HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2005, PH5 - MULTI-DWELLING RENTAL PROPERTY INSPECTION PROGRAM 1
Council May 17,2005
j agenba Report
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBI SPO
FROM: Wolf Knabe,Fire Chief
SUBJECT: MULTI-DWELLING RENTAL PROPERTY INSPECTION PROGRAM
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve an enhanced property inspection program to meet annual state mandated fire and
life safety inspections for all multi-dwelling rental properties containing three or more
dwelling units, not including single family residences. This includes authorization to:
a. Convert a contract Fire Inspector position to a regular position.
b. Establish a new full-time regular Administrative Assistant position.
c. Appropriate $17,000 to purchase one new vehicle for field inspections.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing full cost-recovery fees for state-mandated fire and life-safety
inspections.
3. Introduce to print an Ordinance adding Chapter 3.50 to the Municipal Code authorizing the
collection of inspection fees via the secured property tax roll.
REPORT IN BRIEF
On March 1, 2005, staff went before the Council presenting five options for the purpose of
improving the level of fire and life safety inspection services for multi-dwelling rental properties
containing three or more dwelling units. The Council agenda report also included obtaining full-
cost recovery for these state-mandated inspections currently being done by the Fire Department
at no cost to the property owner.
Staff outlined several multi-dwelling rental property inspection program options for Council to
consider. These included different versions of the existing Fire Department program, as well as
an enhanced program that would provide for the inspection of single-family and duplex rental
units. The fees for each program varied according to property type. All the program options
would remain under the management of the Fire Department and they would include a provision
for full cost recovery.
After the options were discussed, staff was directed by Council to compare Option 1 (cost
recovery for what we are doing now/non-enhanced program) and Option 2 (cost recovery to
support the enhanced delivery of services, including public education and administrative
functions). Staff was further directed to bring forth a recommendation for implementation of
either Option 1 or Option 2. Council did not support Options 3 through 5, including the
inspection of single-family and duplex rental units.
15-- f
Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Program Page 2
Staff has thoroughly evaluated both options. Staff is supporting Option 2, the enhanced
program. Fees totaling $394,900 would be collected to offset all program costs. This option is
thoroughly defined in this document.
Additionally, staff developed several other alternatives for full and partial cost recovery for both
Option 1 and Option 2.
Option 2—Cost Recoveryfor the Enhanced program
Alternative 1 — Charges apartments per unit with a cap of$15,000 maximum annual fee for
facilities with greater than 500 units. This was based upon concerns from Mustang Village.
Alternative 2A—Charges flat rate for all facilities with full cost recovery.
Alternative 2B—Charges flat rate for all facilities with partial cost recovery.
Option I—Cost Recovery for What We Are Doing Now
Alternative 3 —Full cost recovery for what we are doing now (non-enhanced program-Option
1) using the "per unit" rate structure approach reflected in our recommended fees for the
enhanced program.
DISCUSSION
Background
For review, Options 1 and 2 are defined below.
OPTION_1 - Cost Recovery for the Current Mandated Fire.Department.Multi-Dwelling
Property Inspection Program (what we are doing now):
The Fire Department currently conducts annual inspections of all dwelling properties containing
three or more dwelling units, hotels, motels, lodging houses and congregate residences.
These inspections are required by California Health & Safety Code, Section 17921. The purpose
of these inspections is to ensure the safety of these facilities from a fire and life safety
perspective.
A fire and life-safety inspection at this type of facility is of special benefit to the property owner
and the guests or renters. A typical inspection would include checking fire alarm systems, fire
sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, common areas for fire hazards, exiting, and fire access
issues. Inspectors do not examine the interior of all units. They typically spot check vacant units
with the cooperation of the owner or manager and conduct interior inspections if violations are
suspected.
Current Resources. The following Fire Department staff and vehicles are currently used to
handle these inspections.
Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Program Page 3
1. 2.0 FTE Fire Inspectors (one of which is currently a contract employee):
To effectively perform these inspections, these Fire Inspector positions are indispensable.
The contract employee is currently working under a one-year contract. Staff is
recommending this position be converted to a regular Fire Inspector based upon the essential
nature of this position to the multi-dwelling rental inspection program. The Fire Prevention
Bureau already has a heavy workload. If the Fire Department were to lose the contract Fire
Inspector position, the Department would not be able to complete these state-mandated
annual inspections on rental units, thus putting the City at risk for liability. The employee
currently holding this position has been working in the Department for five years and is an
integral and knowledgeable part of the Department.
2. One shared city vehicle(already in service): Used by three employees for field inspections.
Current Cost Recovery. The City does not currently charge for these inspections. However,
California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2(b) provides authorization to charge property
owners to recover the reasonable costs of providing these annual inspections.
Additionally, the City's cost recovery policy clearly defines "Community-Wide Versus Special
Benefit" services and states: "The level of user fee cost recovery should consider the community-
wide versus special service nature of the program or activity. The use of general-purpose
revenues is appropriate for community-wide services, while user fees are appropriate for services
that are of special benefit to easily identified individuals or groups."
The City's policy also addresses the concept of"service driver' versus service recipient: in this
case, not only do multi-dwelling property owners benefit from the service, but they are the ones
who "drive" the need for it.
