The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About18-City Administrator CITY OF SAN BERNQRDINO -REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION From: Shauna Clark, City Administrator Subject: Rental Housing Inspection Program Dept: Administrator's Office Date: October 26 , 1994 Synopsis of Previous Council action: OSAOSN4 - Aeard by (egklatlvr Review Cotmtdaee. 06/06N4 - Aeard 6y Mayor and Cpnman Cowell; continued to 07/OS/AI,~r pubic hearng. 07Po5/94 - MCC dirteted that a Rental Aousing Task Force Commitnt 6e formed to dlacussfurther propara4 of the Rental Aousing Inspeetlon Program. 0722N4- Rettra( Aousing Task Form met m dkcaras 8crataeventr, jot implesrerWng a Renra( Inspectlon Program. OgpsMt - Rental Aoaabrg Task Force Commitue elected to bring the Rental Aottsing /ngxcbon Program before the Mayor aid Cannon Cowtcil for Nijormative pratntation. 09/19/AI - The MCC aeketed A/temaive Plmt No. 2 as the fording source for the proposed Rental Rousing Itupection Progtmn std set a public hearhrg jar October l7Rr a 10:00 a.m. IGV77/9!- Public hearing was eondnurd to 1 /A77Ni, and sold oMlnmtee was lad over forJfrtal adoption. Recommended motion: 1. That the public hearing be closed. 2. That the resolution establishing the rental housing inspection fee be adopted. 3. That said ordinance be adopted. / Signature Contact person:_ Jeanne' Fitzpatrick Phone: 5122 Supporting data attached: yy~: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source:lAcct. No.l ~ACCt. Description) Finance: Council Notes• ~s•ozez Agenda Item No__L_O_ CITY OF SAN BERN~DINO -REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION From: Shauna Clark, City Administrator Subject: Rental Housing Inspection Program Dept: Administrator's Office Date: October 5, 1994 To be heard at 10:00 a.m. Synopsis of Previous Council action: 05/05/94 - Hard by Legislative Review Committee. 06/06/94 - Heard by Mayor and Common Council; continued to 07/05/94 for public haring. 07/05/94 - MCC directed that a Rental Housing Teak Force Committee be formed to discuss further proposals of the Rental Housing Inspection Program. 07/22/94 - Renal Housing Task Force met to discuss inatmments for implementing a Rental Inapation Program. Og/05/94 - Remal Housing Task Force Committee elected to bring Ne Renal Housing Inspection Progrem before Ne Mayor and Common Council for infornudve prcsenta0on. 09/19/94 - The MCC selected Altermtiva Plan No. 2 as the funding eourca for the proposed Rental Housing Inspec0on Program aM set s public hearing for October 17th st 10:00 a.m. Recommended motion (s) : 1. That the public hearing and the resolution establishing the inspection fee be continued to November 7th and 2. That further reading of the ordinance be waived and it be laid over for final adoption. in,Di ,G?/S~~ Signature Contact person: Jeanne' Fitzpatrick Phone: 5122 Supporting data attached: Resolution and Ordinance Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct No 1 Acct Descriationl ~j Finance: Council Notes:''-~tG1t;~ /~~ 1~~.2- ,s_,,,a, Agenda Item No_ ~ _ © O CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCII. 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 yeaz 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 chazged 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. Recommended 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. ' O RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF' SAN BERNARDINO ESTABLISHING AN i INSPECTION FEE FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTIES IACATED WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 2 WHEREAS, Section 54992~of the Government Code requires the 3 Mayor and Common Council to establish said fees by resolution; 4 and 5 WHEREAS, a public meeting and public hearing has been held 6 pursuant to Sections 54992 and 54994.1 of the California Government Code; 8 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY 9 OF SAN BERNARDiNO AS FOLLOWS: 10 SECTION 1. A rental inspection fee (hereinafter 11 „inspection fee"), as authorized pursuant to Chapter 15.25 of 12 the San Bernardino Municipal Code, is hereby established as set 13 forth in the Rental Inspection Fee Schedule attached hereto as 14 Exhibit "A". 15 SECTION 2. This inspection fee shall be collected annually 16 at the same time the business registration fee is collected as 17 described under Section 5.04.525(F) of the San Bernardino 18 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 21 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 24 receive a credit in the amount as set forth in the Rental ~ Inspection Fee Crec:it Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 26 The credit shall be issued at the time the next inspection fee 27 is due, provided that ownership of the property has not changed. 28 - NESG. . OF THE CITT Of SN NERWDINO ESTANLISM IYG AN INSPECTIaI FEE FtNf NENINEYTIAL NErGL Pl(pERTIEN ~OGTED YITNIN TJF~CITT Of S?1N BERNARD INO. ^1 ~...r ~•„,? 