HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-City Administrator
-
-
CllV OF SAN BERNJODINO - REQUEST FO COUNCIL ACTION
From: Shauna Clark, City Administrator
De~dministratorls Office
Da~: October 5, 1994
Su~ect: Rental Housing Inspection Program
To be heard at 10:00 a.m.
I Synopsis of Previous Council action:
OSIOSI94 -
Heard by U,i_Iive Review Committee.
06106/94 -
Heard by Mayor and Common Council; continued 10 07/05/94 (or public hearin,.
07/05/94 -
MCC directed that a Rental Housing Task Force Committee be formed 10 discuss further propouls of the Rental Housing
Inspection Program.
07/22/94 -
Rental Housing Task Force met to diKUII inslrumems for implementing a Rental Inspection Pro,ram.
081OS194-
Rerual Hou.ing Task Force Comminee elected to brin,lhe Renlal HousiDllnape:ction Program before the Mayor and
Common Council for informative prelCntation.
09119194 -
The MCC ..lcctcd AlIernalive Plan No.2 8. the fundil1J IOUrtc for the propoaed Reml Houlil1llnlpection Program and
let. public hearlOJ' for Oelobcr 17th at 10:00 a.m.
Recommended motion ( s ) :
1.
That the public hearing and the resolution establishin~ the
inspection fee be continued to November 7th
and
c
2.
That further reading of the ordinance be waived and it be
laid over for final adoption.
Au~~~~/
./ Signature
::Ontect person:
Jeanne' Fitzpatrick
Phone:
5122
iupporting data attached: Resolution and Ordinance
Ward:
=UNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriDtionl
Finance:
:oune:sotes:
5-0262
Agenda Item No
I~
c
c
~
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REQUEST FOR COUNCn. ACTION
STAFF REPORT
On September 19, 1994, the Rental Housing Inspection Program was presented by the City
Administrator. Additionally, Dave Rudisel, Community Development Manager for the City of
Azusa, gave a report on the successes of Azusa's Rental Inspection Program. Upon conclusion,
the Mayor and Common Council selected Alternative II for implementing the Rental Housing
Inspection Program and set a public hearing for October 17th.
The purpose of this public hearing is to address any concerns of the public with respect to the
program and to present the resolution and ordinance implementing the program.
Fee Structure
Alternative II establishes a rental inspection fee of $75.00 for single family dwellings.
Inspection fees are scheduled to increase on a per unit basis for multi-family units, ranging from
$95 per year for a duplex to a maximum of $1000 per year for apartments with 48 units or
more. It is recommended that the proposed fee include an incentive credit to recognize the
efforts of landlords who consistently maintain their property in accordance with the city's
standards of maintenance ordinance.
Planning and Building Services will perform a general site inspection of all rental properties.
Those that are neatly kept and show no structural problems from the curb, will be given a credit
against the next year's fee. Those that require follow up for exterior and/or an interior
inspection will not receive the credit and may be charged additional fees if repeated follow ups
or further administrative actions are necessary.
Owners of single dwelling units receiving compliance approval upon initial inspection will
receive a credit of $50.00 at the time of the next renewal period. Owners of two or more
dwelling units who receive compliance approval upon initial inspection shall receive a credit of
50% of the paid inspection fee at the time of the next renewal period. Credits will be given in
both cases, provided that ownership remains the same at the time of renewal.
Reeommended Action
Attached is a copy of the resolution and schedules outlining the fees and credits for this
program. As this action involves a fee increase, the item must have a public meeting and a
public hearing. It is recommended that after public input, the Mayor and Common Council give
first reading to the ordinance which establishes the program and lay it over for final passage on
November 7, 1994. The public hearing as well as the resolution establishing the fees, must be
continued to November 7, 1994.
c
I
c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C
~c.~.,___,_.~_.,,,,...._ __ __.".
RESOLtlTION NO.
RESOLUTION 0 THE CITY OF SAN BERNQ;~~O ESTABLISHING AN
1 INSPECTION FEE FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
2
3
4
WHEREAs, Section 54992"of the Government Code requires the
Mayor and Common Council to establish said fees by resolution;
and
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
WHEREAS, a public meeting and public hearing has been held
pursuant to Sections 54992 and 54994.1 of the California
Government Code;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
A rental inspection fee (hereinafter
"inspection fee"), as: authorized pursuant to Chapter 15.25 of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code, is hereby established as set
Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2.
