Loading...
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 ...,-....., =