1 SECTION 4. This resolution shall become effective upon the 2 adoption of the ordinance adding Chapter 15.25 to the San $ 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 day of 1994 8 by the following vote to wit: 9 COUNCIL_MEMBERS: AYES NAYS ~~T STAIN 10 NEGRETE 11 CURLIN 12 HERNANDEZ 13 OBERHELMAN 14 DEVLIN IS POPE-LUDLAM 16 MILLER 17 18 City Clerk 19 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of , 199.4. 20 21 Tom Minor, Mayor 22 City of San Bernardino Approved as to form 23 and legal content: 24 - James F. Penman 25 City Attorney 26 27 sy. 28 _ NESOLUTIQI DF THE CIT1 .:.ul NENNANDINO ESTABLISNIINI AN IM9PECT1O1 FEE FQ RENIDEIRIAL NEMTAL PNCPEtT1ES LOGTEO YITNIM THE CITT ' OF SAN NEIlMIYNIIMD. ~ ~1..Y' uii.~ Bat~ibit oAn 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 Twos Designated Be® Unit Tvue ~esigaate,d Bee Single Unit $ 75.00 26 Unit Complex $ 575.00 Duplex $ 95.00 27 Unit Complex $ 595.00 Triplex $ 115.00 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 $ 195.00 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 11 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 14 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 S 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 Complex $ 1,000.00 24 Unit Complex $ 535.00 25 Unit Complex $ 555.00 All complexes exceeding 48 Units shall pay the same fee as a 48 unit complex of $1,000.00. RES0LUTI011 OF THE C/TT OF S11N IN:RN~IMD ESTABUSNIM6 AN INSPECTIdI FEE Fp! NESIO~(AL RENTAL PROPERTIES IOCATEO YITN[M THE CITT Of SIIII NE7NRRD1N0. Ai.+'' ~"'~i 8ahibit nBn 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: Unit Tyos Credit Unit TYDS Credit Single Unit $ 50.oC 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 $ 117.50 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 $ 407.56 14 Unit Complex $ 167.50 39 Unit Complex $ 417.50 15 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 $ 447.50 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 S 277.50 All owners with complexes exceeding 48 units shall receive credit in the amount of 50$ of the paid inspection fee. ORDINANCE N0. ORDI11ldQCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERN INO ADDING CHAPTER 15.25 1 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL 'RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM. 2 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO $ DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 4 SECTION 1. That the San Bernardino Municipal Code is hereby 5 amende3 by adding Chapter 15.25 relating to Residential Rental 6 Inspection to read as follows: ~ 15.25.010 PURPOSE. The Residential Rental Inspection g Program is a part of the City of San Bernardino's overall effort g to encourage upkeep of rental housing units. Owners of these jp 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 15.25.020 DEFINITIONS. 14 A. "City" means the City of San Bernardino. 15 B. "occupant" means any person who occupies a unit, 16 whether as an owner or tenant or permittee of the owner. 17 C. "Rental Housing Unit" or "Unit" means any residential 18 dwelling unit, as defined in Chapter 19.02 of the San Bernardino 19 Development Code, in a single structure, or in a group of 20 attached or detached structures containing one or more such 21 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 24 are not considered rental housing units: ~ a) Hotels or motels. 26 b) Accommodations in any hospital, extended care facility, 2~/// 28 ~, ORDIMIWf~ OF TIN: /~'[T OF SAM BERMIWDINO ADOINC CNMTER T5.7~0 THE SI1N N9NRRDiND MWICiPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A RE fAL RENTAL IMSPECiIOM PROGRAM. ~/ 1 2 residential care facility, convalescent home, nonprofit home 3 for the aged, or dormitory that is owned and operated by an 4 educational institution. b D. "Complex" means a multi-unit structure consisting of 6 five (5) or more units existing on one (1) parcel of land. ~ E. "Owner" means a single individual or entity that has 8 any kind of ownership interest whether as an individual, partner, 9 joint venturer, stock owner, or some other capacity.° 10 F. ++person" means the individual, partnership, corporation 11 or association or the rental agent of any of the 12 foregoing. 13 G. "Director" means the Director of Planning and Building 14 Services or his/her designee. 15 15.25.030 BCOPE. The provisions of this code shall apply 16 to all rental housing units. 17 15.25.040 APPLICATION FILING. The owner of every rental 18 unit, prior to renting or leasing said rental unit, shall obtain 19 an annual inspection application and pay the inspection fee. Said 20 fee shall be established by separate resolutiun of the Mayor and 21 Common Council and shall be collected at the same time the ~ business registration fee is collected. Non-payment of the ~ inspection fee may result in the total uncollected amount, 24 including penal:.ies and administrative fees, to be liened against ~ the property and assessed to the property taxes in the manner set 26 forth in Section 5.04.076 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. 