This inspection fee shall be collected annually
at the same time the business registration fee is collected as
17
described
18
under
Section 5.04.525(F)
of the San Bernardino
MuniCipal Code.
19
SECTION 3. If the owner of a rental unit or units has paid
20
the designated inspection fee as set forth in Exhibit "A" and if
all the units are in compliance with applicable sections of
local codes relating to housing, building and property
maintenance upon the general site inspection, the owner shall
receive a credit in the amount as set forth in the Rental
Inspection Fee Creclit Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
The credit shall be issued at the time the next inspection fee
is due, provided that ownership of the property has not changed.
,,-
- '''''''' :;- .... OCQAoQIU'u ..IAlll.lSOI.' AI I.SPECTIIIl FEE fClllESlDEllTIAI. IEllTAI. _Tlb
LOCATED IIITIII TIlE CITY Of IAII 1ERllAlD11II.
f"...
-,
..
1
-
~'III. .
SECTIO>> 4. This resolution shall become ettective'upon the
c
2 adoption. of the ordinance adding Chapter 15.25 to the San
3
Bernardino Municipal Code.
4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
5 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
6
Bernardino at a
meeting thereof,
7 held on the
8
day of
, 1994
by the following vote to wit:
9 COUNCIL MEMBERS:
10
~
~
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
NEGRETE
11 CURLIN
12
13
HERNANDEZ
OBERHELMAN
14 DEVLIN
15 POPE-LUDLAM
C 16 MILLER
17
18 City Clerk
19 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
of , 1994.
day
20
21
22
Approved as to form
23 and legal content:
Tom Minor, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
24
James F. Penman
25 City Attorney
26
27
28
By:
c
.
. .
Of SAIl __lID.
- ..". ----..- -'-,)'Nlo~..)n.... Mi ~..:it'l:l;iU. fEE fCIllESlDElITJAL IElTAL Plll'ElTIU LOCATED "nil I. TE. eln
.
,..
L...
......)
....
Exbibit "A"
c
RENTAL INSPECTION FEE SCHEDULE
The rental inspection fee is hereby established as $75.00 for the first
dwelling unit plus an additional $20.00 for each additional dwelling unit not
to exceed $1,000.00. Schedule of fees are listed below:
Unit TVDe Desianated Pee Unit TVDe De.ianatud P.e
Single Unit $ 75.00 26 Unit Complex $ 575.00
Duplex $ 95.00 27 Unit Complex $ 595.00
Triplex $ U5.00 28 Unit Complex $ 615.00
Quad $ 135.00 29 Unit Complex $ 635.00
05 Unit Complex $ 155.00 30 Unit Complex $ 655.00
06 Unit Complex $ 175.00 31 Unit Complex $ 675.00
07 Unit Complex $ 19.3.00 32 Unit Complex $ 695.00
08 Unit Complex $ 215.00 33 Unit Complex $ 715.00
09 Unit Complex $ 235.00 34 Unit Complex $ 735.00
10 Unit Complex $ 255.00 35 Unit Complex $ 755.00
U Unit Complex $ 275.00 36 Unit Complex $ 775.00
12 Unit Complex $ 295.00 37 Unit Complex $ 795.00
13 Unit Complex $ 315.00 38 Unit Complex $ 815.00
C14 Unit Complex $ 335.00 39 Unit Complex $ 835.00
15 Unit Complex $ 355.00 40 Unit Complex $ 855.00
16 Unit Complex $ 375.00 41 Unit Complex $ 875.00
17 Unit Complex $ 395.00 42 Unit Complex $ 895.00
18 Unit Complex $ 415.00 43 Unit Complex $ 915.00
19 Unit Complex $ 435.00 44 Unit Complex $ 935.00
20 Unit Complex $ 455.00 45 Unit Complex $ 955.00
21 Unit Complex $ 475.00 46 Unit Complex $ 975.00
22 Unit Complex $ 495.00 47 Unit Complex $ 995.00
23 Unit Complex $ 515.00 48 Unit CC)mplex $ 1,000.00
24 Unit Complex $ 535.00
25 Unit Complex $ 555.00 AU complexes exceeding 48 Units
shall pay the same fee as a 48 unit
complex of $1,000.00.
c
, ,
. .
