Richland County Council Request for Action

Subject:

An Ordinance amending the Richland County Code of Ordinances; Chapter 16, Licenses
and Miscellaneous Business Regulations; by the addition of Article VII, Residential Rental
Property Registration and Regulations

Notes:
November 17, 2022 – The D&S Committee recommended Council approve the proposed
ordinance and business license amendments, and to include the following language: “If
the owner shall not reside within a 50-mile radius of the registered address or reside
within Richland County, then all the above information is required.”

First Reading: December 6, 2022

Second Reading:
Third Reading:
Public Hearing:

14 of 203
 Agenda Briefing

Prepared by: Aric Jensen, AICP Title: Assistant County Administrator

Department: Administration Division:
Date Prepared: November 3, 2022 Meeting Date: November 17, 2022
Legal Review Patrick Wright via email Date: November 8, 2022
Budget Review Abhijit Deshpande via email Date: November 7, 2022
Finance Review Stacey Hamm via email Date: November 7, 2022
Approved for consideration: County Administrator Leonardo Brown, MBA, CPM
Meeting/Committee Development & Services
Subject Absentee Landlord Ordinance and Registration

RECOMMENDED/REQUESTED ACTION:

Staff recommends approval of proposed ordinance amendments and business license amendments to
full Council.

Request for Council Reconsideration: Yes

FIDUCIARY:

Are funds allocated in the department’s current fiscal year budget? Yes No
If not, is a budget amendment necessary? Yes No

ADDITIONAL FISCAL/BUDGETARY MATTERS TO CONSIDER :

At this time no additional personnel or equipment are required to implement the proposed ordinance
amendments; however, as population and development increases, there will need to be a
commensurate growth in personnel to administer and enforce these statutes and practices.

Applicable department/grant key and object codes:

OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT & CONTRACTING FEEDBACK:

Not applicable

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S O FFICE FEEDBACK/POSSIBLE AREA(S) OF LEGAL EXPOSURE:

There are no legal concerns regarding this matter.

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE:

Not applicable

Page 1 of 3
15 of 203
MOTION OF ORIGIN:

I move to direct the County Attorney to work with the County Administrator to research and draft an
absentee landlord ordinance. The ordinance should provide potential remedies for individuals who
violate county ordinances and provide, via supplemental documentation, a comprehensive review of the
legal impacts [potentially] associated with the adoption of such an ordinance.

Council Member Chakisse Newton, District 11, and Joyce Dickerson, formerly District 2
Meeting Regular Session
Date November 19, 2019

STRATEGIC & GENERATIVE DISCUSSION:

Background

At the July 28, 2022 D&S Committee Meeting, the Committee directed the Administrator to perform two
tasks and to present the work product for consideration at the September 27 Meeting:

First, to create an online portal and database for absentee landlord registration using an existing
software platform such as E-Trackit (which is currently used for entering and processing land use permit
related applications).

Second, as necessary, amend the County Code to:

• Affirmatively state that a property owner, property manager, and any tenant may be cited and
held responsible for the violation of a county ordinance related to zoning, building safety, and
property maintenance;

• Affirmatively state that any County Code Enforcement Officer or Public Safety Officer can issue a
citation for any violation of a County code;

• Require that the owner of any non-owner-occupied residential property or unit provide and
keep current within the County’s online database a mailing address, phone number, and email
address for an authorized agent located within 50 miles of the property;

• Require a business license for any person or entity that owns 2 or more non-owner-occupied
residential units for lease, OR require that any person or entity that owns 2 or more non-owner-
occupied residential units for lease contract with a professional property management firm that
has a current Richland County business license and that pays equivalent licensing fees.

At the September 27, 2022 meeting, the Committee reviewed the proposal and directed staff to prepare
a response in the form of an addendum in advance of the October 11, 2022 meeting.

At the October 11, 2022 D&S Committee Meeting, the Committee reviewed the materials provided in
the briefing addendum, asked questions of staff, but did not request any additional changes or
modifications. As such, the item is now properly before the Committee for action.

Page 2 of 3
16 of 203
Updated Work schedule

 01-Mar-2022 Workgroup committee meeting #1, 1st Draft workplan completed

 01-Apr-2022 Workgroup committee meeting #2, 2nd Draft workplan completed
 24-May-2022 Workplan update to D&S Committee
 27-Jun-2022 Presentation and Committee Direction
 26-Jul-2022 Committee Direction to Prepare Ordinance Language
 27-Sep-2022 D&S Committee Review and Direction
 11-Oct-2022 Committee Review
 17-Nov-2022 Committee Action
 13-Dec-2022 County Council First Reading
 TBD Feb-2023 County Council Public Hearing and Second Reading
 TBD Mar-2023 County Council Third Reading

A DDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

An Addendum was provided to the Committee at the 11 October 2022 meeting in response to questions
from the Committee Members.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Agenda Briefing Addendum

2. Proposed Ordinance Language

Page 3 of 3
17 of 203
 Attachment 1

Agenda Briefing Addendum

Prepared by: Aric Jensen, AICP Title: Assistant County Administrator

Department: Administration Division:
Date Prepared: October 11, 2022 Meeting Date: September 27, 2022
Approved for Consideration: County Administrator Leonardo Brown, MBA, CPM
Committee: Development & Services
Agenda Item: 5a. I move to direct the County Administrator to work with the County Attorney to
research and draft an absentee landlord ordinance. The ordinance should provide
potential remedies for individuals who violate county ordinances and provide, via
supplemental documentation, a comprehensive review of the legal impacts [potentially]
associated with the adoption of such an ordinance.