27 /// 28 ' aDi+.....c Oi TIE CITt OF SAM RERMARDIIRI ADDIM6 CNAVTER iSy~ TO THE SAM MERMII~Ip IRrICIVAL CODE ESTAMLISRIMM A (AL RENTAL [MSPEITId PROSRAII. i v 1 2 13.25.050 ANNDAL iNBPECTION REQIIIRSD. The Director shall 3 conduct a general site inspection of each rental unit at least 4 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 provided with written notice as set forth 8 in Chapter 8.30 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. 9 15.25.060 iNTERiOR iNBPECTiONB. Where the general site 10 inspection of the unit or common surroundings gives evidence of 11 possible latent defects or lack of property maintenance, the interior, back yards, side yards and out buildings (if any) of 12 the unit may be inspected by the Director. Nothing in this 13 chapter shall prohibit a comprehensive inspection of any dwelling 14 unit where consent for such an inspection is given or where 15 deemed necessary by the Director. 16 15.25.070 REINBPECTION. Where violations of code are found 17 to still exist upon reinspection by the City, the property owner 18 may be charged for all costs incurred by the City for obtaining 19 compliance in accordance with Chapter 8.30 of the San Bernardino 20 Municipal Code. 21 35.25.080 APPEALS BY AaGRZEVED PERSONS. Any person 22 aggrieved by the determination of the Director under this chapter ~ may appeal in accordance with Chapter 8.30 of the San Bernardino 24 - Municipal Code. 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 OILi..._..,~ of rAE cl7t oP SAr ~EltrIlADI00 ADpINC aWTE[ 1S ro TIE s~ EiM~0tb AIMILIPAL ane eTrABU $NIYG A Pr'~7ENr1AL E>trAL IYSPECT/Q PWf~M. 5..,,/ . 1 15.25.090 viOLATIONB-PENALTY. Violation of Section 2 15.25.040 is a misdemeanor. 3 15.25.100 ENFORCEMENT-Pl7HLIC NOISANCE. It shall be 4 considered a public nuisance to have or maintain any rental 5 property which fails to comply with state and local laws as they 6 relate to housing standards, property maintenance, building codes 7 or local zoning requirements. The Director shall have the power 8 to require correction of deficiencies identified through property 9 inspection by using the procedure set forth in Chapter 8.30. lO 15.25.110 ENFORCEMENT ALTERNATIV88. 11 A. Nothing herein shall prevent the enforcement of this 1`l chapter by criminal, civil or administrative actions either. 13 undertaken individually or in conjunction with other remedies. 14 B. The enforcement of this chapter by a criminal, civil or 15 administrative action shall not relieve the property owner of his 16 or her obligations under this chapter. 17 15.25.120 FAILrJRB TO INSPECT. Should the City fail to 18 conduct the annual inspection provided for in this chapter, the 19 property owner may apply for a refund. Such application for a 2p refund must be made within thirty (30) days of the date the next 21 inspection fee is due. 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 (no........ (!f TIE CITY Of SAM EEEEAEDIIE! AOOIE6 CEA?TER iS,jS TO TEE EIIE EEEEAEOIED IYIICVAI CAE ESTAEUSEIMG A A~"'QEETIAL EE1TAl IElPECTICfI PEOf~AM. 1 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly 2 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San $ Bernardino at a meeting thereof, 4 held on the day of - 1994 by _ , 5 the following vote to wit: s 7 Council Members Aves Navs Absent Abstain 8 NEGRETE 9 CURLIN 10 HERNANDEZ ii OBERHELMAN 12 DEVLIN 13 POPE-LUDLAM 14 MILLER 15 16 City Clerk 17 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this day of 1994. 18 19 Tom Minor, Mayor 20 City of San Bernardino 21 Approved as to form and legal content: 22 23 James F. Penman City Attorney 24 25 By: 26 27 28 . ~ 'Y OF SAN BER~DINO -REQUEST I~R COUNCIL ACTION =rom: Shauna Clark, City Administrator Subject: RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM PRESENTATION Dept: Administrator's Office Date: September 7, 1994 MCC mtg. of September 19, 1994. Synopsis of Previous Council action: 05/05/94 -- Heard by Legislative Review Committee. 06/06/94 -- Heard by Mayor and Common Council; continued to 07/05/94 for Public Hearing. 07/05/94 -- MCC directed that a Rental Housing Task Force Committee be formed to discuss further proposals of the Rental Housing Inspection Prog. 07/22/94 -- Rental Housing Task Force met to discuss instruments for implementing a Rental Inspection Program. 08/05/94 -- Rental Housing Task Force Committee elected to bring the Rental Housing Inspection Program before the Mayor and Common Council for informative presentation. Recommended motion: 1. That Alternative Plan No. be selected in order to implement the Rental Housing Inspection Program. 