Since the fire inspections being provided by the department benefit property owners who drive
the need for this program, it is appropriate that they pay for the service, instead of the cost being
absorbed by the general tax payer(as it is now).
Under Proposition 218, the Council is authorized to initiate these types of fees; voter or property
owner approval is not required..
OPTION 2—Enhanced Multi-Dwelling/Rental Property Inspection Program and Full Cost
Recovery
Option 2 adds an enhanced level of service to the property owners and includes the services,
personnel and vehicle described in Option 1 along with added resources to more effectively and
efficiently meet the State mandate for annual inspections as well as develop and conduct a public
education program regarding fire and life-safety issues related to the multi-dwelling rental
properties.
Enhanced Resources. The enhanced program adds one new Administrative Assistant position
and one new vehicle.
Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Program Page 4
1. By adding one Administrative Assistant position, the Department would be able to more fully
meet the requirements of the City Records Retention Policy, which would allow more
accurate information to be provided to the public. This individual will also be responsible for
the following administrative functions:
a. Maintain and update multi-dwelling information in the Fire Prevention database.
b. Schedule fire and life safety inspections.
c. File and-document records..
d. Develop and update public educational programs and literature regarding apartment fire
and life-safety, including door-hangers, smoke detectors, exiting, storage, fire lanes and
others.
e. Make presentations to the affected parties explaining the multi-dwelling rental property
inspection program.
f. Provide a high level of customer service to both external and internal customers.
g. Receive and screen visitors and telephone calls.
h. Direct callers to the proper office or person.
i. Provide factual information regarding City and departmental activities and functions that
relate to the multi-dwelling rental property inspection program.
j. Compose standard correspondence.
k. Act as liaison to Finance and IT Department for ongoing billing issues.
1. Prepare periodic and special reports.
m. Create new departmental forms.
n. Coordinate code enforcement issues.
o. Complete standard forms (online formats and hard copy) with information from the
public, as needed.
2. Currently, five Fire Inspectors and four administrative staff share four vehicles.. This system
is inadequate because at times there are not enough vehicles for scheduled inspections.
Having a dedicated vehicle for this program will ensure that inspections on multi-dwelling
rental properties are accomplished in a timely manner. Purchasing this vehicle will cost
$17,000.
Council Questions
During the March 1, the Council asked several questions about program implementation.
1. Why does the program need full-time dedicated staff?
As noted below, Fire Prevention Bureau staff currently inspect a multitude of different types
of occupancies and properties other than multi-dwelling rental properties. Having full-time
staff dedicated to the multi-dwelling rental property inspection program will guarantee a
higher level of service and greater accuracy and consistency in recordkeeping.
Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Program Page 5
Do other businesses pay fees for inspections?
Yes, several types of businesses pay annual Fire Department permit fees which cover the
cost of inspections. Permits are issued for the following types of operations: assemblies for
more than 49 people congregating for the purpose of dining and dancing, hazardous
materials storage, vehicle repair, high piled combustible stock, lumber yard wood storage,
welding and cutting, and others.
2. Why don't we charge fines instead of fees?
The fire service's goal is to achieve compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. The
purpose is not to penalize property owners, but to gain compliance. The Fire Department's
ultimate goal is to have citizens living in safe rental dwelling properties. Funding the
program through fines would create an unpredictable revenue source, which might not
produce full cost recovery for staffing. It could also be interpreted as unfairly targeting
individual property owners for the sole purpose of bringing in revenues.
3. Should we give incentives to property owners that consistently comply?
No. Compliance is required by state regulation. There is a presumption that property owners
should and will comply with state laws and regulations. For example, it is presumed that
everyone driving a vehicle in the state of California has a valid California driver's license.
No incentives are given for compliance.
5. Do other cities charge fees for these inspections?
Yes. Staff contacted several City Fire Departments throughout the State of California to
determine if fees were charged and what the fees were based on. These cities include Santa
Ana, Albany, Santa Monica, Union City, Milpitas, Pasadena and Santa Fe Springs. Many of
these cities have fee-for-service programs based on the number of rental dwelling units.
Recommendation Summary
Staff recommends implementation of Option 2 (Enhanced Program with Full Cost Recovery) for
the following reasons:
1. The program as it currently exists (non-enhanced program) is meeting the minimum legal
requirements for these annual inspections. Option 2 (enhanced program) will provide the
community with a better level of service by developing and conducting public education
programs with regard to fire and life safety issues relating to multi-property dwelling living.
The educational component of fire and life safety is very important. Currently, the
Department does not have enough staff to develop and implement these programs.
2. Data entry and recordkeeping is currently being done by each Fire Inspector. Having a
dedicated Administrative Assistant to enter and track this information will lead to a greater
accuracy and consistency to our data base. This will improve services in several ways,
including distribution of data to emergency responders. This data includes emergency
Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Program Page 6
response information such as emergency phone contacts, utility shutoff locations and special
hazards
3. The additional vehicle is necessary for completion of these inspections in a timely manner.
Currently, by sharing vehicles, inspections have to wait for vehicle availability.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff is proposing that the cost recovery fees differ according to the type of property being
inspected. These properties include apartments, motels, hotels, bed &breakfasts facilities, hostel
facilities, senior facilities, and sorority and fraternity houses. Some types of properties have on-
site maintenance personnel and historically have fewer violations, while others require more
frequent or in-depth inspections.
