Charlotte City Council
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Summary Meeting Minutes
June 18, 2007
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Boarded Up Structures Recommendation
II.
Sign Ordinance
III.
PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) for Charlotte Housing Authority
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Council Members Present:
Susan Burgess, Anthony Foxx and Pat Mumford
Council Members Absent:
Michael D. Barnes and Don Lochman
Staff Resource:
Julie Burch, Assistant City Manager
Staff:
Others:
Stanley Watkins, Neighborhood Development
Richard Woodcock, Neighborhood Development
Walter Abernethy, Neighborhood Development
Mike Jenkins, Neighborhood Development
Mujeeb Shah-Khan, City Attorney’s Office
Mac McCarley, City Attorney’s Office
Charles Woodyard, Charlotte Housing Authority
Charlene Foster, Charlotte Housing Authority
Ralph Staley, Charlotte Housing Authority
Meeting Duration: 1: 40 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
Agenda Packet – June 18, 2007
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Tax Listings
Committee member Burgess raised an issue regarding the difficulty of determining property
ownership and contacting property owners due to lack of names and addresses on titles. Ms. Burgess
explained that it is sometimes problematic for police or code enforcement officials to find the
rightful property owners because there is no requirement for listing a person’s name and address on
tax listings rather than a company name or a post office box. Ms. Burgess suggested referral of the
issue to the Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee.
Committee member Mumford stated that it appears to be more of a procedural issue than a policy
issue and was uncertain whether the issue should be referred to the Housing and Neighborhood
Development Committee. Walter Abernethy stated that the restrictions for Housing and Code
Enforcement are less restrictive than those for the Police Department and thus, Code Enforcement
often uses a title search company to research ownership. Mujeeb Shah-Khan of the City Attorney’s
Office noted that State law determines what information is required on a tax listing and research is
needed to determine if the State law can be expanded.
Action: Julie Burch suggested referring the issue to the City Manager and will ask staff to
provide follow up information on the scope of the problem and provide possible solutions.
I. Boarded Up Residential Structures Recommendation
Stanley Watkins provided an overview of the comments received from the public hearing that was
held on May 29, 2007. Comments pertained to the six-month grace period for registration, equity for
senior citizens who may have more difficulty maintaining and boarding up properties, the six-month
time limit for boarded up structures, request to have all of the boarded up structures inspected that
were identified in the original survey of boarded up structures conducted in 2006, and the need for
additional citizen review and input. Mr. Watkins noted that staff began work on the issue of boarded
up structures in May 2006 and has since had a public input meeting and a public hearing. Committee
member Foxx asked if staff amended the proposed boarded up structures ordinance based on
comments received from the public input meeting that was held in April? Stanley Watkins responded
that staff amended the maximum time period for structures to remain boarded up from one year to
six months but could not address requests for painted boards because statutory authority does not
allow for the consideration of aesthetics.
Mr. Mumford commented that an unintended consequence of the ordinance may be an increase in the
number of problem properties due to the reluctance of persons to purchase and board them up,
knowing that if the structure is boarded up, it will have to be fixed up in six months. Walter
Abernethy explained that the proposed ordinance gives him, as a Code Enforcement official and the
Fire Marshal the ability to order a home boarded up for health and safety reasons. Julie Burch
mentioned the City-owned Johnston and Mecklenburg Mills properties that are currently boarded for
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
Page 3
health and safety purposes. Mujeeb Shah Khan of the Office of the City Attorney noted that the
properties would be registered as boarded up structures and would adhere to the six month time
frame upon registration. Committee member Burgess questioned whether there are other City owned
properties that are boarded up. Stanley Watkins responded that staff would research and provide
an answer. Committee member Mumford requested that staff provide a report after one year on
the success of monitoring the six month time period and a recommendation on whether the time
period needs to be modified. Additionally, Committee member Foxx asked staff to inform the
Committee of any additional issues that arise with the proposed ordinance prior to the scheduled
decision on July 23, 2007.
Action: Upon a motion by Foxx and seconded by Mumford, the Committee voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the Boarded Up Residential Structures Ordinance.
II.
Sign Ordinance
The Committee reviewed the staff’s responses to issues raised at the May 18th Housing and
Neighborhood Development Committee meeting. The Committee agreed to not propose penalties for
signs posted above a certain height and felt that the bond amount of $500 for political signs
suggested by Council member Barnes was too high. Committee member Burgess commented that the
fees recommended by staff for civil penalties appear reasonable. Ms. Burgess stated that there is a
need to place a cap on the maximum fine amount and asked if a differentiation in that maximum
amount could be made for commercial violators and political candidates? Mujeeb Shah Khan answered
that the City Attorney’s office would recommend against such a differentiation in favor of a
limitation/cap that is the same across the board. Ms. Burgess suggested $5,000 as an appropriate
maximum fine amount. Stanley Watkins stated that staff can amend the scale for the by reducing
the lowest penalty amount or the proposed civil penalty amounts can be retained. Ms. Burgess
suggested amending the civil penalties from $100, $500 and $1,000 to $50, $250 and $1,000.