2. That a Public Hearing be set for October 17th at 10:00 a.m. to adopt the Rental Housing Inspection Program. ~ //~J,D/~~~ Signature Contact person: Jeanne' Fitzpatrick Phone: 5122 Supporting data attached: Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct No 1 (Acct Description) Finance: Council Notes: .,~,,,~, Agenda Item No_ - C ~/ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCII. ACTION STAFF REPORT The Rental Housing Inspection Program was brought before the Mayor and Common Council for public hearing on July 5, 1994. At this meeting, the Mayor and Council directed that a Rental Housing Task Force Committee be formed to discuss further alternatives for implementing a rental inspection program. A committee of 20 individuals was formed consisting of elected City Officials, various staff members of the City and Economic Development Agency, as well as community and business representatives as recommended by the President of the San Bernardino Valley Association of Realtors. On June 22, 1994, the committee met to discuss the focus of the program and proposed recommendations. The City Administrator presented a brief overview of the proposed program. Members of the committee addressed their concerns with respect to the impact of the program and were asked to report back at the next task force meeting with any proposed recommendations for the implementation of a rental inspection program. Additionally, it was announced that an overview of the existing Code Enforcement Program would be presented and Dave Rudisel, Community Development Manager with the City of Azusa would make a presentation on Azusa's rental inspection program. On August 5, 1994, Dave Rudisel, Community Development Manager with the City of Azusa made a presentation on the rental inspection program implemented by the City of Azusa. He discussed the success of the program with respect to the reduction of crime and blight, and the increase in property values and owner-occupied homes. Additionally, a brief overview of the existing San Bernardino City Code Enforcement Program was presented by the City Administrator. Each of the 20 members in attendance (see attached list) was given the opportunity to present his/her views and make recommendations. Eighteen of the members expressed supportive views of the rental inspection program and the immediate need for the implementation of this program; however, two opposing views with respect to the fee structure were also addressed. Due to the urgency expressed by the majority, the committee decided to bring the rental inspection program before the Mayor and Common Council on September 19th as an informative session. This session will include a presentation on the successes of Azusa's program as given by Dave Rudisel, Community Development Manager for the City of Azusa. G 4 RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION TASK FORCE MEETING Members Present at August 5th Meeting Judith Battey, Southern California Gas Co. (Comm;aee Member) Oliver Moore, Economic Development Agency (Committee Member) Shauna Clazk, City Administrator (Committee Member) Nora Vineyard, Life Savings Bank (committee Member> Sue Crawford, Crawford Investment Co. (Committee Member) Rachel Clazk, City Clerk (Committee Member) Cindy Buechler, Business Registration Division (Committee Member) David Rudisel, City of Azusa JeannB Fitzpatrick, City Administrator's Office Christy Newey, City Administrator's Office Michael Hays, Planning and Building Services Deputy Director (Committee Member) Rabbi Hillel Cohn, Temple Emanu-El (committee Member) David Schulze, San Bernardino Valley Boazd of Realtors (Committee Member) John Vasek, San Bernardino Police Officer (committee Member Representative) Eric McBride, San Bernardino Police Officer (Committee Member Representative) Ralph Hernandez, Council Member Third Wazd (Committee Member) Lorraine Velazde, Mayor's Executive Assistant (Committee Member) Valerie Pope-Ludlam, Council Member Sixth Wazd (Committee Member) Jerry Miller, First Federal Bank (committee Member> Bob Arrowhead, National Home Mortgage Buck Poirier, Wholesale Capitol Corporation SAl~f BERNARDINO V~LEY ® ASSOCIATION OF F~~~® REALTOR® 1798 NORTH D STREET • SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 P.O. BOX 2183 • SAN BERNARDI~, ($~P9~OE~9 ~56 (909) 886-5031 m TO: City of San Bernardino, Mayor and Council ,~',~, c~ c FROM: David Schulze, Vice President, Chairman, Lo~ o Government Relations ~ SUBJECT: Alternative to the Proposed Financing for tble ~ Rental inspection Housing Program September 19141 m Council meeting at 10:00 a.m. ~T'~ After active participation in discussions of this issue as a member of the "Rental Housing Task Force", appointed by the Mayor, and after extensive research of the issue with practitioners of property management along with the accumulation of data from various departments within the City, the San Bernardino Valley Association of REALTORS supports the overall intent of the Rental Inspection housing Program, however, we strongly oppose the proposed increases in taxes directed to ALL rental property owners within the City and urge the City Council to consider the following recommendation: 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. 2. The revenues received from the operation of apartment complexes containing 5 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). 3. That portion of the operation of code enforcement now paid by the EDA be identified and credited to the total cost of code enforcement (reported in a Request for Council Action, Staff Report, prepared in May 1994 as approximately $142,000.00). This income has been available to the city for several years and can be found in future budgets of the EDA. 1994 OFFICERS: RITA NORTON, Prasldent • SUE MOLLER, Presltlent Elect, • DAVID SCHULZE. 