This cost recovery proposal will shift the current program costs from the General Fund to this
fee-based revenue program. There will be financial impacts to property owners, who will likely
pass these fees on to renters.
The following fee schedule would recover the costs of recommended program:
Apartment Rental Units
$50.00 per unit per year
Administrative Fee of$65.00/year per facility
County tax roll fee of$2.00/year per facility
Explanation of Fees
Fees are set so that full cost recovery is obtained and includes administration of the program as
well as actual time spent on inspections and follow-up.
Hotels, Motels, Lodging Houses, Bed& Breakfast Facilities, and Youth Hostel Facilities
Senior Facilities
1-30 units $200/year per facility
31-80 units $300/year per facility
More than 80 units $400/year per facility
County tax roll collection fee of$2.00/year per facility
Explanation of Fees
These facilities frequently have maintenance personnel available 24 hours a day.
Sororities/Fraternities and Congregate Residences
Flat fee $475/year per facility
County tax roll collection fee of$2.00/year per facility
Explanation of Fees
Sororities and fraternities traditionally have a high number of code violations requiring numerous
re-inspections.
i 1
Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Program Page 7
Fee Revenue and Program Costs
The following table reflects the Enhanced Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Program
costs for one year,including projected fees and associated revenue.
Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Fee Analysis
Fees
No. Fee Total
Hotels,Motels,Lodging Houses,
Bed&Breakfasts,Senior Facilities,
Youth Hostel
1-30 Units 14 $202 facility $2,800
31-80 Units 17 $302 facility $5,100
>80 Units 11 $402 facility $4,400
Sororities/Fraternities& 14 $477 facility $6,700
Congregate Residence
Apartments
Facilities-Admin.Rate Per Facility 494 $65 facility $32,200
Facilities-County Tax Roll Charges 494 $2 facility $1,000
Subtotal Facilities Costs $52,200
Units- Base Rate Per Unit 6,854 $50.00 unit $342,700
Subtotal Per Unit Costs $342,700
TOTAL. _ _ _ �_ _.__ ___ 94,900
----^ Cost Recovery
Ongoing Costs Annual Cost
Fire Inspector III 104,900 2.0 FTE 209,800
Admin Assistant 67,600 1.0 FTE 67,600
Office Supplies/Printing 800
Postage 200
Fire 1,000
Amortized Start-Up Costs 8,600
Subtotal 288,000
Indirect Costs 37.1%_ _ ____ _...-_. 106,900------
TOTAL
06,900 --_TOTAL $394,900
Fee Collection
There are several options for collecting these fees: individual billings through our accounts
receivable system;including these amounts with utility bills; or adding these fees to property tax
rolls. We recommend fee collection via property tax rolls because it is the most cost-effective
method of ensuring a high level of collection.
CONCURRENCES
The City Attorney and Department of Finance & Information Technology concur with the
recommended actions. Notifications of this Council meeting were sent to numerous individuals
and groups, including many owners of properties subject to these inspections; such as senior
facilities, motels and hotels, bed & breakfast facilities, as well as property management and real
estate groups, and our standard fee notification list, which includes a diverse range of community
q
I
-Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Program Page 8
groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, ECOSLO and
the Property Owners Association.
In response to feedback we have received from these mailings, we have prepared several
alternatives for Council consideration as discussed below.
ALTERNATIVES
Large property owners contacted staff with concerns about the cost of the program; for example
Mustang Village's annual fee would be $34,575 under the staff recommendation. In response to
their concerns, staff has developed several alternative fee structures for the Council's
consideration.
1. Cap fees for facilities with 500 or more units at $15,000 maximum. Instead of full cost-
recovery, Alternative 1 will provide 94% cost recovery.
Alternative#1 -Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Fee Analysis
Fe
.-
Fees
No. Fee Total
Hotels,Motels, Lodging Houses,
Bed&Breakfasts,Senior Facilities,
Youth Hostel
1-30 Units 14 $202 facility $2,800
31-80 Units 17 $302 facility $5,100
>80 Units 11 $402 facility $4,400
Sororities/Fraternities& 14 $477 facility $6,700
Congregate Residence
Apartments
Facilities-Admin. Rate Per Facility 494 $65 facility $32,200
Facilities-County Tax Roll Charges 494 $2 facility $1,000
>500 Units 2 $15,000 property $30,000
Subtotal Facilities Costs $82,200
Plus Fee Per Unit if 500 Units or Less
Units-Base Rate Per Unit 5,764 $50 unit $288,200
Subtotal Per Unit Costs $288,200
TOTAL $370,4
00.