...
~11II Of TIE C1n Of SAllIlEllUBIIII ESTAlLlSHIIG All IIISPECTllII FEE FlIlIESIDElTIAL IlEllTAL PlIlI'EITIES LOCATED WITHIN TIE CITY
Of SAIl _1111. ." ' '::) "
,
Exhibi~ "B"
c
RENTAL INSPECTION FEE CREDIT SCHEDULE
If the owner of a rental unit or units has paid the designated inspection fee
and if all the units are in compliance with applicable sections of local
codes relating to housing, building and property maintenance upon the general
site inspection, the owner shall receive a credit in the amount as set forth
below:
Uni~ Tvne Credit Uni~ TVI:le Credi~
Single Unit $ 50.0C 26 Unit Complex $ 287.50
Duplex $ 47.50 27 Unit Complex $ 297.50
Triplex $ 57.50 28 Unit Complex $ 307.50
Quad $ 67.50 29 Unit Complex $ 317.50
05 Unit Complex $ 77.50 30 Unit Complex $ 327.50
06 Unit Complex $ 87.50 31 Unit Complex $ 337.50
07 Unit Complex $ 97.50 32 Unit Complex $ 347.50
08 Unit Complex $ 107.50 33 Unit Complex $ 357.50
09 Unit Complex $ 11.7 . 50 34 Unit Complex $ 367.50
10 Unit Complex. $ 127.50 35 Unit Complex. $ 377.50
11 Unit Complex $ 137.50 36 Unit Complex $ 387.50
12 Unit Complex $ 147.50 37 Unit Complex $ 397.50
13 Unit Complex $ 157.50 38 Unit Complex $ 407.50
14 Unit Complex $ 167.50 39 Unit Complex $ 417.50
C15 Unit Complex $ 177.50 40 Unit Complex $ 427.50
16 Unit Complex $ 187.50 41 Unit Complex $ 437.50
17 Unit Complex $ 197.50 42 Unit Complex $ 447.::0
18 Unit Complex $ 207.50 43 Unit Complex $ 457.50
19 Unit Complex $ 217.50 44 Unit Complex $ 467.50
20 Unit Complex $ 227.50 45 Unit Complex $ 477.50
21 Unit Complex $ 237.50 46 Unit Complex $ 487.50
22 Unit Complex $ 247.50 47 Unit Complex $ 497.50
23 Unit Complex $ 257.50 48 Unit Complex $ 500.00
24 Unit Complex . $ 267.50
25 Unit Complex $ 277.50 All owners with complexes exceeding
48 units shall receive credit in the
amount of 50% of the paid inspection
fee.
c
..
c
.
~
c
.
~
c
..
-
-
-
-
Vl<.UJ.l'jANCE NO.
ORDINJt""'\E OF THE CITY OF SAN BERN~O ADDING CHAl>TER 15.25
TO THE SAN'M!RNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL.
RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM.
1
2
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
3 DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
4 SECTION 1. That the San Bernardino Municipal Code is hereby
5 amended by adding Chapter 15.25 relating to Residential Rental
6 Inspection to read as follows:
7 15.25.010 PURPOSE. The Residential Rental Inspection
8 Program is a part of the City of San Bernardino's overall effort
9 to encourage upkeep of rental housing units. Owners of these
10 types of stru~tures will be required to maintain these units in
11 accordance with applicable housing, building and property
12 maintenance standards as adopted by the City.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
15.25.020 DEFINITIONS.
A.
B.
"City" means the City of San Bernardino.
"Occupant" means any person who occupies a unit,
whether as an owner or tenant or permittee of the owner.
C. "Rental Housing Unit" or "Unit" means any residential
dwelling unit, as defined in Chapter 19.02 of the San Bernardino
Development Code, in a single structure, or in a group of
attached or detached structures containing one or more such
dwelling units on the same parcel of land, and is occupied or
intended to be occupied on a rental basis. For the pUrpose of
this chapter, the following types of dwelling units or facilities
are not considered rental housing units:
24
25
26
27 / / /
28
a)
Hotels or motels.
b)
Accommodations in any hospital, extended care facility,
J~
.~
c
c
c
-
-
CIlDIIlAIICE OF THE CITT OF SAIl _110 ADOJIG CHAPTER '5.25,~THE 1M _110 _ICIPAL CCIlE
ESTABLlSHIIG A IESID"""'IAL IlEllTAL IISPECTICIH PROGIlM. '
\\.,,1
1
2
3
4
5
6
residential care facility, convalescent home, nonprofit home
for the aged, or dormitory that is owned and operated by an
educational institution.