1st Vica President • LILLIAN MILLER, Secretary JIM TRAMMELL, Treasurer DIRECTORS: LEWIS CANTRELL • RON CARLISLE • RON KEMPER • STEVE LAMBERSON • ROD LAMBERT • JOHN ROTHENBERGER ~ GEORGE H. SCHNARRE • ROBIN SHIDLER • SANDI SIGDESTAD ~ EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT: SAM G. HENLEY /•~~1~•/M~®~ ! ~99y ~-2~ /g p O 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 receive notices of amounts due and fail to pay them in a reasonable time. The current schedule of fees should be adjusted to cover costs where revenues do not meet expenses. 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. 6. The City enact an ordinance which enables the creation of a "tenant data base", preferably maintained as an income producing activity of a law enforcement agency. Such an ordinance would require landlords to report tenant performance, good or bad, periodically and for a fee, would report any information about a particular applicant for tenancy available in the data base to a landlord. The fee would be collected from the tenant applicant at the time an application is taken for a rental opportunity. Privacy laws need to be examined to determine what date can be reported back to the landlord, but, data which is a matter of public record should be able to be included in such a report. After a reasonable time, the database will enable landlords to avoid renting to persons who have been problems in the past and the knowledge on the part of the general public that such a system exists in San Bernardino will act as a determent, to those who are criminals or bad tenants, to even make application for residency within the City. DISCUSSION It does not appear that a need exists to increase the tax charged owners of rental property. According to reports prepared and circulated to the Task Force, the cost of the total code enforcement effort during the 1993-94 year was $520,000.00 (Code Compliance Division Report 1988 To Date, City of San Bernardino, published July 1994 at the Rental housing Task Force meeting.) Our research has identified four sources of revenue now received by City that are allocated for code enforcement. Single family (1-4 residential unit structures license fees of $310,000.00 2 0 annually, business license fees from apartment structures, 5 units or more, of $92,000.00 fees charged to property owners when code enforcement originates due to mis- management, of $250,166.00, and finally, the sum of approximately $142,000.00 paid to the City by the EDC for code enforcement, 1993-94. These four sources generate a total of $802,000.00 in revenue annually and should support two of the three proposals advanced by the City Administrators Office without the need for additional taxes. Rather than focus on increasing the cost of doing business as a landlord within the City, we believe the focus should be the implementation of programs that will assist both landlords and law enforcement personnel to rid the City of blight and crime. There are neighborhoods within the City of San Bernardino that can be described as those in crisis, and others that fit the category of degenerating neighborhoods. The San Bernardino Valley Association of REALTORS has repeatedly expressed concern about these conditions within the City and has offered to become a part of the solution of these challenges. We are equally concerned by an attitude, on the part of well meaning civic leaders, that the crime problem within the City, is the responsibility of the owners of rental properties located in the City. It is obvious from studies done in a "core city setting" that correlation exists between degenerate housing and crime. At the same time, there is no evidence that the owners of such properties purchased them with the express purpose of allowing them to become degenerate and attract people likely to participate in criminal behavior. We know here in San Bernardino, for example, that a significant number of "landlords" own less than three rental units and within this population there is a large number of folks who are "landlords by circumstance". This latter group is comprised of individuals who once occupied their property but they had to move because of job loss or transfer out of the area. A slow real estate market forced them to decide to rent their properties in an effort to avoid financial burdens of vacant property. Landlords that own property within the City did not do anything to create the recession, or to influence the closure of Norton AFB or to encourage the Courts in Los Angeles County to "dump" their undesirables into this community. They, like other non-landlord citizens who own property within the City are victims of these and other events which led to the current economic situation here in San Bernardino. 