Walter Abernethy stated that the amended civil penalty amounts, in addition to the ability to cite
individuals or businesses as set forth in the proposed ordinance should result in a lowered number of
violations. Mr. Abernethy suggested an option of raising the civil penalty amounts without
implementing escalating penalties.
Ms. Burgess commented on the ongoing problem of real estate signs being placed on Fridays and
suggested undertaking Friday night sign sweeps or potentially disallowing the placement of offpremise real estate signs. Walter Abernethy responded that Friday night sign sweeps pose safety
concerns for inspectors and staff will pursue options and report back to the Committee.
Action: Julie Burch recommended that staff provide follow up on setting the civil penalty
amounts, determining whether penalties should escalate, and providing options for
addressing off-premise real estate signs illegally placed on Fridays.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
III.
Page 4
PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes)
Julie Burch provided a review of the PILOT issue, explaining that the County Attorney has
determined that in mixed income developments where the Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA) is not
the owner of the improvements, they are ineligible for the PILOT Agreements as described under
State law. Ms. Burch further explained that, in most of CHA’s mixed income projects constructed
over the last few years, they have not been the owner and those developments also have relied on the
use of PILOT agreements.
Charles Woodyard, director of the Charlotte Housing Authority stated that mixed income
configurations allow market rate units and moderate income/tax credit units to cross-subsidize the
CHA’s public housing units. Mr. Woodyard explained that the CHA thought the PILOT agreements
were legal for mixed income developments not fully owned by the CHA and that once informed
otherwise, they requested that the City and County continue to honor the past intent of the PILOT
agreements, which was to grant back to CHA the PILOT payments to help cover the operational
expenses of the public housing units.
Stanley Watkins summarized the three resulting issues, which are the back taxes owed on the mixed
income units, the legality of extending a PILOT like agreement and the Stepping Stone Agreements
to Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs), and equity issues associated with creating a PILOT like
agreement for mixed income housing that would apply to LLCs that partner with the CHA while there
are other entities that provide affordable housing units for those at 30 percent or below as part of
their developments.
Charles Woodyard responded to the issues, stating that the CHA would like the LLCs to pay the taxes
owed but would like the money to be granted back to the LLCs because the LLCs cannot afford to pay
the taxes. Mr. Woodyard stated that should a PILOT like agreement not be approved for mixed
income developments, the CHA will have to find a way to provide more money up front to fund
affordable housing in such developments. Mr. Woodyard added that not extending a PILOT like
agreement to mixed income projects will damage the chances of obtaining future HOPE VI grants, as
housing authorities that do not have local government cooperation and support typically do not receive
HOPE VI grants.
Committee member Burgess asked why staff recommended against providing a grant for payment of
the back taxes? Stanley Watkins responded that it is staff’s typical business practice to recommend
that entities pay their own taxes owed. Mr. Watkins added that the decision is up to Council. Ms.
Burgess asked why The Housing Partnership, which builds homes for the same population, pays taxes?
Mr. Watkins answered that 10 to 15 percent of the Housing Partnership’s developments may contain
affordable housing for those at 30 percent of less of the area median income (AMI) whereas the
CHA’s developments provide a higher percentage of affordable units to families that are typically
lower than 30 percent of the AMI. Mr. Woodyard noted that federal law allows housing authorities
to serve families up to 50 percent of the AMI.
Charles Woodyard clarified that CHA is requesting a PILOT like agreement for mixed income
developments that are 30 percent and below and 60 percent and below. The 60 percent and below
units, to a large degree, cross-subsidize the 30 percent and below units.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
Page 5
Committee member Foxx asked if staff is aware of any unintended consequences of honoring the
CHA’s request? Stanley Watkins responded that staff has looked at the CHA’s operating budget and
realizes that CHA will have a problem funding mixed income projects without the use of a PILOT
agreement. The main concern is the financial integrity of existing and future mixed income
developments.
Committee member Burgess expressed concern about the proformas of the LLCs and their profit
margins. Charles Woodyard responded that annual audited financials are required for all mixed
income projects. Mr. Woodyard added that generally the CHA is in first position to receive any
resultant profit, which is then used to repay money borrowed from the Housing Trust Fund and/or
invested in the Family Self Sufficiency Program.
Action: Julie Burch recommended that the issue be tabled for this meeting and staff will bring
back information on precedent setting pertaining to the payment of back taxes and
provide additional financial information at a subsequent meeting.
IV. Summer Schedule
The Committee agreed on July 6th or July 9th as possible future meeting dates.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
City Council
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee Meeting
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 – Noon
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center – Room CH-14
Committee Members:
Susan Burgess, Chair
Anthony Foxx, Vice-Chair
Michael Barnes
Don Lochman
Pat Mumford
Staff Resource:
Julie Burch, Assistant City Manager
____ ___
AGENDA
I.
Boarded Up Structures Recommendation
(Attachment A)
II.