Cost Recovery
Ongoing Costs Annual Cost
Fire Inspector III 104,900 2.0 FTE 209,800
Admin Assistant 67,600 1.0 FTE 67,600
Office Supplies/Printing 800
Postage 200
Fire 1,000
Amortized Start-Up Costs 8,600
Subtotal 288,000
Indirect Costs 37.1% 106,900
Total Program Costs W _ $394,900
Cost Recovery ($370,400)
Balance $24,500
� I
Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Program Page 9
2. Compute the fees on a flat rate based on building size, rather than a fee per unit.
a. Alternative 2-A is based on full cost recovery for the enhanced program of$394,400.
b. Alternative 2-13 is based on 70% cost recovery for the enhanced program of$277,500.
Alternatives 2-A & 2-13 Flat Fee Cost Recovery Rates
ALTERNATIVE 2-A ; ; ALTERNATIVE 2-13
FULL COST-RECOVERY PARTIAL COST-RECOVERY
I I
Fee Per Fee Per
Hotels,Motels, Bed&Breakfasts, No. Facility Total Facility Total
Youth Hostel,Senior Facilities
1-30 Units 14 ; $375 $5,300 ; $302 $4,200
31-80 Units 17 ; $475 $8,100 ; $402 $6,800
>80 Units 11 $575 $6,300 $502 $5,500
I I I
Fee Per
Building
Sororities/Fraternities& '•
Congregate Residence 14 $660 $9,300 ; $577 $8,100
I I ;
Apartments No. Fee Total Fee Total
3-5 Units 253 $402 $101,700 $402 $101,700
6-10 Units 113 $652 $73,700 $502 $56,700
11-16 Units 46 $872 $40,100 $602 $27,700
17-21 Units 22 $1,172 $25,800 j $702 $15,400
22-46 Units 35 $1,502 $52,600 ; $802 $28.100
47-99 Units 16 ; $2,282 $36,500 $1,002 $16,000
100-200 Units 7 ; $6,282 $44,000 ; $3,102 $21,700
>200 Units 2 $10,272 $20,500 $5,102 $10,200
_Total Cost Recovery $394;900 ;v; $277,500
Program Costs ($394,900) ($394,900)
Balance $0 ! ! $ 117,400
3. Cost Recovery for the Current State Mandated Inspection Program (What We Are Doing
Now/ Option 1 Non-Enhanced Program). The following summarizes proposed fees to
fully recover current program costs of$296,100 annually. Fees are on a flat fee structure
except for apartments. Apartment fees are based on per unit cost.
�� I
Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Program Page 10
Alternative#3/Option #1 Cost Recovery for What We Are e . Program
Number Fee Total
Hotels,Motels, Bed&Breakfasts,
Youth Hostel,Senior Facilities
1-30 Units 14 $202 per facility $2,800
31-80 Units 17 $302 per facility $5,100
>80 Units 11 $402 per facility $4,400
Sororities t Fraternities&Congregate Residence 14 $477 per facility $6,700
Apartments
Facilities-Admin. Rate Per Facility 494 $65 per facility $32,100
Facilities-County Tax Roll Charges 494 $2 per facility $1,000
Subtotal Facilities Costs $52,100
Units-Base Rate Per Unit 6,854 $35.60 per unit $244,000
Subtotal Per Unit Costs $244,000
Cost Recovery
------_—_
" _ $296,100
4. Continue to do inspections with no cost recovery. Currently the entire community is paying
for these inspections. It would be more consistent with the City's user fee cost recovery
policy for property owners to pay for these inspections since they are the ones receiving the
benefit and driving the need for this service. Not adopting cost recovery fees for this
program will result in even deeper service reductions — that will affect the entire community
—than those that will already be needed in order to balance the budget for 2005-07.
Comparison of Options
As reflected in the options, there are three separate issues in setting inspection fees:
1. Program Scope: Current versus Enhanced
2. Cost Recovery: Full versus Partial
3. Rate Structure: Per Unit (with the option of capped fees) versus Flat Rate Per Range of Units
As such, there are a wide variety of permutations and options in setting rates and for each of the
approaches, there are pros and cons for selecting one over another. We believe that the options
presented in this report reflect the conceptual differences for each. For comparison, the
following summarizes the annual costs for various types of apartment units under the
recommended fee schedule versus options Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
S- [ 0
Multi-Dwelling Rental.Property Inspection Program Page 11
A artment Annual Fee Schedule
Recommended I Alternative 1 I Alternative 2-A: Alternative 2-B Alternative 3
Features
Enhanced Program Enhanced Program Enhanced Program Enhanced Program Current Program
Full Cost Partial Cost Full Cost Partial Cost Full Cost
Number of Units Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery
Per Unit Per Unit with Flat Rate Flat Rate Per Unit
15,000 Cap(>500
Units)
3 (Program $217 $217 $402 $402 $174
Minimum
5 314 .314 402 402 245
15 817 817 872 602 601
30 1,567 ______1.1567 1,502 802 1,135
75 3,817 3,817 2,282 1,102 2,737
200 10,067 10,067 6,282 3,102 7,187
500 25,567 15,000 1 10,272 5,102 17,867
In comparing just the impact of optional rate structures, Alternatives. 1 and 2-A are the most
comparable to our recommendation, since both are based on the enhanced program at full (or
very high) cost recovery. As reflected above, at 30 units the three rate structures produce the
same fees. Compared with the recommended "per unit" rate structure, the flat rate structure
results in higher fees for smaller complexes and lower fees for larger ones. There is some
analytical basis for this, since on a per unit basis, there are some economies of scale in
performing annual inspections. On the other hand, this results in a "per unit" cost that is higher
for smaller complexes, and this presents equity concerns as well, which is why the Council may
want to consider Alternative 1 as a blending of the goals for an enhanced program, high cost
recovery and a rate structure that makes sense for larger properties as well as smaller ones.