D. "Complex" means a multi-unit structure consisting of
five (5) or more units existing on one (1) parcel of land.
7
8
any kind of ownership interest whether as an individual, partner,
9
joint venturer, stock owner, or some other capacity."
10
11
12
13
14
15
E.
"Owner" means a single individual or entity that has
F.
"Person" means the individual, partnership, corporation
or association
or the rental agent of any of the
forego:..ng.
G.
"Director" means the Director of Planning and Building
Services or his/her designee.
15.25.030
SCOPE.
The provisions of this code shall apply
16 to all rental housing units.
17
15.25.040
APPLICATION PILING.
The owner of every rental
18 unit, prior to renting or leasing said rental unit, shall obtain
19
20
21
22
an annual inspection application and pay the inspection fee. Said
fee shall be established by separate resolutiun of the Mayor and
Common Council and
shall be collected at the same time the
business registration fee is collected. Non-payment of the
23 inspection fee may result in the total uncollected amount.
24 including penal~ies and administrative fees, to be liened against
25
26
27
28
the property and assessed to the property taxes in the manner set
forth in Section 5.04.076 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
/ / /
c
c
t
l
~
c
...._ Of TIE cln Of 1M _1111 _IIIG ClIAPTEl 15.25 111 TIE 1M _1111 _ICIPAL CIlIIlI!
EITAIlIIIUIll A 1lUIIl!IITIAL &MAL 11ISPECT11II _.
..
1
2
3
4
.......'
15.25.050 ANNUAL INSPECTION REQUIRED. The Director shall
conduct a general site inspection of each rental unit at least
once .annually for compliance with applicable sections of local
5 codes relating to housing, building and property maintenance.
6 Where the inspection identifies a violation of such codes, the
7 property owner shall be pr.ovided with written notice as set forth
8
in Chapter 8.30 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
15.25.060 INTERIOR INSPECTIONS. Where the general site
inspection of the unit or common surroundings gives evidence of
possible latent defects or lack of property maintenance, the
interior, back yards, side yards and out buildings (if any) of
the unit may be inspected by the Director.
Nothing in this
chapter shall prohibit a comprehensive inspection of any dwelling
unit where consent for such an inspection is given or where
deemed necessary by the Director.
15.25.070 REINSPECTION. Where violations of code are found
to still exist upon reinspect ion by the city, the property owner
may be charged for all costs incurred by the City for obtaining
compliance in accordance with Chapter 8.30 of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code.
21
15.25.080
APPEALS BY AGGRIBVBD PERSONS.
Any person
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
aggrieved by the determination of the Director under this chapter
may appeal in accordance with Ch~pter 8.30 of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code.
/ / /
/ / /
, .,J.
c
13
14
15
C 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C
.....-..= lit lIE cln 1If SAIl _I" 8.11 CIIAPTII 15.25 111 T. _ _I" _ICIPAI. ClIlE
mAlI.ISllIII A IESIDElTIAI. IOTA!. IIISPECTI.. _. _,
1
2
3
4 considered a public nuisance to have or maintain any rental
5
6
7
8
9
10
.'\, '
15.25.090
-
VIOLATIONS-PENALTY.
Violation
of
Section
15.25.040 is a misdemeanor.
15.25.100
ENFORCEMENT-PUBLIC NUISANCE.
It shall be
property which fails to comply with state and local laws as they
relate to housing standards, property maintenance, building codes
or local zoning requirements.
The Director shall have the power
to require correction of deficiencies identified through property
inspection by using the procedure set forth in Chapter 8.30.
15.25.110
ENFORCEMENT ALTERNATIVES.
11 A. Nothing herein shall prevent the enforc_ent of this
12 chapter by criminal, civil or administrative actions either.
undertaken individually or in conjunction with other remedies.
B. The enforcement of this chapter by a criminal, civil or
administrative action shall not relieve the property owner of his
or her obligations under this chapter.