Sign Ordinance
(Attachment B)
III. PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) for Charlotte Housing Authority
(Attachment C)
_______________
Distribution:
Mayor/Council
Pam Syfert, City Manager
City Leadership Team
Corporate Communications
Debra Campbell – Planning Department
Anna Schleunes- City Attorney’s Office
Saskia Thompson- Manager’s Office
CDC Executive Directors
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
Neighborhood Leaders
Budget Office
Ruffin Hall
Phyllis Heath
Lisa Schumacher
Charlotte Housing Authority
Charles Woodyard
Troy White
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership
Pat Garrett
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Chief Darrel Stephens
Gerald Sennett
Neighborhood Development
Stanley Watkins
Richard Woodcock
Stan Wilson
Stephanie Small
Walter Abernethy
Pat Mason
Community Relations
Willie Ratchford
Ledger Morrissette
County Attorney’s Office
Marvin Bethune, County
Attorney
Attachment A
Boarded Up Residential Structures Ordinance
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
June 13, 2007
Committee Action Requested:
Make recommendation on Boarded Up Residential Structures Ordinance
Program Description:
On May 29, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Boarded Up
Residential Structures ordinance. Below is a chronology of the Committee’s work and a
public hearing summary, with staff responses to the speakers’ comments:
Chronology
May 10, 2006
May 22, 2006
July - December 2006
February 14, 2007
April 4, 2007
April 11, 2007
May 29,2007
H&ND Committee
City Council
Staff
H&ND Committee
H&ND Committee
H&ND Committee
City Council
Issue Raised
Council Direction
Inventory, Research & Draft Ordinance
Review
Public Input Meeting
Review Draft Ordinance
Public Hearing
Summary of Public Hearing
Jatanya Adams (Seversville Community)
Issue:
Ms. Adams was supportive of the fines and time restrictions proposed for
boarded up structures. Ms. Adams expressed concern that senior citizens
who are having difficulty keeping vacant properties secured may be targeted
by developers and land bankers.
Response:
The current proposed ordinance does restrict boarded up residential
structures to a maximum time frame of six-months for all property owners.
Mattie Marshall (Washington Heights)
Issue:
Ms. Marshall was supportive of the proposed ordinance, but expressed
concern regarding the grace period for registration of currently boarded up
structures.
Response:
Staff is recommending a one time six-month grace period for property
owners to register their boarded up structure. Property owners who do not
061307 H&ND Packet
1
Page 1 of 17
Attachment A
register their boarded up structure within the six-month grace period would
be subject to fines.
Linda Dana, President of Charlotte Real Estate Investment Association (REIA)
Issue:
Ms. Dana, speaking on behalf of her organization, stated that the
members/investors do not like boarding up structures because they do not
produce income. They board up structures to protect their investment.
They feel the six-month time frame is too short. In her opinion, the
proposed ordinance needs tweaking and recommended that a study group of
investors and community representatives be established to further consider
the proposed boarded up regulations.
Response:
The Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee held a public
meeting on April 4th to solicit citizen input, prior to drafting the ordinance.
Additional citizen input was solicited at the public hearing on May 29th.
Given the discussion by the Committee and opportunities for public input,
staff is unaware of any major points that have not been brought up or
considered in preparing the ordinance. Staff does not feel a stakeholder
group review is warranted at this time.
Vincent Frisina, Jr.
Issue:
Mr. Frisina questioned why the time restrictions begin with registration
rather than when house boarded up. He asked whether the City has
authority to inspect structures after they are boarded up? Mr. Frisina
requested that the City inspect the boarded up structures that were
identified in the original survey performed by the City in 2006. He also
would like to establish a stakeholder group to tweak the proposed ordinance.
Response:
Property owners who do not register their boarded up structures are
subject to civil penalties. The boarded up registration listing will be posted
on-line. The on-line registration process will provide a prompt for staff to
review the status of the structure at six-months. Nothing in the proposed
boarded up ordinance would prohibit code enforcement staff from
inspecting the property as a result of a petition or public agency referral.
Staff has inspected many of the units listed in the original survey pursuant
to a petition, public official referral or field observation. A number of them
have been demolished. While the number of boarded up units at any one
time may vary, staff feels those that are unsecured, deteriorated or
otherwise substandard are being addressed.
061307 H&ND Packet
2
Page 2 of 17
Attachment A
Given the discussion by the Committee and opportunities for public input,
staff is unaware of any major points that have not been brought up or
considered in preparing the ordinance. Staff does not feel a stakeholder
group review is warranted at this time.
Henry Gunn (Shannon Park Neighborhood)
Issue:
Mr. Gunn spoke in support of the proposed ordinance, noting that boarded up
structures foster crime and pose a public safety issue. Mr. Gunn
referenced a curbside issue involving illegal construction materials at
curbside. See Council Follow-Up Report below:
On May 7th Code Enforcement received a 311 service request regarding
illegal debris from home a renovation being placed at curbside. Code
Enforcement inspected the property on May 8th, and on May 9th issued a
notice of violation to the property owner requiring removal of the curbside
material within (10) days of receipt of the notice. The construction debris at
curbside is not eligible for City collection services, and placing it at curbside
is a violation of City Ordinance. Chapter 10 of the City Code requires an
outside construction dumpster to contain the refuse generated from the
construction.
