Council stuck in batter’s box on derelict, deteriorating structure enforcement

A 45-minute July 16 Front Royal Town Council work session discussion of new and previously-considered powers regarding enforcement of certain maintenance standards for buildings within the town limits ended up going nowhere.

Well not actually “nowhere” – the ball was passed back into staff hands with the instruction to come up with a more detailed, and preferably no-cost, plan of action.

“Is council ready to move forward with this? There are budget implications,” Mayor Hollis Tharpe asked after project parameters were outlined by Town Attorney Doug Napier and Planning Director Jeremy Camp. Napier and Camp opened the discussion with a report on their meeting with Winchester City officials about that city’s long-standing and apparently very successful system to deal with “blighted, derelict, vacant and poorly-maintained buildings and structures” as the agenda summary noted.

The parameters described by staff included the necessity of investing an estimated $150,000 in the first year to support one and a half new town positions revolving around building inspections to determine compliance with what would be a newly-created town property maintenance code.

However, additional discussion indicated that an initial step focused tightly on derelict and deteriorating structures could be a virtually no-cost option utilizing existing staff such as police officers or planning-zoning officials to spot obvious exterior violations of a newly-established property maintenance code.

“If you don’t have a property maintenance code, you have nothing,” Camp told council of input from Winchester officials.

After meeting with Winchester officials Planning Director Jeremy Camp reports on how a successful property maintenance code is enforced. Photos/Roger Bianchini

“We need to get Doug and Jeremy to come up with an actual ordinance before we get something in place; before we start hiring and funding,” Vice-Mayor Eugene Tewalt stated.

“I don’t want staff moving forward and council doesn’t want to commit to this,” Mayor Tharpe countered – and so it went …and went …
The staff report and council discussion was generated by state general assembly approval of an addition to the Town Charter submitted by council for the purpose of acquiring those same enforcement rights as cities, counties have, and some towns have acquired, to force corrective action on derelict and deteriorating structures. Now council is facing its first step in that newly-acquired right of enforcement.

Last September prior to state approval of the town charter change council backed away from adoption of a staff-outlined property maintenance code, as well as creation of rental inspection districts to set and facilitate enforcement standards on structures and rental properties in town. The primary issue then was cost – particularly the higher estimated cost of establishing the staff infrastructure necessary to support enforcement of rental property standards.

Recalling that September 2017 pubic hearing, discussion and retreat from action, involved town staff noted in its agenda summary of July 16 that what they heard from Winchester officials at a June 19 meeting “may not be what we in the Town may want to take on at this time.”
And 45 minutes later it appeared Camp and Napier were on the money – or perhaps out of the money might be a more appropriate analogy.

For money and its availability for present and future Town programs was a major sticking point for at least half of council.

For while Mayor Hollis Tharpe cited a 4-2 consensus against moving forward with any code change or enforcement network at this point, an after-meeting polling of council indicated that Councilman Gary Gillespie was now ready to move forward with establishing a property maintenance code with less cost implications.

If as he indicated he would, Gillespie joined Chris Morrison and Jacob Meza in supporting positive movement on the less expensive option of establishing a code to set the groundwork for derelict structure enforcement that would put Mayor Tharpe in the position of casting a tiebreaking vote if the matter came before council with the existing 3-3 split.

“My thoughts are that we need it – but I’d have to vote with the other four too on how to pay for it,” Mayor Tharpe said as the discussion ground to a close.

“I haven’t seen staff spell out how to do it,” Councilman William Sealock added.

So now it is back in staff’s court to provide an even more-detailed plan of action at a price tag a majority of council will not balk at. But it is not the cost of the less expensive option of code-established standards setting the table for what would essentially be eyeball enforcement on easily-identified external structural problems alone that is at issue.

A property maintenance code targeting deteriorating buildings as a first enforcement step – how hard can it be?

After years of lobbying to get the town the same state enforcement rights as cities and counties to force corrective action on derelict and deteriorating structures, Vice-Mayor Eugene Tewalt drew a line in the town hall “sand” against forward movement on that newly-acquired power.

That “line in the sand” is full council commitment to providing the general fund tax revenue necessary to pay for already-approved capital improvement or infrastructure programs not covered by Town enterprise fund budgets. At the top of that list is establishing annual tax-generated set aside funds to pay the coming annual debt service on the new $11-million police station under construction on Kendrick Lane.

It is an old gripe the long-serving councilman, former mayor and town public works director has had with council’s younger, tax-skeptical conservative members over the past several years.

“We’ve got to find a way to move forward – we are as bad as the federal government; we want to do all this but how, borrow the money from China,” Tewalt asked rhetorically.

Jacob Meza responded by asking the vice mayor if he would support the cheaper option with no rental inspection district attached.

“No,” Tewalt replied.

Meza then asked if he would support an essentially “free” option utilizing available staff to enforce a blighted structure ordinance emanating from a new property maintenance code.

“No,” Tewalt repeated, adding that council should pay for what it has already committed to first.

Vice-Mayor Eugene Tewalt and Councilman Jacob Meza were not seeing eye-to-eye during work session discussion of implementing a blighted structure code.

Sealock supported Tewalt in asserting that “nothing is free” – “You still need a body,” Councilman Sealock asserted.

John Connolly added that he continued to oppose the high-cost rental inspection district and showed no enthusiasm for adding to the Town budget with any additional property maintenance enforcement costs.

Councilman Morrison, who was the leading proponent of establishing the rental inspection district to help protect the town’s lower income and more vulnerable citizens, expressed clear frustration at the lack of progress at an even basic level of enforcement.

“It has to be educate, educate, educate – but the education is not getting through. What are your priorities – roads, the budget, getting elected … or helping to build the community?” Morrison asked his colleagues. “People feel helpless – I don’t know if it will take four years, a new council … when you are not even willing to take a no-cost option – the information IS here!”

Meza responded with his support of a property maintenance code as a first step toward limited enforcement with expanded goals in the future.

“I think we are fighting in a box if we limit our options … there are creative ways to accomplish things … it might take a year or two years,”
Meza said. He concluded by agreeing with Morrison’s point that allowing blighted structures to stand has a negative impact on town property values, and consequently its real estate tax revenue base.

How Winchester does it
What Planning Director Camp and Town Attorney Napier found in their June meeting was that Winchester has a comprehensive system in place utilizing a combination of existing departmental personnel and resources to enforce minimum, acceptable standards for structural integrity, appearance and social impacts of buildings in that community.

“According to the City officials, Winchester’s tools include: The Property Maintenance and Rental Inspection Program Codes – the lynchpins of their blighted remediation efforts; a tax abatement program; a vacant building registration program; and graffiti abatement program,” Camp and Napier’s report stated.

They also noted that Winchester uses what is termed a “Community Resources Team” to facilitate the above code standards. That “team” includes personnel from multiple existing departments and resource partners, including planning and zoning, police, parks and recreation, public works; as well as public schools, its EDA and Commissioner of the Revenue.
Public Schools, you may ask.

The staff summary explains that those involved departmental personnel meet periodically “to cross train each other and to tackle blight, neighborhood instability, and troubled youth.”

It would appear the Town of Front Royal is a long way from establishing a need for such cross-departmental networking to improve, not only the town’s physical appearance, but also the lives of its citizens and at-risk youth who may occupy a community’s more blighted buildings.
After all, that would cost money – and revenue generation appears to be an ongoing sticking point for the current town council.