15.25.120 FAIL'1RB TO INSPECT. Should the City fail to
conduct the annual inspection provided for in this chapter, the
property owner may apply for a refund. Such application for a
refund must be made within thirty (30) days of the date the next
inspection fee is due.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
c
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
C 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 By:
26
27
28
C
-.--.- .... lHE CITY Of SAIl -111I IlIlDIIlG ~TD 15.25 TO T. .. _111I _ICIPAL ClIDE
ESTAlLISIIIIlG A RESIDEllTIAI. IDTAI. l_alCII _.......
,"'
...
.,,,,..,1
1
2 adopted by the Mayor and COlIIIDon Council of the City of San
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
3 Bernardino at a
4 held on the
meeting thereof,
day of
, 1994 by
5 the following vote to wit:
6
7 Council Members
AYn
HAu
Absent
Abstain
NEGRETE
CURLIN
HERNANDEZ
OBERHELMAN
DEVLIN
POPE-LUDLAM
MILLER
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
, 1994.
day of
Tom Minor, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form
and legal content:
James F. Penman
City Attorney
..
.
r
o
C I T
,
o
Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R 0 I N 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE
DATE:
October 14, 1994
TO:
FROM:
Councilman Jerry Devlin
Shauna Clark, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Letter from David Shulze reI Rental Inspection Program
COPIES:
Mayor Minor; Council Office; RaChel Clark, City Clerk; Al
Boughey, Director of Planning and Building Services
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As I was unable tc attend the October 13th meeting with David
Shulze, I have prepared a written response to his letter (attached)
on the rental inspection program.
Dave's recommendation No.1. The current fee schedule charged for
a license to operate a property (1-4 residential units) for the use
by persons other than the legal owner be continued without any
scheduled increase. The total number of such accounts with the
City as of September 15, 1994, is 5304, estimated revenue from this
source based on that number would be $318,240.00 annually.
Response: The $60 rate will remain the same. Dave says that the
revenue from those 5304 licenses is $318,240.00 and should be
dedicated to code enforcement. Even though there are 5304 single
family businesses identified, that does not necessarily mean that
all have paid their licenses. Many owners of rentals refuse to pay
business licenses. The Clerk's Office must lien these properties.
When the City collects a revenue through the lien process, it takes
as many as five years to get the money back. In addition, there
are costs associated with collection of the $60 license ~ax. The
Clerk'S Office has two positions dedicated full time to identifying
and collecting licenses. These positions must be paid for as well.
Dave's recommendation No.2. The revenues received from the
operation of apartment complexes containing five or more units now
collected as a business license tax be separately tabulated and
allocated to code enforcement (883 accounts as of September 15,
1994 and estimated revenue of approximately $92,000.00 for 1993).
Response: Again, Dave is not considering the costs of collection
and administration of licenses.
In addition, he is treating the business license fee as if it could
and should be dedicated only to code enforcement. The fact is that
by law, business license taxes must be placed in the general fund
which pays for the majority of city services.
:I:F/<......
Councilman Dev~
October 14, 1994
Page 2
o
Code enforcement is only one of many services provided to rental
units. other direct services include POlice, Fire, streets.
Indirect services include Parks and aecreation and Library. These
too are paid for out of the general fund.
It was apparent by looking at the crime map that at least two-
thirds of Police Department resources go to rental units. The
Police Department budget is $29 million. If 52% of dwelling units
in San Bernardino are rentals, it is safe to say that at least one-
half of the services provided by the Fire Department are for rental
units. The Fire Department budget is more than $14 million. Two-
thirds of the Police budget plus one-half of the Fire budget,
totals $26.4 million.
All other general fund revenue sources derived from rental unitsl
sales tax, property taxes and utility taxes do not come close to
making up the difference.
The assessed value of rental units in San Bernardino is $9,000,000.
Even if you made the assumption that no rental units are located in
a Redevelopment project area, the total revenue from property taxes
is less than $2,070,000. (The City gets approximately 23 cents for
every dollar of property taxes collected in non-redevelopment
project areas). The general fund receives $16,000,000 in utility
taxes. About one-third is paid by businesses. If the remaining
two-thirds are paid by residences and if rental units account for
one-half of the residents, the general fund monies coming in from
utility taxes on behalf of rental units total $5.2 million. Sales
taxes will be about $19,000,000 per year. Let.s assume that one-
third ($6.3 million) comes from residents in rental units. All
combined (sales taxes, property taxes, utility taxes and business
license taxes from rental units) total $13.98 million.