The inspector also contacted the property owner in person, who indicated he
would have the debris removed by May 23rd. The property was reinspected
on May 23rd and the violations were still present. On May 25th, Code
Enforcement authorized a private contractor to clean up the debris. The
property owner will be billed for the clean up, and receive additional civil
penalties associated with the Code Enforcement action. If the bill is not
paid, a lien will be placed against the property to ensure recovery of the
clean up costs. There is no indication that these materials have been at
curbside for months.
Other Questions on Boarded Up Structures:
Issue:
Councilmember Carter asked if staff makes any concession for elderly or
incapacitated individuals that have to abandon their homes?
Response:
Code staff tries to be flexible with all the rules. Cases are evaluated
individually taking all factors into account.
Issue:
How does the bond for the adjudicatory hearing work?
Response:
The proposed ordinance requires a $500.00 bond to receive a hearing
pertaining to penalties issued in violation of the boarded up structures
ordinance. The bond is forfeited to the City if the hearing officer rules in
061307 H&ND Packet
3
Page 3 of 17
Attachment A
favor of the City. If the hearing officer rules against the city, the bond is
refunded in addition to the waiver of civil penalties.
Attachment
Boarded Up Residential Structures Ordinance
061307 H&ND Packet
4
Page 4 of 17
Attachment A(2)
ORDINANCE NUMBER:___________
AMENDING CHAPTER 5
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE CHARLOTTE CITY CODE
ENTITLED “BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS”
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 160A-174 allows a city by ordinance to
define, prohibit, regulate, or abate acts, omissions, or conditions detrimental to the health, safety,
or welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed information provided by the Neighborhood
Development Department and information gathered at a public hearing regarding boarded up
residences, as well as a review of laws in place in other; and
WHEREAS, there is convincing evidence that boarded up residences within the City
limits are a threat to the public health and safety, causing, among other adverse secondary
effects, attraction to vagrants, children, vermin and increased crime; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to minimize and control the adverse secondary
effects caused by boarded up residences and thereby protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Charlotte,
North Carolina that:
Chapter 5, “Buildings and Building Regulations” of the Charlotte City Code is amended by
creating Article 1, entitled “Regulation of Boarded Up Residential Structures,” to read as
follows:
“ARTICLE 1. REGULATION OF BOARDED UP RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES”
Sec. 5-1. Purpose and authority.
(a)
It is the purpose of this article to promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
the City of Charlotte by establishing reasonable regulations for boarded up residential structures
in order to prevent their detrimental effects in the City’s neighborhoods.
(b)
The Department’s Code Enforcement Official shall be responsible for the administration
and enforcement of the provisions of this article. The Code Enforcement Official or
1
061307 H&ND Packet
Page 5 of 17
Attachment A(2)
designee(s) shall have the following authority:
(1)
(2)
(3)
to inspect the properties;
to obtain administrative search and inspection warrants, if necessary, as provided
in G.S. 15-27.2; and
to issue notices of violation and impose civil penalties.
Sec. 5-2. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
(a) Board Up means the boarding up of any means of egress and ingress, including,
without limitation, windows and doors, to an unoccupied residential structure.
(b) Code Enforcement Official means the person who has been designated, in writing, by
the city manager to enforce this article.
(c) Department means the Neighborhood Development Department, Code Enforcement
Division.
(d) Owner means the holder of title in fee simple.
(e) Residential Structure means any building, structure, manufactured home or mobile
home, or part thereof, intended to be used for human habitation and includes any
appurtenances therewith.
(f) Unoccupied means a residential structure that is not occupied or that is occupied by
unauthorized persons. In the case of a multi-unit residential structure, unoccupied
means when any one unit is unoccupied or occupied by unauthorized persons.
Sec. 5-3. Requirements; Time Limit.
(a)
An owner who registers a boarded up residential structure pursuant to Sec. 5-5 of this
article must comply with the guidelines for boarding up residential structures established from
time to time by the Department.
(b)
An owner’s registration of a boarded up residential structure shall expire six (6) months
from the date of registration with the Department and may not be renewed.
Sec. 5-4. Grace Period.
Any owner who has boarded up a residential structure prior to the effective date of this ordinance
shall comply with the regulations contained herein within six (6) months after the effective date
of this ordinance. If after six (6) months, an owner has failed to register the structure, the owner
shall be in violation of this article.
Sec. 5-5. Registration.
2
061307 H&ND Packet
Page 6 of 17
Attachment A(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
No owner shall board up a residential structure without registering the structure with the
Department no later than 48 hours after boarding it up.