COUNCIL INQUIRY:

Why was the distance of 50 miles chosen? Can the provision be modified to reflect the owner living
within the County? Does it require those who live outside of the 50 mile radius to find/hire someone to
register on their behalf?

What is the logic associated with the recommendation?

Would it be considered an undue burden to require the designation of an authorized agent?

Reply:

The distance of 50 miles was chosen as some federal agencies use this distance to distinguish between
“local” and “extraterritorial” activities. There is neither an identified industry standard nor a uniform
distance standard among local governments.

Yes; the distance provision can be modified to reflect the owner living within the County.

The distance provision can require an owner living outside of the distance parameters to hire someone
to act as a local agent for the owner.

Absentee landlord ordinances and similar regulations have been in widespread use for at least the past
30 years, and the concept of requiring a local agent is common among many regulatory bodies. The logic
associated with the recommendation is to ensure that parties and individuals who reside outside of a
county, state, or country can be served summons and citations and be held accountable for their actions
or inactions, associated with meeting governing standards of property upkeep and maintenance.

COUNCIL INQUIRY:

Is an apartment complex considered one unit or is each apartment considered a separate unit? As a
tenant within the complex, is s/he absolved from the responsibilities outlined within the ordinance?

Reply:

An apartment complex is not one dwelling unit; it is a series of dwelling units attached to one another.

Page 1 of 4
18 of 203
There are many categories of leases: commercial, residential, industrial, professional office, agricultural,
hunting, vacant land, etc., and each will be structured according to a unique set of circumstances. As
such, any property code enforcement ordinance must include the tenant, the property manager, and
the property owner in the enforcement process – because, sometimes, the tenant is responsible for
mowing the lawn and taking out the garbage; other times, it is the property management firm; and yet,
sometimes, it is the property owner. The same applies to other potential violations. The party
responsible for the violation is the party that has to be held accountable – there is no discretion in that
regard.

COUNCIL INQUIRY:

Is there an "order of operations" for who is held responsible for an item or is each individual held
responsible simultaneously? Does the person serving the citation have a great deal of the latitude to
determine to who is cited based on the law in some areas and judgment in others?

Reply:

The code enforcement individual will most likely start with the party that appears to be responsible for
the violation. For example, if the violation is a car parked on the front lawn of a detached house, they
would start with the tenant or car owner. If the violation is a dead tree at an apartment complex, they
would start with the property manager or property owner. If the violation was a pollution discharge at
an industrial property, they would start with the business owner/operator. There is no set order of
operations that applies to every instance as it depends on the situation and the violation.

COUNCIL INQUIRY:

What is the cost associated with the creation of the database?

Reply:

The database will use existing software owned by the County and will be populated by the property
owners or property management firms. The only cost to the County will be the initial set-up of the
database, which will be done in-house and probably involve 20-30 hours of staff time.

COUNCIL INQUIRY:

Are penalties both civil and/or criminal (referred to the mention of a misdemeanor)? Does the County
have opportunities for redress in terms of recouping the County's costs for maintaining overgrown
properties?

Reply:

The County does not have a civil code enforcement system, so all enforcement would be through the
County’s typical citation process.

The County can attempt to recuperate costs spent mitigating nuisances and violations through a lien on
property, but the lien would not be collected until the property sells per state law. Municipalities in

Page 2 of 4
19 of 203
South Carolina have the authority to have their liens satisfied the next time property taxes are assessed
and collected.

As mentioned during previous committee meetings, County Administration is promoting a bill to give
counties the same lien collection ability as municipalities, and it may be in the County’s interest to
discuss the benefits of a civil code enforcement process.

COUNCIL INQUIRY:

Councilmembers requested more information regarding the potential profitability of the program.

Reply:

As a general rule, government doesn’t make a “profit” in the same sense as businesses in the private
sector because government is a simply a steward of the public good. However, whenever a government
agency improves its processes and accomplishes more with less resources, the community “benefits”
from it. There is no intent or proposal to charge a fee to implement this program.

COUNCIL INQUIRY:

Does the ordinance apply only to absentee landlords or are all landlords required to obtain a business
license?

Reply:

As drafted, the proposed ordinance provisions regarding code enforcement would apply only to
situations where the property owner does not reside at the property (the definition of an “absentee
landlord”). The proposed business licensing provisions (which are located in a different section of code)
would apply uniformly throughout the unincorporated County to all property owners.

