Jane McWilliams, Observer
Because of the length of discussions on two matters, the council never got to the last item on the agenda, looking at a video which had been shown at a forum a few weeks ago and featured a group intimately involved with the redevelopment of Holland Michigan’s downtown business district. A review of the rental ordinance, and establishing criteria for a skateboard park took up the majority of the meeting, which adjourned at 10:25.
The rental ordinance came into being in the fall of 2007 when a number of citizens, primarily on the city’s east side, came to the council with concerns about the condition of rental housing in their area as well as about the behavior of residents in that housing. In response, and following 6 months of work, the council adopted an ordinance designed to correct some of the problems. At the time of the adoption, the staff suggested that the council look at the ordinance again after the city had had an opportunity to evaluate how it was working. In particular, the council wanted a report on a provision, which limits the number of rental units to no more than 20% of the houses within a single block.
The staff listed 10 changes to improve the ordinance, not including a provision limiting the density of rental units. According to the staff report, the 20% license limitation has been the “single most challenging and contested provision in the ordinance.” The Rental Board of Appeals sustained the decision of the building official in the one contested license denial. Of 22 properties denied license because of the limitation, five remain vacant an unoccupied, there have been three enforcement actions and one has been sold. With the housing crisis, vacant housing has become an increased problem. There are also problems when people who need to vacate the house for a year (academic sabbatical leaves, for example) but can’t rent their home because of the 20% rule.
The staff was looking for direction for changes in this provision. The general tone of the council’s remarks indicated their discomfort with this method of controlling what seemed to be a behavioral problem. Councilor Betsey Buckheit said she didn’t think it is a well-tailored provision, and she wondered why consistent enforcement of blight and nuisance regulations wouldn’t work just as well. On the other hand, Councilor Rhonda Pownell said, “we really don’t want widespread rental property. Sometimes renters devalue property, destroying the character of the city.” Mayor Mary Rossing noted that owner-occupied housing might be just as poorly maintained. “We shouldn’t make judgments about renters.” Councilor Jon Denison, a member of the council, which adopted the ordinance, said he voted against it because of the limitation. “The city shouldn’t be in the business of discriminating against rental property.”
City Development Director Brian O’Connell suggested that the new administrative enforcement policy could speed up correction of problems. The council gave their approval to the other suggested changes. O’Connell said the staff would talk with the colleges about helping with the behavior problems, and would look at zoning changes to establish density and would encourage enforcement.
At their June 1, 2009 meeting, after rejecting the Park and Recreation Board’s recommendation to build a skateboard park in Ames Park, the council took it upon itself to establish a process for selecting a park. Their task at this meeting was to establish a process and criteria for selecting a location. City Administrator Joel Walinski presented a matrix, starting with a list of criteria for the council to review. Council members were to have brought their preferred criteria to the meeting, but it wasn’t clear that they had done so. During the next hour and a half, council members expressed their ideas about how a skateboard park should look, how large it should be, how it should serve the community, whether instead of one major park there should be several at various locations, how it would be funded, what work had already been done on the matter. Mayor Rossing at one point cautioned, “We’re operating at a level we shouldn’t be operating at . . . in our goals for 2009 we said we’d find a site, a funding strategy and a temporary location.” As she had several times during the discussion, Mayor Rossing tried to bring closure by requesting a list of criteria the council could agree on.
Walinski noted that this is what he heard had been agreed to: that he should put together a grid, using tonight’s criteria (along with definitions); that the council would list across the top of the matrix the parks they agree should be considered and evaluated; councilors would fill out the matrix, first as individuals, and then as a group in order to come to consensus; that this step would be taken in a July work session; and the council’s final matrix would be presented to the public for response.
Councilor Pownell suggested that the park board members join the council in the discussion and Jim Pokorney agreed it would be useful. Mayor Rossing noted that she loved what they were saying, but “it is a little different from what you were saying the other night.” In response to a question about the park board’s readiness to recommending funding, Administrator Walinski said when the location is decided, the council can ask where a skate park fits as a priority in their planning.*
Other items discussed tonight were a discussion of utility billing procedures, and of how to budget for city costs for special events (such as Defeat of Jesse James Days, ArtSwirl, and erection and removal of banners), which total around $40,000. Administrator Walinski suggested that as the staff works on the budget and discusses service cuts, these costs could be in the mix.
*Administrator Walinski reported that there will be a temporary location for a skateboard park, possibly by the end of June. A potion of Babcock Park will be resurfaced and the coalition will provide equipment and a barricade. Tomorrow night skateboard coalition members will give the Park and Recreation Board an update.