This "balancing" is the same challenge presented to the Council in all of other fee and rate-
setting situations, such as water, sewer and refuse collection: there is not one "correct"
analytical" answer in weighing the pros and cons of each approach.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Ordinance
3. Text from California Health & Safety Code Sections 17921, 13146 and 13146.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2005 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR
THE RECOVERY OF COSTS RELATED TO FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY
INSPECTIONS OF ALL MULTI-DWELLING RENTAL PROPERTIES
CONTAINING THREE OR.MORE DWELLING UNITS AND
AUTHORIZING COLLECTION OF THESE FEES FOR 2005-06
ON THE SECURED PROPERTY TAX ROLL
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo is required by California Health & Safety Code
Section 17921 to annually inspect multi-dwelling rental properties containing three or more
dwelling units, including apartments, hotels, motels, lodging houses and congregate residence;
and
WHEREAS, a typical fire and life safety inspection at these facilities would include; but
not be limited to, checking fire alarm systems, fire sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, common
areas for fire hazards, exiting and fire access issues; and
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146 authorizes cities to charge
property owners in recovering the reasonable costs of providing these annual inspections; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to review service charges on
an ongoing basis and to adjust them as required to ensure that they remain adequate to achieve
adopted cost recovery goals; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with this policy the Council adopted Resolution No. 9130
(2001 Series) updating the master fee schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered amendments to the master fee schedule at a public
hearing on May 17, 2005 based on a detailed analysis of costs and funding requirements to meet
adopted cost recovery goals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City's master fee schedule is hereby amended by the addition of a
multi-dwelling rental property fire and life safety inspection fees as set forth in "Exhibit A"
attached hereto.
SECTION 2. These fees shall be effective on July 1, 2005.
SECTION 3. As authorized in California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2(b) and
Municipal Code Section 3.50, these fees shall be collected on the secured property tax roll for
fiscal year 2005-06. A listing of fees by assessor's parcel number shall be provided to the
County Auditor-Controller for collection on the 2005-06 secured property tax roll in accordance
with their schedule and data format requirements.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 2
Upon motion of seconded by , and on the
Following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted on May 17, 2005.
Mayor David.F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jona han well, City Attorney
S'- 13
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Rental Property -
Effective July 1, 2005
Apartments
$50.00 per unit per year
Administrative Fee of$67.00/year per facility
Hotels, Motels, Lodging House,Bed & Breakfast Facilities, Youth Hostel Facilities and
Senior Facilities
1 to 30 units $202/year per facility
31 to 80 units $302/year per facility
More than 80 units $402/year per facility
Sororities,Fraternities and Other Congregate Residences
$477/year per facility
These fees are applicable to all Multi-Dwelling Rental units in the City based on the following
definitions as set forth in the 2001 California Building Code, Chapter 2: Definitions and
Abbreviations, Section 201
Apartment house is any building, or portion thereof, which contains three or more dwelling
units.
Congregate residences are any building or portion thereof that contains facilities for living,
sleeping and sanitation, as required by this code, and may include facilities for eating and
cooking, for occupancy by other than a family. A congregate residence may be a shelter,
convent, monastery, dormitory, fraternity or sorority house, but does not include jails, hospitals,
nursing homes, hotels, or lodging houses.
Dwelling unit is any building or portion thereof that contains living facilities, including
provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation, as required by this code, for not more
than one family, or a congregate residence for ten or less persons.
Hotel is any building containing six or more guest rooms intended or designed to be use, or
which are used, rented or hired, out to be occupied, or which are occupied for sleeping purposes
by guests.
Lodging house is any building or portion thereof containing not more than five guest rooms
where rent is paid in money, goods, labor or otherwise. (A lodging house includes bed &
breakfast facilities and hostels, but excludes single family dwellings).
Motel shall mean the same as hotel as defined in this code.
�- ► 4
ATTACHMENT �
ORDINANCE NO. (2005 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF FEES FOR FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY
INSPECTIONS OF MULTI-DWELLING RENTAL PROPERTIES
ON THE SECURED PROPERTY TAX ROLL
WHEREAS, the City is required by California Health & Safety Code Section 17921 to
annually conduct fire and life-safety inspection of Multi-Dwelling.Rental properties containing
three or more dwelling units, including apartments, hotels, motels, lodging houses and
congregate residence; and
WHEREAS, a typical fire and life safety inspection at these facilities includes, but is not
limited to, checking fire alarm systems, fire sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, common areas
for fire hazards, exiting and fire access issues;and
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146 provides cities the legal
authority to charge property owners to recover reasonable costs of providing these annual
inspections; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a fee program to recover the cost of fire and life safety
inspections of Multi-Dwelling Rental properties; and
WHEREAS, the most cost effective method for collecting these fees is via the secured
property tax roll.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 3.50 of the Municipal Code is hereby established as follows:
A. In accordance with California Health & Safety Code Section 17921, the
City will annually conduct fire and life safety inspections of Multi-Dwelling Rental properties
containing three or more dwelling units,,including apartments, hotels, motels, lodging houses and
congregate residences.
