Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-2015 PH1 Rental Housing Inspection Program - Council Reading FileDecember 16, 2014 SS1 FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared By: Joseph Lease, Chief Building Official SUBJECT: REVIEW OF RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM OPTIONS RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive a presentation on Rental Housing Inspection Program policy options. 2. Provide direction to staff regarding initiation of an ordinance and specific options to pursue. REPORT-IN-BRIEF One aspect of the Council’s 2013-15 Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal was to pursue the creation of a Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP). Staff began by conducting extensive research into programs in other cities throughout California. In all, twenty-five California cities and counties with existing programswere identified and surveyed. In addition, several programs were identified in major college towns outside of California. Each program was reviewed to identify common “best practices” as well as unique approaches to implementing and managing a RHIP. Of all of the agencies surveyed with existing programs, the City of San Luis Obispo and the City of Los Angeles had the highest rates of rental units, atabout 62 percent of availableunits, as reported by the 2010 Census. The statewide average rental rate is 43 percent. The percentage of rental units in the City has been trending upwards over the past three decades. Many long-term residents feel that the integrity and livability of their neighborhoods are threatened by the increase in rentals and the violations of housing and zoning codesassociated with some of them. Community members, including representatives from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), have expressed concern specifically aboutthe condition of the City’s rentalstock and the need for a more proactive approach to enforcement of the City’s housing, zoning and property maintenance standards. A consideration of existing City programs is necessary to determine how best to structure a RHIP in order to avoid duplicativeefforts, insure program efficiency and maximizeexisting resources to promote Neighborhood Wellness. A summary and review of these programs is provided in this report and includesreactive (complaint-based) code enforcement, proactive code enforcement Neighborhood Services), Multi-family Fire Safety Inspections, Noise PartyEnforcement, and NeighborhoodParking Enforcement. In reviewing RHIP’s in other cities, staff has identified a number of programoptions for Council consideration and is seeking policy direction. Some of these program options are the primary drivers of program costs such as the frequency or scope of inspections, while others relate more to the desired program efficacy such as incentives and exemptions. A review of feestructures utilized by programs in other cities is also provided, as well as sample fee estimates based on full cost recovery. Staff has conducted extensive community outreach with various stakeholdergroups. A summary of theresults is included in the report. SS1-1 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 2 Other considerations in developing and implementing a program include the need to identify all rental properties in the City; deciding on a mechanism to collect annual program fees; recruitment, training and retention of staff; establishment of an abatement fund; and the creation and implementation of an Administrative HearingBoard. Each of these will be reviewed in depth should the Council chose to move forward with a program. DISCUSSION Background One aspect of the Council’s 2013-15 Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal is to pursue the creation of a Rental Housing Inspection Program. This is an endeavor that has been undertaken on at least two occasions in the past. In March 2005, the Council considered a Rental Property Inspection Program, but elected to limit the program to state mandated fire safety inspections of multifamily rental units (Attachments 1 & 2). Council againconsidered aspects of a program in 2009, but did not pursue expanding the existing fire safety inspectionprogram (Attachments 3 & 4). As properties are converted from owner-occupied to rental units a number of problems may manifestthat couldimpact the overall quality of life of the City’s neighborhoods and residents. A systematic program of rental housing inspections can help stabilize andpreserve neighborhoods by addressing blight andsubstandard conditions related to rentals. The ultimate goals of such a program would be the elimination of unsafe rental housing conditions, and thepreservation and improvement of safe, livable, and attractive neighborhoods. The California Health & Safety Code, Sections 17920 and 17961 provide the legal authority for the enforcement of the State Housing Law and the implementation of proactive programs such as a rental housing inspection program. Health & Safety Code Section 17961 requires local building departments or housing agencies to enforcethe provisions of the State Housing Law pertaining to the maintenance, sanitation, ventilation, use or occupancy of residential structures. Health & Safety Code Section 17920definesthe term “enforcement” as follows: e) “Enforcement” means diligent effort to secure compliance, including review of plans and permit applications, response to complaints, citation ofviolations, and other legal process. Except as otherwise provided in this part, “enforcement” may, but need not, include inspections of existing buildings on which no complaint or permit application has been filed, and effort to secure compliance as to these existing buildings.” As noted in the last sentence, enforcement may include proactive inspections of existing buildings where no complaint has been filed. Thedevelopment of a comprehensive rentalhousing inspection program for the City will require a substantial investment of time and resources. Given the City’s budgetary limitations and need for fiscal prudency, sucha programshould be designed so that it is feesupported without any significant financial impact on thegeneral fund. A myriad of options, considerations and impacts need to be reviewed andanalyzed in order to develop a program that meets the needs of the community andachieves the desiredoutcomes encompassed in the goal of Neighborhood Wellness. SS1-2 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 3 Statistics A significantportion of the housing units in the City of San Luis Obispo are rentals. Based on the 2010 Census, the City had 20,553 dwelling units and 61.8%, or approximately 12,700 of themwere rentals. In comparison, thestatewide rental rate is about 43%. There are estimated to be 8,041 multifamily rental units and 4,659 single-family and/or duplex rental units. The proportion of rental units has trended upward as shown in the chart below. It is estimated that approximately1.5% of the nearly 4% increase in the last ten years is due to new multifamily construction. Theremaining 2.5% is attributable to the transition of owner-occupied units to rentals.1 Given the current growth rate of rental units (.4% per year), the percentage of the housingstockthat could be rentals by 2015 is 63-64%. The chart below depicts the growth in rentalunits based on U.S. Censusdata from the last three decades. Growthof Rental Units in the City of San Luis Obispo In 2013, the Community Development Department recorded 814 code enforcement cases in residential zones involving 1,449 separate violations at 698 separate addresses. Many of those violations are for issues that commonly occur in rental units as noted in the chart below. Of particular note, rental units in R1 and R2 zoning districts have a far greater violation occurrence rate than in multifamily zones (i.e. 139 cases per thousand units as compared to 20 cases per thousand units). The table below providesstatistical data relating to code enforcement cases in residential zones in 2013. 1 This estimate of the growth of rental units since the 2010 U.S. Census considered the straight-line growth trend less newly constructed multifamily units to estimate the growth due to the transition of owner occupied units. 53% 44% 42% 38% 47% 56% 58% 62% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 1980 1990 2000 2010 Owner Occupied Rental Trend SS1-3 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 4 Code Enforcement Violations/Cases in Residential Zones – 2013 Violation Type Number of Violations Substandard Housing 281 Unpermitted Construction 126 Land Use/Zoning 88 Occupancy Violations/Illegal Conversions 73 PropertyMaintenance 850 Miscellaneous 31 Total 1449 Cases Number of Cases Violation rateper 1000 units Total 814 Number/Percentage of Cases in R1 and R2 Zones 652 cases or 80% 139 Number/Percentage of Cases in R3 and R4 Zones 162 cases or 20% 20 Based on a statistical analysis by the City’s Finance and Information Technology’s GIS Division, approximately 79% of the violations identified in residential zones in 2013 are attributable to rental units. Anecdotal information from neighborhood groups and citizens thatlodge complaints indicates that there is a general belief that the actual number of violations occurring in the City’s neighborhoods isexponentially higher thanthe number documented by reactive code enforcement efforts. Also, staff has had numerous discussions with studentsand nonstudent tenants who relate that they are reluctant to report code violations because of concerns of retaliation and difficulty in finding alternate housing. Some students have reported living in housingthat is in significant disrepair, yet are unwilling to file a complaint. It is also not uncommon to receive complaints from parents regarding the substandard nature of their student’s rental units. In addition, neighborhood associationshave told staff that they believemany violations are not reported by tenants, and that illegal rental conversions are muchmore common thanreported. An example of this was recently brought to light by the administration of Cal Poly. Theyrecently purchased the formerly investor-ownedproperties at the southeast corner of Slack and Grand, consisting of four separate single-family dwellings. They requested that CDD stafftour the properties with them to see the conditions of these rentalunits. All four units had carefully disguised garage conversions, unpermitted alterations and numerous unsafeandsubstandard conditions and were formerly rented to Cal Poly students. SS1-4 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 5 Homes purchased by CalPoly at Slack and Grand Existing EnforcementPrograms in the City of San Luis Obispo A consideration of existing City programs is necessary to determine howto structure a RHIP in order to avoid duplicative efforts, insure program efficiency and maximizeexisting resources to promote Neighborhood Wellness. Attachment 5 provides a summary of existing programs, which include the Fire Department’s Multifamily Housing Inspection Program, reactive (complaintdriven) code enforcement, proactive code enforcement (Neighborhood Services), Noise Enforcement, Business Tax and Business License Enforcement, and Weekend Residential Parking Enforcement. The addition of a RHIPto the existing mix of programs may have impacts onother City functions. Dependingon how the program is structured and themechanism for billing, fee collection and delinquencies, some impactson Finance will need to beconsidered as the program is developed. Also, given that the overall code enforcement caseload could significantly increase with a RHIP, considerationmust be given to the impactson the City Attorney’s Office. These considerations will need to be explored in detail once the program is better defined. Staffing for a RHIP should be considered as part of an overall review of code enforcement programs within the Community Development Department. Currently, code enforcement functions are performed by Neighborhood Services Specialists and Code Enforcement Officers. As part of a RHIP, newpositions for Rental Housing Inspectors could be created. However, a more common career progression as found in other municipalities includes the following positions: Code Enforcement Officer I, Code Enforcement Officer II, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, and Code EnforcementSupervisor. With the addition to the existingstaff of a number of inspectors and support staff as part of a RHIP, a supervisory position will be necessary. It is recommended that the Neighborhood Services Specialists (NSS) be reclassified to Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) I’s, and that RHIP inspection staff be hired in as CEO I/II dependent on qualifications. This would make all entry and journey level code enforcement positions assigned to programs within Community Development interchangeablebetweenprograms and establish a career ladder leading to better retention of trained staff, as turnover has been a problem, particularly in the NSS classification. Also, it would allow the rotation of program assignments among available staff to SS1-5 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 6 promote job enrichment. Estimated staffing numbers are provided in the later section of this report relating to program options. Programs in Other Cities Staff has conducted extensive research in regards to existing programs in other municipalities throughout California. In all, 25 California cities and counties having existing programswere identified and surveyed. In addition, several programswere identified in major college towns outside of California. Each program was reviewed in an attempt to identify “best practices” as well as unique approaches to implementing and managing a municipal RHIP. A listing of the cities identified with programs in California is provided in Attachment 6. The minimum standards for the maintenance of residential occupancies are contained in the State Housing Law (Health & Safety Code Section17920.3), which are derived from the Uniform Housing Code (UHC). This standard is used by rental inspection programs throughout the State, although some cities haveadopted the International Property Maintenance Code, which is the successor to the UHC. In addition, most jurisdictions also enforce local property maintenance standards similar to those contained in SLOMC 17.17. Some cities havehad programssincethe 1980’s (Azusa, Santa Ana, and Pasadena), while roughly half of the programssurveyed have been adopted within thelast 10 years. A Case Study of the City of Azusa’s Rental Housing Inspection Program is included as Attachment 13. Of the cities in Californiaidentified in the survey, only Santa Cruz is similarly situated to San Luis Obispo, in that it is a relatively small town with a relatively large student population. Santa Cruz has a population of 62,864 and the 2013-14 student enrollment at UC Santa Cruz was 16,543. Santa Cruz began their RHIP in 2010. San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, and other “collegetowns” nationwide experience a number of uniqueproblems and impacts. A 2013 survey conducted by the International Town-Gown Association surveyed community members in these towns and identified a number of issues facing these towns.2 These issues affecting the quality of life in college towns are identified in the table below. Factor Respondent Percentage House parties 35% Late-night noise 33% Underage drinking 30% Intoxicated behavior (not otherwiselisted) 29% Housing affordability and availability 28% Poorly maintained/unsightly properties 26% Occupancy code/zoning violations 22% Litter/trash 19% Criminal activity perpetratedbynon- intoxicated individuals 19% Criminal activity byintoxicated individuals 18% Illegal parking 15% 2 Annual Survey Assessment – International Town-Gown Assessment 2014 SS1-6 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 7 Illegaldrug use 11% Vandalism/property damage 10% Diminished municipal emergency response time 6% Drunk driving 4% Public urination 3% Key Elements There are a number of key elements associated with the various RHIPs identified. Each is discussed below and includes a recommended best practice. 1. Scope of Inspection: This variable relates to theextent of the inspections; whether they include inspections of the interior of the units along with the exterior areas. The scope of inspections is a significant factor in determining staffing levels and resultant program costs. For example, anaverage inspector can complete approximately 12 exterior inspectionsper day, but only seven interior/exterior inspectionsper day, when re-inspections are factored in. The following table provides a summary of responses from the survey citiesrelating to the scope of inspections for their programs: Scope of Inspection Numberof Cities Exterior only 2 Interior and exterior 19 Exterior with interior under certain conditions reasonable belief, complaint, blighted areas, etc.) 3 No response 1 Recommended Best practice: Interior and exterior inspections 2. Frequency of Inspection Thefrequency of inspection, or theinspection cycle, determines how often the units are inspected, and like scope it is a significant driver in overall program costs. The average inspection cycles of the cities surveyed was 2.75 years. The following table provides a summary of inspection cycle frequencies: Inspection Cycle Numberof Cities Annual 8 18 month 1 3 years 6 3.5 years 1 4 years 5 5 years 3 no response 1 SS1-7 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 8 Of those citiesreporting an annual inspectionfrequency mostreported that they could not meet this aggressive cycle time and/or were only inspecting a portion of all rental units and excluding others through self-certification, exemptions or other criteria. Recommended Best Practice: 3 year inspection cycle 3. Responsible Department: The department assigned to administer the RHIP varied by city, however the program is predominantly assigned to Community Development Departments. Assigned Department Numberof Cities Community Development 16 Code Enforcement 4 Police 1 Fire 1 City Manager 1 HousingDept. 1 Engineering/Building 1 RecommendedBest practice: Program in the Community Dev. Dept. 4. Fees Fees vary widely between jurisdictions, however the fees imposed cannot exceed the public agency’s reasonable cost of service.3 Some cities permit a reduction orelimination of inspection fees in future years for properties that pass the initial inspection and are eligible for a Self-certification period. The range of fees from the cities surveyed are summarized below: Fee Type Fee Amount First Inspection $0 - $272 per Single-family dwelling 0 - $337 + $24 per unit Multi-family Re-inspections $0 - $335 per inspection Penalties/Fines (noncompliance) Up to $1000 per violation Recommended Best practice: Set base fees at full cost recovery levelconsistent with the City’s adoptedpolicies regarding fee recovery.4 3 See Prop 29 Section 1(e)(3). The City will need to perform a cost of service study in order to establish theinspection fees. 4 Development Review Programs - The following cost recovery policies apply to thedevelopment review programs, such as Building and Safety building permits, structural plan checks, inspections). Cost recovery for these services should generally be veryhigh. In most instances, the City's cost recovery goal should be 100%. However, in charging high cost recoverylevels, the City needs to clearly establish and articulate standards for its performance in reviewing developer applications to ensure that there is “value for cost.” (2013-2015 Financial Plan Budget and FiscalPolicies Pg. H- 10) Comparability With Other Communities - In setting user fees, the City will consider fees charged by other agencies in accordance with the following criteria: 1. Surveying the comparability of the City's fees to other communitiesprovides useful background information in setting fees for several reasons: a. They reflect the "market" for these fees and canassist in assessing the reasonableness of San Luis Obispo’s fees. b. If prudently analyzed, they can serve as a benchmark for how cost-effectively San Luis Obispo provides its services. (2013-2015 Financial Plan Budget and Fiscal Policies Pg. H-11) SS1-8 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 9 5. Incentives and Disincentives Cities try to promote theproper maintenance of rental properties by landlords by including incentivesthat attempt to ease the regulatory burden on those landlords that maintain their properties to the applicable standards. The most commonincentives are reduced fees and self-certifications options. Conversely, cities try to discourage poor maintenance by providing disincentives such as high fines, orwithholding thereconnection of utilities. The following chart summarizes the incentive and disincentive options utilized by the survey cities. Incentives Disincentives Self-certification after passing initial inspection High fines or reinspection fees. A threshold for allowing self- certification period.5 Withhold water, gas, and electric utilities. Training for landlords and tenants Abatement proceedings and legal remedies. Reduced fines for participation in training Recommended Best Practice: Establish rulethat include a self-certificationprogram, high fines and re-inspection fees, and abatementproceeding and legal remedies. 6. Exemptions Many citiesprovide exemptions from their inspection programs in certain circumstances where other means of regulating the maintenance of units is available and effective, where the city lacks regulatory authority, or wherethe likelihood of violations is minimized. Common exemptions include: ExemptionOptions Owner-occupied units (or occupancy by an immediate family member) Units in mobilehome parks Newly constructed dwellings (typical 3-5 years exemption) Publicly owned housing Legal second dwelling units Units governed by HOA’s Recommended Best Practice: Exemptions for owner occupied units that are not rented to otherthan immediate family members, units in mobile home parks and publicly ownedhousing. 7. Implementation Strategies: Cities may design implementation strategies for the start-up of a program to focusinspection 5 A standard can beestablished wherein a property would qualify for self-certification if thenumber of minor violations identified through the first inspection was below a certain threshold (e.g. three). SS1-9 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 10 resources on “problem” properties or areas in order to get earlypositive results. Various implementation strategies include: Implementation Options Randomselection of rentals for inspection (lottery) Prioritizing inspections by impacted neighborhoods Prioritizing inspections by “problem properties” based on past violations Windshield survey of neighborhood condition with objective scorecard Police calls for service Inspecting a percentage of a landlords properties in a given period RecommendedBest Practice: Prioritize by area based on the number of problem properties. Community Outreach Over the past year staff has beenengaged in a public outreach effort with various stakeholders including business, neighborhood and studentgroups and individuals, in order to gauge public sentiment and to receive input and concerns about thedevelopment of a RHIP. Presentations were made to business groups including the San Luis ObispoAssociation of Realtors (SLOAOR), the Chamber of Commerce, and the Property Managers Association. In general, business groups are opposed to any proactive program regulating rental housing and feel that the complaint based enforcement as currently exists is adequate to address any problems associated with rentalhousing. They were concerned aboutthe addedcosts of such a program and generally felt that a proactive program would be overly intrusive in rental business operations and might scare investors away from the market. The Chamber of Commerce and SLOAOR have written responses their Boards’ concernsand opposition to such a program (Attachment 7 and 15 respectively). Staff has completed a number of meetings and presentations with neighborhood associationsand community groupsinterested in the program including Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, Monterey HeightsNeighborhoodAssociation, Alta Vista NeighborhoodAssociation, theStudent- Community Liaison Committee, the Neighborhood Civility Working Group, CalPoly Transitional Housing Program Committee, and CalPoly Associated Students (ASI). These groups are generally supportive of a RHIP, except for the ASI Board, which didn’t clearly articulate support or opposition. Somemembers of the neighborhood associations’ feel that their neighborhoods have been in decline for some time due to the transition of owner-occupied units to rentals and the poor maintenance and management of some rental properties. They believethat such a program is long overdue and that complaint-based code enforcement is inadequate to address the festering and growing problems. Several of thegroups have submitted written positionson thesubject Attachments15-16) Notes from the various meetings are included as Attachments 8-12. These generally provide a list of observations, questions or concerns that were raised by stakeholders. If Council elects to move forward with a program, staff will continue the outreach effort to insure communityinvolvement at each phase of the project. Staff requests Councilinput and direction on additional outreach methodologies and efforts that they would like to see utilized. For example, should a committee of stakeholders be created to develop the ordinance? SS1-10 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 11 Planning Commission Input The PlanningCommission provided inputto the rental inspection program indirectly through its review of the Housing Element. Specifically, the Commission recommended striking existing Program 1.6 (Enact a RentalInspectionProgram to improve the condition of the City’s housing stock) from the Housing Element draft. Concerns cited by the PlanningCommission included: The City has existing tools to address building safety issues and the Commission doesn’t want to create overlapping bureaucracy and intrusive regulation; and Once a program is created, it never goes away which means the City will incur on- going staffing/pension costs. TheCommission acknowledged the Council has identified this effort as part of a major city goal and also acknowledged that the recommended change to the Housing Element will notimpact the Council’s efforts to enact a program. Possible Options for Implementation of a Rental Inspection Program After considering the City’s existing code enforcementprogramsnoted herein and the survey results regarding RHIPs in other cities staff has developedthe following two options for Council consideration: Option 1: Basic Program Create a RHIP for Single-family and duplex rental units, and continue the Fire Department’s Multi-family Inspection Program unchanged. Option 2: Expanded Program Create a RHIP for Single-family and duplex rental units, and expand the Fire Department’s Multi-family Inspection Program to include interior inspections for housing, building and zoning violations. OPTION 1 – Basic Program Option 1 would create a RHIP for residential buildings containing one or two dwelling units. It would include a periodic inspection of thepremises to determine compliance with all relevant codes including the City’s building, housing, fire, zoning and property maintenance codes. Option 1 would also leave the Fire Department’s existing Multifamily Housing Inspection program unchanged. The City’s Fire Department currently conductsannual fire safetyinspections of all rental dwelling properties containing three or more rental units within a single building. There are approximately 984 of these buildings with a total of about 8,041 rentalunits. These properties include apartments, hotels, motels, bed & breakfast facilities, hostel facilities, senior facilities and sorority and fraternity houses. These inspections are required by California Health & Safety Code, Section 17921. The purpose of these inspections is to ensure thesafety of these facilitiesfrom a solely fire safety perspective in accordance with State requirements. A typical fire safetyinspection at this type offacility would include checking fire alarm systems, fire sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, common areas for fire hazards, exiting, and fire access issues. Inspectors do not SS1-11 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 12 examine the interior of all units. They typically spotcheck vacant units with the cooperation of the owner or manager and conduct interior inspections if violations aresuspected. Fees for this program are currently collected at a cost recovery level. Option 1 Program Costs andEstimated Fees Estimated staffing and program costsare provided in the following two tables. Thefrequency of inspections is the primary factor in determining needed staffing levels and resultant program costs. Frequencies of one, three and five years were selected for theanalysis because the survey results from other cities were roughly evenly split around these ranges. Staffing (FTE) – Single-family/Duplex Rentals Only Frequency of Inspections Inspectors Supervisor Admin. Support Total FTE 1 year 4 1 2 7 3years 2 1 1 4 5years 1 1 .5 2.5 Program Costs - Single-family/Duplex Rentals Only1 Frequency of Inspections Staffing Costs Other Operating Expenses Total Estimated Annual Fee per Unit Estimated Capital Costs for Start Up 1 year $670,215 $101,803 $772,018 $163 $350,000 3 years $398,112 $68,679 $466,791 $98 $200,000 5 years $262,061 $52,117 $314,178 $66 $125,000 1. Requires an initial capital investment of approximately $125,000 - $350,000 dependent on the frequency selected. Pros and Cons Pros 1. Limited in scope – focus limited to one and two family dwellings, thus a more manageableand cost effective program. 2. Addresses the areas with the highest occurrence of violations and the areas of themost concern to neighborhood associations (i.e. units within R1 and R2 zones). 3. Leaves the existing fire safety program unchanged. 4. Fair andreasonable costs for services provided. Cons 1. Housing, building, zoning violations in multi-family buildings would only be handled on a complaint basis or if observed during theannual Fire SafetyInspection. 2. Adds some nominal costs to rentals housing units since fees will likely be passed on to tenants in the form of increased rents. 