Again, that does not even pay for Police and Fire at $26.4 million.
Why should all business license taxes be dedicated to code
enforcement when there already exists a deficit in other services
provided to them?
Dave's recommendation No.3. That a portion of the operation of
code enforcement now paid by the EDA be identified and credited to
the total cost of code enforcement. This income has been available
to the City for several years and can be found in future budgets of
the EDA.
~
o
Councilman Devlin
October 14, 1994
Page 3
o
Response. Money contributed by BDA is credited to the total cost
of code enforcement. The reason BDA contributes to code
enforc..ent is for special projects, such as Arden/Guthrie which
are BDA projects. The _ployees paid for by BDA cannot be assigned
in areas that are no~ designated as project areas or for special
programs. The Mayor and Council can designate additional 20% set
aside money for enhanced code enforcement if they choose to do so.
We are hoping that the Mayor and Council will choose to give us
start up money from the 20% set aside fund.
Dave's recommendation No.4. The actual cost of code enforcement
activities, necessitated by the failure of an owner of tenant-
occupied property to maintain such property in a safe and sanitary
condition be charged to such owners and billed as occurred. (In
1993, the revenue from such billings was reported as $250,166.00).
Appropriate interest and penalty charges shall be imposed on those
owners who received notices of amounts due and failed to pay them
in a reasonable time. The current schedule of fees should be.
adjusted to cover costs where revenues do not meet expenses.
Response: Dave assumes that code enforcement can bill for all
complaint calls they respond to. The fact is that when code
enforcement receives a complaint the staff first tries to gain
voluntary compliance. staff will visit the site to observe the
problem first hand. They often take pictures and create a file.
Then staff sends a letter to the property owner requesting
voluntary compliance. staff returns to the site after about ten
days to observe whether or not the property owner has complied with
the notice. Code enforcement estimates that voluntary compliance
runs as high as 70%. In cases of voluntary compliance, no charqes
are processed. In cases where code enforcement must make repeated
visits to a property and/or board up the property, the direct costs
of board up can be charged to the property owneT. Appropriate
administrative costs and p~nalties are added and in most cases, a
lien must be filed against the property in order to recover costs.
It can take five years to recover lien costs.
The idea of billing for responses to calls is nice in theory but
does not work in the real world. If it did, Police could also bill
every time they get called out and everyone would pay up as soon as
they got a bill.
Dave's recommendation NG. 5. Follow-up inspections and actions
needed from code enforcement personnel to determine that adequate
corrective actions have been taken will be billed as above.
, J
. 0
Counc~lman Devl~n
October 14, 1994
Page 3
o
Response: When follow-up inspections are required as a result of
non-compliance with the first notice, the costs are compiled and
liened against the property.
Dave's recommendation No.6. The City enact an ordinance which
enable the creation of a te~ant data base....
ResPOnse: This was the suggestion made hy Ron Kemper the last time
this item was heard by Council. The City Administrator's office
has sent a request to the city Attorney for a legal opinion. Once
he responds, we will craft an ordinance hased on what the City
Attorney says can be done legally.
Dave's memo reiterates that husiness licenses, comhined with fees
recovered hy code enforcement and funds contrihuted hy EDA should
he sufficient to fund additional code enforcement to provide for
inspections. ($802,000 in annual revenue). This premise ignores
the tremendous deficit in general fund contrihutions hy rental
property for other services and assumes that all of code
enforcement time is dedicated to rental units. Though a majority
of code enforcement time is dedicated to rental units, there is
still a tremendous backlog in complaints. It is necessary to hire
more staff. Additional staff will he paid for hy the inspection
fee. Existing code enforcement staff will then he freed up to
address the hacklog and prohlems in other areas.
'&tlUttt,t,LUft.t.tff)Y.,'.;<//{/
City Admini trator
SC/djn
Attachment
. ,
.
o
o
.
TO: City of San Bernardino, Mayor and Council
FROM: David SChulze, Vice President, Chairman, Local
Government Relations
SUBJECT: Alternative to the Propos.d Financin9 tor the
Rental Inspection Housing Proqraa September 19th
Council meeting at lQ:OO a...