B. As provided in California Health & Safety Code Section 13146, the
Council will set fees by resolution to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the City in
performing fire and life safety inspections of Multi-Dwelling Rental properties. These fees are
not incident to the ownership of property but are necessary to recover the costs reasonably
incurred by the City in providing fire and life safety inspections as mandated by the State of
California.
C. These fees will be collected via the secured property tax roll.
SECTION 2. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together
with the names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five
<�. IC
i
Ordinance No. (2005 Series)
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2
days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City.
This ordinance will go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on May 17, 2005 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo on 2005, on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jon than . Lowell, City Attorney
ATTACHMENT 3
California Health a Safety Code Sections
17921. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b) , the department
shall propose the adoption, amendment, or repeal of building
standards to the California Building Standards Commission pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part
2.5, and the department shall adopt, amend, and repeal other rules
and regulations for the protection of the public health, safety, and
general welfare of the occupant and the public governing the
erection, construction, enlargement, conversion, alteration, repair,
moving, removal, demolition, occupancy, use, height, court, area,
sanitation, ventilation and maintenance of all hotels, motels,
lodging houses, apartment houses, and dwellings, and buildings and
structures accessory thereto. Except as otherwise provided in this
part, the department shall enforce those building standards and those
other rules and regulations. The other rules and regulations
adopted by the department may include a schedule of fees to pay the
cost of enforcement by the department under Sections 17952 and 17965.
(b) The State Fire Marshal shall adopt, amend, or repeal and
submit building standards for approval pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5, and the State
Fire Marshal shall adopt, amend, and repeal other rules and
regulations for fire and panic safety inall hotels, motels, lodging
houses, apartment houses and. dwellings, buildings, and structures
accessory thereto. These building standards and regulations shall be
enforced pursuant to Sections 13145 and 13146; however, this section
is not intended to require an inspection by a local fire agency of
each single-family dwelling prior to its occupancy.
13146. The responsibility for enforcement of building standards
adopted by the State Fire Marshal and published in the California
Building Standards Code relating to fire and panic safety and other
regulations of the State Fire Marshal shall be as follows:
(a) The city, county, or city and county with jurisdiction in the
area affected by the standard or regulation shall delegate the
enforcement of the building standards relating to fire and panic
safety and other regulations of the State. Fire Marshal as they relate
to R-3 dwellings, as described in Section 1201 of Part 2 of the
California Building Standards Code, to either of the following:
(1) The chief of the fire authority of the city, county, or city
and county, or his or her authorized representative.
(2) The chief building official of the city, county, or city and
county, or his or her authorized representative.
(b) The chief of any city or county fire department or of any fire
protection district, and their authorized representatives, shall
enforce within its jurisdiction the building standards and other
regulations of the State Fire Marshal, except those described in
subdivision (a) or (d) .
(c) The State Fire Marshal shall have authority to enforce the
building standards and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal in
areas outside of corporate cities and districts providing fire
protection services.
(d) The State Fire Marshal shall have authority to enforce the
building standards and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal in
corporate cities and districts providing fire protection services
upon request of the chief fire official or the governing body.
- ATTACHMENT
(e) Any fee charged pursuant to the enforcement authority of this
section shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing
the service for which the fee is charged, pursuant to Section 66014
of the Government Code.
13146.2. (a) Every city or county fire department or district
providing fire protection services required by Sections 13145 and
13146 to enforce building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal
and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal shall, annually,
inspect all structures subject to subdivision (b) of Section 17921,
except dwellings, for compliance with building standards and other
iegnlatioris of the State Fire Marshal.
(b) A city, county, or district which .inspects a structure
pursuant to subdivision (a) .may charge and collect a fee for the
inspection from the owner of the structure in an amount, as
determined by the city, county, or district, sufficient to pay its
costs of that inspection.
5- f 4
Page 1 of 2
Allen Settle- Fire Department Inspections(PH #5)
From: Sandra Rowley<macsar99@yahoo.com> L_ A�Y j $ 2�Ou
To: Dave Romero<dRomero@SLOdty.org>,Alan Settle <aSty.org> au Brown <pbrown@slocity.org>,John
Ewan <jEwan@SLOraty.org>,Christine Mulholland <cMu0T''W.ggr�i.,
Date: 5/17/2005 4:51 PM
Subject: Fire Department Inspections(PH #5)
CC: Ken Hampian <kHampian@SLOcity.org>
Dear Mr Mayor and City Council Members,
Reference Public Hearing item #5, Multi-dwelling Rental.Property Inspection
Program
There are two points I hope you will consider before ruling on this item:
1) Changing the title of the ordinance to more accurately reflect the actual
purpose of the ordinance, and 2) Establishing a supplementary fee schedule to
reimburse the fire department for expenses caused by the need for more than
one re-inspection of a particular property.