3. Owners of rental properties may be frustrated by the additional costs and regulation associated with a proactive program. OPTION 2 – Expanded Program SS1-12 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 13 Option 2 would create a RHIP for Single-family and duplex rental units, and expand the Fire Department’s existing Multi-family Inspection Program to include interior inspections for housing, building and zoning violations. Thisoption would be a much more expansive program than Option 1 encompassing all 12,700rental units in the City. Consequently, it is the more costly of the two options. If thisoption is selected, several policy decisions would have to be considered, particularly in light of the fact that the Fire Department is mandated to conduct theannual multi-family fire safety inspections. These considerations include merging the various city inspection programs into a consolidated and coordinated program that addresses all fire, building, zoning and other life safety issues. Option 2 Program Costs and Estimated Fees Estimated staffing, program costs and fees are provided in the following two tables. The frequency of inspections is the primary factor in determining needed staffing levels and resultant program costs. Frequencies of one, three and five years were selected for the analysis because the survey results from other cities were roughly evenly split around these ranges. Staffing (FTE) – All Rental Units Frequency of Inspections Inspectors Supervisor Admin. Support Total FTE 1 year 8 1 3 12 3years 3 1 2 6 5years 2 1 1 4 Program Costs – All Rental Units1 Frequency of Inspections Staffing Costs Other Operating Expenses Total Estimated Annual Fee per Unit2 Estimated Capital Cost for Start Up 1 year $1,177,600 $161,646 $1,339,246 TBD $425,000 3 years $567,918 $88,444 $656,362 TBD $300,000 5 years $398,112 $68,679 $466,791 TBD $200,000 1. Requires initial capital investment of approximately $200,000 - $425,000 2. Fees for multi-family units will need to be developed taking into the economies of scale inherent in such inspections and would include a base fee for each property and a per unit fee for the multi-family units. Pros and Cons Pros 1. A unified scope for inspectingbothsingle and multi-family units. Cons 1. Potential difficulty coordinating theannual fire safetyinspections (which the Fire Dept. is not allowed to delegate) with other rental inspections. SS1-13 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 14 2. A much more expansive program encompassing all 12,700 units as opposed to Option 1, whichwould be applicable to only 4,659. 3. Includes multifamily units where there is not currently a high rate of occurrence of violations, thus potentially lowering the overall effectiveness of the program. 4. Adds some nominal costs to rentals housing units since fees will likely be passed on to tenants in the form of increased rents. 5. Owners of rental properties may be frustrated by the additional costsand regulation associated with a proactive program. 6. Could be perceived as overly aggressive. NEXT STEPS The following are the decision points for Council direction (* indicatesthe staff recommendation): Yes No Pursue a Rental Housing Inspection Programordinance SCOPE OF PROGRAM Option 1: Basic Program* Create a RHIP for Single-family and duplex rental units, and continue the Fire Dept.’s Multi-family Inspection Program. Option 2: Expanded Program Create a RHIP for Single-family and duplex rental units, and expand the Fire Department’s Multi-family Inspection Program to include interior inspections for housing, building and zoning violations. SCOPE OF INSPECTIONS Exterior inspections only Bothexterior and interior inspections* Exterior inspections and interior inspections only under certain conditions FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS 1 year 3 years* 5 years INCENTIVES Self-certification after passing initial inspection* System and standards to authorize self-certification period* Training for landlords and tenants Reduced fines for participation in training DISINCENTIVES High fines or re-inspection fees* Withhold water utilities on tenant turn-over if rental unit is not SS1-14 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 15 registered or is in violation Abatement proceedings and legal remedies POTENTIAL EXEMPTIONS Owner-occupied units (or occupancy by an immediate family member without other renters) * Units in mobile home parks* Newly constructed dwellings (3-5 years) Publicly owned or managed housing* Housing Inspected by other government agencies (e.g. Section 8) Legal second dwelling units Units governed by HOA’s FEES Set fees at full cost recovery* Providediscount on base fee if property qualifies for self-certification OUTREACH Discuss any additional outreach efforts Councilwould like to see utilized Depending on the direction provided by Council, staff will complete any research and work needed to return to Council with an appropriate program and necessary ordinance and resolution. Staff will continue to work with stakeholders to seek input and to address any concerns theymay have, including property owners, rentersand neighborhood associations. CONCURRENCES/PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The City Attorney, and Finance & Information Technology, Fire and Police Departments concur with therecommended actions. Notifications of this study session were sent to numerous individuals and groups, including the neighborhood associations, property management and realtor groups, business organizations, and Cal Poly studentsand administration. Staff has conducted outreach to these stakeholders and will continue to do so in the development of an ordinance, if Council elects to go forward. FISCAL IMPACT The costs and estimated feesassociated with each option are outlined in this reportnarrative. It is anticipated that feestructures to be developed will be based on full cost recovery for the program, unless Council directsotherwise. There will be some fiscal impact to property owners, who will likely pass the cost of theannual fees on to renters. ALTERNATIVES 1. Maintain status quo by continuing mandated complaint-based code enforcement for housing violations and the Fire Department’s Multi-family Inspection Program unchanged. SS1-15 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 16 2. Consider an alternativeprogram atthe Council’s direction other than what is presentedhere to address problems associated with rental units. SS1-16 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 17 ATTACHMENTS 1. CAR March 1, 2005 2. Council MinutesMarch 1, 2005 3. CAR September 29, 2009 4. Council Minutes September 29, 2009 5. Summary of Existing Enforcement Programs in San Luis Obispo 6. List of California Cities with Rental Housing Inspection Programs 7. Chamber feedback re. Rental Housing Inspection Program 8. Notes from 3_14_14 SLO Assoc. of Realtors Meeting 9. Notes - SLO Property Managers Mtg May 5 2014 10. Notes from RQN Meeting 11_20_13 11. Notes from Alta Vista and Monterey HeightsNeighborhood Meeting 12. Notes from ASI Board of Directors Meeting at Cal Poly 13. Case Study – City of Azusa 14. SLO Assoc. of Realtors Position Paper 15. Residents for Quality Neighborhoods Position Paper 16. Email from Monterey Heights Neighbors T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-12-16\RentalInspectionHousingProgram (Johnson-Lease)\CAR Rental HousingInspection Program.docx SS1-17 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 FROM: Deborah Linden, Chief of Police Wolf Knabe, Fire Chief John Mandeville, Community Development Director SUBJECT: RENTAL PROPERTY INSPECTION PROGRAM CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Review and discuss options for rental property inspections. 2. Provide staff with direction on which options to pursue, with a focus on full cost recovery regardless of which option the Council selects. REPORT-IN-BRIEF As part of the2003-05 Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal, staff researched different rental housinginspection programs in place in other communities, including an ordinance currently being used in the City of Azusa. San Luis Obispo has a significant number of rental units, including many in single-family and duplex dwellings. Except as noted below forfire safety inspections, these units are not currently inspected for compliance with fire safetyregulations, Uniform Housing Coderequirements or zoning designations unless a specificcomplaint is received. Members of the community, including representatives from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), have expressed concern about the condition of the City’s rentalstock and compliance with City housing and zoning regulations. The Fire Department is currently doing all mandated inspections of rental properties containing three or more rental units. This program is in jeopardy due to staffing and budget reductions. The law allows the City to charge fees to offset the costs of a rentalinspection program; however, the City currently does not do so. Staff has outlined several different rental inspectionprogram options for the Councilto consider. These include different versions of the existingFire Department program, as well as anenhanced programthat would provide for the inspection of single-family and duplex rental units. The fees for each program vary according to rental type. All the program options would remain under the management of the Fire Department and assume full cost recovery. Creating a comprehensive rental inspection program is not without its challenges. The most significant challenges include the need to identify all of the rental properties in the City and create a mechanism to collect annual fees from property owners. Staff would alsoexpect significant stakeholder input from property owners, tenantsand neighborhood associations. March1, 2005 SS1-18 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1 DISCUSSION Background During the2003-05 Council goal-setting process, representatives from RQN expressed concern aboutthe quality of rental properties in the City, and the existence of substandardand unpermittedrental units. RQN described an ordinance in effect in the City of Azusathat funds annual inspections of rental units by that city to ensure compliance with requiredhousing code provisions. The inspections are funded by an annualfee paid by rental property owners. Council directed staff to further research theconcept of a rental property inspectionprogram as part of the Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal and to return to Council with additional information. Staff from Police, Fire, Finance & Information Technology, Community Development and Administration worked together on this project. This report summarizesthe results of the research and outlines five different program options for Council to consider. Current Situation Based on theresults of the 2000 Census, there are approximately 11,500rental units in the City out of 19,600 total housing units (58%). These includeapproximately5,100 single-family and duplex units, and approximately6,400rental units housed in complexes containing3 or more units (such as apartmentcomplexes, condominiums, hotels and fraternity houses). There are concerns that residents of rentalhousing are often subjected to unsafe living conditions, and that some rental property owners are not maintainingtheir properties in compliance with zoning regulations. The Police and Community Development Departments Code Enforcement) receive about 50 reports annually of substandard rentalhousing conditions, illegally converted rental units (such as garages) and other violations of the Uniform Housing Code. Of these, about 36 per year appear to be valid, of which about 30 relate to single family residences. The following is a summary of the complaints received by Code Enforcementregarding substandard rentalhousing during the past 10 years: Number of Complaints and Violations Total complaints received 539 Confirmed violations 363 Average confirmed violations peryear 36.3 Location of Confirmed Violations in R1 & R2 Zones 85% in R3 & R4 Zones 9% in Commercial Zones 6% Although the average number of reported cases resulting in confirmed violations is relatively low, staff believes this number is not representative of the actual violations occurring. Staff spoke with studentrepresentatives and staff from Cal Poly andCuesta who reported that many student renters are reluctant to report code violations because they fear retaliation by property owners in the form of rent increases. Some students reported living in housing that is in SS1-19 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1 significant disrepair. Neither collegemaintains statistics on thenumber of complaints made by student renters. Representatives of RQN and other neighborhood associationsalso have told staff that they believemany violations are not reported by tenants, and that illegal rental conversions are muchmore common than reported. Unfortunately, other thanthereported complaints and violations, there are no other known statistical measures of the extent of the problem. The Azusa Ordinance TheAzusa rental housing inspection program, enacted in 1989, is based on an ordinance which requires that all rentalhousing in the City of Azusa be registered with the City and that it be inspected annually to insurethat the property is being maintained. The properties are inspected for compliance with state and local laws involving property maintenance. Interior inspections are conducted only with the consent of tenants. Once an inspection is completed, the owner is notified of anydeficiencies found and required to correct them in a timely manner. The program was created in response to complaints from tenants, other nearby rental property owners and residents about the lack of property maintenance onmanyrental properties, and the fact that the poorly maintained propertieswere having anadverse impact on property values. The City of Azusa has 6,500rental units which accounts for approximately 50% of existing housing. Approximately ninety percent (90%) of the complaints received by the City involve rental housing and the failure of many owners to maintain their property. During the annual visits, inspectors look for various code violations such as abandoned cars, dead vegetation, accumulations of junk and debris, lack of building maintenance, graffiti, inadequate refuse facilities, illegal/unpermittedconstruction, dilapidated structures and substandard housing conditions. Inspectors contact tenants andask if there are problems. In larger complexes, this is done on a random basis. Exterior areas are viewed for obvious violations and interiors are inspected if there is an apparent need. When violations are found, ownersreceive an inspectionreport showing the problems and location as well as a deadline for compliance. If corrective measures are not made by the re-inspection date, the owner is charged for any additional City stafftime and expense in handling the violation. If the City receives a valid complaint about a property between inspections, the owner is charged forCity staff time and expenseassociated with investigating the violation. However, if the property is registered, City staff calls the owner about the complaint in order to save the owner some direct cost charges. What Are Other Communities Doing? Numerous other cities have developed rentalinspection programs that include the inspection of single family rentals, including Berkeley, Buena Park, Carpinteria, Riverside, San Pablo and Santa Ana. They have either established a set annual fee or charge an hourly rate to offset the cost of theprogram. Thefrequency of inspections ranges from annual to every three years. The programs typically mandate an interior inspection of each unit, except Riverside, which settled on an exterior property maintenance program that applies to all properties. SS1-20 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Possible Options for Implementation of a Rental InspectionProgram Staff has reviewed the various rentalinspection programs currently in place in other cities, and also considered our immediate need to provide the fire inspections required bylaw. Although there are a number of ways to address this issue, staff is suggesting the Council consider the following five options. Option 1: Basic Program State-mandated inspection programthat the Fire Department is currently doing, but with cost recovery. Option 2: Expanded Program Someexpansion to our currently mandated program. Option 3: Enhanced Program Further expansion of the basic program even more to include inspections of rental properties consisting of single-family residences and duplexes. Option 4: Something In-Between Any otherprogram Council might wishto explore, such as one that still addresses single-family and duplex rentals, to a lesser or greater degree than outlined in option 3. Option 5: Status Quo Retention of the current level of inspection but without cost recovery. As discussed below, staff is supportive of any of the options except for this one. Given the City’s existing cost recovery policies, and the fiscal challenges facing us in delivering coreservices that have no cost recoveryoptions, we believethat cost recovery for these services is warranted. OPTION 1 – CostRecovery for the Current Mandated Fire DepartmentRental Property Inspection Program (what we are doing now): The City’s Fire Department currently conducts annual inspections of all rental dwelling properties containing three or morerental units. There are approximately 500 of these properties with a total of about 6,400 rental units. These properties include apartments, hotels, motels, bed breakfast facilities, hostel facilities, senior facilities and sorority and fraternity houses. These inspections are required by California Health & Safety Code, Section 17921. The purpose of these inspections is to ensure thesafety of these facilitiesfrom a solely fire safety perspective in accordance with State requirements. A typical fire safety inspection at this type offacility would include checking fire alarm systems, fire sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, common areas for fire hazards, exiting, and fire access issues (see Attachment 1). Inspectors do not examine the interior of all units. They typically spotcheckvacant units with thecooperation of the owner or manager and conduct interior inspections if violations are suspected. SS1-21 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1 The following Fire Department staff and vehicles are currently dedicated to the rentalinspection program: 1. 0.5 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Fire Marshal: Oversees the program and does inspections. 2. 1.5 FTEFire Inspectors: Conduct the inspections. 3. One City vehicle: The vehicle is shared by the employees to conduct field inspections. Option 1 CostRecovery Fees California Health & Safety Code Section13146.2bprovides cities the legal authority to charge property owners to recoverthe reasonablecosts of providing these annualinspections. The City does not currently charge for these inspections. Under Proposition 218, the Council is authorized to set these types of fees; voter or property owner approval is not required. In an attempt to establish a fair and equitable feeschedule, staff researched other communities in California who have already implementedrentalinspection fee programs. These citiesinclude Santa Ana, Albany, Santa Monica, Union City, Milpitas, Pasadena and Santa Fe Springs. Many of these cities have fee-for-serviceprograms based upon the number of rentalunits. Staff is proposingthat the cost recovery fees differ according to the type of rental property being inspected. Some types of properties have on-site maintenancepersonnel and historically have fewer violations, while others require morefrequent or in-depth inspections to ensure compliance with Uniform Housing Code provisions. The following suggested fee schedule reflects these differences, and would pay for the currentprogram: 1. Apartment Rental Units 3.34 per month per unit ($40.10 per year per unit) Administrative Fee of $65.00/year per facility Explanation of Fees The inspections of these facilities are mandated by law. Apartment inspections are very time consuming and often require follow-up inspections. Per unit and administration fees are set so that full cost recovery is attained and includes the administration of the program as well as actual time spent on inspections and follow-up. 2. Hotels, Motels, Bed & Breakfast Facilities, and Youth Hostel Facilities 1-50 units - $200/year per facility 50 units- $400/year per facility Explanation of Fees These types of facilities frequently have maintenancepersonnel available24 hours a day, and historically, have fewer code violations than other types of rentals. 3. Senior Facilities 1-25 units - $200/year per facility 25-74 units - $300/year per facility 74 units - $500 /year per facility Explanation of Fees These facilities have on-site maintenance staff 24 hours a day. 4. Sororities/Fraternities SS1-22 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1 Flat fee - $475/year per facility Explanation of Fees Sororities and fraternities traditionally have a high number of code violations requiring numerous reinspections. Thesefeesare set at a level designed to pay for the existing basic Fire Departmentprogram. Option 1 Fee Revenue and Program Costs The following table reflects the projected revenue these levels of fees would generate in one year, as well as the costs of the staff and equipment currently being used for theprogram: OPTION 1 – BASIC RENTAL PROPERTYINSPECTION COST-RECOVERY FEEPROGRAM REVENUES Apartments Number Fee Total Units – BaseRatePerUnit 6,408 $40.10/Unit $256,900 Facilities – Admin. RatePerFacility 481 $65/Facility $ 31,300 $288,200 Hotels, Motels, Bed & Breakfasts, YouthHostel Units Facilities 1-50 19 $200/Facility $ 3,800 50 13 $400/Facility $ 5,200 9,000 Senior Facilities Units Facilities 1-25 2 $200/Facility $ 400 26-74 2 $300/Facility $ 600 74 2 $500/Facility $ 1,000 2,000 Sororities/Fraternities Sororities & Fraternities Facilities 11 $475/Facility $ 5,200 5,200 Total Revenues $304,400 EXPENDITURES 0.5 FTE Fire Marshal $56,300 1.5 FTE Fire Inspector III 157,300 OngoingCosts 3,200 Amortized Vehicle Costs 5,200 Indirect Costs 82,400 Total Costs $304,400 Option 1 Pros and Cons Pros 1. Full cost recovery for the basic rental inspectionprogramthat the Fire Department is required to do bylaw and is currently doing. 2. Consistent with adopted user feecost recovery policies (Attachment 4) 3. Reduces fiscal impact to theGeneral Fund. 4. Fair andreasonable costs for services provided. Cons 1. Does not provide for any inspection of single-family and duplex rental units. 2. Fire Department is struggling to effectively fulfill their mandate with theemployees currently assigned. SS1-23 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1 OPTION 2 – Some Expansion of the Current Mandated Fire Department Basic Rental Property Inspection Program (with full cost recovery): Currently, the Fire Department is having difficulty meeting the legal mandate to provide inspections of rental dwelling properties containing three or morerental units. The loss of an Administrative Assistant position in 2003-05 due to budget reductions, as well as the lack of a dedicated funding mechanism, has put the sustainability of the program in doubt. The Fire Departmentbelieves it could more effectively and efficiently meetthe State mandate by adding a full-time Administrative Assistant andone additional vehicle for the Inspectors to use for their inspections. The Fire Marshal would continue to dedicate 50% of his timeto supervise the rental inspection program and conductinspections along with the existing 1.5 FTEFire Inspector IIIs. The Administrative Assistant is needed to handle all the program’s administrative and public education aspects. The expanded program would involve the employees currently assigned to conduct rental inspections of properties containing three or more rentalunits, plus the added positions described in the previous paragraph. The total positions and vehicles needed toeffectively conduct the inspectionprogram would be: Current Resources 1. 0.5 FTEFire Marshal: Oversees the program and does inspections. 2. 1.5 FTEFire Inspector III positions: Conduct the inspections. 3. One shared vehicle used to perform inspections. Added Resources 4. 1.0 FTEAdministrative Assistant: Responsible for computerized data entry, tracking, scheduling, filing, and public education associated with the program. 5. One dedicated vehicle used to perform inspections. Having dedicated Fire Department staff, funded through program fees, would allow the inspection program to operate with consistency and efficiency, and would ensure that the City is in compliance with current State inspection mandates. Option 2 Fee Revenue and Program Costs The following table reflects the projected fees, associated revenue, and program costs for one year. The fees have been increased slightly to pay for the additional staff added under this expanded program: OPTION 2 - EXPANDED RENTAL PROPERTYINSPECTION FEEPROGRAM REVENUES Apartments Number Fee Total SS1-24 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 8 ATTACHMENT 1 Units – Base RatePer Unit 6,408 $55.43/Unit $355,200 Facilities – Admin. Rate Per Facility 481 $65/Facility $ 31,300 $386,500 Hotels, Motels, Bed & Breakfasts, YouthHostel Units Facilities 1-50 19 $200/Facility $ 3,800 50 13 $400/Facility $ 5,200 9,000 Senior Facilities Units Facilities 1-25 2 $200/Facility $ 400 26-74 2 $300/Facility $ 600 74 2 $500/Facility $ 1,000 2,000 Sororities/Fraternities Sororities & Fraternities Facilities 11 $475/Facility $ 5,200 5,200 Total Revenues $402,700 EXPENDITURES 0.5 FTE Fire Marshal 56,300 1.5 FTE Fire Inspector III 157,300 1.0 FTE Administrative Assistant 67,600 OngoingCosts 3,900 Amortized Vehicle Costs 8,700 Indirect Costs 108,900 Total Costs $402,700 Option 2 Pros and Cons Pros 1. A more effective program and consistency with our user feecost recovery policies. 2. Fully complies with legal mandates. 3. Results in lower General Fundsubsidy of these mandated regulatory activities, thus mitigating cuts in other areas that have no user fee opportunities. Cons 1. Does not provide for any inspection of single-family and duplex rental units. OPTION 3 - Enhanced Rental Inspection Program (with full cost recovery): In addition to the 500 properties (containing6,400 dwelling units) that currently fall under the Fire Department’s basic rental property inspection program, there are approximately 5,100 single-family and duplex dwelling units in the City’s rentalhousingstock. Neither the basic option #1) nor the expanded (option #2) fire inspection programs address problems with single family and duplex rental properties, nor the need to expandthe scope of inspections beyond fire safety issues. A potential solution to these concerns is to enhance and expandthebasic program to include all rental dwelling units and to provide an opportunity for more review of living conditions and maintenance of zoning compliance. The California Fire Code (Section 103.3.1.1) allowslocal governments to authorize the Fire Chief/Fire Prevention Bureau to conduct inspections of non-mandated rental units. In addition, theCode (Section 103.1.2) also gives the Fire Department “right of entry” to make inspections and enforce anyprovisions of theCode. An enhanced rentalinspection program would provide inspection of all residentialrental properties, including duplexes, town-homesand single-family residences (SRF’s) that are not owner occupied. The goals of the enhanced program would be to: SS1-25 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 9 ATTACHMENT 1 1. Ensure compliance with State law for the inspection of rental properties containing three or more rental units. 2. Ensure the safety and habitability of single-family and duplex rental units by checking for violations of the Uniform Housing Code, local zoning regulations and State Health and Safety and Fire codes. 3. Locate illegal rental units, including unpermitted conversions and unregistered rental properties. 4. Improve the quality of life for rentersand nearby homeowners by ensuring asafe and well maintained rental stock. Inspections would be slightly different thanthe State mandated inspections of apartment units outlined above underthe basicandexpanded programs. In addition to determining compliance with the fire safety checklist, theinspectors would also review properties for compliance with the Uniform Housing Code and localzoning regulations. Basically, City staff would look for substandard conditions and ensure that minimum habitability standards are satisfied. These standards dictatethat tenants have adequate sanitation, such as hot and cold running water, proper ventilation, adequate disposal of wastes, protection from the elements and a permanent source of heat. Additionally, the City would check for construction without a permit, converted garages or other structures, and compliance with High Occupancy Use Regulations. In the event theinspectors discover unrelated suspected criminal activity during an inspection, they would notify the appropriate authorities. Inspections would be performed annually for properties containing three or more rentalunits (per the State mandate) and once every four years for SFR’s and duplexes (25% per year). In addition, annual inspections would be conducted on properties that had been thesubject of previous or frequent complaints/violations. Whencomplaints are received, inspectors would conduct an inspection accordingly, regardless of when the property was last inspected. Routine inspections of SFR’s and duplexes would consist of an exterior inspection during which inspectors would check for violations offire, Uniform Housing Codeand zoning regulations. Inspectors would view a property from the public sidewalk or right-of-way in order to determine if there were anyobvious violations. Inspectors would attempt to contact the tenants and if they are home, explain the purpose of the inspection andask if there are any problems inside the rental unit. Inspectors would conduct an interior inspection if requested by the tenants, or if warranted based on observed violations or prior arrangements. If the tenant is not home, they will leave a door hanger with a safety checklist and information about reporting suspected violations. Inspectors would not enter the interior or private yard area of a rental unit without the existence of one of the following conditions: 1. Permission of the tenant. 2. Prior appointment with the property owner who has appropriately notified the tenant and is escorting the inspector. 3. Obvious presence of a condition that could immediately jeopardize public health (i.e. live sewage, gas leak, etc). 