Newton temporarily suspends inspections for rental and commercial properties

Newton landlords and business owners got what they wanted on Dec. 5 when city council members — against staff’s recommendation — voted to suspend its rental housing and commercial property inspection programs for a few months, in the hopes that a reasonable resolution can be agreed upon by both parties.

Council members passed the motion in a 6-0 vote directing staff to schedule any new inspections and reschedule any pending inspections after Feb. 1, 2023.

In addition, the city council’s ad hoc committee is to meet with landlords and commercial property owners to propose any program changes within the next two months. The ad hoc committee is temporary and will be made up of council members Randy Ervin, Evelyn George and Craig Trotter.

Fred Rhodes, a Newton landlord who has frequently voiced concerns about the program to council members, spoke on behalf on the room full of rental and commercial property owners regarding the motion. They are law-abiding property owners, he said, and they want to do things in a good way and a proper way.

“Our concern is that we can come together and look at the facts, not misinformation,” Rhodes said. “We can look at the details and have the opportunity to look at that and then come to a good working agreement, both with rental properties and commercial properties that will help this community.”

State law requires the inspections to continue, but Newton City Administrator Matt Muckler said the motion was written in a way that would protect the city from legal issues. The city would just be taking a “pause” on the program, but even so the city is running into problems with rental properties every day.

“I don’t think it’s the people sitting in this room,” Muckler said during the council meeting. “But there are other folks out there. And I provided that information to you (council members) on one very recent one that happened last week. So we’d like to keep the program going.”

THE REASON INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED

When Newton News inquired about the incident Muckler referred to, he provided an inspections report of a property that had cockroach infestations, dead animals in the basement, severe water damage, electrical hazards, no heat and about 19 other violations. The tenants had several children living with them.

Newton Police Department and the Iowa Department of Human Services were called to the home for a welfare check and to ensure the safety of the children. A “Do Not Occupy Order” with a 14-day period to be vacated was issued. The rental occupancy permit was also revoked. Police are still investigating the case.

Editor’s note: Descriptions of the property address, the number of children and other identifiable information was purposefully omitted by Newton News.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Two months ago, landlords and business owners packed the council chambers to voice their concerns with the city’s inspection programs and service provider. For the past few years Iowa Inspections has handled all rental inspection services, but many landlords say the company is incentivized to fail properties.

If a rental property fails its inspection, the owner must pay for re-inspection fees in addition to the potential costs of bringing the home up to code. Landlords have said this discourages them and will result in more rental properties being sold to owner-occupants. Others have criticized the compliance rules themselves.

While local landlords are demanding more “common sense” changes to rules, the city’s data shows more than 91 percent of all inspected residential properties passed their initial or second inspection, and more than 88 percent of commercial properties passed their initial inspection.

Newton has 723 rental properties — totaling 2,296 units — registered in the city’s rental inspection program. As of October, 640 properties had been inspected.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION & AMENDMENT

Council member Vicki Wade wondered if two months was enough time to have landlords meet with the ad hoc committee, especially with the holidays coming up. George said she would make it a priority and assumed many landlords would, too. Plus, suspending it for too long could cause legal problems.

Ervin insisted the committee include city staff in on the meetings to serve as a resource, much to the chagrin of some landlords in the council chambers.

“I agree with a majority of what you say,” Ervin told the landlords in the audience. “Now I don’t necessarily agree with suspending the inspections, but I can be discussed on that. One thing I would not be open to is meeting without staff. I know that I already see some heads shaking and I get that.”

If council does not allow staff, Ervin said it sets a precedent. City staff is where council members get their information. If citizens think council members don’t hold city staff accountable, Ervin said they should ask public works director Jody Rhone about conversations the two have had in the past.

“I think there are some issues, and I’ve seen some specifics and I’ve seen a lot of generalities. There is a lot of misinformation out there,” he said. “One of the emails I received this week said we could have, by what we paid this outside source, we could have funded a whole ‘nother fire person.”

Ervin was skeptical of that claim. He then requested an amendment to the motion to acknowledge staff’s involvement with the ad hoc committee.

Wade agreed there is an issue but said there have been other meetings with community members where staff was not present. She sees council members as a sound board for community and believes it is OK for the ad hoc committee to meet with just the landlords and business owners.

“I feel it’s absolutely appropriate for that first meeting to be with three ad hoc members, council members, and a group of concerned citizens who are heavily vested in these properties,” she said. “You can come to that meeting with information from city staff.”

It’s going to take more than one meeting, Wade said, and she believes committee members can then confer with staff after and before each meeting.

“I think you can be effective in that way without jeopardizing the meeting in and of itself,” Wade said.

Ervin disagreed.

“What you’re proposing is we meet with the group, then go meet with the staff, then come back and tell them what the staff said and we’re going to come up with other objections and then we’re going to go back and meet with staff. You’re talking about something that’s going to be very hard to do in six weeks.”

Ultimately, Ervin questioned why council would not want city staff to be present and then asked if the community truly believes staff to be vindictive. If that’s an issue, he said, “then that’s a whole different ball game that the city council needs to address.” Still, Wade voted against Ervin’s amendment.