Ordinance title. This ordinance brings forward a plan to recoup funds for
the time expended by fire department personnel in conducting the state-
mandated fire inspection and safety program. So why isn?tthe city calling
this ordinance the ?Fire and Safety Inspection Program?or the ?Fire
Inspection and Safety Program?? It would certainly make more sense, and be
more accurate, than the title which was chosen.
Fees for re-inspections. As stated by fire department personnel during
the March 1, 2005 council study session, over 70% of the fire inspectors?
time is spent on re-inspections. However, that fact is not mentioned or `.
addressed in the fee schedule proposed. (The staff report does mention fines
for non-compliance, but then rejects the idea of fines.)
If, as stated,this much time is spent on re-inspections, then additional
fees for service should be charged for the additional trips and time
required. Otherwise, properties which have no infractions(or fix the ones
discovered) are paying for repeated trips to properties which have 40
infractions and do not immediately fix them. Also, there is no incentive for
the particular apartment complex, senior center, hotel/motel, hostel, etc.,
to obey the fire and safety rules since the cost for inspection is the same
whether one visit is made or ten.
One inspection and one re-inspection per year could be covered by the
basic schedule as proposed with a fee for service added for each additional
re-inspections required in that year. This seems fair to both the properties
which require multiple re-inspections and those that require none.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Sandra Rowley
SLO
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 5/18/2005
i� COUNCiL NCDD DIR
IR
RECEIVED _ RED FILE p'AcAoFIRE DCHIEF
�,rd'ATTORNEY XPW DIR
MAY 1 7 2G0� MEETING AGENDA 1a'CLERK/ORIG POUCE CHF
_ear DATE ITEM # S DF T HEADL�UTIL DIIR
From: <pinardmat@aol.com> -
To: <jewan@slocity.org>, <pbrown@slocity.org>, <cmulhulland@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>,
<d romero @ solcity.org>
Date: 5/17/2005 11:44 AM
Subject: multi-residential inspection fees
Dear City Council Members,
There is an item on Tuesday's (May 17th) agenda regarding "Proposed multi-family residential
rental inspection fees" that, perhaps could benefit from some historical perspective. I was a
participant when this issue was brought before the council and it was disappointing to not see those
discussions presented to you (or the public) that were the basis for the existing program.
First of all, this program was implemented by former councils as a way of utilizing what was
considered 'downtime' for fire personnel when they were not needed for fighting fires. A 'time and
motion' study was done for all fire stations in the city. We are blessed with not having many major
fires here in San Luis Obispo City however, we do pay, through our taxes, for a full time and fully
staffed fire department. On the recommendation of the former fire chiefs, the council put together
this inspection program utilizing existing personnel during existing, already paid for, work days.
In the notice to residents, the statement was made:
"However, while the Council did not expand the current scope of annual inspections, they did
conceptually approve implementing full cost recovery for the existing program. Currently no fees
are charged for these inspections" the cost is borne entirely by general-purpose revenues."
This statement makes no reference to the prior rationale for implementing the program and the
point that residents are already paying a majority of the city's budget for safety personnel through_ _
--theirtaxes.—This nexus to safety"inspections was aheady dealt with as part of-the departments'
existing scope of work and rationale for retaining the high level of existing/full-time (24-7) staffing.
Thus, the statement: "...in accordance with the City's user fee policy, cost recovery is appropriate
from those who benefit from (and drive the need for) this program" ignores the fact that, even if the
"drivers" (the rentals) were to go away, we would still have a full complement of safety personnel.
This is not the same as the golf course, or the planning department where the personnel hired
depend on the need! This inspection program is different in that it utilizes existing personnel on
time already compensated for fire safety availability.
Another issue that was dealt with at that time was the cost to city residents for having EMT trained
staff when we have the same service being done in the private sector. This duplication of services
is something the council will still have to deal with as part of its budget considerations.
Dealing with budget issues during 'tight' times is never easy but, as we did before, it is important to
look to streamlining some of the costs that have developed over the years and not always look to
just getting more revenue. The taxpayers are owed the kind of internal self-examination that needs
to occur at these times. In any event, please do not start reinterpreting existing programs to suit the
desire for additional revenue.
Sincerely,
Peg Pinard
Former Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
Page 1 of 1
I
Ken Hampian - Fire Inspection Program
From: Ken Hampian
To: pinardmat@aol.com RECEIVED
Date: 5/17/05 1:48PM MAY 17 2C,3J
Subject: Fire Inspection Program
CC: Knabe, Wolfgang; SLOCouncil SLO CITY CLERK
Dear Peg -
With regard to your email to Council concerning Fire Department inspection fees, as always
your memory has served you well, but with a little difference on this one.
Several years ago, we did indeed have a discussion along the line you described, and Council
took action as you described it, as well. The difference is that the program implemented at
that time related to non-mandatory commercial inspections, carried out by sworn employees
on engine companies. The inspection program currently before Council is a different one,
relating only to residential rental inspections, and grew out of the Council's 2003-05
"Neighborhood Wellness" Major City Goal. These inspections are mandatory. carried out by
non-sworn staff. The Council's initial issue was related to whether or not to extend the
program to Single Family rentals (they decided not to) and then, whether or not to expand
and/or achieve cost recovery for the multi-family inspections. That latter issue is the one we
will be discussing tonight. Hope this helps.