4. The inspectors possess an inspectionwarrant issued by the court. If violations are suspected and owners/tenants refuse entry, inspectors would seek a court order to enter thepremise. SS1-26 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 10 ATTACHMENT 1 Staff considered programs thatrequiredthe inspection of a higher percentage of rental units each year, or that called for the interior inspection of all rental units. Staff wasconcernedsuch programs would be too costly and tooinvasive. With the addition of over 1,100 SFR’s and duplexes to beinspected each year, additional resources will be required for implementation of anenhanced rentalinspection program. Two newhousing inspectors in the Fire Department would be needed to conduct the inspections of the SFR’s and duplexes. Unlike fire inspectors, who are responsible for a wide range of duties, housing inspectors are primarily responsibility for inspecting rental housing. Housing inspectors would need to be well-versed in the laws and regulations pertaining specificallyto rental inspections, butnot in other areas of the fire code. Due to their limited scope of responsibilities, housing inspectors would be classified at a lower pay scale than Fire Inspectors. Due to the number of units, complexity of scheduling access to units and related data base management issues, the program would also require one additionaladministrative assistant. Additionally, there will be issues toocomplex for the housing inspectors to process and these issues will be referred to the Code Enforcement office in the Community Development Department for investigation and follow-up. Examples include unsafe buildings (as defined in the Uniform Code for theAbatement of Dangerous Buildings), illegally added dwelling units, garage conversions and use permitviolations. Staff believes that the housing inspectors would likely discover violationsduringtheir routine inspections, including unpermitted rentals and illegal conversions, and thatup to 300 cases per year could potentially be referred to code enforcement. This increased workload would require the addition of another code enforcement coordinator in the Community Development Department. Fire inspectors would continue to inspect all rental dwellings containing three or more rental units including apartment buildings, motels, hotels, bed & breakfasts, hostels, senior facilities, and sororities and fraternities as they currently do, without any increase in scope beyond fire safety issues. Option 3 Fee Revenue and Program Costs The following table reflects the projected fees, associated revenue and program costs for one year. The fees have been increased to pay for the additional staff added under this enhanced program: OPTION 3 - ENHANCED RENTAL PROPERTYINSPECTION PROGRAM REVENUES Apartments Number Fee Total Units – Base RatePer Unit 6,408 $55.43/Unit $355,200 Facilities – Admin. RatePerFacility 481 $65/Facility $ 31,300 $386,500 SS1-27 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 11 ATTACHMENT 1 Single Family / Duplex Units – Base RatePer Unit 5,100 91.05/Unit $464,400464,400 Hotels, Motels, Bed & Breakfasts, Youth Hostel Units Facilities 1-50 19 $200/Facility $ 3,800 50 13 $400/Facility $ 5,200 9,000 Senior Facilities Units Facilities 1-25 2 $200/Facility $ 400 26-74 2 $300/Facility $ 600 74 2 $500/Facility $ 1,000 2,000 Sororities/Fraternities Sororities & Fraternities Facilities 11 $475/Facility $ 5,225 $5,200 Total Revenues $867,100 EXPENDITURES 0.5 FTE Fire Marshal $56,300 1.5 FTE Fire Inspector III 157,300 2.0 FTE HousingInspectors @ $81,200 each 162,400 2.0 FTE AdministrativeAssistant @ $67,600 each 135,200 1.0 FTE Code Enforcement Coordinator 91,400 Ongoing Costs 10,400 Amortized Vehicle and Other Start-Up Costs 19,500 Indirect Costs 234,600 Total $867,100 The impact of these fees wouldvary according to the type of rental facility and the number of rentalunits. For example, thefeeper apartment would be about $4.50 per month; and about 7.50 per month for a single family residence. Staff has provided their most reasonable estimate regarding the resourcesneeded for this program, along with the estimated feesneeded to offset these costs. However, staff does not have previous experience with an inspectionprogram of this scope. Should Council direct staff to pursue the enhanced program, we would conduct a muchmore in-depthanalysis of the resources needed and the associatedcosts. This could cause an increase or decrease in needed resourcesandassociatedfees. Option 3 Program Management Issues There are several issues that would need to be addressed if Council is interested in implementing anenhanced rental inspectionprogram, including: 1. Identifying all rental units: Staff would need to design a method to accurately identify the rental units in the City. 2. Collecting theannual fees: Staff would need to develop processes for billing property owners for the annual rentalinspection fees, and for getting people to actually pay their bill. 3. How will we measure success? Staff would need to establish specific benchmarks in order to determine if the program is achieving its goals. Option 3 Pros and Cons Pros SS1-28 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 12 ATTACHMENT 1 1. Program ensures compliance with State mandateand addresses problems associated with single-family and duplex rental units. 2. Consistent with our user feecost recovery policies. 3. Utilizes a combination of exterior and interior inspections, along with rentereducation and self-reporting, in order to minimize intrusion into rental unit. Cons 1. More expensivethan previous options, and fees could be objectionable. 2. Challenges in identifying all rental units and ensuring payment of fees. 3. May not achieve all of the four program goals identified above. 4. Could be perceived as overly aggressive. 5. Even though the costsare offset by fees, adding four positions at this time could be viewed as inappropriate. OPTION 4 – Something In-between: Should Council have a desire to address problems with all rental units, including single-family and duplex structures, but to a lesser or greater degree than described in the enhanced program above, staff could craft a programthat would call for the inspection of single-family and duplex rentals less or more often. For example, a program could be created that calls for the random inspection of only a certain percentage of single-family and duplex rentals each year (i.e. 10%), but yet requires inspection annually for “problem locations” that have been the site of frequent complaints or violations. On the other hand, the enhanced inspections could be conducted more frequently, or the inspection of “three-plus” unitscould be expanded in scope beyond fire safety issues. Because of the myriad of program options, staff did not prepares detailed cost figures for an “in- between” approach. Should Council direct staffto pursue this approach, staff will return with additional program information and fiscal analysis. OPTION 5 – Do Nothing: Council could choose not pursue anytype of rentalinspection programother thanthe one currently being conducted by the Fire Department as part of their legal mandate. The City is not currently receiving cost recovery for this service, although it is specifically authorized by law. Consistent with our adopted cost recovery policy, staff recommendsatleast moving toward greatercost recovery in order to relieve the burden of the mandated program from the General Fund. SS1-29 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 13 ATTACHMENT 1 Next Steps Depending on the direction provided byCouncil, staff will completeany research and work needed to return toCouncil with an appropriate program and necessary ordinance and resolution. Staff will work with stakeholders to seek input and to address any concerns theymay have, including property owners, rentersand neighborhood associations. CONCURRENCES/PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The City Attorney and Department of Finance & Information Technology concur with the recommendedactions. Notifications of this study session were sent to numerous individuals and groups, including all of the neighborhood associations, owners of large rental properties, property management and realtor groups, business organizations, Cal Poly andCuesta, community and housingorganizations, mediaoutlets, and others. In researching the information contained in this reportpertaining to the problems associated with rental housing, staff spoke with representatives from RQN, Cal Poly ASI, and Cal Poly andCuesta. FISCAL IMPACT The costs and estimated feesassociated with each option are outlined in the reportnarrative. If Council directs staff to pursue an option that includes cost recovery, this will shift some of the currentprogram costs from theGeneral Fund to the fee-based revenue. There will be some fiscal impact to property owners, who will likely pass the cost of the annual fees on to renters. In most cases, this fee is about $4.60 per month for the average apartment. The fee-per-renter may be higher for some properties that require morefrequentinspection. ALTERNATIVES Staff has presented several different conceptual program options for Councilto consider. Council could modify these options, for example, in terms of the frequency of inspection or the fees to be charged. In addition, Council could choose to direct staff to take no further action on this subject. ATTACHMENTS 1. Text from California Health & Safety CodeSections 17921, 13146 and 13146.2. 2. Information regarding the Azusaprogram from the City of Azusawebsite 3. AnnualFire and SafetyInspection List for Rental Dwellings with 3 or more units 4. User Fee Cost Recovery Policy SS1-30 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 California Health & 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 17952and17965. 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 in all hotels, motels, lodging houses, apartment houses and dwellings, buildings, and structures accessory thereto. These building standards and regulations shall be enforcedpursuant to Sections 13145and13146; 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 theState 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, exceptthose 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 theState Fire Marshal in corporate cities and districts providing fire protection services upon request of the chief fire official or the governing body. SS1-31 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 15 ATTACHMENT 1 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 thefee is charged, pursuant to Section 66014 of the Government Code. 13146.2. (a) Every city or county fire department or district providing fire protection servicesrequired 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 regulations 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. SS1-32 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 16 ATTACHMENT 1 ANNUAL FIRE AND LIFE SAFETYINSPECTION LIST This list applies to: 1. Rental dwelling properties with three or more units 2. Hotels, motels, bed & breakfasts, and youth hostels 3. Senior facilities 4. Sororities and Fraternities 1. Conduct file review prior to inspection. 2. Check address numberingon building exterior. 3. Check clearance around all fire hydrants. 4. Check fire extinguishers including placement, minimum rating and service records. 5. Check fire sprinkler system (if applicable) for routine maintenance andclearance around fire risers. 6. Check standpipe hose cabinets and standpipe outlets for obstructions and covers. 7. Check fire alarm system (if applicable) for maintenance records, battery dates and fire alarm control panel status. 8. Check common areas; i.e. hallways, for penetrations in walls, floors or ceilings. 9. Check exit doors, exit signs, and exit pathways for code compliance. 10. Check utilities/laundry rooms and mechanical rooms for generalhousekeeping issues. 11. Check mainelectrical panels for clearanceand access. 12. Check smoke detectors in any vacant rental units for placement and operation. 13. Check smokedetector and batterytesting records forall apartment units. 14. Check Fire Department’s knox box (if applicable) for current keys. 15. Checkperimeter for weeds or any othercombustibles. 16. Check fire lanes for signageand redcurbs. 17. Update records; i.e. emergency contacts. 18. Input data into computerized inspection tracking program and file paper copies. 19. Telephone owner’s representative aftercompletion of inspection to verify records and emergency contacts. 20. Re-inspect, if applicable, to verify that deficiencies have been corrected. SS1-33 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 Rental Property Inspection Fee Program Page 17 ATTACHMENT 1 SS1-34 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 MINUTE S REGULAR MEETING OF THECITYCOUNCI L CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O TUESDAY, MARCH 1 2005 - 4 :00 P .M . COUNCIL CHAMBER, 990 PALM STREE T SANLUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNI A ROLL CALL : Council Members Present : City Staff : Council MembersPaul Brown, Christine Mulholland, Allen Settle an d Mayor Dave Romero were present . Vice Mayor John Ewanarrived prior to the regular sessionat 7 :00 p.m . Present:Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer ; Jonathan Lowell, Cit y Attorney ; Audrey Hooper, City Clerk ; Wendy George, AssistantCit y Administrative Officer; John Mandeville, Community Developmen t Director; Bill Stotler, Finance Director ; Deborah Linden, Police Chief ; Wolfgang Knabe, FireChief ; Monica Moloney, Human Resources Director ; Jay Walter, Public Works Director; Doug Davidson , Housing Programs Manager; Matt Horn, Associate Engineer ; Mike Draze, Deputy Director of Community Development ; Barbara Lynch , City Engineer INTRODUCTION , Public Works Director Walter introduced the following newemployees in the Public Work s Department : Anthony Whipple, Tree Trimmer 1, and Steve Garland, Parks Maintenanc e Worker 1 . He alsointroduced Barbara Lynch, who was promoted to City Engineer . Council Member Settleleft the meeting at this time. STUDYSESSIO N Because Council Member Settle and Vice Mayor Ewan ownrental property in the City, they di d not attend the Study Session . 1 .RENTAL PROPERTYINSPECTION PROGRAM . Police Chief Lindenand FireChief Knabe presented the staff report . Staff, includin g Finance DirectorStotler,Neighborhood Services Manaqer Bryn,and Community Development Director Mandeville,responded to questions throughout the presentation . Public Comments Georqe Movlan,San Luis Obispo, explained why he supports a modified Option 5 ("D o Nothing"); ie., adding a tenant-landlordinformation program and a cost recoveryprogram . Steve Delmartini,San Luis Obispo, explained why he concurred with Mr . Moylan an d suggested if Council proceeds with a program, additional study sessions should be held . SS1-35 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 City Council Meeting Page 2 Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 4 :00 p.m . Gary Fowler,San Luis Obispo, spokeIn opposition to expanding the existing programan d pointed out that Insurance companies conduct Inspections . He concurred with comment s made by Mr. Moylan . LeslieHalls,San Luis Obispo resident and President of SLO Property Owners Association , concurred with Mr. Moylan . She stressed that this should be a complaint-driven program . Jackie Turner .representing San Luis Property Management, stated that the rental market I s depleted in this area and it Isunrealistic to think owners can collect costs fromtheir tenants . Wes Burk,San Luis Obispo, concurred with the prior speakers, but said he supportedOptio n 1 . He suggested that costs should be recouped from chronic abusersand that theprogra m should be complaint-driven . Linda Shinn,San Luis Obispo, explained why she thinks Council should act on Option 5 an d supported a complaint-driven process . Patrick Dempsey,San Luis Obispo, opposed a change Inthe existing program . Grace Dempsey,San Luis Obispo, discussed the reasons why she thinks expanding th e program will not succeed . She agreed with Mr . Moylan . Diane Halsted spoke as a Board member of NeighborhoodsNorth of Foothill Association . She saidthe Association supports the existing program, while expanding it to include single - family dwellings and duplex properties . She alsosaidthat the Association wants to b e involved in the development of theprogram . Michael Sullivan,San Luis Obispo, spoke In support of Option 1 or Option 5, but expresse d concern that Option 1 may consistof excessive fees . He suggested that an option should b e considered that would Include inspections of duplexes butnot single-family units . John Cribb,San Luis Obispo, explained why he supports Option 1 or Option 5, and discusse d concerns related to Option 3, particularly a cost-benefitanalysis . ThomasEsser,San Luis Obispo student, said that he lives In a unit that is properl y maintained and expressed concernregardingthe financial burden that expanding th e program would place on students . Sandra Rowley,representing Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RON), spoke In support o f a program recommended by RON . She asked that fire and property inspections be looked a t as two separate programs . She suggested additional study needs to be done on the options . Matt Kokkonen explained why he does not think theproposal will serve the public well . Regina Brown,San Luis Obispo resident and realtor, expressed concern that thepropose d program could Indirectly increase housing costs and said she supports Option 5 . end of public comments--- Council discussion ensued regarding cost recovery, during which staff responded to questions raised by members of the public and Council . SS1-36 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 City Council Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 4 :00 p.m . Council Member Brown supported directingstaff to pursue cost recovery for State - mandated inspections . Council Member Mulhollandsupported cost recovery for the State-mandated program , asked for more information on howtheCity could fully comply with the Statemandate , suggestedthere could be a fine-based program with higher fines for repeat offenders, an d asked thatOptions 1and 2 be returned to Council with additionalinformation for furthe r discussion . FireChief Knabediscussed the inability of staff to achieve 100% compliance withou t additional staff andan additional vehicle . MayorRomero supported cost recovery and said he favors Option 2 because it ensures ful l compliance with the State-mandated inspections . Discussion followed regardingthe feasibility of expanding or implementing a mor e aggressive program that would address concerns such as those raised by RQN . However , the consensus was not to pursueOption 3 . ACTION : 1 . Options were reviewedand discussed . 2 . Staff was directed to develo p recommendations for theimplementation of eitherOption 1 or 2 in order to achiev e full cost recovery for State-mandated inspections, including all possible fundin g alternatives for offsetting these costs. Consensus was 3 :0 :2 (Councilmember Settl e and ViceMayor Ewan absentdue to conflicts of interest). Council recessed from 6 :30 until 7 :00 p .m . The meetingreconvened with all members present. PUBLIC COMMENT SifuKelvin Harrison,San Luis Obispo, discussed his ongoing concerns related t o harrassment . Gary Fowler,San Luis Obispo, suggested that there are budget cuts that could be made t o address theCity's budget concerns without increasing taxes . CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Romero called for public comments on Consent Agenda items at this time. Joey Racano,Morro Bay, with Orange County Ocean Outfall Group, andRichard Sadowski , Morro Bay, former employee of CayucosSanitary District, urged Council not to actonitem C3 . Michael Sullivan,San Luis Obispo, raised a number of questions regarding item C3 an d proposedthat this subject should be taken to Councilat a study session . Gary Fowler,San Luis Obispo, asked Council not to approve item C6, pointing out thatCit y fundsshould not be comingled with other funds for the Beeson project or the steelhead trou t sculpture for the Mission Plaza fountain . John French,representating a Margarita Area property developer, spoke in support of Ite m C3, andsuggested that ordinarily there would be adequate City staff to process applications , but because of the large development applications before them at this time, that isn't the case . SS1-37 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 City Council Meeting Page4 Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 4 :00 p .m . A briefdiscussion ensued, duringwhichstaff responded to Council's questions . Council Member Mulholland saidher reasons for opposing item C3, Including her belief that applicationsshould be handled on a first-come/first-serve basis and her belief in slow growth . ACTION : Moved by Brown/Settle to approve the consent agenda asrecommended b y the City Administrative Officer, with the exception of Item C3 ; motion carried 5 :0 . Cl .APPROVE MINUTES OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY10, 2005, SPECIAL MEETING , MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14 . 2005, SPECIAL MEETING, AND TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15 . 2005, REGULAR MEETING . ACTION : Moved by Brown/Settle to waive oral readingandapprove as presented ; motion carried 5 :0 . C2.AUTHORIZATIONOF APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIASTATE DEPARTMENT O F HOUSING AND COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT (HCD) FORFUNDINGUNDER TH E WORKFORCE HOUSING REWARD (WFH) PROGRAM (PROPOSITION 46). ACTION : Moved by Brown/Settle to adopt Resolution No. 9654 (2005 Series ) authorizing staff to complete and submit an application to HCD for the WFH Programand target the WFH funds to two CIP drainage projects (Augusta Stree t Culvert and the ongoing Drainage Inlet Replacements); motion carried 5 :0 . C3.USE OF CONSULTANTS TO EXPEDITEPERMITPROCESSING . ACTION : Moved by Settle/Ewan to approvean expedited planningapplicatio n review processthat authorizes the CityAdministrative Officer to enter int o agreements on a case-by-case basis with : 1 . Applicants for augmented Cit y resources in order to more quickly processplanning applications, contingent upon : theapplicantpaying for the full cost of the augmented services in addition to al l other developmentreview fees that would otherwise be required ; and approval of the agreement form by the CityAttorney . 2 . Consultants or limited-term employees to provide augmented resources, contingent uponthe added cost being fully pai d by theapplicant before the consultant or limited-term employee is authorized t o begin work ; motion carried 4 :1 (Mulhollandopposed). C4.FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR TRACT 2502, A 11-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIO N AT 3301ROCKVIEW PL. (D .A. FETYKO. INC ., SUBDIVIDER). ACTION : Moved by Brown/Settleto adopt Resolution No . 9655 (2005 Series ) approving the final map for Tract 2502 and authorizingthe Mayor to execute th e subdivision agreement on behalf of the City; motion carried 5 :0 . C5.APPROVAL OFGUIDING PRINCIPLES FORDEVELOPMENTOF A PUBLIC , EDUCATIONALAND GOVERNMENT (PEG) ACCESSCHANNELS OPERATING PLAN . ACTION : Moved by Brown/Settle to approve guiding principles to allow forth e development of a PEG Access Operating Plan and the subsequent release of PE G operating fundsfrom Charter Communications, Including : 1) The designation o f SLO County Public AccessTelevision, Inc . (Public AccessTelevision) as the sol e provider of public access programming (P portion) in the City of San Luis Obispo ; 2) The designation of San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) asthe sol e provider of education access programming (E portion) In the City of San Luis SS1-38 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 CityCouncilMeeting Page 5 Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 4 :00 p .m . Obispo ; 3) The equal distribution of PEG AccessFunds between theCity of Sa n Luis Obispo, Public AccessTelevision and SLCUSD to use solely for PEG acces s equipment and facilities ; motion carried 5 :0. C6.REQUESTFORUSE OF PUBLIC ART IN-LIEUFUNDS FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC AR T PROJECTS . ACTION : Moved by Brown/Settle to 1 . AllocatePublicArtIn-Lieufunds for th e followingpublicart projects : (a) As requestedbythe San Luis Obispo County Art s Council, up to $10,000 to match the Bill BeesonMemorial Fund to commission a piece of public artin honor of Mr. Beeson's contributions to public artin ou r community ; (b) As requestedby the Chamber of Commerce and the Receptio n CommitteeforKen Schwartz Appreciation Day, $1,780tocompletethe purchase of a bronzesteelheadtrout forthe Mission Plaza fountain ; (c) $7,000for maintenance costs associated with the City's public artpiece "Community Bridge," normall y located on HigueraStreet in frontof theCourt Street Project . 2. Approve Resolutio n No. 9656 (2005 Series)adding language to the City's Public Art Policies an d Procedures Manual thatpermits,with Council approval, public artin-lieu funds to be usedas matchingfunds forthe purchase of public artforthe City's public ar t program; motioncarried5 :0 . C7.2005 STREET SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO . 90516 . ACTION : Moved by Brown/Settle to 1) Approve plans and specifications for 200 5 Street Slurry Seal Project, Specification No . 90516 ; 2) Authorize staff to advertise for bids ; 3) Authorize the CityAdministrative Officer to award the contract if thelowes t responsible bid is within the engineer's estimate of $600,000; motion carried 5 :0. PUBLIC HEARING S 2.2005 COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTPROGRAM (CDBG), REQUES T FORTHECITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSINGFUND (AHF), AND FIRST YEAR REPOR T ON HOUSING PROGRAMS MANAGER POSITION . HousingPrograms Manager Davidsoncommencedthestaff presentation with a review of theHRC's andCAO's recommendations for funding. Community Development Director Mandeville presented an Annual Update highlighting th e achievements accomplished by the Housing Programs Manager since February 2004 . H e reviewedsome of the changes in the CDBG Program proposed in the 2006 Federal Budget which would reduce CDBG funding and result in a competitive program . HRCChair JannaNichols discussed the priorities established by the HRC and saidthatth e fundamentaldifference in theHRC's and CAO's recommendations is related to the Railroa d Warehouse . She discussed the process undertaken by the HRC in coming to it s conclusions. Mayor Romeroopenedthe public hearing . Brad Larose.President of San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum, spoke in support of funding th e rehabilitation of the Railroad Warehouse, pointing out that the Museum will attract tourist s and result in a return that Is greaterthan the CDBG funds expended on it . SS1-39 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 4 :00 p .m . Jerry Rioux,Executive Director of the Housing Trust Fund, spoke in support of the HRC's recommendation given the lack of affordable housing In this community and asked that, t o the greatestextent possible, CDBG funds be used for housing . CatherineManning,EOC Homeless Services, asked Council to support the fundin g recommendations for the Homeless Shelterand Prado Day Center . Andrew Carter,San Luis Obispo, supported the HRC recommendation, concurring wit h comments made by HRC Chair Nichols . Michael Sullivan,San Luis Obispo, also supportedthe HRC recommendation and suggeste d that the City needs to be more aggressive In providing subsidies and pursuinginclusionar y housing . George Movlan,Housing Authority, clarified housing ownership Issues related to theNort h Chorro property and spoke in support of the HRC's recommendation . Arnold Jonas,San Luis Obispo, member of the Board of Directors of the Railroad Museum , discussed the need to nurture theentire community and notedthe financial, educational an d historical benefits that will result from the Railroad Museum project . Mayor Romero closed the public hearing . CAO Hampian and Assistant CAO George responded to Council's questions. They note d that there are no other sources of funding for the Railroad Museum at this time, reviewe d theprocessesundertakenat the staff level when the CAO recommendation wa s established, and noted Council established theFreight Warehouse rehabilitation as one o f its top goals for 2005-07 . Council Member Settlesaid he would support the CAO's recommendation because th e Railroad Museum is the gateway to the community, It Is Important to finish whathas bee n started, and it Isimportant to retain the historic foundations of the community . ViceMayor Ewan explained that he considers the SLO Railroad Museum as an economi c development whichIs Included in the CDBG priorities, and said that thereIs a need t o proceed with the rehabilitation of the warehouse . Mayor Romero acknowledged the need to support housing, but said that he will support th e CAO's recommendation on thebasisthat there Is no other source of funding to assist th e Railroad Museum, and because It will create tourism and serveas an attraction to the City . Council Member Mulhollandacknowledged the HRC's recommendation, but explained tha t she will support the CAO recommendation because the Railroad Museum is addressed by one of the Council's four CDBG priorities . HRCACTION : Approvethe 2005 CDBG Program activities and funding a s recommended ; recommend CDBG funding of $275,000 for the Housing Authorit y siteacquisition (235 NorthChorro Street); endorse the Urban County's Draft One - Year Action Plan, Including HOME, Special Urban Projects andEmergencyShelte r Grant funding ; forward the Council's actions and funding recommendations toth e Board of Supervisors; recommend allocation of $356,000 of the City's Affordabl e Housing Fund (AHF) to the People's Self-Help Housing projecton South Higuer a Street (formerly McBride's Plumbing) and $25,000 of the AHF for site acquisitionby SS1-40 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 City Council Meeting Page 7 Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 4 :00 p.m . the Housing Authority (235 NorthChorro Street). No action was taken on the HR C recommendation . CAO ACTION : Moved by Ewan/Brown to : 1 . Adopt Resolution No. 9657 (200 5 Series)consistent with the HRC recommendation with the following modifications : a) Approve the 2005CDBG Program activities and funding as modified, wit h adjustments based on a new funding estimate ; b) recommend CDBG funding o f 190,079 for theHousing Authority site acquisition and $125,000 in CDBG fundin g for the Southern Pacific Railroad Freight Warehouse Rehabilitation ; and c ) recommend funding of $109,921 from the City's AHF for siteacquisition bythe Housing Authority (235 North Chorro Street). 2 . Authorizethe CityAdministrativ e Officer to executean agreement with the Housing Authority for a grant of $109,92 1 from the City's Affordable Housing Fund . 3 . Accept theannual report of the firs t year of theHousing Programs Manager position ; motion carried 5 :0 . 