3 O Landlords were, none the less, singles out by the leadership of this City to pay a disproportionate share of the cost of code enforcement efforts because it was deemed that they are more responsible for the current blight and crime problems within the City than was the general population. We disagree with this conclusion. It is probable that these people who own real property that does not go anywhere, and therefore is easy to attach and/or levy, were selected to target, as opposed to the problem tenants, because such people tend to pay their bills on time. Sadly it is the tenant population that scatters debris around the property, fails to water the lawn and the garden disassembles its old automobiles and leaves parts laying around the property and who engages in criminal behavior. It would appear that many of the landlords that currently own property in San Bernardino lack the skills to property manage such property. Many are "landlords by circumstance" as mentioned above and some entered into ownership of such properties, based on the stories of friends who were themselves successful, but lacked any knowledge of the duties or responsibilities of a landlord. This lack of skill combined with the current economic situation throughout Southern California has resulted in an unfortunate situation for the City and for the landlords as well. The Association would welcome the opportunity to work with the City to organize and offer training in property management skills. We are keenly aware of the cost of blight to every property owner within a neighborhood where blight occurs. We have long advanced the importance of proper maintenance and adequate management to buyers of rental property. It seems that current conditions dictate the need for an enhanced effort to help the good landlord avoid the problems that plague others and help those in trouble find a way back to profitable property investment. We believe that an ordinance such as the one discussed in recommendation ~6, above could be a first step in the process of helping those from whom the City needs help. Ron Kemper, REALTOR, and associate on the Local Government Relations Committee plans to discuss this idea at greater length. 4 ~:ITY OF SAN BER~RDINO - REQUEST ~OR COUNCIL ACTION From: SHAUNA CLARK Subject: Rental Housing Inspection Program City Administrator Dept: Date: 7 / 5 / 94 Synopsis of Previous Council action: 6/6/94 -- Public Hearing set for 7/5/94. 5/5/94 -- Heard by Legislative Review Committee Recommended motion: 1. That Alternate No. be selected in order to implement the Rental Housing Inspection Program. 2. That further reading of the ordinance be waived and it be laid over for final adoption. ,1 //t/,/l/ d/./~/ ~ Signature Shauna Clark 5122 Contact person: Phone: Supporting data attached: yes Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: ~ ~?1Jai,~v 7~ /~~~~~ _~,,..~., Aaenda Item No. /~ .TY OF SAN BER~DINO -REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT On June 6, 1994, the Rental Housing Inspection Program was presented before the Mayor and Common Council at which time the item was continued to the July 5th Council Meeting for a public hearing. In addition, the Council asked the City Administrator's Office to report on the successes of rental inspection programs of other cities. Jeanne Fitzpatrick of my office has made contact with representatives of the Cities of Azusa, Santa Ana and Mesa, Arizona with respect to their rental inspection related programs. Attached for your review is an overview of the respective rental programs and the effects of a rental inspection program as it relates to the City of San Bernardino. In addition, attached is the original Council Correspondence/Staff Report presented at the June 6th Council Meeting which outlines the proposed alternative plans; copies of the memos written to the Mayor and Council and additional information received from the City of Santa Ana with respect to their first targeted areas since the implementation of their rental inspection program. s„~« °CtTY OP SAN BERN~,RDINO -REQUEST RStR COUNCIL ACTION M From: Shauna Clark, City Administrator Subject: Selection of funding mechanism -- Rental Housing Inspection p~ Administrative Program and set public hearing for July 5, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. Date: May 23 , 1994 Synopsis of Previous Council action: May 5, 1994 -- Heard by Legislative Review Committee. Recommended motion: That Alternative No. be selected in order to implement the Rental Housing Inspection Program and that a public hearing be scheduled for July 5, 1994, at 10:00 a.m. Signature Contact person: Shauna Clark phone: 5t 22 Supporting data attached: Y~ -Wad' FUNDING REnU1REMENTS: Amount: Source: Acct. No. Acct. Descri tion Finance: Co~• '~ Notes: Agenda Item No~ ]50262 . CITY OF SAN BERNARDiNO -REQUEST FpR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT In 1990 the City established a single family rental business tax in recognition of the proliferation of housing in transition from owner-occupied to rentals. This tax was imposed to fund code enforcement as it was recognized that rental housing was placing added demands on code enforcement. To date, the Clerk's Office has identified over 5500 single family rental units. The net revenue from these collections is approximately $240,000 per year. The general fund burden for code enforcement is $397,700. ($539,700 less $142,000 paid by EDA). Approximately 75$ to 80$ of code enforcement time is in response to problems in rental units. At the time the single family rental housing tax was imposed, no specific inspection program was established. Coda enforcement was to operate on a complaint response basis. Growing demands have far exceeded the staffing available. Code enforcement is unable at this time to take a proactive stance. They are forced to operate in a far less efficient reactive mode, addressing life safety issues first leaving little time for other complaints. The intensive paper work processing that goes along with coda enforcement also bogs them down. Nor does the city have a funding source for inspection of multi- family units. The Fire Department works on inspections when they can, but again, their focus is on lite safety issues. Housing stock, especially in the city core where the highest number of single family rental units is concentrated, has continusd to deteriorate and devalue. It is apparent that landlords who are deriving income from these units are not reinvesting their profits (or tax savings) in their San Bernardino properties. Based on the experience of other cities, we believe that a proactive rogram of rental inspections, a2 witt? landl0 °' 'io progress, will reduc 'tt'Int ~ single family rentals of "dl~tft back to ovine -occupied which will stabilize neighborhoods and allow housing values to rise. Over time, all property owners will benefit. In order to generate funds for this program, three alternatives are before you today for discussion. Altsrnativs i Taroetsd inspections Rental Ia¦nection euraharae The first of the three the Mayor and Council may recognize as the Santa Ana plan. The City of Santa Ana had a residential business •tax similar to ours but added a surcharge to pay for enhanced inspection programs. Because the Santa Ana surcharge did not collect enough money to guarantee an inspection for every rental unit, the inspections were targeted. 15.0264 Rental Housing Inspection Program Staff Report - Page 2 This alternative would allow the city to target rental housing areas and do full inspections without regard to the license renewal pattern. The surcharge money generated would be a tax, not a fee, and would not require direct correlation to the service being provided. By using existing data on crime patterns, code enforcement complaints, density and other criteria, the Department of Planning and Building Services would develop a strategic plan for targeting the most critical problem areas. A team of inspectors would be placed in the target area and would remain until all inspections for the area were complete. Alternative 2i - Annual Inspection Coale - Fe• !or service The second alternative is to charge a rental inspection Pee (versus a tax) for every unit at the time it is first licensed through the Clerk's Office and annually upon renewal. Once the fee is collected by the Clerk's Office, the Department of Planning and Building Services would have xx days to complete the inspection. Although this program would generate enough money to inspect every unit once per year, the inspections would not bs controlled by the department on a strategic basis. Each inspection would occur randomly, based upon business registration renewal cycles ands inspectors would bs placed in a reactive, rather than proactive, mode of operation. Fees would be based upon actual coats for providing the inspection. Alternative IiZ - Too veer inspection,gyal• - Bee !or service Alternative three is a variation of number two, but cuts inspections in half, requiring inspections once every two years. Fees would also be reduced. Supportinc documents There are three supporting documents which expand on this program. 1. A chart from the Department of Planning and Building Services which shows the budgetary requirements for each alternative. 2. A chart which shows the rental inspection fee under each alternative. ~% ¦ - --- - r. O O Rental Housing Inspection Program Staff Report - Page 3 3. An outline which gives a more in depth picture on how the program would be structured.* *Please note that Alternative No. 1 as outlined reduces the business registration tax by 25~ (from $60 to $45). I want to emphasize, however, that I do not support a reduction in the tax because the money will still be necessary for funding city services, especially code enforcement. C ty Administrator ti~ •+N~ON v v v v N O 00~ h 0 .ONN~1 ONON h 000000 O !1 OIf1 .w .~yl N 0000000 O ,n C + OOiL1nn N OOOiL1~00 0 d G ~ r. r:~n~ep q ~0 W nNM ^t ~ rl .w O n v ^y N N q ~ N ~ ~ N ' ~ 41 1 i N •A i n ti 'y .,..r ^ ~ ~ J U JI _ yam. -. ., ~SOa'~ CO OOOOOC O ~U ? = r 7n Nm '~ 000000C' ~ 0 .C1 O 11 n~ .Ll 0 0 0 0 11 O ti U C t1 0 u1 O~ S 00 N N ~O i(1 0 w r CJ~ J L y E - n ...a s N r s h ^ 0 N_ 07 1 y y y N ', J N G.1 ..y C7 V7 .a. :1: A4i '+Nq~ Z .r !A v v " q Z J N h ' gry..q ..y ONO~O O 000000 O v<n. a °oy ~ oinga q o°a°ool°no° ,°n x o O e h oon~ a UI 0 ,~ Ohml"1 ~O of N~PIO v -, .,y h ¦ nl m IL1 N O ~ LI i. ~ rl PI (~i ~ L O y y y H d0.' ua .r < sr ~ ., O U A 'O ~ C ~p IL1 ~O N r a :ui1°n~~ = L G C ~n0~n I7D i O N ..a H 'O U gnNN 0.L aJ d ..