Ken Hampian
�lU1tL�._
jcou:acl! 1.:.'DD DIR
., C.AO FIN DIR
CACAO --e'FIRE CHIEF
/^'ATTORNEY iE'PW DIR
iQCLERKORIGPOLICECHF
❑ D�EPT EADs REEC DIR
RED FILE TIL DIR
MEETING AGENDA — — /HR DIR
DATE. ITEM
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 5/17/2005
MANDERLEY PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. EREC:E1VE:D
3563 Empleo Street, Suite B, San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401(805) 781 - 6636 (fax) 781 - 6627 S
May 16, 2005
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
San Luis Obispo City Hall RED FILE
990 Palm Street _ MEING AGENDA
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 DATE ITEM # -
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
The Rental Housing Inspection Cost Recovery proposal you are considering is of concern to
Manderley Property Services and the heady 200 rental units we manage in the City of San Luis
Obispo.
It is our understanding that fire safety inspections are currently being funded through the
existing budget. If additional inspections will be mandated to included single-family and duplex
rental units, it appears that these additional inspections would be done without increasing fire
department personnel and would utilize existing fire department resources.
If this were the case, then we would certainly be against any additional fees fora program that
can be performed within the existing budget.
If it is determined by your Council that an inspection fee would be necessary to offset the
additional cost of the new inspections beyond what is currently paid for-salaries, equipment,
building maintenance, etc.-the fee should be based on the actual costs and not as a method of
raising revenues for any other programs.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
iRcere l CIL
TCDD Dl,a
ICAJ��ACAO .Z FIN DIR
Jim Hobbs, CLAM �TTORNEY f'1�FIRE CHIEF
FW DIA
Branch Manager EJCLERK/O91G 2'FOWCE CHF
Manderley Property Services ❑ DEFT HEADS... E-REC DIR
Mylea Ch tensen
Rental rtment Manager
Mander Property Services
Rental Inspection Cost Recovery Ur 2005-05.doc
MAY.16.2005 9:59AM 8055430752 N0.935 P..2/2
RED FILE D>ENms D.LAw
MEETING AGENDA 1102 LAuULLAn =RECEEIVEDDATEA TEM # �S SAN Luis OB1snq CA 93401(805)543-4171
May 16,2005
%COUNCIL D D
Z CAO
,2'AC 0 DIR
Ci of San Luis Obispo i,,a RE CHIEF
�P ATTC--� _.. �=W DIR
City Council j !=` OF,3 �OLICE CHF
990 Palm Street DEPT .E.;Ds Z--*,R=C D I R
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 '�`�'�— f u'I L DR
Dear Members of the City Council:
I am writing you to express concern regarding the item on your May 17, 2005 agenda relating to
a proposed multi-family residential rental inspection fee. My family and I own apartments in
San Luis Obispo that would be affected by the proposed fee.
My concern,is that the proposed fee is disproportionate to the actual costs of the inspection
services. As I understand it, the inspection program itself is not being expanded and so the
nature and extent of the inspections will remain as they have been in the past. The existing
program involves an annual inspection of apartment buildings. The inspections, for the most
part, are of the building exteriors and do not involve the interior of individual living units. These
inspections do not involve an extensive amount of time.
The proposed fee for apartment units,is $4.96 per unit and$5.57 per facility,per month. For a
31-unit apartment building the fee would be approximately$160 per month which amounts to
$1,920 per year. This means that an owner of such a building would pay nearly$2,000 for a
single inspection of the building exterior. I realize that there may be some record-keeping that is
associated with the inspections,but given the modest single annual inspection, a fee of nearly
$2,000 is significantly disproportionate to the services provided.
I therefore am asking that the amount of the proposed fee be reexamined and reduced to make
the fee more proportionate to the actual costs of the inspection service.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Dennis D. Law
V.-WO 1DBNNMOrl Cm 11 IQ 5.16.65.&&
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street- San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 1
(805) 781-2777- FAX (805) 543-1255-TDD (805) 541-8416
May 17, 2005 David E. Garth, President/CEO
Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Item PH 5, Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspection Program,May 17
Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members,
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce recommends that the City continue to do multi-
dwelling rental property inspections with no cost recovery.
We are satisfied with the existing program and do not support an enhanced program. Further, we
believe that the inspections, as required by state mandate, are a community-wide benefit and
therefore are legitimately a general-purpose revenue cost.
Our members have expressed concern about the proposed fee being out of proportion to the
actual service rendered. They have also raised the issue of impacts that the fee may have on rents
in an already unaffordable housing market.
The special service that is being provided is one that helps to keep the entire community safe
from fire, not just the occupants of particular dwellings. While the Council has the legal
authorization to charge property owners, we do not agree that it is in the best interests of the
community to do so. We also question whether the amounts as listed in the staff report are
"reasonable costs."
Thank you for considering our opinion in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bob Wacker
Chairperson of the Board
email: slochamber@slochamber.org - websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com