An application for registration must be made by the owner of the boarded up residential
structure on a form prescribed by the Department, and submitted to the Department. The
completed registration form shall contain at a minimum the following information:
(1)
The full true name and mailing address of the owner;
(2)
The full true address and tax parcel number of the residential structure to be
boarded;
(3)
An accurate telephone number at which the owner may be reached;
(4)
If the owner is a partnership or corporation, the owner shall designate one of its
general partners or officers to act as its agent and provide the present residence
and business addresses and telephone numbers for the agent;
(5)
The owner’s plan for the occupancy, repair or demolition of the residential
structure;
(6)
The owner’s plan for regular maintenance during the period the residential
structure is boarded up; and
(7)
Such other information as the Department shall from time to time deem
necessary.
The owner, under this section, shall have a continuing duty to promptly supplement
registration information required by this section in the event that said information
changes in any way from what is stated on the original registration.
Registration of a boarded up residential structure does not excuse the owner from
compliance with any other applicable ordinance, regulation, or statute, including, without
limitation, Chapter 11 of the Charlotte City Code. By accepting an owner’s registration,
the Department has not determined that the residential structure being registered is in
compliance with any applicable local or state regulation or law.
Sec. 5-6. Violations.
(a)
(b)
It shall be unlawful for the owner of a boarded up residential structure to fail to register
such structure with the Department as required by Sec. 5-5 of this article, except as
otherwise provided in this article.
It shall be unlawful for an owner who has registered a boarded up residential structure to
leave the structure boarded up after the expiration of the registration as set forth in Sec.
3
061307 H&ND Packet
Page 7 of 17
Attachment A(2)
(c)
5-3 of this article.
It shall be unlawful for an owner to board up a residential structure in a manner that does
not comply with the Department’s guidelines unless the owner has obtained the
Department’s prior written approval for an alternative method of boarding up a
residential structure. .
Sec. 5-7. Not an Infraction or Misdemeanor.
A violation of any provision of this article shall not constitute an infraction or misdemeanor
punishable under G.S. 14-4, 14-188, 14-216, 14-217, 14-218, 14-219, 14-220, 14-221.
Sec. 5-8. Notice of violation; Penalties.
Except as otherwise provided in this article, the Code Enforcement Official or designee(s) shall
notify the owner of a boarded up residential structure of a violation of any provision of this
article and the owner shall have ten (10) days from the date of the Notice of Violation to correct
the violation. Any owner who fails to correct the violation within the time specified shall be
subject to a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 for the first day of noncompliance and $50.00
for each day thereafter until the owner complies. The civil penalty may be recovered in the
nature of a debt if the owner does not pay the penalty within 30 days of assessment of the civil
penalty.
Sec. 5-9. Notices.
Any notice required or permitted to be given by the Department under this article to the owner
may be given either by personal delivery or by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to
the most current address as specified in the registration which has been received by the
Department or to the address listed for the responsible person in the county property tax records
if an owner has not registered with the Department. Notices mailed as above shall be deemed
given upon their deposit in the United States mail and shall be deemed to have been received on
the third regular postal delivery day thereafter.
Sec. 5-10. Adjudicatory Hearing.
(a)
(b)
An owner who has been assessed a civil penalty for a violation of this article may request
a hearing with the Department’s key business executive or his designee. Such request
must be made in writing, filed with the Department within 10 days of the notice of
assessment, and state the reasons why the civil penalty should not have been assessed.
Failure to request a hearing in the time and manner specified shall constitute a waiver of
the right to contest the penalty.
An owner requesting a hearing must post a $500.00 bond with the Department before an
appeal hearing will be scheduled. Once the bond is posted, the hearing will be scheduled
4
061307 H&ND Packet
Page 8 of 17
Attachment A(2)
(c)
within 15 business days.
The Department’s key business executive or his designee shall serve as the hearing
officer. Any owner against whom a decision of the hearing officer is made may seek
judicial review of the decision by filing a written petition within 30 calendar days after
receipt of the notice of the decision, but not thereafter, with the superior court of the
county. The proceedings in superior court shall be in the nature of certiorari.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective on ___________.
Approved As to Form:
City Attorney
5
061307 H&ND Packet
Page 9 of 17
Attachment B
Sign Ordinance Enforcement
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
June 13, 2007
Committee Action Requested:
Review staff responses to sign ordinance questions and give staff direction in preparing amendments to
Chapter 10 of the City Code and/or Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Background:
On April 23, 2007, the City Council referred the issue of signs to the Housing and Neighborhood
Development Committee, after hearing complaints from a citizen in a public forum. The citizen suggested
higher fines and more rigid enforcement to address the growing number of signs in the public rights-ofway.
On May 23, 2007, the H&ND Committee reviewed the types of signs, issues generated by signs, what
other cities are doing, and staff’s recommendations for changes to the ordinance. The Committee
generated a number of questions which are addressed in a memo (Attachment B2) prepared by the City
Attorney’s Office.