COUNCIL INQUIRY:

Why is the ordinance only for persons who own more than one unit? A landlord is a landlord and anyone
who owns a unit for business purposes should have to follow the rules that everyone else does.
Following that question [Councilmember Malinowski] stated that persons could use the more than one
as a loophole and place individual units in other family members’ names, thereby actually owning more
than one unit in reality but only one on paper.

Reply:

The County’s existing business license ordinance requires that an owner of 3 or more residential units
for lease obtain a business license, which is a common practice in other jurisdictions. This standard is
predicated on the argument that owning and leasing 1 or 2 properties does not rise to the level of being
a commercial business, and, therefore, should not require a business license. The Council may establish
any threshold it deems appropriate. The proposal at this time is to reduce the current threshold from 3
units to 2 units.

Page 3 of 4
20 of 203
COUNCIL INQUIRY:

How will we educate landlords about the process?

Reply:

The proposed ordinance provisions are long standing practices in many jurisdictions; large property
management firms and property owners with units in multiple jurisdictions may already be familiar with
its provisions.

Staff recommends that any education effort should focus on small firms and individuals who only own
one or two properties. The quickest and most effective way is direct notification to all landlords using
the business license database. The next most effective activity is to provide education/information to
the local realtor and property management member organizations for circulation through their
networks. While less effective, media releases may still reach some persons who do not have business
licenses or participate in a professional organization.

Page 4 of 4
21 of 203
 Updated Attachment 2

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COUNTY COUNCIL FOR RICHLAND COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. ____-22HR

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHLAND COUNTY CODE OF

ORDINANCES; CHAPTER 16, LICENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
REGULATIONS; BY THE ADDITION OF ARTICLE VII, RESIDENTIAL RENTAL
PROPERTY REGISTRATION AND REGULATIONS.

Pursuant to the authority granted by the Constitution and the General Assembly of the
State of South Carolina, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL FOR
RICHLAND COUNTY:

SECTION I. The Richland County Code of Ordinances; Chapter 16, Licenses and
Miscellaneous Business Regulations; is hereby amended by the addition of Article VII,
Residential Rental Property Registration and Regulations, to read as follows:

ARTICLE VII. RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION

AND REGULATIONS

Sec. 16-71. Purpose.

The general purpose of this article is to safeguard all neighborhoods within

the unincorporated areas of Richland County from blight and unsafe living
conditions by requiring the owners, tenants, property management companies, and
property managers to share equally in the burden and liability of the compliance
with all county property and building related ordinances and regulations.

Sec. 16-72. Registration; business license.

a) The owner of any non-owner occupied and habitable residential

property or unit shall register such property or unit with the county’s
online database within thirty (30) days of such property or unit
becoming non-owner occupied and habitable. For the purpose of this
article only, habitable shall mean capable of being lived in as evidenced
by a certificate of occupancy and/or a legal electric supply and running
water. Registration shall include:

1. Owner’s mailing address

2. Owner’s phone number
3. Owner’s email address, if any
4. If the owner shall not reside within fifty (50) miles of the
registered address or within Richland County, then all of the
above information is also required of an authorized agent
residing within the fifty (50) mile radius or Richland County.
b) Any person or entity owning more than one (1) non-owner occupied
residential property or unit within unincorporated Richland County that
is leased or available for lease must obtain a business license; provided,
however, that those persons or entities contracting with a properly
licensed property manager or property management company for
management of such properties or units shall be exempt from such
requirement. If at any time such property manager or company shall fail
to properly obtain or maintain a business license within Richland
County, it shall be the responsibility of the owner to obtain such license
on its own behalf.

Sec. 16-73. Enforcement and penalties.

It shall be the responsibility of the owner, property manager, property

management company, and tenant, each individually and collectively, to comply
with all Richland County ordinances related to property maintenance, weeds and

22 of 203
 rank vegetation, zoning, building regulations, and building safety, and each person
or entity may be cited for a violation of such county ordinance; provided, however,
a tenant may only be cited for a violation of zoning or building regulations if there
is affirmative evidence that the tenant actively constructed any structure or created
a use in violation of such ordinances.

In addition to appropriate civil and/or equitable remedies for enforcement of

this article, any person convicted of violating this section shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of section 1-
8 of this Code of Ordinances.

SECTION II. Severability. If any section, subsection, or clause of this ordinance shall be
deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections,
subsections, and clauses shall not be affected thereby.

SECTION III. Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in

conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.

SECTION IV. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective from and after
_____________________, 2022.

RICHLAND COUNTY COUNCIL

BY:_________________________
Overture Walker, Chair

ATTEST THIS THE _____ DAY

OF _______________, 2022

_____________________________________
Anette Kirylo
Clerk of Council

RICHLAND COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

__________________________________
Approved As To LEGAL Form Only
No Opinion Rendered As To Content

23 of 203
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Public Hearing:
Third Reading:

24 of 203