3.CONSIDERATIONOF A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCELMAP WITH AN EXCEPTION ; 2915 & 2917JOHNSONAVENUE (MS 21-05). Community Development Director Mandevillepresented the staff report . MayorRomero opened the public hearing . Hearing no comments,Mayor Romeroclose d the public hearing . ACTION : Moved by Mulholland/Ewan to adoptResolution No. 9658 (2005 Series ) reaffirming theCouncil'sprior approval (October 15, 2002) of a Mitigated Negativ e Declaration of environmental impact (ER 13-02) and vesting tentative parcel map , based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements ; motion carrie d 5:0. STUDYSESSIO N 4.STORMSEWER MANAGEMENT PLAN . Public Works Director Waltercommencedthe staff presentation, providing an overview of thetypes of storm sewer systems in the City's Storm WaterManagement Plan, syste m components, Federal regulations that require a Storm Sewer Management Plan, and th e history of how storm sewers have been repaired/improved/maintained in thepast . Associate Engineer Horndisplayed photographs depicting and discussed the existin g storm sewer system, theextent of the problems with the system, and historic flooding an d failures of thesystem, as well as alternatives for replacing the existing system o r maintainingthesystem . Public Works Director Walterreviewed staff's preferredalternatives . He and Financ e Director Statler responded to Council's questions . Council Member Settle discussed his support of Alternative 3 for system replacement an d alternative 2 for system maintenance. He stressed that the City needs to convey to th e Federal government and State agencies that the City can't do what is mandated withou t federal funding . He alsosaid he supports legislative changes at the State level fo r Proposition 218 . SS1-41 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 City Council Meeting Page 8 Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 4 :00 p.m . Mayor Romero expressed concern that this Is only part of the City's storm drain protection system and that there Is no way to fund the remainder of It . He suggested that there may b e a need to consider bringing this matter to voters . Discussion ensued, duringwhich staff responded to questions and Council Members Brown and MulhollandIndicated that It Is premature to take this to the taxpayers at thi s time . Public Comment s Andrew Carter,San Luis Obispo, suggested thatCouncil needs to make a decision as to wha t actions are really necessaryas opposed to what would be preferred . end of public comments--- ACTION : 1 . Received the Storm Sewer Management Plan . 2 . By a unanimou s consensus, directed staff to pursue the most aggressivealternatives if the change s In Proposition 218 occur while at the same time, dealing with theproblem toth e degree possible by pursuing Alternative 3 for system replacementand Alternative 2 for system maintenance . COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT S Council Member Brownreported on his attendanceat the last Economic Opportunit y Commission Boardmeetingand theEconomic Vitality Commission meeting . Council Member Mulholland and Mayor Romeroreported on their attendance at a draft desig n charette hosted by RRM Design Groupregardingthe old Albertson's project area . They note d that they were participants as Individuals and did not representthe Council . Mayor Romero reported on his attendance at theNaclmiento ProjectCommission meeting . COMMUNICATION S Council Member Settlediscussed the need to take actionopposing the public employe e pension legislation and reform, and asked Council to directstaff to agendize this matter fo r further action (see memo on file In the City Clerk's Office). He stated for the record hi s opposition tothis legislation and reform . A briefdiscussion ensued duringwhich Council consensus was to directstaff to agendiz e this matter and return with a draftresolution at the first meeting In April . Council Member Mulholland referred to her communicationasking for a modification to th e language to theLegislative Action Platform (see memo on file in theCity Clerk's Office ) Following a briefdiscussion, Council directed staff to agendize this matter as a Business Ite m and to provideInformation at that time from the Utilities Directorregarding the implicationso f Council Member Mulholland's recommendation . Mayor Romero referenced a letter from Chamber of Commerce President Bob Wacke r conveyingthe Chamber's suggestion thatCouncil consider expanding advisory bod y members to Include applicantswhoown a business or property or work in the City . SS1-42 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 City Council Meeting Page 9 Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 4 :00 p.m . Because of the large number of applicationsthat were received, Council concurredthat the y would not pursue this suggestion . Council Member Brownasked whether there was Councilinterest in pursuing a suggestio n from Mike Spanglerrelated to Downtown parking . Mayor Romerowas interested in pursuing this matter . However, the rest of theCounci l Memberswere not . As a result, no direction was given to staff . There being no further business to come before the CityCouncil,Mayor Romeroadjourned the meeting at 10 :10 p.m . to a Closed Session on Tuesday, March 7, 2005 at 9 :00 a .m . in th e Council HearingRoom, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo . APPROVED BY COUNCIL : 3/15/2005 SS1-43 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 I I I SS1-44 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 SS1-45 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-46 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-47 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-48 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-49 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-50 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-51 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-52 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-53 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-54 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-55 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-56 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-57 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-58 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-59 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-60 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-61 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-62 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-63 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-64 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-65 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-66 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-67 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-68 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-69 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 SS1-70 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 SS1-71 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 SS1-72 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 SS1-73 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 5 Existing EnforcementPrograms in the City of San Luis Obispo 1. The Fire Department’s Multi-family Housing Inspection Program (MFHIP) California Health & Safety Code, Section13146.2(a) requires city Fire Departments to annually inspect multi-family rentalunits. The program provides for inspections of rental housing properties having three or more units and has a limited focus, whichis on fire safety. Inspections are conducted by Fire Prevention Officers and are generally limited to the exterior common areas. When illegal conversions or otherhousing orbuilding code violations are discovered, they are referred to the Community Development Department for enforcement. 2. Code Enforcement The Community Development Departmentemploys two Code Enforcement Officerswho respond to citizen complaintsregarding violations of the City’s Municipal Code and State Housing and Building Codes. These officers also work proactively as time permits. Statistics for the past complete year showthat highestcategory of violations dealt with substandard housing violations. A significant number of violations deal with unpermitted construction and improper occupancies, unpermitted garage or attic conversions and unpermitted second units. 3. Neighborhood Services (Proactive Code Enforcement) In 2012, two Neighborhood Services Specialistswere added to the Community DevelopmentDepartment to commence a proactive code enforcement program focused on property maintenance and other municipal code violations in visible yards in residential areas. 4. Noise abatement The Police Department, with the assistance of theStudent Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP) staff from CalPoly, enforcesthe City’s ordinances related to noise and unruly gatherings. 5. Business Tax and Business License Ordinances Currently all rental businesses that operate in the City are required to obtain a business taxcertificate and a business license. The business tax is levied at an annual rate of 0005% of gross receipts while the business license is a flat fee of $46. To date, the City has issued 2,596 tax certificates to residentialrental businesses. The taxcertificate is issued to the rental business entity rather than byindividual rental property. This number does not reflect the actual number of rentalunits in the City as some businesses have multiple rental locations. SS1-74 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 5 6. Weekend Residential Parking Control Parking Services added a part-time Parking Officer to patrol residential neighborhoods on the weekends from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm as part of the 2011-13 Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal. The Officer pro-actively issues parking violations and reports any neighborhood code violations. The Officer is averaging approximately 68 parking citations and 20 referrals to the Neighborhood Services office per month. This positionis funded for the 2013-15 Parking Enterprise budget and will continue unless it is not approved. SS1-75 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 6 List of California cities with Rental HousingInspectionPrograms Jurisdiction Year Adopted Percentage of Rental Units College/University Azusa 1989 48% Azusa Pacific University Berkeley 2003 57% UC Berkeley Brentwood 2008 24% Carpinteria 1994 43% Colton 2012 48% Concord 2000 39% Costa Mesa 2013 48% County of Contra Costa 2005 31% Hayward 1989 47% CSU East Bay Highland 1999 36% Los Angeles 1998 62% USC, UCLA etc. Ontario 2008 43% Pasadena 1987 55% Pittsburg 2006 40% Rialto 2009 38% Richmond 2005 50% Sacramento 2008 51% CSU Sacramento Sacramento County 2008 42% San Bernardino 1995 49% CSU San Bernardino San Pablo 1986 54% Santa Ana 1992 53% Santa Cruz 2010 56% UC Santa Cruz Santa Fe Springs 1995 45% Stockton 2012 48% University of the Pacific Rancho Cordova 2007 44% SS1-76 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 From:Charlene Rosales To:Lease, Joseph Cc:Johnson, Derek Subject:Chamber feedback re. RentalHousing Inspection Program Date:Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:49:36 PM Hi Joseph, I wanted to share with you the Chamber’s position at this time regarding the proposed rental inspection program as our Board discussed it at their meeting last week. We will be sharing this with our attendees attomorrow’s Good Morning SLO program. Our Board is in agreement that rental property safety and neighborhood wellness are shared values and also discussed concerns about the ability for the City to implement a new inspection program, the qualifications of the inspectors, why owner occupieddwellings were not included and if this is duplicating alreadyexisting elements of fire inspections. Discussion at boththe committee and Board level centeredaround whether the actual number of complaints warranted a new program when a complaint driven enforcement program already exists), and whether such a program would improve the housing stock. Several comments were made about educating owners and tenants rather than creating a new program, as well as that beingan opportunity to inform people about energy efficiency programsand weatherization opportunities. The Board was in favor of a self-certification process rather than proactive city-conducted inspections. Ultimately, the Board did not see overwhelming benefit in the way the program is currently outlined –realizing that this is the outreach stage of formulating a draftof the program - and look forward to continuing to track the progress of the proposed program as it moves further along. We look forward to engaging inthe process as it develops. I would welcome further conversations with you on the subject as well. Thank you again for being a part of this conversation at our committee meeting this month and for reaching out to us for feedback at this early stage. Community and member participation is crucial to our Board in making important policy decisions on behalf of ourentire membership. Please let me know if you haveany questions or comments regarding this position. Charlene Rosales Director of Governmental Affairs San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 895 Monterey St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p (805) 786-2770 f (805) 543-1255 www.slochamber.org : www.visitslo.com : www.slo-business.com facebook.com/slochamber : @slochamber SS1-77 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 8 March 11, 2014 San Luis ObispoAssociation of Realtors Meeting Madonna Inn Program: Presentation on the Development of a Rental Housing Inspection Program by the City of SLO Presentation by: Joseph Lease, Chief Building Official for the City of San Luis Obispo Meeting Notes/Questions Q: Will energy efficiencybe addressed during rental inspections? Have you considered partnering with other organizations to certify for energy efficiency? Q: How frequent will the inspections be and howdo you expect that to impact the need for more employees? Q: With 12,000 units, howwould so many inspections take place? Clarification was provided that the number of single family residences of the 12,000 or so rentals is closer to 4,700). Q: Have there be any notable court cases of citizenschallenging city ordinances? Q: How would complaints in Cal Poly neighborhoodsbehandled—does Council want to target specific parts of town forwith this program? Q: Will fees be self-supporting? Q: What will bedone about inspecting rentals that are inhabited by students whose parents or family ownthe property? Q: Is the reactive process working? Q: Will this process affect the masses too much if we have an effective code enforcement program already in place? Would the City beoverstepping its bounds? Q: Exemptions: which aredebatable? How would HOAs be handled? Q: Board of Realtors Legislative Committee would like to meet oneonone to further discuss the program. Q: Why would public housing be exempt? Q: Where did the twelve cities chosen for research come from? Q: Howmany college communities have theseprograms? Was choosing the cities done at random? Does Isla Vista have a similarprogram in place? Q: How does reactive versus proactive enforcement work? Do houses with multiple violationstake precedence? SS1-78 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 8 Q: Is therepotential for litigation if the City “requires” inspections? Q: Who will doall of theseinspections? Would the overhead beenormous? Q: Howcould this program separate the good eggs from the bad ones? Why would it be worth having a rental inspection program when there’s a proactive code enforcementprogram already in place? Q: Investors will be pushed out of the city, or not interested in buyinghere if the City choosessuch a heavy-handed program. Q: With too manyregulations in place, people will be deterred from investing in property here. Q: How muchoutreach will be a part of the program? Q: Howmanycomplaints comeannually on the approximately 4,700 single familyunits? Q: Will background checks be required on all inspectors? SS1-79 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 9 RentalHousing Inspection Program Notes from SLO Property ManagersAssociation Meeting May 5, 2014, 1:00- 2:30 pm Property Management Reps In Attendance Steve Ingels - Haven Properties Tim Townley - Comet Realty Hayley Townley - Comet Realty Shari Bone - Patterson Realty Curtis Mortenson – San Luis Property Mgmt Mike McNamara - McNamara Realty Kerry Sansone - Sansone Realty CJ Tatum - Rentslo.com David Singer - REG Property Mgmt LarrySmyth - FarrellSmyth Hal Sweasey - Remax Graham Updegrove - Sotheby’s Hal Sweasey questioned if the goal of the Rental Housing Inspection Program was more code enforcement or to ensure the health andsafety of the tenants. Healso inquiredwhy there wasa shift from reactive strategies to proactive strategies. Mike McNamara - Has the City of San Luis Obispo identified the percentage of sub-standard housing? What are the violation rates for other cities? Did violation rates decrease after their rental housing program was initiated? Mr. Smyth liked the idea of a checklist, but how subjective is the determination by the code officer if a violation does/doesn’t exist? Are the majority of complaints on the same house/same people? TimTownley commented that self-inspection by property managers may involve a cost (their extra time), which may be passed on to the property owner. He suggested the program should bereactive and target areas based on appearance. Perhaps to target a specificarea instead of a blanketprogram. How many additional people would be needed if the inspection programran on a 3-5 year cycle? What if a tenant does not respond? What is the procedure? Self-certification may result in a unaturally high pass rate. Should there be a checklist with business license? What is the budget regarding neighborhood wellness? Program may affect affordable housing. Everyoneagreed that perhaps bringing all the groups together (RQN, alta-vista, property managers, businesses) for a town hall meeting to discuss the rental housing inspection program. SS1-80 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 10 Notes From RQN Meeting 11/20/2013 Overcrowding units Living in the garage 5 in contract but 8 living in the property Documentation Illegal &substandard living condition in properties Inspection for protection (the tenants shall know that the inspectionare for their benefit) Incomplete List of rental units Volunteer for updating the list? Cooperation with financial department or CDD? Recommendations: Cost benefits (Self-Certification-Program?) Always (first time) interior inspection Quadrants? Impacted areas first? (Use sufficient data from neighborhood service) Program / Ordinance should give legitimation to act against the violations (overcrowding) SS1-81 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 11 Notes from Alta Vista and Monterey Heights Neighborhood Meeting November 5, 2014 AudienceComments: Program must have interior and exterior inspections to be successful. Fees should not go into the general fund. Fees should be low andfineshigh. The exception for newly constructed housing is not a good fit here. General agreement with the suggested exemptions. Property ownersshould be able to volunteer for inspections. There shouldbe responses to the commonobjections inthe staff report. Include an inspection prior to sale requirement for all residential property. AudienceQuestions: Does it work? Do the survey cities have colleges? What is the basis of legal challenges of similar programs? What is the minimum bedroom size? What is the minimum square feet by person in bedrooms? Are garage conversions ever legal? What is the process for bringing non-permitted construction into compliance? Could a request for a high occupancy permit trigger things like fire sprinklers? What prompted other cities to pass programs where rentalrate is low? What did we learn in studying theother cities that is applicable to SLO? Are fees going into the general fund? Did other cities use a special fund? Have other cities noticed any definite improvements? Are section8 housing units inspected? SS1-82 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 12 Notes from Cal Poly ASI Board of Directors Meeting – November 12, 2014 Rental Housing Inspection Program Presentation and Q & A By LaurenParker Problems/questions/concerns that students raised: There is a severe shortage of rental options and students are worried that RHIP will only worsen the shortage. Where is the tenant going to go if there are issues in their place of living that means that they have to leave? Often the landlord does not care about substandard conditions and still make tenant pay full price and the tenant has no otheroption but to pay even if there aresubstandard conditions. If relocation were necessary due to substandard conditions it would be a hardship, because students often choose their place of living based on the situation (no car, walking to work/school, etc). Howare we going to pay for this? Is there going to be a warning before inspectors come in? Concerns about privacy. What if students do not wish to have their place inspected? Is there some sort of certification stamp that owners can display so the students know that it is up to standards when they are choosing houses? Is there a way for getting an inspection just by requesting? Will issues of having too many people occupying a unit be addressed by inspectors. Parking – big issue. Will families and studentsbe treated the same? Will this include apartments? SS1-83 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 13 Case Study: Azusa’s Rental Housing Inspection Program The City of Azusa’s Rental Housing Inspection Program is notable in that it is one of theoldest programs in the State, having been established in 1989. It is often cited as the model for other programs in the State. From a statistical standpoint, Azusa issimilar to San Luis Obispo in population (46,361 to 45,525), but shows some variation in the number of housing units (13,386 to 20,553), estimated percentage of rentals (48% to 61.8%) and number of rentalunits (6,372 to 12,700). Azusa also does not have the impacts associated with hosting a major university and a sizable student population. Nevertheless, the City of Azusa’s Rental Housing Inspection Program is probably the most applicable and analogous community and inspection programavailable to use in designing a similar program for San Luis Obispo. The AzusaRental Housing Inspection Program is based on an ordinance that requires all rental housing in the City of Azusa to be registered with the City and to beinspected annually to insure compliance with state and local housing and property maintenance codes. Theprogram consists primarily of exterior inspections of rentalunits, however, if the rental unit is in a high crime or blighted area the inspector will request to inspectthe interior of units with a signed consent form. In addition, if during the course of an inspection a tenant complains of substandard living conditions within their unit, an interior inspection will be made with written consent from the tenant. During the course of the inspections the assigned inspector will contact tenants andask if there are problems. In large multifamily complexes this is done on a random basis, such that each tenant is not necessarily contacted. The scope of the inspections include any and all observable violations such as improper maintenance and dilapidation of buildings, substandard housing conditions, accumulation of debris and junk, abandoned vehicles, overgrown or unmaintained vegetation, inadequate sanitation, and illegal/unpermitted construction. Azusa’s programincludes all rental unit types including single-family, duplexes, triplexes, and multifamily complexes. Once an inspection is complete the owner is issued a Notice of Violation if deficiencies are found and required to make corrections in a timely manner, typically 5 days for the more serious violations, and 30 days for others. When violations are found the owner is charged for all incurred costs resulting from follow up inspections or further enforcement action necessitated by noncompliance. As a matter of policy, properties that pass the initial inspection with either no violations or very minor violations may be exempted from reinspection for 2-3 years. A key element of Azusa’s program is the ability to withhold the connection of water, electricity and gas utilities for any dwellingunit that has been vacated byits prior tenants if the unit is not registered in the Rental Housing Inspection Program (AMC Sec. 14-353).1 Since tenancies change relatively frequently and landlordsprefer not to pay for utilities, this requirement is effective in maximizing thenumber of properties thatparticipate in the program. The City of Azusa’s current staffing is: 1 Supervisor 1 It should be notedthatthe City of Azusa is the electrical utility provider. SS1-84 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 13 1 Administrative Assistant 2 Code Enforcement Officers (CEO’s) Formerly, the City had four Code Enforcement Officers for the program. While this program is oftencited as a model, and even though it has been in place for over20 years, challenges still exist in inspectingrental units at the frequency prescribed in the program, and at the current staffinglevel, they are not able to meet theannual inspectiongoal. Their annual rentalinspection feesare as follows: 111 per Single-family Dwelling 118 per Duplex 111 per Multi-family Parcel, plus $7 per additional unit In addition to the fee revenue, they have substantial revenues ranging from $200,000 to $300,000 per year from administrative citations and incurred costs. Fines and costs, when not paid upon notice to the owner, are collected through a property lien process. SS1-85 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 SS1-86 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 SS1-87 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 SS1-88 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 15 Position Paper: Rental Property Inspection TheResidents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) Board is unanimously in favor of the establishment of a Rental Inspection Program. Lest it appear that this is a programwe want solely to impose on others, fully one-half of RQN Board members own rentalproperty. a.Our primary concern is the health, welfare andsafety of tenants and nearby homeowners. b.Our secondary concern is the maintenance of the city’s housing stock for future residents. c.Our long-term concern is the prevention of houses that are uninhabitable, vacant and, thus, an attractive location for unlawful behavior. The current system of identifyinghealth, welfare and safety problems in rental properties rests on receiving complaints from tenants or others knowledgeable about the situation. Regrettably, some renters may not have the requisite knowledge to be able to identify potentiallyharmful situations. Recent focus by Cal Poly on student success and the various factors that contribute to that success has revealed the reluctance of student renters to address problems with their landlords because of concerns about being evicted, losing their deposits and/or having their rents increase. Subsequent conversations with older renters revealed some of the same concerns, especially the concern about futurerent increases. Thus, those most knowledgeable about problems that exist in a rental house are the most reluctant to complain. Owning residential rental property is a recognized business as evidenced by the City’s Business License and Business Tax requirements for rental properties. Per the City’s website, a “business license” is issued as a regulatory permit and a “business taxcertificate” is issued to raise revenue for general municipal services. Both are required of owners of residential rentalproperty (see attachment). It is not uncommon for businesses to be inspected; this business should not be exempt. It has become apparent that current regulatory measures are insufficient to insure the continued maintenance of residential rental properties. The obviously unkempt appearance ofthe exterior of many rental properties is an indication that the interior may be similarly neglected, thus endangering the health, welfare and safety of both occupants and nearby residents. Currently there is no mechanism to insure that houses for rent are safe for occupancy. There are additional, related, problems to overseeing the City’s rental housing. SS1-89 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 15 a.Much of the rental housing is ownedby absentee owners who cannot or do not regularly visit the property and may never see or learn about problems that exist or overall deterioration that may have occurred since they purchased the property. b.It is unclear whether realtors who sell residential property that is to be rented disclose the City’s business license and business tax requirements and provide applicable forms. Page 2 c.However, the most significant problem is that City staff does not possess a complete list of rental houses, where eachis located (the address) and the name of the owner. The Business License applies to all businesses owned by the license holder, including the aggregate of rental properties; residential rentalproperty owners are not required to list all rental properties covered by the license. This needs to be corrected, and can be as part of the rental inspection program. Weare notthefirst city in California to initiate residential rental inspections. Several cities, large and small, have such ordinances. Sacramento has one as does Santa Ana. Cities with populations similar to that of San Luis Obispo that have such ordinances are Azusa (pop. 46,000) where approximately 50% of the housing arerentals, Oakley (pop. 35,000) and Santa Cruz (pop. 62,000). Although acknowledging the need for a residential rental inspectionprogram, some of our membership worry that the City is creating another bureaucracy and that fundscollected for this program will be diverted from the General Fund to support other purposes. Requiring that the program be not only self-supporting but that fees collected for the programbe separately accounted for may allay some of those fears. In addition to supporting a Residential Rental Inspection Program, we encourage you to insure that the following beincluded: a.Incentives for properties that have no violations or violations that can be, andare, easily corrected. b.Disincentives for properties that have multiple violations, violations that are not easily correctable and violations that, after being identified and discussed, are not corrected. c.Reinspectionfees that rise if multiple reinspections are required. d.Contract inspectorsand/or