Staff’s Enforcement Recommendations
Below are the recommendations that were presented by staff at the last meeting:
ƒ
Raise the illegal sign penalty and establish escalating penalties for habitual offenders. The
current penalty is $25.00 per illegal sign. The proposed penalties are:
$100.00 – per illegal sign (1-5 sign violations)
$500.00 – per illegal sign (6-10 sign violations)
$1000.00- per illegal sign (10+ sign violations)
(Change in Chapter 10 of City Code)
ƒ
Amend the sign ordinance to allow code enforcement staff to cite businesses or individuals who
may benefit from the illegally posted signs, even though the business or person may not have
actually placed the sign themselves. (Change in Chapter 10 of City Code)
ƒ
Allow Code Staff to issue citations to businesses, not just individuals. (Change in Chapter 10 of
City Code)
ƒ
Raise the bond amount for legal posting of campaign signs from $50.00 to $100.00. (Change in
City Zoning Ordinance)
Attachment
Response to Sign Ordinance Questions by the City Attorney’s Office
061307 H&ND Packet
Page 10 of 17
H&ND Committee
June 7, 2007
Page 1
Attachment B(2)
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
TO:
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
FROM:
Walter Abernethy, Code Enforcement Division Manager, Neighborhood
Development
S. Mujeeb Shah-Khan, Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office
DATE:
June 7, 2007
RE:
Sign Ordinance Questions
__________________________________________________________
At the May 23, 2007 Housing and Neighborhood Development (“HAND”) Committee
Meeting, the Committee raised several issues with respect to the Sign Ordinance and proposed
changes to the ordinance. We wanted to take the opportunity to discuss those issues more fully.
1.
Can issuance of Certificates of Occupancy be tied to sign violations by a
developer?
No. While a similar proposal is being considered in York County, South Carolina, we are
concerned that holding a Certificate of Occupancy on a residence due to a developer’s violation
of the sign ordinance is not reasonably related to the violation. The signs are always for the
development as a whole, not the individual properties. If there is a violation with respect to the
development, asking that the Certificate of Occupancy be withheld may not be a reasonable
punishment for the violation, and may not survive a court challenge. Therefore, we do not
recommend tying the two together.
We would also not recommend that the issuance of a Business License (also known as
Privilege License) be tied to sign ordinance violations. Section 13-26(b) of the City Code notes
that the issuance of a Business License does not mean that the City is certifying that the business
in compliance with local, state, or federal laws or regulations, or that the licensee is otherwise
engaged in legal activities. In fact, the Business License is nothing more than a receipt
evidencing payment of a required tax; it is not a regulatory license. Given that, it is not
appropriate to tie issuance of the license to the sign ordinance.
2.
Can we issue higher penalties for signs posted above a certain height?
Yes, but it is not advisable. The current ordinance and any suggested changes provide an
absolute prohibition from posting signs on utility poles. To use an enhanced penalty based on
height would put Code Enforcement personnel in the position of having to measure each sign to
make sure it was higher than the limit, and would require them to gather evidence showing the
061307 H&ND Packet
Page 11 of 17
H&ND Committee
June 7, 2007
Page 2
Attachment B(2)
height for any appeal that might be pursued. Using a height based penalty could result in
administrative problems for Code Enforcement and would certainly make appeals more time
consuming and complicated.
3.
Can the zoning bond amount for campaign signs be raised to $500?
Yes. The Committee can recommend it to Council as a Zoning Text Amendment, and
the amount can be increased if Council wishes to. The only note we would raise is whether or
not the amount would be considered reasonable. However, if Council believed it was an
appropriate amount given the nature of the issues presented by signs, then it could be a
reasonable amount.
4.
What is an appropriate civil penalty to impose?
City Staff recommended the following schedule of civil penalties:
$100.00 per illegal sign (1 – 5 violations)
$500.00 per illegal sign (6 – 10 violations)
$1,000.00 per illegal sign (10+ violations)
Councilmember Barnes suggested the following schedule of civil penalties:
$250.00 per illegal sign (1 – 5 violations)
$750.00 per illegal sign (6 – 10 violations)
$1,000.00 per illegal sign (10+ violations)
We defer to the Committee on what it would choose to recommend as an appropriate
penalty. We would suggest that the Committee determine what a reasonable penalty would be
given the nature of the violation. However, we would note that the sign ordinance would need to
be decriminalized to ensure that fees collected would go to the City, as opposed to being owed to
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System (“CMS”). Decriminalization would prevent violators
of the sign ordinance from being subject to possible criminal sanctions, but those sanctions might
not be imposed by a court for a violation of the sign ordinance. We also note that if the penalties
under the sign ordinance are so high that they appear punitive in nature, it is possible that a court
might determine that those penalties would be owed to CMS.
5.
Can the City prohibit (within the City’s jurisdiction) placement of real estate
signs for developments outside of Mecklenburg County?
No. We would note that a restriction based only on the content of the sign (that it
advertises a development outside Mecklenburg County) would likely represent an impermissible
restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment. Time, place, and manner restrictions
(such as those used by the Sign Ordinance) are appropriate, but a restriction based on the content
of the sign is not (which this would be). We do not recommend pursuing such a restriction.