Atter active participation in disCUssions of this i.sue as
a member of the "Rental Housing Task Force", appointed by
the Mayor, and after extensive research of the is.u. with
practitioners of property management along wi~~ the
aCCUllulation of data trom various department. within the
City, the San Bernardino Valley Association ot REALTORS
supports the overall intent ot the Rental In.pection
housinq proqram, however, we strongly oppo.. the proposect
increa.e. in ta~es directed to ALL rental property owners
within the City and urgll the city Ct-unci! to consider t ..'
fOllowinq recommendation a
1. The current tee schedule charged for a license to
operate a property (1-4 residential units) for the Use
by persons other than the leqal owner be continued
without any scheduled increase. The total nulllber of
such accounts with the City as ot September 15, 1994
is 5304, estimated revenue from this SOUrce based on
that number would be $318,240.00 annually.
2. The revenues r~ceived from the operation of apartment
complexes containing 5 or more units now collected as
a "business license tax" be separately tabulated and
allocated to coeSe entorcement (883 accounts a. of
Septe.ber 15, 1994 and estiaated revenue of
approximately $92,000.00 for 1993).
3. That portion of the operation of coeSe enforcement now
paid by the EDA be identified and credited to the
total cost ot code enforcement (reported in a Reque.t
for Council Actl~n, statf Report, prepared in May 1994
as approximatoly $142,000.00). Th18 income has been
available to the city for several years and can be
found in future budgets of the BOA.
o 0
4. The actual cost of code enforc"en~ activitie.,
nece..itatee! by the failure ot an owner ot tenant
occupiec! property to maintain such property in a safe
ane! sanitary condition be charqee! to such owners ani!
bill.e! as occurrae!. (In 19U, the r.v.nu. trOll such
billings was r.portee! a. $250,1&6.00). Appropriate
interest and penalty charqe. shall be iaposec! on those
owner. who receive notices of amount. due ane! fail to
pay thEom in a reasonable tim.. The cunent schee!ule
ot fe.. .houle! be ae!ju.t.e! to cover cost_ wh.re
r.v.nue. e!o not m.et .xp.n....
5. FOllow-up inspections ane! action. needee! frOll cocie
.ntorc.m.nt personn.l to d.teraine that adequate
corrective action. have been taken will be billed ..
.bov. .
6. The City enact an ordinance which enables the cr..tion
ot a "t.nant data ba..", pr.ferably 1D&intainee! a. an
income producing activity of a law enforc..ent aqenay.
Such an ordinance would require landlords to report
t.nant pertormanc., qood or bad, periociica11y and for
a tee, would report any information about a particular
applicant tor tenancy available in the data base to a
landlord. Th. t.. would be coUectee! trOll the tenant
applicant at the tille an application 1. taken tor a
rental opportunity. Privacy law. need to be exallinee!
to d.termin. what date can be reported back to the
landlord, but, e!ata which is a matter of public recore!
should be able to be included in .uch a r.port.
After a reasonable time, the databa.. will enable
landlords to avoid rentiJ)9 to persons Who have been
probl.m. in the past and the know1edqe on the part of
the g.neral public that 8uch a .y.t.. .xist. in San
Bernardino will act as a determent, to those Who are
crillinals or bad tenants, to even lIake application for
r.sidency within the City.
DISCUSSION
It do.. not appear that a need exist. to incr.a.. the tax
char9ec! owner. of rental prop.rty. Accordinq to r.ports
prepared ani! circulated to the Ta.k Force, the co.t of the
total cod. .nforc.m.nt effort during the 1993-94 y.ar wa.
$520,000.00 (Code Compliance Divi.ion Report 1988 To Date,
City of San Bernardino, published July 19t4 at the R.ntal
housing Task Force meeting.) Our r....rch haa identified
four .ourc.. of revenue now received by ci~y tha~ are
allocated for code enforcement. S!n9le flUlily (1-4
r.sid.ntial un1~ .tructur..). license fe.. of $310,000.00
2
c 0
annually, bu.ine.. license tees from apartment structure.,
5 unit. or .ore, of $92 , 000. 00 tees charged to property
owners when cede enforce.ent originate. due to al.-
aanaqeaent, of $250,166.00,' and finally, the SUII of
approximately $142,000.00 paid to the City by the EDC for
code enforce.ent, 1993-94. These tour source. generate a
total of $802,000.00 In revenue annually and should support
two of the three proposal. advanced by the City
Administrators Office without the need for additional
taxe..