privatelyhired, certified inspectors be available as an option to rentalproperty owners. e.Inspection of the interior and exterior, with emphasis on the interior. f.Exemptions for mobile homes and publicly-owned housing, but not for owner-occupied homes with rooms for rent. Home owners renting rooms have the same obligation to insure the health, welfare and safety oftheir tenants and of nearby homeowners. g.The program be limited to R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. Unlike R-3 and R-4, dwellings in these zones are not subject to other inspection programs. h.A phased program beginning in areas that City staff have identified as having sub-standard rental housing. Respectfully submitted, SS1-90 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 15 Sandra Rowley Chairperson, RQN Attachment SS1-91 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 ATTACHMENT 17 Page 3 The following is an excerpt from the City’s website. What is a Business Tax Certificate? The purpose of the City’s Business Tax ordinance is solely to raise revenue for general municipal services to residentsand businesses, such as police and fire protection and street maintenance. It is not a “license" or "permit.” The BusinessTax Certificate isissued by the City of San Luis Obispo to all persons conducting business in the City. “Business” means and includes enterprises, leases, establishments, professions, rentals, services, trades, vocations, andoccupations of all types whether or not the business has a fixed location in the City. (Emphasis added) What is a BusinessLicense? The purpose of the City's business license regulations is to provide for necessary regulation of lawful businesses being conducted within the City in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare ofthe people ofthe City. While due diligence will be exercised in reasonably ensuring compliance with all City policies, regulations andordinances before issuing a business license, the primary focus of the City's business license regulations is to provide reasonable assurance that businesses operating in the City aredoing so in compliance with the City's planning and building policies, regulations, andordinances; and in compliance with the City's business tax provisions. Emphasis added) What is the differencebetween alicense and a tax? A “business license” is issued as a regulatory permit. A “business taxcertificate” is issued to raise revenue for general municipal services. SS1-92 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 SS1-93 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 SS1-94 Council Reading File-May 5, 2015 COUNCIL MEETING: as ITEM NO.: pVAI council memominbum DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Mayor and City Council MIN 0 VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager i FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Rental Housing Inspection Program The attached ChangeLab Solutions report "A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs" is provided for your review prior to the hearing. The report highlights local governmentRental Housing Inspection Programs throughout the Country and the challenges and benefits associated with them. ChangeLab Solutions is a nonprofit organization that provides legal information on matters relating to public health. This memorandum provides information related to the Rental Housing Inspection Programthat will come before Council at the May 5th meeting. Due to thesize of the report, it was determined that it might be beneficial to provide it in advance of the Council agenda packet. Please contact Derek Johnson should there be any questions. Attachments: "A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs ", ChangeLab Solutions ChangeLab Solutions website screen of "Funders and Partners" NMI 7 ChangeLab Solutions ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Written by Amy Ackerman (Consulting Attorney), with additional writingsupport from Linda Galbreth (Senior Staff Attorney and Program Director) and Anne Pearson Vice President for Programs). All affiliated with ChangeLab Solutions. Reviewed by Emile Jorgensen (Childhood Lead Poisoning PreventionProgram at the Chicago Department of Public Health), Jane Malone (NationalCenter for Healthy Housing), Lindsay Norris Brown (Alameda CountyHealthy Homes Department), and Nicole Thomsen (Environmental Health Services Division, Public Health - Seattle & King County). Additional research and support by Meliah Schultzman (Staff Attorney), Rebecca Johnson Policy Analyst), Lindsey Zwicker (Law Fellow), Sonya Rifkin (Policy Fellow), and Evan Sznol (Law Intern). All affiliated with ChangeLab Solutions. Support for this document was provided by a grant from the Kresge Foundation. ChangeLab Solutions is a nonprofit organization that provides legal information on matters relating to publichealth. Thelegal information in this document does not constitute legal advice or legal representation. For legal advice, readers should consult a lawyer in their state. 2014 ChangeLab Solutions Photos courtesy of FlickrCC /brad.coy (p. 16), FlickrCC /bombnomnom, FlickrCC /camknows (p. 4), FlickrCC/ FrankPeters (cover), FlickrCC /fredcamino (p. 20), FlickrCC /Greg Balzer (p.25), FlickrCC /happyskrappy (p.19), FlickrCC /Mary_Vican (p.17), FlickrCC /NewtownGrafitti (p.26), FlickrCC /ohad (p.9), FlickrCC /FrankPeters, FlickrCC/ susieg3c (p.14), FlickrCC /taberandrew (p. 6), FlickrCC /Tom -in -NYC (p.B), FlickrCC /USACE_HO (p. 7), FlickrCC/ USDAGov (p. 27) and Housing _gardening- morguefile.com (p. 24). changelabsolutions.org A Guideto Proactive Rental Inspection Programs ChangeLab Solutions TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 Introduction 5 Advantages of Proactive Rental Inspection (PRI) Programs 5 PRI Programs Preserve Safeand Healthy Rental Housing 5 PRI Programs Help Protect the Most Vulnerable Tenants 6 PRI Programs May Preserve Neighborhood Property Values And a Locality's Property Tax Base) 7 Understanding PRI Programs 8 Types of Rental Housing Included Withinthe Program 8 Targeting Particular Neighborhoods 9 Targeting Properties Based on Number of Units 9 Other Commonly-ExemptedUnits 10 Registration and Licensing of Rental Property 10 Rental Registration 10. Rental Licensing 11 Frequency ofPeriodic Inspections 12 Periodic Inspections on a FixedBasis 12 Inspection Frequency Based on Prior Compliance 12 Self- Certification 13 Vacancy Inspections 13 Notice ofInspection and Entry of Occupied Units 13 Notice of Inspection 14 Tenant Consent toInspector Entry 15 Scope of Inspection 15 Exterior Inspections 16 Interior Inspections 18 Enforcement to Address Code Violations 18 RentEscrow Accounts 19 Registration as a Prerequisite to Eviction Actions 19 Monitoring Substandard Properties 19 Funding PRI Programs 22 Evaluation 23 Challenges When Implementing PRI Programs 23 Uninhabitable and "Illegal" Units 23 Tenant -Side Code Violations 24 Rent Increases 25 Strategies For Success 25 Involve Diverse Stakeholders in Designing theProgram 25 Involve Community-Based Organizations in Implementation 26 Provide Training for Code Enforcement Staff 26 ProvideEducation, Outreach and Ongoing Support for Landlords and Tenants 27 Implement Complementary Programs 29 Conclusion changelabsolutions.org A Guide to Proactive Rental InspectionPrograms ChangeLabSolutions SUBSTANDARD HOUSING ANDHEALTH Substandard housing conditions pose an acute risk to young children, seniors, and peoplewith chronic illnesses 1.2.3 Nationwide, more than 23 million people have asthma; it is the mostcommon chronicailment among children in the United States .4.5 By one estimate, 39% of asthma cases in children under 6 can be traced to residential exposure to indoor air hazard S.6 Housing - related injuries result in roughly 4 million emergency room visits and 70,000 hospital admissions? Nationwide, in 2000, there were an estimated 1.8 million fallsleading to emergency room visits among those age 65 and older; the majority of falls takeplace within the home.8 Exposure to lead paint chips and related dust are the leading cause of elevated lead levels in children in the U.S.' LOCALITIES: TOWNS, CITIES, COUNTIES AND OTHER FORMS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Throughout this document, the term localities" referstotowns, cities, counties, and other forms of local government. State and local law will determine which local governmental bodygoverns relevant code enforcementactivities. INTRODUCTION Substandard conditions in the home are responsible for a wide array of significant health problems, such as childhood lead poisoning; exacerbatedasthma and respiratory conditions that resultfrom exposure to mold, pests, and other household allergens; and increasedrates of injury and mortality among the elderly. As rental housing is more likely to be substandard than owner- occupied housing, tenants are at higher- than - average risk. Local governments can play a critical role in improving resident health by implementing programs to improve the quality of their housing stock. Most localities maintain code enforcement programs to ensure the safety and welfare of their citizens. Traditionally, these programs have been complaint- based; that is, in response to a resident complaint about a substandard housing condition, a municipal code enforcement officer will conduct a housing inspection and, if thecomplaint is substantiated, the officer will begin enforcement proceedings. Proactiverental inspection (PRI) programs are different. Under a PRI program, most covered rental units are inspected on a periodic basis to ensure that they are safe and habitable, and that property values are maintained. Typically, inspections take place at designated intervals, though they may also be triggered by an event, such as a change in tenancy. While the hallmark ofproactive rentalinspection programs is that inspections arenot complaint-based, localities with proactive rentalinspection programs generally conductcomplaint -based inspections too. This guide: 1. describes the advantages of proactiverental inspectionprograms; 2. details thecomponents of PRI programs and provides an overview of options for program design; 3. examines challenges that may arise in implementing PRI; and 4. suggests broader strategies for success when adopting a PRI program. A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 4 Changel-ab Solutions For example, between 2008 and 2013, under Sacramento's Rental Housing Inspection Program, housing and dangerous building cases were reduced by22 percent'^ ADVANTAGES OF PROACTIVE RENTAL PRI BY ANY OTHER NAME... alone brought morethan8,700 rental properties up to minimumstandards in four years included in the study), the number under its proactive rental inspection program (RUCO)15 ,16,17 Proactive rental inspection (PRI) Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) for the District of Columbia, programs may go by any number In many instances, PRI programs may be more effective than complaint -based programs of names. For example, they may in ensuring safe and healthy housing, preserving housing stock, protecting vulnerable be referred to as "systematic code tenants, and maintaining neighborhood property values. enforcement," "periodic code properties 1B enforcement," .. rental housing PRI Programs Preserve Safe and Healthy Rental Housing inspection," or "rental registration By relieving tenants of the burden of having to force reticent landlords to make needed and licensing." It is the regular, repairs, systematic inspections can help ensure that a locality's rental housing stock is mandatory nature of inspections maintained and that residents live in healthy conditions. that differentiates these types of tenant protections or code enforcement programs. Or they may have language barriers or programs from complaint -based Between the establishment of Los Angeles's Systematic Code Enforcement Program rental housing inspection programs. SCEP) in 1998 and 2005, "more than 90 percent of the city's multifamily housing stock program began in 2004 ... after a was] inspected and morethan one and half million habitability violations [were] corrected. high of 1,427 housing complaints in The result [was] an estimated $1.3 billion re- investment by owners in the city's existing 2005, the number of complaints fell housing stock .1113 For example, between 2008 and 2013, under Sacramento's Rental Housing Inspection Program, housing and dangerous building cases were reduced by22 percent'^ by 61 percent to 871 in 2007. "10 In According to a study of PRI programs in five North Carolina cities, the City of Greensboro the city of Asheville (which was also alone brought morethan8,700 rental properties up to minimum standards in four years included in the study), the number under its proactive rental inspection program (RUCO)15 ,16,17 REDUCING COMPLAINT - Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) for the District of Columbia, BASED INSPECTIONS In addition, by ensuring that landlords are aware of poor conditions before they worsen, According to the author of a study systematic code enforcement encourages preventative maintenance, which is more examining North Carolina proactive cost effective than deferred maintenance, and thereby helps landlords to maintain their rental inspection programs, properties 1B t]he number of complaints a city receives aboutsubstandard PRI Programs Help Protect the Most Vulnerable Tenants housing is an important measure Often, the most vulnerable tenants don't complain 19,20,21,22 Some tenants are unaware of program effectiveness. If that they have a right to safe and habitable housing. They may not know about existing inspections programs result in code tenant protections or code enforcement programs. Or they may have language barriers or compliance, a city should receive disabilities that make it difficult to navigate the code enforcement system. Many tenants fewer complaints. Greensboro's may be afraid to complain about their housing for fear of increased rentor landlord program began in 2004 ... after a retaliation (such as eviction). Residents may be undocumented or have limited income that high of 1,427 housing complaints in hampers theirability to move. 2005, the number of complaints fell by 61 percent to 871 in 2007. "10 In As a result of these barriers, the housing inhabited by the most vulnerable populations, the city of Asheville (which was also which is frequently the worst housing, is oftenthe mostlikely to fall through thecracks included in the study), the number of a complaint -based code enforcement system. In 2009, Linda Argo, the Director of the of complaints between 2001 and Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) for the District of Columbia, 2003 fell from 227 to 6011 After testified before the D.C. City Council aboutthe need for their proactive rental inspection the program was discontinued, the number of complaints increased again, reaching 189 in 2007.12 changelabsoludons.orq A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 5 Changel-ab Solutions PROTECTING TENANTS FROM RETALIATORY ACTIONS Most states have laws that protect tenants from landlord retaliation when theysubmit complaints regarding housing safety. California law, for example, prohibits a landlord from retaliating against a tenant for complaining to an appropriate agency about the habitability of a rental unit.23 The law prohibits retaliatory rent increases, service decreases, eviction, or threats of such .24 In some states, localities include protections within their local laws. However, even when tenants have legal protections, they may be hindered from assertingthese protections due tolimited resources and insufficientavailability of affordable or free legal services for low- income tenant s.25 Proactive PRI programs may help to reduce tenant fear of landlord retaliation, as well as actual retaliation, since the inspections and compliance actions are prompted by a municipal program rather than by tenant complaints. program. She explained, "[i]t's quite clear that a complaint-based system is no longer sufficient if we wantto maintain safe housing conditions for all residents, especially our most vulnerable - the poor, the elderly, the non - English speakers. "26 She noted that "[f]or thevast majority of properties named in the slumlord lawsuits [initiated by the Attorney General], DCRA had not received any recent complaints from residents of thosebuildings. And for the worst of the properties, we never received a singlecomplain t.1127 PRI Programs May PreserveNeighborhood Property Values and a Locality's Property TaxBase) One of the lessons localities have drawn from the foreclosure crisis is that it is crucial to prevent concentration of blighted properties, in part because poorly maintained, substandard housing can have a negative effect on neighboring property values. By addressing housing conditionsproactively, and by quickly identifying and targeting exterior substandard conditions alongside interior code violations, proactiverental inspection programs can ensure that properties don't become blighted, thereby preserving property values. From a financial standpoint, this benefits landlords and homeowners. Maintaining neighborhood property values also benefits the entire locality because it preserves the localtax base. cnangeiausolutions.orq A Guideto Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 6 ChangeLab Solutions State legislatures can also preempt the authority of localities toenact proactive rentalinspection programs by enacting state laws thatoverride or limit a locality's authority to establish a program. Some states, including Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, prohibit or significantly restrict systematic interior inspections of rentalunits.29 Greensboro, North Carolina had a successful proactive rentalinspection program until the legislature preempted the city's authority to operate that program.30,31 It is important to review your state law to determine ifthe authority to start a i PRI program resideswith your locality orwith your state. ciaarogelabsolutioas.urq I A Guide to Proactive Rentat Inspection Programs T UNDERSTANDING PRI PROGRAMS STATE LAW, PREEMPTION AND PROACTIVERENTAL INSPECTIONS There is no standard PRI program. Programsvary according to thetypes of rental Code enforcement is an exercise housing in a locality, the needs of the particular locality, the availability of resources, of a government's "police power." and (to an extent) state law. This guide provides an overview of the key components of Police power is the inherent power PRI programs and the different ways localities have implemented them. of government to act to protect Though details vary, PRI programs typically share a basic program structure: the health, safety, and welfare of Registration. The locality requires property owners to register their rentalitscitizens. The extent of the police power that a locality may exercise is properties or to obtain a certificate or license in order to rent housing units. dependent on its state constitutional Periodic Inspections. The locality requires periodic inspections of all covered or statutory law. rental properties. Inspectionsoccur on a periodic basis, usually every few years, to ensure that the housing is adequately maintained. In a few states, the law may establish that code enforcement is administered Enforcement. If a property fails inspection, the locality initiates enforcement by the state .28 In most states, however, measures. code enforcement occurs at the city or county level. In some states, state law expressly authorizes localities to establish a code enforcement program. In other states, the state constitution orstate law may give localities broad homerule" power - the authority to enact laws, such as a proactive rental inspection program - without a specificdelegation of power from the legislature. State legislatures can also preempt the authority of localities toenact proactive rental inspection programs by enacting state laws thatoverride or limit a locality's authority to establish a program. Some states, including Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, prohibit or significantly restrict systematic interior inspections of rentalunits.29 Greensboro, North Carolina had a successful proactive rental inspectionprogram until the legislature preemptedthe city's authority to operate that program.30,31 It is important to review your state law to determine ifthe authority to start a i PRI program resideswith your locality orwith your state. ciaarogelabsolutioas.urq I A Guide to Proactive Rentat Inspection Programs T ChangeLabSolutions VPractice Tip Phasing in the initialinspections over time or targeting particular neighborhoods can help to ease the transitionfrom a complaint -based program to a systematic one .32 PHASING IN PRI PROGRAMS A PRI program requires a substantial initial investment of time and resources. An early audit of Los Angeles' program found that the goal of inspecting every multi-unit rental property every three years was not achievable at first because of backlogs and the length of time inspections took. The auditor recommended several strategies, including inspectingtheoldest properties first, conducting initial drive-by exterior reviews, focusing on properties with histories of complaints and /or non - compliant owners/ tenants, and establishing staggered review schedules from three to five or more years based on selected criteria e.g., rent, location, history).33 changelabsoIutions.org Types of Rental Housing Included Within the Program A locality must also decide on the types of rental housing to include in its program. The types of housing included are usually determined by the most pressing needs in the community and by theavailability of resources for inspection and enforcement. Targeting Particular Neighborhoods Some localities, particularly when first initiating a rental housing inspection program, targetparticular neighborhoods or areas. This can enable a locality to focus limited resources wherethey are most needed. Sacramento, for example, piloted a rental housing inspection program by targeting two neighborhoods, each ofwhich contained a large number of rental properties with a high incidence of dangerousbuilding cases, code enforcement cases, and police and fire calls for service .34 The program was successful and, in 2008, Sacramento expanded the program citywide .35 Similarly, Kansas City, MO expanded its program incrementally, implementing the program initially in areas where 30percentormore of the housing units were rentals, the housing inventory was basically soundbut exhibited substantial deterioration, and neighborhood residents had expressed interest in a systematic housing inspection progra m.36 Beginning in 1986, St. Louis required a certificate of inspection with each change in tenancy in certain housing conservation districts.37, 3e This policy was expanded to cover the entire city in 2012 because it had proven successful in sustaining and improving the quality of residential housing, and city officials determined that it could be helpful in enforcing minimum housing standards and securing the health and safety of all St. Louis residen ts.39 A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 8 1) w ChangeLabSolutions VPractice Ti When targeting neighborhoods, a locality should use criteria that pertain to the quality of housing and /or the need for inspection, such as those criteria employed by Sacramento and Kansas City, MO, as described above. Classifications or targeting based on the race, color, religion, sex, familial status, nationalorigin, or disability status of residents may result in discrimination claims.4o, 41,42,43 Targeting Properties Based on Number of Units Localities often limit a program's scope to properties that contain a specifiedminimum San Francisco, CA (exterior inspection) 1 ormoreunits 2 ormoreunits 3 or moreunits 3 ormoreunits (and hotels with 6 ormore 1 or moreunits 1 or moreunits Multi -unit properties: Most programs cover multi -unit rental properties, but some programs restrict that coverage to properties with a certain number of units. Los Angeles's Systematic Code Enforcement Program applies to residential properties with two or more units, so long as at least oneof those units is rented or offered for rent .44 Washington DC's proactive inspectionprogram applies to all multifamily rental properties withmore than three units.45 San Francisco conducts periodicinspections of the exterior and common areasof residential buildings with three or more dwelling units and hotels consisting of six or moreguest rooms .46 In contrast, Seattle's registration and inspection provisions apply to rental housing propertiesirrespective of size or number of units.47 Single - family homes: Some PRI programs coversingle-family homes. Recently, Grand Rapids expanded its registration and inspection program for multi - family properties to include single-family rental housing and abandoned and vacant residential properties .41, Reporting that thenumber of families living in single - family rental units increased from4,568 to 7,771 between 2006 and 2009, the working grouprecommended adding single-family rental units in orderto: (1) ensure that substandard housing did not disproportionately impact families with children; (2) increase market equity for all investment property owners by promoting consistent code compliance across all types of rental housing; and (3) ensure a standard of quality and affordability for all rental units, particularly in the central city, topromote urban neighborhood S.49 Santa Cruz, a college town wheresingle - family homes are often rented to groups of students, also includes single-family rental homes within its program.50 Other Commonly- Exempted Units Localities have also adopted a variety of other ways tofocus their rental inspection resources. Owner- occupied: Several localities exemptbuildings if the property owner lives in one of the units.51 Boston, for example, exempts buildings of six or fewer units if the owner occupies oneof the units.52 The rationale for this exemption is that buildings where the landowner resides are likely to be adequatelymaintained. changelab,olufions.olq A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 9 ChangeLab Solutions VACANT PROPERTY REGISTRATION Some localities, such as Grand Rapids, require owners to register all rental property - including vacant and abandoned properties.53 Requiring the registration of vacant and abandoned property can help prevent blight in neighborhoods, especially in localities with high foreclosure orvacancy rates. Government regulatedor subsidized: Many localities, including Boston and Seattle, exempt federal, state, or locality-owned or managed buildings, as well as Section Eight and other subsidized housing, because thesehousing categories are subject toother inspection requirements .54 Should the frequency of these other mandated inspections be reduced '55, 56 it may be advisable to extend municipal rental inspection programs to cover these properties. New-construction: Some localities exempt newly -built housing, as it is presumed to be in good condition. In Santa Cruz, for example, housing built within the preceding five years is exempt from theinspection program.57 Hotels and motels: Non - residential hotels, motels, and other transient housing are also commonly exempted from rental housing inspection ordinances .58. 