061307 H&ND Packet
Page 12 of 17
H&ND Committee
June 7, 2007
Page 3
6.
Attachment B(2)
Can we use a permitting or decal system to regulate companies and
individuals who wish to post signs?
Yes. However, we would note that there would be administrative concerns with setting
up a permitting system which could support the volume of requests associated with this issue.
The national data on illegal signage issues suggests that only a few small towns and cities are
considering this option. Strengthening the Chapter 10 provisions regarding who can be issued a
citation for illegal right of way sign postings may be a more practical alternative. Also, in
accordance with the Council’s Cost Recovery Policy, any fee schedule for decals or permits
would have to be geared to recover 100% of the City’s cost in administering the program, unless
Council exempted the program from the policy.
7.
Can the City use an outside collections firm to improve on the collections rate
for sign ordinance or other violations?
Yes. In fact, the City uses a private collections firm through a contract the Finance
Department has with the firm for collection of certain debts owed to the City. We are working
with the Finance Department to see what can be done to utilize this contractor for collection of
sign ordinance penalties. Currently, the City’s contractor is not used to collect these penalties.
8.
Are we using the debt setoff program to collect on outstanding penalties?
Yes. In fact, the City collected $ 280,326.53 through the debt setoff program through
May 15, 2007, making the City the leading municipality participating in the program through
May 15, according to the North Carolina Local Government Debt Setoff Clearinghouse (which
administers the program in the State). Since the City began its participation in the Debt Setoff
Program in 2004, the City has collected $ 477,878.25 through the program. Debts from the Code
Enforcement Division, including sign citations, are sent to the program. However, the Debt
Setoff program is only applicable to individuals, and not companies.
If you have any questions, please contact either of us. Walter can also be reached by
phone (704/336-4213) or by e-mail (wabernethy@ci.charlotte.nc.us), and Mujeeb can be reached
by phone (704/336-5803) or by e-mail (mshah-khan@ci.charlotte.nc.us).
WA/ms
061307 H&ND Packet
Page 13 of 17
Attachment C
Charlotte Housing Authority Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Issues
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
June 13, 2007
Request: The Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA) is requesting that the City of Charlotte:
1. Make a grant for back taxes on several mixed income developments;
2. Create a “PILOT-like” Agreement that extends PILOT terms to CHA supported mixed
income housing developments; and
3. Renew the Stepping Stone Agreement (Granting back of PILOT Payments)
Background: Under the North Carolina General Statutes, local Housing Authorities are tax-exempt
organizations. However, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires local
Housing Authorities to enter into PILOT agreements, which in the case of the CHA, are negotiated
amounts agreed upon by the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The General Statutes do
permit Housing Authorities to make payments in lieu of taxes on properties owned by the Authority.
The first PILOT agreements were entered into in 1968 and subsequent agreements have been
entered into as CHA has developed new housing developments. The agreements permit CHA to pay
10 percent of the total of all rental charges to tenants, less the cost of utilities/services, instead
of paying taxes on real properties and improvements.
In 1986, the City and County entered into another agreement with CHA, called Stepping Stone,
which grants back to CHA the PILOT payments made to the City and County on CHA-owned
properties. This was done in order to help cover the operational expenses of the public housing
units.
Issues:
The County Attorney has recently determined that certain mixed income developments, where
the CHA is a partner but not the owner, are not eligible for PILOT payments. This ruling
raises a number of issues including application of PILOT agreements, payment of back taxes on
existing mixed income developments, future financial integrity of these developments and potential
equity issues involving other affordable housing producers. Below is an explanation of the CHA’s
requests, options for the Committee’s consideration, and staff recommendations.
1.
Grant for Back Taxes on Mixed Income Developments
There was an oversight in the payment of taxes on several mixed income developments, such as
First Ward Place and Arbor Glen, which was a combination of the County Tax Office’s
unawareness that these developments were not fully owned by the CHA and the CHA not making
the appropriate payments. The CHA has estimated that it owes $200,000 to the City and
$700,000 to the County in back taxes on mixed income housing developments, which are not
eligible for PILOT payments. Nevertheless, CHA made the PILOT payments for these
developments and they were granted back to the CHA pursuant to the Stepping Stone
Agreement with the City and County. The CHA has indicated that it does not have the
061307 H&ND Packet
1
Page 14 of 17
Attachment C
sufficient funds to pay these taxes and is seeking a grant from the City and County to address
the back taxes.
Because these mixed income developments are not owned by the CHA, but rather by a limited
liability corporation, which is a for-profit entity, they are not eligible for PILOT. The forprofit ownership structure is required under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code when Low
Income Housing Tax Credits are part of the development.
Notwithstanding the above, there is also a problem going forward with these mixed income
developments. The operating budgets of these developments anticipated making PILOT
payments. The higher tax payments will create a strain on the development’s operating budgets.
