Rental code update gets sent back to staff

FORT MADISON – And it’s back to the drawing board with the city’s rental property code updates. Well, sort of.
At Tuesday’s regular board meeting of the Fort Madison City Council, the rental property ordinance was up for a second reading, but got derailed by Councilor Matt Emmett who produced an amendment that allows tenants to deny inspections of rental units during the life of the lease.
The amendment was eventually voted down after a prolonged conversation, but then the second reading of the code changes was tabled until City Attorney Pat O’Connell could review Emmett’s suggested language as it correlated to additional code language City Building Inspector Doug Krogmeier presented.
Emmett, who clarified he does not own rental property in Fort Madison, has said current rental codes and the new proposed codes are violations of privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
He said he’s not an attorney but handed out the amendment language to the council and City Manager Laura Liegois and then read the amendment into the record and moved that it be approved.
He said a lawful tenant in possession of a rental dwelling should have the right to decline a routine inspection of the rental dwelling. If the tenant executes the right to not be inspected, the rental certification should remain valid and the inspection would take place as soon as the rental is again vacant.
“I'm offering this amendment because I believe we can protect both public safety and the privacy for our residents. It does not eliminate inspections. Every rental would still be required to have inspection before it’s rented and again after it becomes vacant. The only difference is that a lawful tenant would be able to decline a routine inspection while they are living in the home,” Emmett said.
O’Connell pushed back against the specifics of tenants having the potential to push inspections off for years.
“The idea of just keeping a permitted place to the end of the term of the current lease, I don’t think we should approve that. I can imagine circumstances where, if there are other apartments in the building and they have a coal burning stove in the middle of the living room, or a black mold problem, or they have no smoke alarms, we got probable cause if we need to inspect and deal with that,” O’Connell said.
“That’s an immediate life safety issue that the judge is definitely going to get us a warrant to look at.”
Emmett said the intent is to protect their rights and, as long as language meets that, that’s all he cares about and wouldn’t object to some tweaking.
“The best language is going to say the tenant may refuse, and then the city will have the option to seek an administrative warrant. That protects the 4th amendment concern right up front in the first sentence,” O'Connell said.
“But it also allows us to handle a circumstance where maybe there are 40 other people in the apartment building and, if the whole thing burns down because we have a provision that says we’re not allowed to even get in and look at it at all, warrant or no warrant, that would be problematic.”
Emmett replied that his arguing for privacy doesn’t preclude the city from going to get a warrant.
"The legal remedies are still there for the renter and they’re still there for the city whether we put this in or not, I just feel it’s important to respect privacy rights,” Emmett said.
Emmett declined to rescind his amendment when Krogmeier produced his code change recommendations, which still included the city’s option for an administrative warrant in the event an inspection was required for emergent situations.
The city wants to make sure that apartment units are up to code to protect tenants, but also make sure rental units are safe and well-maintained. The rental registry also comes with registration fees and additional fees for tenants who avoid inspections.
Emmett, Councilor Angela Roller, and Rick Thele voted in favor of Emmett’s amendment, but Jerry Sparrow, Rusty Andrews, Nicole Merschman, and Dustin Yager all voted against Emmett’s amendment.
The council then voted to postpone the second reading of the code change unanimously.
The city did move forward with the second reading of an ordinance repealing and replacing the city’s vacant property code with a unanimous vote. That vote will require one more reading before being published as part of the City Code.