59 However, given that vulnerabletenants may live in these types of properties on a long -term basis, it may be important to include them in municipal periodic rentalinspection programsif no other standards are applied to ensure that they remain in habitable condition. Registration and Licensing of Rental Property Rental Registration In order to implement a PRI program, a locality needs toknow whatrental properties exist and who owns them .60 To determine this, many localities require owners to register their rental properties or units. Registration requirements are common in systematic rental housing inspection programs, but can also be implemented independently, or in conjunction with other city administrative functions such as business licensing. In additiontoinforming a locality of thelocation of rental housing, information gathered during registration may help a locality to inventory its rental housing stock, which can be valuable for planning purposes. For example, registration and licensing can allow municipal housing, commerce, and planning agencies to monitorfluctuations in the number of rental units over time, which may help them plan for growth or reduction, or manage situations like the foreclosure crisis. Frequency of renewal: Localitiesvary in how frequently they require registration renewal. For example, Kansas City, MO requires annual registration .61 Some localities require registration to be updated when there is a change in ownership, in addition to or in place of renewal on a fixed term basis. Registration fees: Many localities charge fees for property registration (detailed in a later section). Some localities do not charge a fee, but a failure to register may result in significant enforcement fees .62 Rental Licensing In lieu of a registrationrequirement, some localities require property owners to obtain a license before renting a housing unit. To ensure the habitability of rentalunits prior to tenant occupancy, localities may require an inspection as a prerequisite to a license. changelahsolucions.orq A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 10 ChangeLabSolutions ci, inclelajh.soIurioI I s -wQ I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 11 Examples of communities that use a licensing approach are Boulder, CO and Baltimore VPrerr ice T "' County, MID .63 In the PRI context, the terms license and registration may be Ann Arbor prohibits occupancy of a dwelling unless it has a valid certificate of used interchangeably from one compliance. After a property has been inspected and is determined to be in conformance locality tothe next. Sometimes with the code, the property owner is responsible for applying for the certificate of municipal rental housing registration compliance .64 Ann Arbor also has provisions for the issuance of a temporary certificate requirements are standalone - of compliance if, due toinspection servicescheduling difficulties, an inspection cannot be not tied toadditional regulatory conducted prior to the expiration of a current certificate .65 schemes - and primarily serve In Washington, D.C., to obtain a license to operate a housingbusiness, an owner must the purpose of allowing a locality allow an inspection of the property to determine that it is in compliancewith all applicable to index and gather information building and housing laws and regulations .66 about its rental properties. In other instances, municipal rental housing Similarly, Boulder utilizes a licensing scheme to ensure compliance with the city's registration requirements are the property maintenance code prior to occupancy.61 Boulder has provided that in cases same as license requirements where an inspection uncovers deficiencies that cannot be corrected prior to occupancy, and are part of a locality's rental the owner or operator may apply for a temporary license, which is issued for a limited housing inspection program. Some time if the number and severity of violations does not constitute an imminent health and municipal PRI programs use the safety hazardto the public or to occupants.6e term "certificate of compliance" or certificate of occupancy" in lieu of Frequency of Periodic Inspections the term "license." Whether in conjunction with a registration system or a licensing requirement, the defining Therefore, it is important to look characteristic of PRI programs is routine inspection of rental housing. As described beyond PRI program titles and above, some localities require an inspection as a prerequisite to initial registration, terminology to understandthe actual licensing, or occupancy. Many PRI programs also require additional periodicinspections. design and function of a program. The frequency withwhich localities elect to conduct these inspections is often heavily dependent on the extent of a locality's resources. In addition to periodic inspections, certain events may trigger, accelerate, or decelerateinspections. LOCALITY • Los Angeles, CA Every 3 years Baltimore County, MD Every 3 years Boulder, CO At registration. At renewalof license, which is required every4 years. LUpon transfer of ownership. Ann Arbor, MI Not more than 2.5 years Kansas City, MO Every 2 to 4 years, depending on compliance Grand Rapids, MI Every 2, 4 or 6 years, depending on compliance i Boston, MA Every 5 years for most properties. Rental units belonging to chronic offender landlords inspected every three years. I Problem properties inspected annually. ci, inclelajh.soIurioI I s -wQ I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 11 ChangeLab Solutions 51 While a systematic rental housing inspectionprogram may require inspections on a fixed cycle, the actual timeline on which municipal inspectors are ableto work their way through inspections of covered housing may, in some cases, be longer." Periodic Inspections on a Fixed Basis Many PRI programs require inspections on a cyclical basis, usually every few years. Baltimore County and Los Angeles require an inspectionevery three years 70 Boulder requires an inspection at registration, uponrenewal of a rental license - generally every four years - or upon transfer of ownership7' Ann Arbor specifies that theperiod between inspections shall be no longer than 2.5 years 72 Inspection Frequency Based on Prior Compliance A number of localities set a baseline standard for the frequencyof inspections and then allow for deviation fromthat standard based on a property's record of compliance. Several localitiesrequire less frequent inspections once a property ownerestablishes a record of compliance. In Kansas City, MO, for example, certificates of compliance are valid for two years; however, owners may be issued certificates for up to four years if there have been no violations since the last date of certification 73 Grand Rapids conductsinspections when owners apply for a certificate of compliance, which is a prerequisite for occupancy.74 The certificate is valid for two, four, or six years, depending on the record of compliance, the presence or absenceof violations, and the degree of compliance with the program's registration and fee requirements.75 Grand Rapids will issue a six -year certificate if: the property has no violations and has notchanged ownership since its last certification; the owner applies for an inspection and re- registers the property on time; and there are no outstanding fees, taxes, or assessments against the property.76 A four-year certificate is issued if the owner applies for an inspection and re- registers the property on time, and the property is brought into compliance with the code prior to expiration of the current certificate or within the timeframe specified on any notice of violation77 In other cases, Grand Rapids will issue a two -year certificate.78 Boston requires that properties covered by its program are inspected at least once every five years, but it also has mechanisms to target bad actors and problem properties for more frequent inspection 79 For example, in Boston, owners of problem properties - those which have received four or more sustainedcomplaints for noise; or complaints for noxious, noisome, or unsanitary conditions; or police calls for arrestable offenses must annuallyrequest an inspection from the city, and develop a management plan to remediate the property's persistent substandardconditions.80 Additionally, Boston operates a chronic offender point system which tracks violations and assigns them a point value. Owners who have accrued a certain number of points are classified as chronic offenders and must request an inspection of each rental unit once every three years.81 Self- Certification A number of localities allow property owners to "graduate" into self- certification programs if they have established a record of passing inspections with no violations. Self- certification programs can give localities a way to allocate their limited resources to properties most in need of inspections. It can also serve as an incentive for property owners to ensure thattheirproperty complieswith all applicable codes. 1 111dons.org I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 12 ChangeLab Solutions I Programs that only conduct inspections during vacancies will overlook units in poor shape, fail to discover conditionsthat residents might point out, and offer little protection to long-term tenants. In addition, because there is no tenant to verify that needed repairs aremade, the locality may need to spend additional resources checking to make sure thatproperty owners comply with repair orders, or repairs may not even be made. Boston's program originally provided for inspection upon change in tenancy and depended on owners to report turnover to the city.82 Notably, under that program, 98 percent of the city's 20,000-plus inspections were the result of tenant complaints rather than reported turnovers. Boston revised its program in 2012 to address this issue, adding regular inspections to all non - exemptrental properties.83 For example, in Sacramento, all rental housing properties are subject toroutine periodic inspection by the city.B4 Rental housing property may be placed in the self- certification program if: (1) the inspector has found no violations, or all violations identified in the initial inspection were abated within 30 days; (2) the property owner and local contact representative are in compliance with all of the provisions in the housingcode; and (3) the property owner is not delinquent on any payments to the city offees, penalties, or taxes.B5 Under Sacramento's self- certification program, property owners are responsible annually and upon a change in tenancy - for inspecting their housing units, making repairs necessary to comply with the housing code, completing a self- certification form for each unit, and providing a copy of this form to the occupants of therespectiveunit$.B6 Rental units included within the self- certification program are still subject to random inspections.B7 Properties in the program receive a discount on the Rental Inspection Housing Program fee.eB Rental property owners in Santa Cruz can requestto participate in the self- certification program if the property is well- maintained and has had no code violations in the preceding three years.B9 In order to remain in theprogram, ownersmust annually self - certify each residentialdwelling unit and pay an annual self-certification fee 90 While the city will generally inspect other unitsannually,91 participants in theself-certification program are subjectto a reduced inspection cycle: twenty percent of the units on each property (or at least one unit on smaller properties) are inspected not morethan once every five years, so long as the property does not deteriorate to the point of no longer meeting eligibility standards for the self - certification program 92 Vacancy Inspections Some localitiesrequireinspectionsonly when a unit is vacated due to a change in tenancy.93 Inspections and repairs may be easier to conduct and less disruptive when a tenant is not present. In addition, by conducting repairs before a tenancy begins, a rental housing inspectionprogram can help protect future tenantsfrom beingexposed to dangerousconditions, such as deteriorating lead -based paint or fire hazards. Notice of Inspection and Entry ofOccupied Units Notice of Inspection Unlikemost complaint -based inspections, proactive rental inspections are undertaken without a request fromthe occupant. As a result, notice of a pending inspection serves an array of critical functions. By informing tenants about the purpose and process of inspections, notice can allay tenant fears, prepare tenants for a strangerto arrive at door, and encourage tenants to permit entry. Giving tenants notice of the scheduled date and time of an inspection can also increase thelikelihood that a tenant will be home and available to permit the inspector to enter. Notice also provides localities with an opportunity to educate tenants and landlordsabout their rights and duties under the law. Finally, notice can alleviate some privacy concerns that residents may haveby giving themthe opportunity to, in advance of inspections, store personal items that are unrelated to code enforcement. change I apsoIti Hon s.orq I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 13 Changel-alb Solutions Practice Tip Notices should be clearly worded and provided in a manner that takes intoaccount language and other communication barriers 94 In developing notices and other materials to support a periodic rental inspectionprogram, it is important to look at local government policies for guidance on language access. Depending on the applicable federal, state, and local laws, translation of the notice into commonly spoken languages may not only be a best practice, it may be a requirement. LANDLORD ENTRY States often have laws defining the reasons for which a landlord may enter a rental property, and the amount of notice a landlordmust provide to a tenant before entry. Whether rental housing inspection is a permissible reason for entry depends on state and local law, and this should be considered in designing a proactive rentalinspection program. In addition to the legal question, there are also practical considerations that may impact whether a PRI program encourages or requires landlord presence at inspections. Tenants may be intimidated and not feel comfortable talkingopenly with an inspector in the presence of the property owner or manager.95 This dynamic may reduce the ability of the code inspector to effectively identify substandard living conditions. Some programs notify property owners and rely on them togive notice totenants .96 However, the critical goalsof notice are better served by providingnotice directly totenants as well; in the cases where housing inspection is mostneeded to address egregious code violations, landlords may be least likely to communicate notice to tenants. Programs providenotice to tenants by mail, postingnotice at the property, or both 97,98,99 Tenant Consent to Inspector Entry Under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, tenants have the right to be secure in their homes against unreasonable searches. At the same time, state and local police power authorize laws that are reasonablyrelated to the publichealth, safety, and welfare of residents. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that local inspection powers are of indispensable importance to themaintenance of community health. "100 There is a strong government interest in preventing "even the unintentional development of conditions which are hazardous to public health and safety. "101 A government agent's entry into a private home without the tenant's consent is presumed to be unreasonable, unless there are emergencycircumstances or a warrant to justify the intrusion 102 Therefore, an inspector must have affirmative consent from the resident prior to or at the time of the inspection. Programs may allow inspectorsto obtain tenant consent for entry at the time of the inspection103 or through a pre-inspection consent form 104 Under a complaint -based inspection program, where the inspection is generally requested by a tenant, securingpermission is typically very straightforward. However, under a PRI program, it may be more complicated for inspectors to get consent to enter from the tenant, for a variety of reasons. For example, a tenant may be wary of government inspectors, have privacy concerns, or even not understand why an inspector has come to the residence. Moreover, the tenant may not be ableto be present at the time of an inspection due to workor other obligations. changelabsolutions.org A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 14 Changel-ab Solutions PRI programs may deploymunicipal inspection employees or contractors, orallow licensed third -party inspectors. Many programs, including those in Los Angeles, Fort Worth, and Sacramento, use municipal inspectors. Other localities, includingBoulder and Baltimore, require property owners to contract with a licensedhome inspector.105 In Boston and Seattle, property owners may use public inspectors or authorized private inspectors 106 These differing practices may proceed from state law, historical practice, or a political or economic decision by a locality nottohire additional municipal employees. For example, in Washington, thestatesupreme court examined the rental inspection program of the City ofPasco, under which (1) landlords could choose from a range ofpublicor privateinspectors and (2) landlords did not need to furnish the city with details of the inspection report - only a certification ofcompliance based upon inspection 107 The court found that this program did not constitute "stateaction" orviolate stateor constitutional protections against unreasonable search. This ruling has affected how other Washington cities have designed their rentalinspection programs. Many programsinclude exterior inspection, while some focus exclusively on exterior buildings, yards, and, sometimes, common areas of buildings. Exterior inspections can help to identify nuisances and blighted property, and prevent crime and fires. Analysis ofdata fromthe American Housing Survey, conducted by the Census Bureau for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, has found thatexterior and interior conditions are related: the greater the numberof certain exterior problems, the more likely that housing has associated interior problems. For example, a sagging roofportends interior problems with pests and moisture "' However, an exterior inspection alone cannot identify unsafe and substandard conditions, such as electrical, plumbing, and structural problems, that reside within therentalunit or the building's stairs, hallways, and other common areas. 2,113 Kansas City, Missouri's programconducts inspections of exteriors of buildings, accessory buildings, and yards; in multiunit buildings, it also conductsinspections of common areas. It only inspects the interior ofunits that are vacantatthe time ofthe inspection 114 San Francisco conducts periodic inspections of the exterior and common areas of apartment housesand hotels,"' and will onlyinspect the interior ofdwelling units upon thereceipt ofoccupant complaints, orifit is determined that an interior inspection is reasonably necessary to determine whether a housingcode violation exists 116 ci I arl cle i a ),o i l IHons.orq A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 15 While tenants often give consentto the inspectorto enter, a tenant may deny consent Practice Tip for any of thereasons mentioned above. Where necessary, PRI ordinances may empower Education and outreach by municipal the locality to seek an administrative inspection warrant from a court of competent and community groups, discussed jurisdiction 1011,109,110 later, is often an effective strategy for gaining tenant trust and cooperation. Scope of Inspection PRI programs must designate whether inspections will include: (1) exteriors of buildings; 2) interior common areas; and /or (3) individualunits in a building. MUNICIPAL INSPECTORS OR APPROVED PRIVATE INSPECTORS Exterior Inspections PRI programs may deploy municipal inspection employeesor contractors, orallow licensed third -party inspectors. Many programs, including those in Los Angeles, Fort Worth, and Sacramento, use municipal inspectors. Other localities, includingBoulder and Baltimore, require property owners to contract with a licensedhome inspector.105 In Boston and Seattle, property owners may use public inspectors or authorized private inspectors 106 These differing practices may proceed from state law, historical practice, or a political or economic decision by a locality nottohire additional municipal employees. For example, in Washington, thestatesupreme court examined the rental inspection program of the City ofPasco, under which (1) landlords could choose from a range ofpublicor private inspectors and (2) landlords did not need to furnish the city with details of the inspection report - only a certification of compliance based upon inspection 107 The court found that this program did not constitute "stateaction" orviolate stateor constitutional protections against unreasonable search. This ruling has affected how other Washington cities have designed their rental inspection programs. Many programsinclude exterior inspection, while some focus exclusively on exterior buildings, yards, and, sometimes, common areas of buildings. Exterior inspections can help to identify nuisances and blighted property, and prevent crime and fires. Analysis ofdata fromthe American Housing Survey, conducted by the Census Bureau for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, has found thatexterior and interior conditions are related: the greater the numberof certain exterior problems, the more likely that housing has associated interior problems. For example, a sagging roofportends interior problems with pests and moisture "' However, an exterior inspection alone cannot identify unsafe and substandard conditions, such as electrical, plumbing, and structural problems, that reside within therentalunit or the building's stairs, hallways, and other common areas. 2,113 Kansas City, Missouri's programconducts inspections of exteriors of buildings, accessory buildings, and yards; in multiunit buildings, it also conducts inspections of common areas. It only inspects the interior ofunits that are vacantatthe time ofthe inspection 114 San Francisco conducts periodic inspections of the exterior and common areas of apartment housesand hotels,"' and will onlyinspect the interior ofdwelling units upon thereceipt ofoccupant complaints, orifit is determined that an interior inspection is reasonably necessary to determine whether a housingcode violation exists 116 ci I arl cle i a ),o i l IHons.orq A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 15 ChangeLab Solutions VPractice Tip Beginning a PRI programwith exterior inspections and vacant unit inspections may be one strategy for launching a program in communities with obstacles to systematic interior inspections. RESOURCES FOR HEALTHY HOUSING INSPECTIONS U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthy Housing Inspection Manual, developed for environmental health professionals, inspectors, and others, has a visual assessment data collectionform as well as a resident questionnaire. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has developed a rating tool for health and safety hazards based on a tool used in the United Kingdom 117 The Pediatric Environmental Home Assessment was created to assist health professionals during home visits."" Interior Inspections The most comprehensive systematic rental housing inspection programs mandate interior inspections of rental units, to ensure that the areas where tenants spend most of their time are in safe and healthy condition. Most municipal code enforcement departments have procedures and checklists that identify what inspectors should look for when conducting an interior inspection of a residence "9.120 These materials, usually designed for complaint-based programs, can be easily adapted for proactiverental inspectionprograms. However, the process of implementing a systematicrental inspection program can also afford an opportunity to review other aspects of code enforcement, such as the scope of interior inspections, to ensure that theprogram effectively protects the health of residents. Sampling formulas: Often, localities cannot devote all the resourcesnecessary to inspect every unit in multi -unitbuildings. Instead, these localities may use sampling formulas. In Sacramento, for example, theinspection of a multi -unitbuilding includes all common areas and a random sampling of no less than ten percent of rental housing units 121 If the inspector determines that a property is in violation of any standard, the inspector is authorized to inspect additional, or all, units of that property.122 Seattle uses a different formula: in buildings containing20 or fewer units, a minimum of two unitsmust be inspected. In buildings containing morethan 20 units, 15 percent of the rental units must be inspected, up to 50 rental units in each building .123 Sq I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs V T 1T Changel-ab Solutions V Practice Tip It is important that code enforcement officials independentlydetermine which units to sample, rather than letting ownersselect which units are to be inspected. This ensures that representative units, not just the best - maintained ones, are inspected. r Y ti w 1 LEAD HAZARD INSPECTIONS While lead -based paint was banned for residential use in 1978, lead remains a health hazard for those who live in housing constructed prior to 1978, particularly for children. Some PRI programsspecifically address lead hazards. Rochester, New York, for example, requires all multi -unit buildings to undergo visual assessment for deteriorated paint and bare soil violations as partof housing inspection 124 Owners of housing containingfive or fewer units in identified high -risk areas are responsible for having dust samples taken and tested, and submitting the results to the Lead Inspection Unit125 When enacting the law, Rochester established a citizen advisory group to assist with public education and implementation 126 An independentevaluation of the ordinancefound that by 2010 four years after the law was enacted), the city had inspected nearly all pre-1978 rental units 127 This evaluation suggests that the lead law contributed significantly to declines in children's blood lead levels 128 In addition, 94% of units passed visual inspections and 89% of units tested passed dust wipe inspections - much higher ratesthan were predicted based on prior local and national studies - indicating lead safety of rental housing had improved since enactment of the law 129 Finally, while property owners had concerns that the cost of complying with the law would cause widespread abandonment of rental properties due to low property values and narrow profit margins in Rochester's rental housing market, that scenario did not transpire 130 Washington DC's law requiresrental property owners to obtain a clearance report from a licensed professional, indicating that there are no lead dust hazards or deteriorated paint in any pre-1979 homes that are to be occupied by a family with a child .131 changelabsolutions.org I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 17 ChangeLab Solutions YT Practice Tip To preventevictions and maximize the number of units that can be saved" and preserved in the rental housing market, PRI programs should strive to exhaust all options for bringing a failing orillegal unit up to code. Enforcement to Address Code Violations One of the most important elements of any rentalinspection program - complaint -based or proactive - is enforcement when violations are discovered. Implementing appropriate remedies for identified code violations (and when a property ownerfails to make repairs) helps ensure that program goals are met and tenants are protected fromsubstandard housing conditions. Localities use a range of tools to enforce property maintenance, housing, sanitary, and health laws. The methods a locality may use are often dependent on state law and on what powers the state delegates to localities. Generally, the move from a complaint -based system to proactive rental inspection doesn't require major changes in the types of actions taken in response to violations. However, if a locality's existing complaint -based rental inspectionprogram is facing enforcement challenges, the locality shouldtake the opportunity to address these challenges in designing and implementing a more comprehensive program. The primary goalof PRI programs is to ensure that housing is properly maintained. When an inspection reveals a substandard condition in a covered dwelling, most localities will issue a notice ororderto comply, setting out the owner's rights and obligations, as well as the consequences of continued non - compliance 132 The order will typically specify a time window for compliance. Los Angeles, for example, allows no morethan 30 days for correction of non - serious violations, with the possibility of an extensionif significant progress has been completed by the end of 30 days 133 For violations that pose a serious riskto the health orsafety of the occupants or the public, Los Angeles requires that the substandard condition must be abated (repaired) in no more than 14 days, with no possibilityof extension .134 If a violation poses an imminent danger to the healthor safety of tenants, most programs move quickly to remedy the situation. In Los Angeles, the city can orderthat the landlord fix the violation within 48 hours, and then re- inspect the building within thenext 24 hours. If the condition has not been abated, the city is authorized to make the repair and then require the property owner to reimburse the city.135 Fines, which are a common component of program enforcement when an ownerfails to make repairs in a timely manner, are discussed further in the Funding PRI Programs section (see page 19). i A few interestingenforcement approaches are described below: Rent Escrow Accounts One interestingfeature of the Los Angeles Systematic Code Enforcement Program is the city's Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP), which is activated when a property owner fails to fix code violations withinthetime allotted. After a hearing on theviolations, the property units may be ordered into REAP by the manager of the Housing Department. When a property is in REAP, tenants receive a rent reduction for the cited code violations at the property and are given the option ofpaying their reduced monthly rent into an escrow accountor to thelandlord. The city records the Notice of REAP as a property lien, A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 18 ChangeLab r luflons C priactirdp- Tip, For clarity, in developing a rental licensing program, a locality might consider specifying that an owner's failure to obtain a license is a valid defense that a tenant can use against eviction proceedings. a CDBG FUNDING Code enforcement is an eligible expense under Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which are provided by HUD on a formula basis to entitlement communities (cities and urban counties), and to states for non - entitlement communities."' The International Code Council recently published guidelines for code officials regarding the use of CDBG funds for this purpose .137 changelilbSOIL dions.or'q which may restrict refinancing or sale of the property. The property owner is assessed a monthly administrative fee per rental unit. To clear the title of the REAP Notice, the property must come into compliance with codes and allfees due the Housing Department must be paid 138 The Housing Department contracts with several nonprofit organizations to provideoutreach to tenants about theprogram and toassist landlords in expediting compliance .139 Registration as a Prerequisite to Eviction Actions Anne Arundel County, MD, requires that property owners obtain a rental license before renting residential property consisting of two or more units. 