Rather than focus on increa.ing the cost of doing bu.ine..
a. a landlord within the City, we believe the focus should
be the imple.entation of proqra.s that vill assist both
landlords and law enforcement per.onnel to rid the City of
bliqht and cri.e.
There are neighborhoods within the City of san Bernardino
that can be c1escribed as those in crisis, and others that
fit the category of deqeneratinq neiqhborhood.. The San
Bernarelino Valley AIIsociation of REALTORS has repeateeSly
expressed concern abou~ th... conditions within the city
aneS has offerec1 to beco.e a part of the solution of these
challenges. We are equally concernecl by an attitueSe, on
the part of well .eaninq civic leaders, that. the crime
problem within the City, is the responalbUlty of the
owners of rental properties located h. the city.
It is obvious from studies done in a "cere city .etting"
that correlation exists between eSeqenerate hou.ing and
cri.e. At the sue ti.e, there is no evidence that the
owner. of such properties purchasecl thea vith the express
purpose of allowing the. to beco.e degenerate and attract
people ll~ely to participate ~n criminal behavior. we know
here in San Bernardino, for example, that a significant
number of "landlord." own le8s than three rental units and
within this population there i. a larqe number of fol~. who
are "landlords by circwutance". This latter group i.
compriBec1 of individuals who once occupied their property
but they had to .ove because of job 10.. or transter out of
the area. A slow real estate mark.t torc.d them to decide
to rent their properties in an effort to avoid financial
burden. of vacant property.
Landlords that own property within the city cUlt not do
anytbinq to create the rece..ion, or to influence the
closure of Norton AFB or to encouraqe the Court. in tos
Anqel.s County to "dump" tbeir unde.irables into this
community. They, like other non-laneSlord citizen. who own
property within the city are victi.. of the.e and other
event. which leeS to the current econo.ic .ituation here in
San Bernardino.
3
. .
o
o
,
Landlords were, none the le.., .inqle. out ~ the
lead.rship of this City to pay a di.proportionat. share of
the co.t of code enforc.ment effort. because it was deemed
that they are more r.sponsible for the current blight and
cri.e probl... within the city than was the qaneral
population. We disagree withthi. conclusion.
It is probable that the.e people Who own real property that
40e. not CJo anywhere, and therefore is ...y to attach
and/or levy, were selected to tarqet, a. oppo.e" to the
probl_ tenant., because such people tend to III y their
b11ls on time. Sadly it is the tenant population that
.catt.r. debris around the property, tails to water the
lawn and the gareSen <Ususelllbl.s it. old automobUes and
leave. parts layin9 arouneS the property an.J who engaqe. in
criminal behavior.
It would appear that many of the landlord. that currently
own prop.rty in San B.rnardino lack the .kill. to property
aanaqe such property. Many are Klandlord. by circumstance-
as mentioned above and .ome entered into owner.hip of such
propertie., based on the .tories ot friends who w.re
themselves successful, but lacked any knowledge of the
4uties or responsibilities of a landlord. This laCk of.
skill combined with the current. econoaic situation
throughout Southern California baa r..ulted in an
unfortunate situation for the City and for the landlord. ..
well.
The A..ociation would weloome the opportunity to work with
the City to orCJanize and offer traininq in property
aanaqement slcills. We are keenly aware of the cost of
bliqht to every property owner within a neiqhbort .'1 where
blight occur.. We have lonCJ advanced the illpoz lce of
proper maintenance and adequate manaqe.ent to Wiers of
rental property. It ..... that current conditions dictat.
the need for an enhanced .ffort to help the good landlord
avoid the probleu that plaque oth.rs and help those in
trouble find a way back to profitable property inve.tmen~.
We believe that an ordinance such a. the one discus.ed in
recomaendation '6, above could be a first step in the
proce.. of h.lping those froll whom the city n..d. help.
Ron Xemper, REALTOR, and associate on the Local Gov.rnment
Rela~lons Committee plan. ~o discu.. this idea at qreater
lenCJth.
4
...,-....., =