City hears concerns on vacant property ordinance

The Havre City Council Ordinance Committee tabled until its next meeting a proposed ordinance to regulate vacant properties after community members and members of the city government raised concerns about its wording and about the idea of the ordinance itself.

The committee decided to work on the language of the proposed vacant property registration ordinance and to ask City Attorney Jennifer Forsyth about the legality of the document.

“I want this to be relatively painless, but I also want people to take responsibility for their property,” Ordinance Committee Chair Caleb Hutchins said.

Mayor Tim Solomon appointed the ad hoc committee after concerns were raised about people and organizations buying property and letting them sit empty without doing anything to improve them, rent them or sell them.

Several meetings have been held about the proposal.

The regulations the ordinance committee is proposing includes people having to register buildings designated as vacant and pay an annual fee that increases every year for five years, topping out at $500 a year, unless they can show they are taking action to improve the property, rent it, put it on the market or reach the process of demolishing it. The owner also must have a designated representative who lives within 60 miles of the city.

The proposal has been amended to include exemptions that would allow people to not pay the fee.

Committee and City Council member Karen Swenson said that since the VPRO has been in the Ordinance Committee they have heard a number of people who are concerned with the ordinance, but no one in favor of it.

“We have heard a lot of people who are in opposition and they all have legitimate points,” she said. “We haven’t heard very much at all from people supporting the VPRO and I don’t think that we should go heading down a road that people really don’t support and care about, unless they are willing to come out and say so, because we have heard a lot of good reasons why this might not be a good thing to do. We know there are good reasons why this would be a good thing to do, but if people don’t want it there is really no point. So I would like to see next time if people really care about this, I’d like to hear them.”

Solomon said that he supports the idea of the VPRO, but he is concerned the city will be unable to enforce it or have to go to court. In the past, the city has tried to condemn a number of vacant properties within the city but because property rights in Montana are strong and specific about what a city can and cannot do.

“I’d love to see something done with it, but my concern is what legally if we can do this,” he said.

Concerns raised about the VPRO

Havre property owner Marlys Flathers said that, although she understands why some may feel a need of the VPRO, it is infringing on the rights of property owners. She added that she feels as if it is a “Big Brother” ideology and what she does with her properties is her personal business as long as she pays her taxes and mows the lawn.

She said it took her a number of years to be able to complete projects on some of her properties and the VPRO would discourage people from purchasing property. The people the VPRO is meant to target will not care if they are charged the maximum $500 fee and the VPRO will not solve the problem.

“I hope the city has a good attorney,” Flathers added.

Hutchins said that although he agrees people have property rights, that is not the argument.

“I one hundred percent agree that your property is your right and your responsibility, up unto the point that it starts affecting your neighbors,” he said.

Hutchins said that people who are looking to develop a property but are not financially able to at the time can apply for the exemption and the fees, for the most part, will encourage people to either developed or sell their property.

The VPRO is not a solution to every problem of blight in a city, he added.

“We can’t fix every single person but we can put pressure on them to consider changing and there is evidence from other communities that have VPROs that it works,” he said. “Not that it’s a 100 percent fix, not that it catches all 100 percent of these property owners, but that it does fix enough of them to be worth it.”

VPROs are used to help hold negligent property owners accountable, he said.

Marlys Flathers’ husband, Bruce, said that an exemption that requires property owners to register with a licensed realtor is unfair.

“You can’t tell them that they can’t sell their properties on their own, you can’t force people to hire a realtor,” he said.

Hutchins said that the VPRO is not requiring people to use a licensed realtor, but if they use a realtor they are exempt from the fees. People also can apply for other exemptions.

The reason for the language of the realtor exemption is because the city doesn’t want people to be acting in bad faith and asking for exorbitant prices for their properties and applicable for the exemption.

Committee member Karen Swenson said that the committee should speak to a realtor and go through the exemption again for clarity.

“I think it should be as simple as possible,” she said.

Flathers said that although he appreciates what the committee is trying to do, they need to be careful and clear with the language they use in the ordinance.

“First off, let me commend you for what you are trying to do,” he said. “I agree with it, but you have to have things in writing or they don’t hold up. … It has to be in writing.”

Mayor Tim Solomon agreed that the committee needed to be clear in the language.

“You’re going to have to write the ordnance around what you are thinking,” he said.

Solomon added that the committee also needs to examine what is a vacant property. He said some property owners use their properties for storage, or have sheds and garages. He said although the VPRO outlines some points on what a vacant building is, it needs to be further specified or it will be unenforceable.

Hutchins said that he will look at how to examine properties used for storage and do some research to try to come up with solutions.

Havre Public Works Director Dave Peterson also said that the VPRO needs to be clear and specific.

“It has to be black and white,” he said.

Council member Sarah McKinney said that the VPRO is regarding living units and businesses in disrepair. The issue is not entirely the inside of these buildings but the outside which is unkempt and poorly maintained. She added that the city knows what properties are the issues and what properties have disconnected services and use the information as a place to start on finding vacant properties.

“It’s so clear,” she said.

Hutchins said that at a previous ordinance meeting one concern raised was that property owners found the process burdensome to request an exemption for the registry.

The majority of the property owners who spoke at the last meeting own vacant properties but are trying to renovate these properties and are planning on bringing them back onto the market, he said. The ordinance is not meant to punished those who are doing their due diligence with their properties

“If they are trying their best to keep that property, fix up that property, to do something with it, then I have no problem with them,” Hutchins said. “To me what we are targeting is the properties that are sitting and rotting and clearly there is no intent to do anything with them in the near future or ever.”

Hutchins said that a three-year “catch-all” exemption will allow people to apply to have their properties exempt from the registration fee, but the property owners would still need to register the properties. They have the opportunity to reapply after the three years are complete. He added that he expects a large number of these property owners to request the exemption.

“We still want people to register, just so we are aware of what is going on with the property,” he said. “We’re not trying to penalize them.”

If people are denied the exemption by the VPRO officer for arbitrary reasons they can file an appeal to the ordinance committee, who can overturn the decision if it is deemed necessary.

“I think that is a fair compromise,” Hutchins said. “It takes some of the burden off of them. But I don’t believe it is reasonable for them to simply say that, ‘We don’t believe that this should apply to us at all.’ If you own a property that is vacant by the definition of this ordinance, I think that the city should be aware of it, should know what you have planned and should have emergency contact information in case something goes wrong with that property.”

According to the ordinance, a building is deemed vacant if it is unoccupied in addition to the property being in violation of another criteria, such as having unsecured windows and doors, unkept lawns, and others.

“If it is being taken care of, then it is not vacant,” he said.

He added that compared to other parts of the country including in Montana, the proposed Havre VPRO fee is inexpensive, with ordinances in some other communities charging thousands of dollars.

McKinney said vacant properties are a growing problem in the country and are only going to get worse if nobody does anything.

“This is ridiculous because a city is the result of an effort by people to build it,” she said. “Somebody came here and poured their heart and soul into Havre and here we are, so shouldn’t we have a group effort to carry that forward. … If we don’t do this then we’re never going to know.”