The CHA does not know the exact amount of the future obligations at this time, but is
currently researching the issue.
Policy Options:
A. Make a grant to the CHA – This will permit CHA to become current relative to back taxes,
but does not address the issue of going forward with insufficient funds in their operating
accounts.
B. Do not make a grant to the CHA – Typically in any real estate development, the City has
made the property owner responsible for paying any taxes owed. While the City
acknowledges the challenges in moving from ownership of traditional public housing to
partnering in mixed income housing developments, the required taxes should be paid by the
participating entity. The CHA and its partners may have to seek funds from other sources
to make the necessary tax payments or negotiate repayment terms with the County Tax
Office.
Staff Recommendation:
Based upon the City’s past business practices, staff does not recommend the issuance of a
grant for payment of back taxes.
NOTE: This decision has some urgency, in that the CHA would like for the Council to address it
before issuance of next year’s tax bills.
Issue:
2. Create “PILOT Like” Agreement For CHA Supported Mixed Income Housing
Because the previously approved PILOT agreements are not valid with respect to the mixed
income developments that are not fully owned by the CHA, the CHA would like the City and
County to enter into an agreement similar to PILOT that would apply to mixed income housing
developments supported by the CHA. This ruling affects about eight existing mixed income
housing developments and five new mixed income housing developments that are leased up,
under construction or under development.
061307 H&ND Packet
2
Page 15 of 17
Attachment C
The new agreement could permit “PILOT Like” payments only on subsidized housing units serving
incomes up to 60 percent of the area median income in mixed income housing developments
supported by the CHA. Under the agreement, the CHA-supported mixed income developments
will pay 10 percent of the total of all rental charges to tenants, less the cost of
utilities/services.
However, there are a number of other for-profit and non-profit developers in Mecklenburg
County that develop the same type of mixed income developments as those done by the CHA.
Currently, these developments are not offered a “PILOT Like” payment option. These mixed
income developments pay taxes on real properties and improvements.
Policy Options:
A. Approve “PILOT Like” Agreements for CHA-Supported Mixed Income Housing – This will
allow “PILOT Like” payments for units in mixed income developments serving up to 60
percent of the area medium income. This would extend to the CHA-supported mixed income
developments essentially the same payment arrangement currently applicable to the
traditional public housing units owned by the CHA. (A variation of the option would limit
“PILOT Like” payments to units serving 30 percent or less of the area median income).
B. Approve “PILOT Like” Agreements for all Mixed Income Housing – This will permit all mixed
income developments with units serving up to 60 percent of the area median income to
request “PILOT Like” Agreements. Generally, mixed income developments developed by
other developers are indistinguishable from CHA-supported mixed income developments.
There is no basis for making a distinction between these developments and those supported
by the CHA, some of which include units serving incomes at 30 percent and below the area
median income. The fiscal impact of this option to the City has not been determined. (A
variation of the option would limit “PILOT Like” payments to units serving 30 percent or less
of the area median income).
C. Do not approve “PILOT Like” Agreements for Mixed Income Housing Developments – This
will disallow the agreements for all mixed income developments, except for those fully
owned by the CHA.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff proposes to delay a recommendation on these options until it can obtain additional
data on the number of units affected and the fiscal impact on the City of each option.
3. Continuation of the Stepping Stone Agreement
The Stepping Stone Agreement, first approved in 1986, grants back to CHA the PILOT
payments made to the City and County on CHA-owned properties to help cover the operational
expenses of the public housing units. The agreement has to be renewed annually.
Under the terms of the PILOT agreement, the CHA pays the City 10 percent of the total of all
rental charges to tenants, less the cost of utilities/services. The CHA would like this
agreement to be renewed for this fiscal year.
061307 H&ND Packet
3
Page 16 of 17
Attachment C
Also, the CHA would like CHA-supported mixed income developments to be considered for the
Stepping Stone Agreement, which grants back the “PILOT-Like” payments to support the
operational costs of these developments.
Policy Options:
A. Continue the Stepping Stone Agreement for Properties Fully Owned by the CHA – This
will permit the past practice of assisting traditional public housing units. These units
typically serve families, elderly and disabled residents at the lowest incomes (30
percent or less of the area median income). As such, the operating margins on these
units are higher and require additional resources to maintain decent, standard units. A
new component is seeking reimbursements for units that serve families earning up to 60
percent of the area median income.
B. Extend the Applicability of the Stepping Stone Agreement to All Mixed Income Housing
Developments– This presumes the City will create a “PILOT Like” Agreement to address
mixed income developments that are supported but not owned by the CHA (see Issue 2).
The Stepping Stone Agreement will permit the granting back of PILOT payments to any
mixed income development.
C. Discontinue the Stepping Stone Agreement – The City and County will retain PILOT
payments made by the CHA.
Staff Recommendation:
The City staff is supportive of Option A, which continues the Stepping Stone Agreement
for housing developments owned by the CHA. This will support the operating budgets of
these developments.
061307 H&ND Packet
4
Page 17 of 17