140 In an evictionaction brought by an owner who had failed to obtain therequired license, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's supreme court, held that the owner could not evict a tenant before complying withthe county licensing requirement 141 Monitoring Substandard Properties In 2007, faced with a backlog of unresolved substandard housing cases and a slow rate of compliance, the city of Lansing created a new program to track and monitor unsafe and substandard housing: the Neighborhood Enhancement Action Team (NEAT). NEAT tracks propertiesthat have been 'tagged' as unsafe for habitation based on internal or external conditions. A tagged property is transferred to the NEAT program after 90 days of noncompliance. For every month that theviolations are not addressed, the landlordincurs a $150 fee. Property owners are not charged the fee if they can demonstrate progress toward habitability. This incentive has had a dramatic effect on the number of tagged properties in the city, which has steadily decreased from 740 in 2007to 362 in 2013 (224 of whichwere NEAT properties). At the start of the program, about half of the properties had been tagged for 5 -7 years; ten monthsinto theprogram, the average length of time a property was tagged had dropped to 147 days142 Funding PRI Programs Most systematicrentalinspectionprograms are funded, solelyor in part, by fees levied against property owners. Localitiescommonly impose fines and penalties for housing code violations or other program violations. Examplesof feeschedules from a number of localities are described below. Registration, license, and program fees: Localitiescommonly charge registration, program, licensing, or certificate fees to cover the costs of implementing and administrating a proactive rentalinspection program. These feesare often charged based on the size of the rental property. For example, they may be determined based on the number of rental units; or apportioned at different rates for small, medium or large buildings; or assessed by square footage. Localities may charge these fees on a one -time or recurring basis, depending on the nature of the fee and the length of the program cycle. For example, Antioch, CA charges a one -timeinitial registration fee when a property enters the program 143 In contrast, Santa Cruz, CA charges an annual registration fee and requires that landlordsannually reregister all rental units 144 A Guide to Proactive Rental InspectionPrograms in ChangeLab Solutions Yr Pra47,tirp Tip Relying heavily on penalties to sustain a program may result in an unpredictable funding stream. Sacramento began its PRI program with a focused pilot program. The city anticipated that the cost of the program would be offset by the revenue from fines and penalties 145 However, withthe implementation of the pilotprogram, property owners brought their properties intocompliance more quickly than anticipated. As a result, the pilot program assessed significantly fewer penalties and generated less revenue than expected .146 To help ensure that the program could be self- sustaining, Sacramento adopted a different fee schedule when implementing its city -wide program 147 inspection fees: In addition to registration, licensing, or programming fees, some localities assess inspection fees annually (or for each period of a program's cycle) for units subject tomandatory inspection; others assess inspection fees only when an inspection is to actually take place. Localities withself- certification programs may discount or waive the inspection fee for units that are owner- inspected, although they may charge a separate self- certification fee. Re-inspection fees: Most localities charge a reinspection fee to cover the cost of additional inspections after violations are uncovered during an initial inspection. Targeting thesecosts to property owners not in compliance can keep fee costs down for landlords who do maintain their properties appropriately. As an incentive for owners to remedy code violations, some localities will only charge this fee on the second or subsequent reinspection, if violations have not been corrected within a specified period after the initial inspection. Other fees: Some localities impose a fee for rescheduling or for missed appointments. Several localities impose penalties for late payment ofanyof therequired fees. Where the locality provides for abatement of code violations, theabatement fee may cover the costs incurred by the locality, including administration and labor. Penalties /Fines for violation: Localities may impose administrative or civil (monetary) penalties for violations of the proactiverental inspection program and property maintenance codes. Localities sometimes impose criminal fines as we 11.148 IY L IJ NI A Guide to Proactive Rental InspectionPrograms 20 ChangeLabSolutions A Sample of Fee Schedules for PRI Programs rr rr-[ V,r r jr c r, r rr GC iIstFFifaF1 arCi raw Program fee License or No fee to register Registration fee Delinquent registration fee for properties not registered by 1/31: 50 in February, increasing by $50 per month, to a maximum penalty of $500 Additional $200 per month per structure for failure to register 16 per year Self- certification Inspection fee waived fee for units in self -cert program Inspection fee j $127 per unit for rental housing units subject to mandatory inspections 127 per unit for each additional unit inspected because of a violation discovered on the property 80 reschedulingfee r..:(-' U7, rr, V_, "A i,r1r r I, rr r r p4nta'I IJ fPr fnci 61 riii J2r I' PFIrai Ioli Inn rRSF)"Clrf fi VCOCiR'fllt" F3usin(t s 90 for any 35per unit, for reinspection of each buildings with three reinspection of a or more units, rentalhousing unit charged at the issuance or renewal of the license violation after the not to exceed $2000 for routine housing biennially) 70 per building $45 per year per charged before a building rental license is issued or renewed, covering all units withinthe building I In addition, $70 N per unit for units attached to a building but individually owned 250 per inspection performed i 20% of units @ $20 per unit 1 $20 per unit, to cover the cost of an annual inspection andone compliance reinspection, if necessary Not paid by units in the self-certification program 21.50 annually per unit at the initial issuance of the license A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 21 Reinspection fee $100 for second and 127 per unit for 107 per hour, 90 for any each subsequent reinspection of each payable if the owner reinspection of a re- inspection rentalhousing unit fails to correct any licensee's premises that fails to correct violation after the for routine housing violationswithin the first compliance code violations required timeframe reinspection Penalties f Localities may also impose civil and criminal penalties for violation of a rental housing inspection ordinance or other applicable city codes A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 21 Changel-ab Solutions Evaluation Evaluation is an important, though often overlooked, component ofgovernment programs. The purpose of PRI programs is topreserve housing stock, improve habitability for tenants, and ensure that the locality receives property taxes. In these days of shrinking public resources, it is important to make certain that programs achieve their desired outcomes. Also, to ensure effective funding mechanisms, it is necessary to evaluate the costs of programs versus the revenue generated by their fees and penalties. Under Boston's systematic rentalinspection program, an annual report must be provided to the city council detailing the activities of the program, including the number of inspections requested and performed each month by the various types of inspectors, the total number of violations identified through inspections, the number of exemptions requested and granted, the number of violations prosecuted, the amount of fines levied and collected, and an overall assessment of theprogram and plans for improvementsl5a Beginning in 2014, Seattle, which adopted a periodicrentalinspectionprogram in 2012, will require an annual report to thecity council that will include an evaluation of properties' registration status (including detailsabout any previously unidentified housing units that havebeen discovered); property owners' compliance in allowinginspections to be completedwithin the applicable 60-day timeframe; the results of inspections where properties have a previous history of violations; whether the program fees actually reflect the program costs; the number of inspections that have resulted from complaints; the extent to which the civil warrant process has been used; and any audits and findings on inspections155 Kansas City, MO requiresits city council to review its programprovisions and requirements at least every two years to determine whetherto maintain, modify, or terminate the program 156 Staff in Santa Cruz, CA will provide their city councilwith a report of rental housing units saved and lost following the first round of proactive registration and inspections 157 changelabsofuiions.urq I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 22 ChangeLab Solutions CHALLENGES WHEN IMPLEMENTING VENTURA, CA: I INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS In the initial phase of the city's PRI programs can yield important improvements in a locality's housingstock. But they proactive inspectionprogram, may also amplify many of the challenges that arisewith traditional complaint -based inspectors in Ventura, CA found 15 programs, because (1) proactive inspection programs typically bring inspectors into illegal converted rental units —just a contact with a much wider cross - section of a locality's housing, and (2) inspections are small fraction of the 300 -500 such not initiated exclusively by tenantcomplaints. In some cases, code enforcement activities units that officials believe exist. In can potentially result in displacement of tenants. This section examines some common order to meet the city's commitment challenges, and the following section offersstrategies for addressingthese challenges to to address substandard housing and maximize the effectiveness and benefits of PRI programs. promote a healthy environment, staff made an innovative recommendation, Uninhabitable and "Illegal" Units informed by a collaboration with In extreme cases, an inspector may findsubstandardconditions that immediately community members: Grant amnesty threaten the health and safety of residents. PRI programs should include measures that toillegallyconverted units for 30 requirelandlords to fix properties quickly; however, in the worst cases, the locality may months, suspending all fines and require a tenant to vacatethe property. penalties while owners brought the units up to code. Eligibility Inspectors may also encounter "illegal" units: units that have not been registered or was confined to second units on licensed, and units that exist in violation of zoning or building codes. Where possible, propertiesthat allowed residential localities should aim to bringunitsinto compliance to preserve rental housing stock. use, with an occupancy date prior to Where uninhabitable orillegalunits cannot be brought intocompliance, relocation the city council's initial action. programs and supportive social programs, discussed in more detail below, are critical to Low- income landlords were also ensure that tenants remain housed. eligible for newly created Affordable RentalHousing Preservation Loans Tenant -Side Code Violations to coverthecost of compliance, on Because PRI programinspectors arenot only invited intorental housing units by tenants the condition that tenants be charged filing complaints, they are more likely to uncover tenant -side code violations orillegal federally established affordable occupancies thanthey would under complaint-based programs. Because the central rates for the duration of the 15-year goalof proactive rentalinspection programs is to maintain housing in safe and healthy loan term158The program includes condition, code enforcement should prioritize remedying such violations rather than an educational component, bases displacing tenants from their homes. fees on the in- service date (when the property was first occupied), Hoarding: About three to five percent of Americans suffer from hoarding160 , 161,162,163 and waives zoning violationsthat Severe hoarding not only puts a tenant and other occupants of a housing unit at risk, but do not impact health and safety, may place neighboring residents atriskof fire, disease, or infestation of vermin 164,165,166 including setbacks, lotcoverage, and This disorder is not widely understood and localitiesoften struggle with effective ways on -site parking requirements. As of toaddress hoarding167 For example, one study out of New York found that "almost a August 2013, the city had received 53 quarter of individuals seeking help for housing problems from a community eviction applications, and had inspected and prevention organization met the criteria for [hoarding disorder]; only about half of these approved 41 properties, with another individuals were receiving mentalhealth treatment. "161 However, as hoarding is a form of 5 in process 159 mental illness,"' localities should identify ways toassist hoarders without rendering them homeless 170.171 1.1hongeIabsoIudons.orq A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 23 ChangeLabSolutions DISPLACEMENT AND HEALTH Like substandard conditions, housing instability, displacement, and homelessness have significant, negative impacts on health. Children and adults who experience housing instability and homelessness are at greater risk for poorhealth than those in stable housing "z Stablehousing can improve mentalhealthoutcomes for residents, reduce stress - related healthoutcomes, and provide a stable foundation for accessing othercritical social and healthservices "3 Yr Practice Tip As localities aim to improve the health of families and communities through code enforcement, it is critical that they consider and address any potential for displacement, to ensure that health gains through better housing conditions arenotpaired with health losses through displacement. For example, there are over 20 hoarding task forces across the state of Massachusetts, organized by a range of agencies, including county health departments, senior services agencies, housing authorities, local governments, and housing nonprofits. These task forces are supported by a StatewideSteering Committee on Hoarding (SSCH), facilitated by MassHousing, a housing nonprofit. The SSCH was created to bring together professionals from different sectors to address the complex psychological and policy issues associated with hoarding. To date, the SSCH has conducted trainings for over 2,000 people, and has developed a risk assessment tool?14,175 Overcrowding: Overcrowding of units, especially in localities with expensive or tight housing markets, is another challenge for PRI programs. Low - income residents mayhave few alternatives to shared housing176,177 However, where inspectors find that occupancy levels violate applicable codes, tenants may be displaced. Rent Increases When property owners make substantial repairs to a rentalunit, they maypass the cost of repairs along to tenants in the form of significant rent increases. However, by identifying conditions early, periodic rentalinspectionprograms may also help limit the cost ofdeferred maintenance. In addition, some states have laws that preventlandlords fromcollecting rents if a municipal inspection has identified violations and repairs remain outstanding after a reasonable time .171 ci ngel,bsolu ione,.,, I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 24 ChangeLab Solutions 4 ' r, . STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS As increasingnumberof localities have enacted PRI programs, a number ofstrategies have emerged to address the above challenges and ensuresuccessful programs. We highlight a few below. Involve Diverse Stakeholders in Designing the Program As described above, PRI programs differ from locality to locality. The most effective programs are targetedto local housingstock characteristics and the specific concerns of the community. In takingthis approach, proactive code inspectionsprogram should be designed with input from diverse stakeholder groups 179 In Seattle, for example, the city council requiredthe Department of BuildingInspections to convene a Residential Rental Property Licensing and Inspection Stakeholder Group, whichwould issue recommendations for the Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance 1B0 The stakeholder group met almost a dozen times over a six-monthperiod, with the assistance of a professional facilitator and mediator. The input of all representedgroups was carefully documented."" Involve Community-Based Organizations in Implementation Proactiverental housing inspection programs bring code enforcement officers into contact with a broader cross- section of residents than do complaint -based programs - including many residents who have not affirmatively sought out housing inspections. In order tohelp educate tenants and landlords aboutrental housing inspections, allay resident concerns, and ensure effective implementation of inspections, some localities have involved community members and nonprofit organizations in the implementation of their programs. changelabsolutions.org A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 25 ChangeLab Solutions In Los Angeles, after repeated incidents in which city inspectors were unable to gain entry into homes for lead inspections, the Healthy Homes Collaborative, an association of community -based organizations, partnered with the Los Angeles Housing Department and the L.A. County Department of Public Health to ensure that violations are repaired safely. Under the partnership, a member of the collaborative visits selected homes prior to scheduled city inspections. The collaborative representative assists residents in preparing forinspections by educating residents about lead hazards andlead -safe work practices, providing information and referrals about blood lead testing and how to report unsafe repair work, listing potential defects, and informing residents of their legal rights 182 Significantly, city inspectors who visited properties that were pre-visited by collaborative staff have gained entry 80 percent of the time, compared with20percent for homes that were notpre-visited."' Similarly, with difficult cases, such as thoseinvolvinghoarding, overcrowding, or potential displacement, housing inspectors should collaborate with social and legal services agencies and community organizations, which can assist tenants by helping them access critical supportive services. Provide Training for Code Enforcement Staff As proactive rentalinspectionprogramsbring inspectors into wider contact with residents, it is very important thatofficers be able to interact effectively with a diverse population. In tandem with implementing proactiverental inspection programs, localities can provide training to code enforcement officers to ensure that they are prepared to: conduct inspections in a culturally sensitivemanner; be attentive to the special concerns of particular groups (e.g., seniors, undocumented persons); and employ effective strategiesto overcome language and other communication barriers. In particular, having multilingual inspectors and support staff ensures that all tenants are able to communicate effectively throughout theinspection process. The Boston Inspectional Services Department briefs and trains other city staff who might interact with the program, such as thebuilding division. Division heads are briefed on the program's budget, staffing, and operations at biweekly meetingslB4 Provide Education, Outreach and Ongoing Support for Landlords and Tenants Unlike complaint based - systems, PRI programs affirmatively aim to interface with most landlords and tenants. Ensuring that all parties understand the program and their obligations under the program helps to ease the transition. A number of localities have developed programs to help educatelandlords and tenants about the rental inspection program and their obligations; many also provide written materials and checklists for tenants and landlords on applicable housing code provisions. Other localities carry outfar - reaching publicity campaigns, including billboards, posters on bus shelters,1B5 and notices on property tax and water billslB6 Los Angeles conducts a full range of workshops and monthly drop -in sessions to address questions 1117 Sacramento requires that owners distributecity- approved forms concerning tenants' rights and nine r,hr;o i liu 1s uiq I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 26 ChangeLab Solutions changeIabsoIutions.arq responsibilities before thecommencement of any tenancy.1B8 With the support of the mayor's office, Boston's Inspectional Services Department holds monthly landlordseminars to discuss the rental registration program and inspection process. These seminars are scheduled in the evening to encourageattendance 189.190 Kansas City, KS, staff are working with a local community college to develop an online training program for landlords 191 Programs should also work with tenant housing organizations and legal aid organizations to ensure that tenants can understand and assert their rights. Implement Complementary Programs Finally, PRI programs can be more effectively implemented when the locality also puts into place complementary programs to address related housing issues. Funded relocation: Funded tenantrelocation assistance programs help ensure that displacement resulting from code enforcement efforts doesn't result in housing instability and homelessness, which have significant negativehealth impacts192,193,194 Los Angeles, for example, has a Tenant Relocation Assistance Program, which entitles a tenant to financial assistance from the property owner to find new housing195 Often, relocation programs will provide different levelsof funding fortemporary and permanent displacement. In some instances, owners may be unable or unwillingto pay relocation fees to tenants promptly or at all. For this reason, and because low- income tenants often lack sufficient assets to move readily, it is critical that localities set aside designated funds to pay tenants when landlords cannot. Municipal relocation ordinances sometimes allow the locality to place a lien on the property to recoup these relocation payments from the owner. ChangeLab Solutions Financial assistance for low- income landlords to make repairs: There are some instances where low- income property owners may be unable to make repairs on rental properties, a situation magnified by the recent mortgage and credit crises. Financial assistance for low- income landlords can help ensure that needed repairs get made. Rent control: As mentioned in the previous section, tenants may be subject to rent increases after a landlord conductsrepairs to bring a unitinto compliance. In some localities, where permitted understate law, rent control laws may protect tenantsfrom sharp rent increases by limiting allowable pass-throughs of program fees. For example, in Los Angeles, landlords are permitted to pass through the registration and inspection fees onto tenants, but ifthey do so, they must pass thecharges along as proratedmonthly fees so that tenants can absorb the cost over the course of a year.196In addition, while localities with rent control ordinancesallowlandlords to recoup their capitalimprovement costs from tenants, they may require that the costs be recouped in a gradual fashion over a period of time, such as several years 197 Public access to code violation Information: By providing tenants and the public with readily available registration status and code violationinformation about specific properties, localities can incentivize rental owners to complywith registration requirements and give the community tools for enforcement as well as critical information. Grand Rapids provides online access to itslists of registered properties, allowing tenants or prospectivetenants to easily find out whether properties are registered and whether registered properties have certificates of compliance198 Boston will maintain an online, searchableChronic Offenders Registry that includes a list of landlords who regularlyfail to correct problems199 In an effort to increase prospectivetenants' access to rental property information, Code for America, in collaboration with the City of San Francisco and other industry stakeholders, developed a reportable, uniform data standard for housing code violations .200 By adopting a uniform data standard, San Francisco ensures that the data is available for use in additional applications - the sum effect of which is to increase consumer access to housing information. A number of other localities havealso committedto adopting the standard, including Las Vegas, NV; Kansas City, MO; Gary and Bloomington, IN; Olathe, KS; and Bayside, W1.201 changeIabsolutions.or(I I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 28 ChangeLab Solutions CONCLUSION Health and housing are tightly connected. To protect residents from an array of housing relatedhealth risks - such as asthma, allergies, lead poisoning, and injury - localities must ensure that local housingstock is well-maintained and in compliance with applicable housing and property maintenance codes. Proactive rental inspection programs can effectively achieve this by: addressing housing conditions before they become severe; protecting vulnerable tenants who often fall through the cracks of a complaint -cased system; and preserving critical housing stock. At the same time, PRI programs can benefit landlords and communities by protecting the property values ofrental housing and neighboring homes. There are many different ways to design a municipal PRI program. The most effective programs will be tailoredto the characteristics of the local rental housing stock, factor in on- the - ground political and resource limitations, anticipate potential challenges in adoption and implementation, and incorporate broad -based strategiesto ensure that local rental housing remains not only safe and healthy, but stable and affordable for all tenants. ch angel absoIutions.org I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 29 ChangeLabSolutions 1 Krieger J. and Higgins D., "Housing and Health: Time Again for Public Health Action." Public Health Matters, 92(5):758-768, 2002. 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Healthy Homes Work Group, AdvancingHealthy Housing: A Strategy for Action." Page 14, 2013. Available at: http: / /Portal.hud. gov /hudportal/ HUD ?src =/ program _offices /h ealthy_homes/advhh 3 Marshall, S., Runyan, C., Yang, J., et al, "Prevalence of Selected Risk and Protective Factors for Falls in the Home." American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 28(1):95 -101, 2005. 4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Healthy People 2020. Washington, DC. Available at: www.healthypeople.gov /20201 topicsobjectives2020%vervie w.aspx ?topicid =36 5 Pollack, C., Egerter, S., Sadegh - Nobari, T. et al, "Where We Live Matters for Our Health: The Links BetweenHousing and Health." Issue Brief 2: Housingand Health. RWJF Commission to Build a Healthier America, 2008. Available at: www.commissiononhealth .org /PDF /e6244e9e- f630- 4285- 9ad7- 16016dd7e493 /Issue %2OBrief% 202 %2OSept %2008 %20- %2OHousing %20 and %20Health.pdf 6 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Healthy HomesWork Group, Advancing Healthy Housing: A Strategy for Action." Page 14, 2013. Available at: http: / /portal.hud. gov /hudportal/ HUD ?src =/ program _offices /healthy_ homes/advhh See Pollack et al, supra note 5. a Kochera, A., "Falls Among Older Persons and the Role of the Home: An Analysis of Cost, Incidence, and Potential Savings from Home Modification." Issue Brief 56. AARP Public Policy Institute, 2002. Available at: http: / /assets.aarp .org /rgcenter /il /ib56_falls.pdf 9 Gould, E., "Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard Control." Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(7):1162-7, 2009. 10 Hickey, C. "Ensuring Housing Quality: Proactive Minimum Housing Code Inspections of Rental Properties in North Carolina Cities 3." Master's thesis, University of North Carolina at ChapelHill: 2008. Availableat: http: / /ghc.iflkd.com /wp- content / uploads/ 2008 /04 /enhancinghousingqua/ity.pdf 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Harvard KennedySchool, ASH Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Systematic Code Enforcement Program, 2005. Available at: www.innovations.harvard.edu /awards. html ?id =7497 14 Report to Council, City Council of Sacramento, Ordinance Revisions to City Code Chapter 8.120 Relating to the Rental Housing InspectionProgram, 2013. Available at: http: / /Sacramento. granicus.com /MetaViewer.php ?view id= 22 &c/ip_id= 3277 &meta_id = 399614 15 See Hicky, supra note 10. 16 The state of North Carolina passed legislation in 2011 barring, or preempting, many forms of local periodic rental inspection ordinances, so while the North Carolina programs provide valuable data they are not currently active. See, e.g. Mulligan, C., "New Periodic Inspections Law Brings New Requirements and Legal Risks." The Public Servant. 2012. Available at: http:// governmentandpublicsector .ncbar.org/ newsletters1publicservantfebruary2Ol2 / periodicinspectionslaw North Carolina SessionLaw 2011 -281 (S 683). Available at: www.ncga.state.nc.us /Sessions /2011/ Bil1s /Senate 1PDF1S683v0. pdf B Poor and deferred maintenance can lead to both increased maintenance costs and increased health expenditures. For example, deferring maintenance can lead to a failure to discover water leakage, which may lead to further structural damage, the accumulation of mold, and the degradation ofhazardous materials that contain toxins like asbestos or lead. See, e.g., Cummins, S. and Jackson, R., "The Built Environment and Children's Health 6." 2001. Available at: http: // 198. 246.124.22 /healthyplaces /articles / the_ built— environment _and_children_health. pdf 19 See, e.g., Public Roundtable on theDepartment of Consumer and RegulatoryAffairs Proactive Housing InspectionsProgram, Testimony ofLinda Argo, Council of the District of Columbia Committee on Public Services and Consumer Affairs. 2009. Available at: http: / /newsroom.dc.govl show.aspx/ agency /dcra/ section /7 /release /188031year /2009 20 See, e.g., Oregon Public Health Institute, "Rental Housing and Health Equity in Portland Oregon: A Health Impact Assessment ofthe City's Rental Housing Inspections Program." 2012. Available at: w w.healthimpactproject. org /resources /body /O PHI -hia_ final - report_ 8.29. pdf 21 See, e.g., Human Impact Partners and LegalAid ofMarin, " Marin Healthy Homes Project: A Health Impact Asessment." 2012. Available at: www.humanimpact.org /component /jdownloads/ finish /8118510 an ,N at,sc; rtioil; 01 .1 1 A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 30 ChangeLabSolutions 22 See, e.g., Pfeiffer, S. and Rohr, R., "Unsafe Building In Chinatown Prompts Tenants' Rights Campaign." 90.9 WBUR. 2012. Available at: www.wbur.org /2012 /04/23 /tenants- rights 23 Cal. Civil Code § 1942.5. 24 Id. 15 For example, in California, for every 8,000 eligible low- income individuals, there is one legal services attorney. Legal Aid Association of California, Strategic Plan 2011- 2015, Executive Summary, 1.2011. Available at: www.calegaladvocates.org /library/ item. 371319-L AA Cs-20112015—Strategic— Plan 16 See "PublicRoundtable," supra note 19. 27 Id. 26 In New Jersey, for example, code enforcement is a state function, although the state has a cooperative Housing Inspection Program in which cities undertakethe inspections for compensation fromthe state. NJ. Stat. Ann. § 55:13A -1 et seq. Under New Jersey's State Local Cooperative Housing Inspection Program (SLCHIP), in 79 localities, local inspectors perform cyclical inspections and compliance inspections of hotels, motels, and multiple dwellings and earn compensation for the locality. New JerseyDepartment of Community Affairs, Bureau of Housing Inspection, State of New Jersey. Available at: www.nj.gov/dca /divisions /codes /offices/ housinginspection.html #5 19 See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9 -1302 (limiting the authority of city code enforcementprograms to conduct inspections of the interior rental units); Ga. Code Ann. § 36 -74 -30 (same); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 153A-364 (same); Tenn. Code. Ann. § 6-54 -511 (same). 30 See Hickey, supra note 10. 31 S.B. 683, Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Nc. 2011) (narrowing the grounds upon which a city can conduct a periodic inspection, adding a requirement of "reasonable cause" to believe a substandardcondition may exist in a residential building or structure). 32 Most departments retain their complaint -based systems within their newlyenacted PCE programs. See, e.g., Los Angeles, Cal Municipal Code § 5- 20.401 ( "Inspections may also be complaint based. ") 33 Los Angeles City Auditor, Review ofthe City's Systematic Code EnforcementProgram. 