner and business owner, said he buys a few properties specifically to demolish them. He said this costs him money to purchase permits, asbestos studies and abatement then the cost of hiring a contractor or having to do it himself in addition to having to pay money at the landfill

Brad Lotton said he appreciates what the committee is trying to do but they are going the wrong way about it.

“This is just going to be another level of unneeded, unwarranted, government bureaucracy,” he said.

He said it would discourage people from doing things with properties, although the VPRO exempts government vacant properties such as foreclosures.

The VPRO is targeting Sunrise Financial, he said, and punishing the rest of Havre for something that they have nothing to do with.

Debi Rhines said the mayor and the council should look at how to prevent decay.

“Sunrise Financial is investing in their properties,” she said. “I don’t think your committee had anything to do with their engagement. I think it is their time. They are starting to invest.”

Hutchins said some of those properties have been owned by Sunrise for more than a decade and he doesn’t agree that Sunrise has the best intentions.

Ratliff said a middle ground can be found, holding people accountable for their properties but not penalize people who are working hard.