2001. Availableat: http: // Controller. lacity. org / Ste// ent /groupsle/ectedofficia/s /@ctr contributor/ documents /contributor web_ con tent/lacityp_008107.pdf 34 Report to Council, City Council ofSacramento, Proposed Residential Rental Housing Inspection Pilot Program, 2006. Available at: http: // Sacramento .granicus.com /MetaViewer. php ?meta_id= 67355 &view = &showpdf =l 35 Sacramento, Cal. Municipal Code ch. 8.120. 36 Kansas City, Mo. Code of Ordinances § 56 -357. 37 City of St. Louis, MO. Public Permits: Housing Conservation. N.d. Available at: www.sticitypermits. com/Publ icPermits. aspx 39 St. Louis, Mo., Ordinance 69202. (2009). Availableat: www.slpl. lib. mo.us /cco%rds /data /ord9102.htm 39 Id. 40 The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. 41 U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. XIV. Several states and localities have enacted mirroring legislation to the Fair Housing Act that may provide for even greaterprotection and enforcement against discrimination. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46a -64c (2013); Cal. Govt. Code § 12955 (2013); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 41A -4 (2013). 42 Courts have permitted at least two anti - discrimination lawsuits to proceed against localities for their targeting practices. See 2922 Sherman Ave. Tenants' Ass'n v. Dist. of Columbia, 444 F.3d 673, 687 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (disparate treatment theory). 43 Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823, 845 (8th Cir. 2010) (disparate impact theory). 44 Los Angeles, Cal. Housing Code § 161.301. 45 City of Washington, D.C., Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, "What is the Proactive Inspections Program ?" N.d. Available at: http: / /dcra.dc.gov/ book /about-proactive- inspections/ what - proactive- inspections - program 46 San Francisco, Cal. Housing Code § 303 and § 401. 47 Seattle Municipal Code § 22.214.040. The Seattle registration and inspectionprogram will be phased in through 2016, beginningwith properties with 10+ units, followed by properties with 5 -9 units, and finally by properties with 1 -4units. 49 GrandRapids, Mich. Municipal Code § 901.2 (within Title VIII, Chapter 140: Property Maintenance Code). rhanyelabsolutlons.orq A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 31 Changel-ab Solutions 49 Working group, "Supporting the Long -Term Sustainability ofHousing and Neighborhoods in Grand Rapids." 2010. Available at: http : / /roofstoroots.org /Userfi/es /Supporting 0/020 the 9lo20Long- Term9lo2OSustainability% 2Oof% 20Housing %20and %2ONeiGhborhoods %20 FINAL %20V2.pdf 50 Santa Cruz, Cal. Municipal Code § 21.06.020(E). 51 See also Los Angeles, Cal. Municipal Code § 161.301 (exemptingdwellingunits within a condominium). 52 Boston, Mass. Municipal Code § 9-1.3. 53 GrandRapids, Mich. Rental Property Municipal Code § 901.2. 54 Id.; Seattle, Wash. Municipal Code § 22.214.030. 55 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Comparison Between Section 8 Voucher Reform Act (SEVRA 2010), Affordable Housing and Self -Sufficiency Improvement Act (AHHSIA) and Current Law." June 2011. Available at: www.cbpp.org/ files /SEVRA -SESA- current %201aw %20 comparison.pdf 56 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Rental AssistanceReform is Urgently Needed to Help Programs Cope With Funding Shortfalls." 2013. Available at: www.cbpp.org/filesIRental- Assistance- Reform - Summary- 4 -3.pdf 57 Santa Cruz, Cal. Municipal Code § 21.06.030(B). 59 Id. 59 However, New Jersey's state -wide inspection program applies to hotels as well as multifamily properties. State of New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Housing Inspection. N.d. Available at: www.nj.gov / dca/ divisions / codes /offices /housinginspection.html 60 Registration requirements are common in systematic rental housing inspectionprograms, but can also be implementedindependently, or in connection with other city programs like business license requirements or rentcontrol. 61 Kansas City, Mo. Code of Ordinances § 56-352(b). 62 City of Grand Rapids, Code Compliance Division. "Rental and Vacancy Property FAQ's." N.d. Available at: http: / /Grcity.uslcommunity- development/ Code- Compliance-Divisionfl'agesl Rental %20and % 2OVacant %2OProperty %20FAQ's.aspx 63 Boulder, Colo. Rev. Code of Ordinances § 10 -3 -2; Baltimore County, Maryland Code of Ordinances 35-6-105. 64 Ann Arbor, Mich. Housing Code § 8:516. 65 Id at § 8:516(3)(c). 66 Washington, D.C. Housing Code § 200.3- 200.5, 202.1-202.3. 67 Boulder, Colo. Municipal Code § 10- 3 -2(a). 69 Id. at § 10-3-8. 69 See, e.g., LA City Lead Poisoning Prevention PilotProgram, Healthy Homes Collaborative. N.d. Available at: http: //healthyhomescollaborative.org /Information /Lead/ LACityLeadPoisoningPreventionPilotProgram /tabid/67/Default.aspx 70 Baltimore County, Md. Code of Ordinances §§ 35 -6 -107, 35- 6-108; Los Angeles, Cal. Housing Code § 161.353. 71 Boulder, Colo. Rev. Code of Ordinances § 10 -3 -3. 71 Ann Arbor, Mich. Municipal Code § 8:511(1)(a). 73 Kansas City, Mo. Code of Ordinances § 56 -362. 74 GrandRapids, Mich. Municipal Code § 1000.1. 75 Id. at § 1000.3. 76 Id. at § 1000.3(1). 77 Id. at § 1000.30. 76 Id. at § 1000.3(3). 79 In a similar vein, Boston's inspection department identifies properties in each neighborhood - based upon their inspection record, court records, documented constituent complaints, and any information related to the status of the property - for priority inspection early in the five -year cycle. Boston, Mass. Municipal Code § 9- 1 -3(c). B0 Boston, Mass. Municipal Code §§ 9- 1-3(a) and (f). B1 Id. at § 9- 1 -3(g). changeiei;solutions.oru I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 32 Changel-abSolutoons 82 City of Boston, Mayor's Office, "Inspection Ordinance Brings Sweeping Change to Rental Housing Standards in Boston." 2012. Available at: www.cityofboston.gov /news /de fault. aspx ?id=5903 83 Id. B4 Sacramento, Cal. Municipal Code § 8.120.080. 85 Id. at § 8.120.150(A). 86 Id. at § 8.120.160. 87 Id. at § 8.120.180. 88 Id. at § 8.120.190. B9 Santa Cruz, Cal. Municipal Code §§ 21.06.080(A) and (C). 90 Id. at §§ 21.06.080(B) and (D). 91 Id. at § 21.06.070(B)(1). 92 Id. at § 21.06.080(B). In contrast, self certification is the norm for the program in Berkeley, CA, which requires that all owners annually self - certify their rental units. Berkeley, Cal. Municipal Code § 12.48.050(A). However, an owner or a tenant may request instead that the city conduct an inspection to ascertain compliance withthe applicable housing safety standards. If the Housing Department is not available to conduct the inspection, owners are still required to annually self-certify. Id. at § 12.48.050(B). If no violations are found during the city inspection, or any violations are corrected within the cure period, the unit will be exempt from the annual self- certification for approximately three years followingthe inspection or upon revocation of the certificate ofcompliance. Additionally, everyrental unit is subject to a periodic city inspection, not more than once every three years. Id. at § 12.48.070(A). 93 See, e.g., Kansas City, Mo. Code of Ordinances § 56 -364. 94 For example, Washington, D.C. offers the Proactive Inspection Consent Form on their website in Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, and Amharic. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, "About Proactive Inspections." N.d. Available at: http: / /dcra.dc.govlservicel proactive -inspection- consent-forms 95 See Human Impact Partners, supra note 21. 96 See, e.g., Antioch, Cal. Municipal Code § 5-20.402, 5-20.403. 97 See, e.g., Sacramento, Cal. Municipal Code § 8.120.090 (requiring that the city shall serve written noticeto the owner and the local contact representative, and shallmail a copy of the inspection noticeto the rental housing units on the property). 99 Los Angeles, Cal. Municipal Code § 161.602.2 (requiring that the General Manager give written notice to the owner and the tenants. Notice to the tenants may be mailed or posted in the public area of the premises.). 99 See also, Los Angeles, Cal. Municipal Code § 161.604 (requiring that the city shall provide written notice to the occupant in each unit that an inspectionoccurred, including a telephone number and addresswhere the occupant can get further information about the inspection). loo Camara v. MunicipalCourt of City & County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 537 (1967) (quoting Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360, 372 (1959)). 101 Camara v. Municipal Court of City & County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. at535. 101 Id. at 528-529. 103 See, e.g., Los Angeles, Cal. Municipal Code § 161.601 ( "This authority shall be subject to the following limitations: (1) If the premises is occupied, the General Manager shall first present propercredentials to the occupant and request entry explaining his reasons... If entry is refused or cannot be obtained, the General Manager shall have recourse to everyremedy provided by law to secure lawful entry and inspect the premises, including butnot limited tosecuring an inspection warrant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure. "). 104 See, e.g., City ofSacramento, Rental Housing Inspection Program, "Tenant Consent to Inspect Rental Housing Units." 2012. Available at: http : / /portal.cityofsacramento.org/ /media /Files /CDD/ Code %20Compliance / Programs / Rental %2OHousinglRHIPTenantConsent2- 7- 2012.ashx 101 Boulder, Colo. Rev. Code of Ordinances § 10-3-7(b)(1); Baltimore County, Md. Code of Ordinances § 35-6-107(b). 106 Boston, Mass. Municipal Code § 9-1.3; Seattle, Wash. Municipal Code § 22.214.020(9). 107 City of Pasco v. Shaw, 161 Wash.2d 450, 465 (2007). 108 See, e.g., Antioch, Cal. Municipal Code, § 5- 20.205 (also allocating the costsof obtaining a warrantto the property owner). chanfle ahso;lihons.ol q I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 33 Changel-ab Solutions 109 The U.S. Supreme Court, in a challenge to a San Francisco housing inspection program, clarified that administrative searches, such as routine housing inspections, do not require the same showing of particular probable cause to validate an inspection warrant as required with a criminal search warrant. Instead, any reasonable legislative program orstandards that clarify why a unit is subject to inspection will satisfythe "cause" requirement of an administrative warrant. Camara v. Municipal Court of City & County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 538 -39 (1967) ( "( /]t is obvious that probable cause'to issue a warrant to inspect must exist if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling. Such standards, which will vary with the municipal program being enforced, may be based upon the passage of time, the nature of the building (e.g., a multifamily apartment house), or the condition of the entire area, but they willnot necessarily depend upon specific knowledge of the condition of the particular dwelling. "). 10 Some states may have particular statutes addressing therequirements. See, e.g., Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1822.52 (California has enacted into law this reduced cause showing for administrative warrants); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 160A- 424(a)(narrowly defining "reasonable cause" for the purpose of preemption). National Center for Healthy Housing, "Relationship between Interior Problems and Exterior Problems Based on the American HousingSurvey - 2009 National Data for Occupied Housing." National Center for Healthy Housing. 2009. Availableat: www .nchh.org / /Portals /0 /Contents/ Interior and—Exterior 2009 National.pdf 12 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthy Housing Reference Manual. 2006. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nceh /publications /books /housing /housing.htm Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthy Housing Inspection Manual. 2008. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nceh/ publications /books /inspectionmanual/ 14 Kansas City, Mo. Code of Ordinances § 56 -363. 15 San Francisco, Cal. Housing Code § 303(a). 116 Id. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Healthy Homes Rating Tool. N.d. Available at: http : / /Portal.hud.govlhudportallHUD ?src =/ program _officeslhealthy_homes /hhrs 118 National Center for Healthy Housing. Pediatric Environmental Home Assessment. Online training. N.d. Available at: www.nchh.org /Training /On line Training. aspx 19 See, e.g., City of Los Angeles Housing Department, "Preparing Residential Property for the Housing Habitability Inspection." 2005. Available at: http: / //and.lacity.orgllandinternetl Portals /0 /Code /inspectionprep. pdf 121 See, e.g., City of Sacramento, Rental Housing InspectionProgram. General Inspection Checklist. 2011. Available at: http : / /Porta1.cityofsacramento.org/ / media /Files /CDD /Code %20Compliance / Programs /Rental % 20Housing/ RHI PInspectionChecklistSampleCopy. ashx 12' Even localities that only inspect a sampling of rental units may require owners who self- certify to conduct self- inspections of eachand every dwellingunit in a multi -unit property. See Sacramento, Cal. Municipal Code § 8.120.160. 122 Sacramento, Cal. Municipal Code § 8.120.080(B). 129 Seattle, Wash. Municipal Code § 22.214.050(G)(1). 124 Rochester, N.Y. Municipal Code § 90 et. seq. 125 Id. 126 Korfmacher, K., Ayoob M., and Morley, R. , "Rochester's LeadLaw: Evaluation of a Local Environmental Health Policy Innovation." Environmental Health Perspectives. 2012 February: 120(2); 309 -315. Available at: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov /11036061 27 Id. 128 Id. 129 Id, 130 Id. 131 D.C. Official Code, § 9- 231.01 et seq. 132 See, e.g., Los Angeles, Cal. Municipal Code § 161.702. 133 Id. at §§ 161.704.2-704.3. 134 Id. at § 161.704.4. 135 Id. at § 161.704.5. 136 24 CFR § 570.202(c). nangelat,s1.11iltians . orq A Guide to Proactive Rental InspectionPrograms 34 ChangeLabSolutions International Code Council. International Code Council Guide to HUD CDBG Funds. Available at: www.iccsafe.org /gr /Pages /HUD- webcast.aspx 138 Id. at § 162 et seq. 19 Los Angeles City, Los Angeles Housing Department, REAP Outreach. 2013. Available at: http: / //and.lacity, org/ landinternet IREAPOutreachltabidl303 /language %n- USIDefault.aspx 140 Anne Arundel, Md. County Code § 11 -10 -102. 141 McDaniel v. Baranowski, 419 Md. 560 (2011). In this case, thecounty code didnot specifically identify an owner's failure to obtain a license as a defense against eviction. 142 Email fromScott Sanford, City of Lansing Lead Housing Inspector. September 11, 2013. 43 Antioch, Cal, Municipal Code § 5- 20.501; City of Antioch, City of Antioch Master Fee Schedule 7 2013). Available at: www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CityGov/ Finance / Master - Fee - Schedule- 07- O1-13.pdf 144 Santa Cruz, Cal. Municipal Code § 21.06.060; SantaCruz, Cal. Resolution No. NS-28,345 (2011). 145 "Rental Housing InspectionPilot Program Update," Staff Report to Council, City Council of Sacramento, CA. 2007. Available at: http://Sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer. php ?meta _ id = 122879 &view = &showpdf =l 146 Id. 147 Sacramento, Cal Ordinance NO. 2013-0013, § 8.120.050 (May 28, 2013). 148 Depending on state law, funds collected through criminal enforcement may be restored to the enforcing locality, or allotted between the locality, state, and /or other government bodies. 149 Kansas City, Mo. Code of Ordinances § 56-375. 51 Sacramento, Cal. Resolution No. 2013 -0171. Available at: http: / /Sacramento.granicus.com/ Meta Vie wer.php?vie w— id= 22 &clip_id= 3277 &meta _ id = 399614 51 Boulder, Colo. Municipal Code §§ 10 -3- 12,10- 3-16,10-3 -17, 4- 20-18. 152 Santa Cruz, Cal. Municipal Code § 21.06.060; Santa Cruz, Cal. Resolution No. NS- 28,345 (2011). 153 Washington, D.C. Housing Code § 207. The DC ordinance also specifies an abatement fee in the amountof $175, plus $30 for each person -hour of labor beyond the first person -hour to cover city abatement of violations. 154 Boston, Mass. Municipal Code § 9-1.3. 155 Seattle, Wash. Ordinance No. 124011, § 17. 156 Kansas City, Mo. Code of Ordinances § 56-376. 57 Phone conversation with Alex Khoury, Assistant Director of the Planning Commission, City of Santa Cruz. July 17, 2013. 156 City ofVentura. "Substandard Housing Policy." Administrative Reportto City Council. July 2, 2009. Available at: http ://archive.cityofventura.net /meetings /city_council /2009/07- 20-09/ item %2003. pdf 159 Phone conversation withAndrew Stuffier, Chief Building Official, Ventura, CA. August 27, 2013. 160 Samuels, J. et al, "Prevalence and Correlates of HoardingBehavior in a Community -Based Sample." Behaviour Research and Therapy, Volume 46, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 836 -844, Doi: 1O.1016/j.brat.2OO8.04.0O4. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc /articles /PMC24839571 161 lervolino, A. et al, "Prevalence and Heritability of Compulsive Hoarding: A Twin Study. " American Journal of Psychiatry, 166:1156 -1161, 2009. 162 Mueller, J. et al, "The Prevalence of Compulsive Hoarding and Its Associationwith Compulsive Buying in a German Population- Based Sample." Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(8): 705 -709, 2009. 163 American Psychiatric Publishing, "Obsessive Compulsive and Related Disorders." 2013. Available at: www.dsm5.org/ Documents / Obsessive% 2OCompul sive %2ODisorders %2OFact %2OSheet,pdf 164 Frost, R., Steketee, G., and Williams, L., "Hoarding: A Community Health Problem." Health and Social Carein the Community, 8(4):229-234, 2000. 165 Patronek, G., "Hoarding of Animals: An UnderRecognizedPublicHealth Problem in a Difficult to Study Population." Public Health Reports. 114(1):81- 87,1999. 166 Castrodale, L. et al, "General Public Health Considerations for Responding to Animal Hoarding Cases." Journal Of Environmental Health, 72(7):14 -18, 2010. 167 Id. 168 Rodriquez, C., "Prevalence of HoardingDisorder in Individual at Potential Risk of Eviction in New York City: A Pilot Study." The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200(1): 91-94, 2012. 169 See American Psychiatric Association, supra note 163. changelabsoWtions.org I A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 35 ChangeLab Solutions 10 Bratiotis, C., "Community Services." International OCD Foundation. N.d. Available at: www.ocfoundation.org /hoarding /Community_services.aspx 11 See Rodriquez, C., supra note 168. 12 Jacobs, D., "Environmental Health Disparities in Housing." American Journalof Public Health, 101(S1):S119, 2011. 13 Lubell, J., Crain, R. and Cohen, R., "The Positive Impacts of Affordable Housing on Health: A Research Summary." Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy and Enterprise Community Partners. 2011. Available at: www. nhc. org/ pub /icatlons /Housing- and-Hea/th.htm/ 14 See Bratiotis, C., supra note 170. 15 International Exchange on Hoarding, "Massachusetts StatewideSteering Committee on Hoarding." N.d. Available at: www.hoardingtaskforce .org /taskforces/ massachusetts -state wide-steering- committee -on- hoarding 16 Evans, G. and Kantrowitz, E. "Socioeconomic Status and Health: The Potential Role of Environmental Risk Exposure." Annual Review of Public Health, 23:303 -331, 2002. Curtis, M. "Effectsof Child Health on Housing in the Urban U.S." Social Science and Medicine. 71(12):2049-2056,2010. 178 See, e.g., Cal. Civil Code § 1942.4. ' 179 Grand Rapids, discussed above, also convened a workinggroup of city staff and community membersto expandits program to include single - family housing. GrandRapids Work Group, supra note 49. 180 Seattle, Wash. Resolution No. 31221 (June 1, 2010). 181 A wealth ofinsightful documents detailing the stakeholder input process is available on the website of the Seattle Department of Planning and Development. City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development, "Rental Registration S Inspection." Available at: www.seattle.gov/ dpd/codesrules/changestocode/ rental registrationprogram /background /default.htm e2 For information on the Healthy Homes Collaborative, see supra note 69. 183 Id. 184 Phone conversation withIndira Alvarez, Assistant Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department, CityofBoston. July 23, 2013. 185 Id 186 Phone conversation with Kathy O'Donnell, Baltimore County Rental Registration Program. July 30, 2013. 1B7 Los Angeles Housing and Community Development, "Landlord - Tenant Informational Workshops." 2013. Available at: http: / /land.lacity. org/ /andinternet /RentStabilization/ Lan dlordTenantln forma tionalWorkshops /tabid/ 481 /language %n -US /De fault. aspx Sacramento, Cal. Ordinance NO. 2013-0013, § 8.120.055 (May 28, 2013); Rental Housing Association of Sacramento Valley, Resident's Rights Form. 2013. Available at: www.cityofsacramento .org /dsd /co de-compliance/rhip /do cum ents/ Reside n tsRigh tsa ndResponsibilitiesForm. pdf 1B9 City of Boston, Inspectional Services Department. Flyer for August 2013 Landlord Seminar. 2013. Available at: www.cityofboston.gov /images_ documents /Rental %2OFlyer %2OAugust %2015_ tcm3- 39891.pdf 190 City of Boston. Inspectional Services Department Website. N.d. Available at: www.cityofboston. gov/isd /de fault. asp 191 Phone conversation with Debby Graber, Rental Licensing Program Coordinatorfor the Neighborhood Resource Center, Kansas City, KS. July 24, 2013. 192 Ma, C., Gee, L., and Kushel, M., "Associations Between Housing Instability and Food Insecurity with Health Care Access in Low - IncomeChildren." Ambulatory Pediatrics, 8(1):50 -57, 2008. 193 Kushel, M., et al. "Housing Instability and Food Insecurity as Barriers to Health Care Among Low- Income Americans." Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(1):71 -77, 2006. 194 Reid, K., Vittinghoff, E. and Kushel, M., "Association between the Level of Housing Instability, Economic Standing and Health CareAccess: A Meta- Regression." Journalof Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 19(4):1212 -1228, 2008. 195 Los Angeles, Cal. Municipal Code § 163.02 et. seq. 196 Los Angeles, Cal. Municipal Code § 151.05.1. 197 See, e.g., San Francisco, Cal. Admin. Code § 37.3 (restricting annual rent increases based on capital improvements). A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs 36 Changel.abSolutions 18 City of Grand Rapids, "Rental Property Program Overview." N.d. Available at: http: / /grcity.us/ community-de velopment/ Code - Compliance- Division / Pages /Rental %2OProperties.aspx 199 Phone conversation with IndiraAlvarez, Assistant Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department, City of Boston. July 23, 2013.The registry will be publicly available online once the inspection process starts, in January 2014. 20OBadger, Emily, "It's About to Get Much Easier to Dig Up Your Apartment's Deep, Dark Secrets. The Atlantic Cities. 2013. Available at: www.theatianticcities.com /housing /2013/06/ soon -yo ull -kno w -yo ur- apartment - buildings -deep- dark - secrets /6013/ 201 Id. City of Minneapolis (MN). changelabsoiutions.org I A Guide to Proactive Rental InspectionPrograms 37 Representative Funders and Partners I ChangeLab Solutions ChangeLab RepresentativeFunders andPartners CONNECT WITH US Get the latest news, join discussionson public health issues, show us change in your community, or make a donatlon. o 15 -_ http://changelabsolutions.org/content/funders Contact Us Donate Now! Login SFARGH Funding Healthy Healthy Tobacco Childhood Healthy Recent Changes Planning Control Obesity Housing Achievements ABOUT US GETTING STARTED TOOLSNEWS CONTACT US Home / About Us / Fundem & Parorem ChangeLab Solutions is honored to have the support and partnershipof many esteemed organizations. Our work began in 1997 when weprovided key leadership for thetobacco controlmovement in California. Since then, we have worked in nearly all of the 58 California countiesand most of the 482citiesand towns. Our work in land use and transportation planning, childhood obesity prevention, tobacco control, food systems, school environments, and more has led us towork across all 50 states in rural, urbanand suburban communities. We would like to recognize the government agencies, foundations, academic institutions, community based organizations and private entities who partner with us to help promote nationwide. Below is a representative sample of the ever - growing list of fundersand partners who make our work possible. Thank you for supporting our efforts to promote the common good by making healthier choices easier for everyone. FEDERAL Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Federal Transit Administration STATE GOVERNMENTS Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services Arizona, Department of Health Services California, Department of General Services California, Department of Public Health California, Governor's Office of Planning & Research California, Strategic Growth Council Hawaii, Department of Health Illinois, Department of Public Health Minnesota, Department of Health New Mexico, Department of Health Nevada, Department of Health and Human Services NorthCarolina, Division of Public Health Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Ohio, Department of Health Washington, Department of Health Wisconsin, Department of Health Services COUNTY GOVERNMENTS Alameda County, CA Bernalillo County, NM, Office of Environmental Health CookCounty, IL, Department of Public Health Fresno County, CA, Departmentof Public Health Grant County, WA, Health District Los Angeles County, CA, Department of Public Health Jefferson County, CO, Department of Public Health Miami -Dade County, FL, Health Department MultnomahCounty, OR, Departmentof Health Oklahoma City- County, OK, Health Department Pinellas County, FL, Deparmentof Health San Diego County, CA, Health and Human Services Agency San Mateo County, CA SantaClara County, CA, Department of Public Health Seattle & King County, WA, Department of PublicHealth Spokane County, WA, Regional Health District Stanislaus County, CA, Health Services Agency Whatcom County, WA CITY GOVERNMENTS Alameda, CA, Department of Community Development Arvin, CA Carson, CA Chicago, IL, Department of Public Health Denver, CO, Denver Health District of Columbia, Department of Health Gilroy, CA, Department of Community Development Houston, TX, Department of Health and Human Services Huntington Park, CA, Department ofCommunity Development Nashville, TN, Metro Public Health Department NewYork, NY, Departmentof Health and MentalHygiene San Antonio, TX, Metropolitan Health District San Francisco, CA, Department of Public Health San lose, CA, Department of Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services San Pablo, CA, ChildhoodObesity Taskforce FOUNDATIONS Action for Healthy Food The California Endowment California Healthcare Foundation 1 of 3 4/7/2015 6:14 PM Representative Flanders and Partners I ChangeLab Solutions http: / /changel absolutions.org /content/funders The California Wellness Foundation Desert Healthcare Foundation EastBay Community Foundation Health Foundation of South Florida The Health Trust Kaiser Pennanente Share The Kresge Foundation ResourcesLegacy Fund Robert Wood Johnson Foundation The San Francisco Foundation Sierra HealthFoundation Silicon Valley Community Foundation ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS Johns Hopkins University Network for Public Health Law Northeastern University, Public Health Advocacy Institute StanfordUniversity School of Medicine, Prevention Research Center Temple University, Public Health Law Research University of Arizona, Mel and Enid ZuckermanCollege of Public Health University of California, Berkeley, Center for Weight and Health University of California, San Diego, Division of Community Pediatrics University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine University of Connecticut, Rudd Center University of New England The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of Pennsylvania, African American Childhood Obesity Research Network University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health University of Texas, San Antonio, Salud America! University of Wisconsin- Madison William Mitchell College of Law, Public Health Law Center COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS Action for Healthy Kids Action Now Initiative Active Transportation Alliance American Heart Association American Lung Association American Public HealthAssociation Association of State & Territorial Health Officials Association of State Public Health Nutritionists Austen Biofnnovation Institute California Centerfor Public Health Advocacy CCLHOCHEAC Chronic Disease Prevention LeadershipProject Cherokee Nation Coalition to LowerObesity in Chicago's Children Community HealthCouncils, Inc. Community Health Improvement Partners Fund for Public Health in NewYork Greater Lakes Inter - Tribal Council INC Healthy Living Collaborative of Southwest Washington Illinois Public HealthAssociation National Association of Latino Electedand Appointed Officials National Center for Healthy Housing National Network of Public Health Institutes New York Academy of Medicine Opportunity Finance Network Pima Prevention Partnership Prevention Institute Public Health Institute Public Health Trust Searchto Involve Pilipino Americans, Community Outreach The Food Trust United Way of Central Alabama, Inc. PRIVATE ENTITIES Alta Planning + Design ICF Macro McKing Consulting Corporation Nelson /Nygaard Consulting Associates Nike, Inc. Raimi + Associates Rincon Consultants, Inc. Thank you to the following law firms for their probona counsel: Cooley Godward Kronish LLP Fenwick & West LLP Morrison & Foerester Please wnsider ChangeLab Solutions as a cy pres recipient: At ChangeLabSolutions, we seek to empower all members of the publicto adopt a healthy and nutritious lifestyle, which Includes ensuringthey canrely on the truth of marketingfor thefood productsthey choose to consume. We havebeen honored to be a cy pres recipient in several cases related to food marketing. Any cy pre funding that ChangeLab Solutions receives will go toward our continuing research, materials development, and training in support of strategies to improve healthy food access and community health. If you would like information about our work promotinghealthy foodenvironments and qualifications as a cy 2 of 3 4/7/2015 6:14 PM Representative Funders and Partners I ChangeLabSolutions http:// changetabsolutions .org/contenVfunders pres recipient, please don't hesitate to contact Carla Jackson at (510) 302 -3380 Copyright © 20:5 1 Disclaimer I Photos by Lydla Daniller I Illustrallons by Black Graphics 3 of 3 4/7/2015 6:14 PM