+aANyy .y N 4 W y+.rvvv Y .O C 47 d O N ., y ~ sa 0. ~ y i+ N L N ~ q 0 (~j .q d a~ ~ ~ U y 'O U 0. N1f' Sid '0W dL ~ ' "~ dk S0 t0 .7 ?Cr V o-Cr ~Ci ~ d a0i ~ U N 7 d y d s+ d m •-ai ai N v L .E 2 d 'O ~ y ~ ~, a C T d U N N N N C V a~ , it C 0 C A ~ .7 ~ `" p~ C O L w 0 t N 7 0 01'w 0. O L 0~ ? L G ~ N 'O O d C~ V M N U d A N ~ y U Td L O..Ci~~[ m d 90...!,1.. ~ ~.O y~ U WANG 01 ~ 0. Cyy.:.. d 9 N N 0.N y N W W A d. , .w 4 N U CL OOICi.E.1~. ~ J G, U U ~'1 7 = • a O d ~ N 70 a L y '~ S V I'' ,O J C L ~ ..r Cn _ :l - ° - - 7 ~ J ~ ~ r © O 00 ~p 00 ~ ~ N~s n ~ n IA O ,~ i'f ~ v O~ O v ~ ~ d ' r V 'i n N N L7 N itD ~ ~ 41 ~ v V O O 000 O n~OIO U O O i[1 ~ r AI n r 1(1 O Pt m 'O ~1 N LL1 ~ NI ~ N O .~1 ti N AI N ' d I d ~ N ~ ,y N N N N ;N ~O W U 0 000 0 o iNv 0 0 f O • 10 ~ If1 O O O V • ~0 n n Y1 O '1/ N N N N ~ M 0 IM O O ~I O O 0 T~ ~ ~ C O "• N .a.l rl (J Y N N G U ~ r+ ~ IWfi N N L 9 q ~ N • G m ~ N m ?7 7 ~ GI O U U •~1 ~~.0 O L IJ ~j~ r~ 7'1 C "1 ~ Q~li O) c c aBi L .n' ~ D z4 H c of ~ a~ ~ M iiI N CI L N O J N C ~p c ~ c_ a,+ U7 C~ T, ,. ~ --f - - ~ - X \ :, . ~ - r \ ~ a:; J (Alternative Analysis Prograa Rsvsnus Inspection 'sx anpr~ach Fas Approach 12_ + 24 Mon h Cycle 52:, ?er ~wellinq Unit 57S for 1st Dwellirq ':nit Plus S20 !or ea. Additional Dwelling Unit Unit Tvpe Single-Family Sz0575 Duplex Sao 59S Triplex 560 5115 Quad 580 5135 S-Unit Complex 5100 5155 l0-Unit Complex 5200 5255 20-Unit Complex 5400 Sa55 50-Unit Complex 51,000 51,055 Estimated Revenue (Based on the above fee structurs) 5420,000 $1,400,000 annually for 12 sx>tfth cycls $700,000 annually for ' 24 s~onth cycle Additional Rsvsnus IIndsr a ?N Approach, to bs Identified to a Tenant/Landlord Support a Tenant/ Educational Program Landlord Education Could Not Bs Funded Program' 90 • Gf?4 TOT71L REVENIIS RLQIIZRLD $510,000 5/4/94 mYG frIDGET~iW 'It educational funds are not idsntitied, the Tax Approach would require a 524 per dwelling unit annual chargs. y flfTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PRVRAM I. MISSION STATEMENT Systaaatically identify and correct coda violations in rental units which result in threbta to occupant safety; threats to structural integrity; and negative impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. %+dd~tionall=:Cprovida inforoatien t ypropegty~ owners to enhance eir ~ a s rt mane e th ,,~~l!ucationa efforts daa ff S landlor~} fi'~~onslei s, tans"itt screeni t~`~~~~Q~'°`~'~tft= _ aivailabl'~" *_o ass allures, and a~standarQ'propartias. (Cation o! II. SCOPE The provisions of this program shall apply only to residential rental property within the designated proactive rental housing cods enforcement areas. III. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROGRAM A. Many landlords for both single and multi-family properties derive income from their properties without reinvesting sufficient money !or adequate property maintenance. B. The majority of rental properties in city have no on-site management. C. In many cases where on-site management is available, there is a lack o! knowledge, skills, rasourcaa and direction froa the property owner to perform needed maintenance. D. There is a tendency for crima'ratas to be highest in areas wham properties era not owner occupied. It is reasonable to make a connection between lack o! property maintenance, the deterioration of the neighborhood, and the crime within that neighborhood. E. Absentee property ownezs should be held accountable for maintenance and safety of their units and required to help mitigate the impacts generated by tenants. F. In many cases throughout the City, rental property owners may not be aware of proper procedures for selecting tenants, executing rental agreements, the proper method of evicting tenants and other responsibilities related to effective management principles. The lack of such knowledge has resulted in ineffective management resulting in a deterioration o! many housing units. y ~..,,, G. A sys atiC inspection program wi~ provide responsible rental~roperty owners with a basiTtor establishing the condition o! a housing unit when dealing with tenants who have intentionally damaged a unit in order to avoid their responsibilities to the property owner. IV. AUTHORITY A. The State of California Health and Salety Code as well as the State Buildirq Code grant to cities the authority to perform residential inspections. B. The State Constitution permits each city to charge a business .ax to all those doing business within its jurisdiction. V. FUNDING AND B[7DGET I*iPACT , A. 75t of tre complaints received by Code Enloresmant are related to rental properties. Adequate landing to perform a proactive, comprehensive residential rental inspection program has not bean set aside in the city's budget and cannot be set aside without significant reductions of funding for other programs. i. Recognizing that some Teel that the existing S60 tax is a hardship;•it is proposed that the business registration minimum tax be lowered to S45 par year. 2. Assess a S20 per-unit surcharge on tits business • registration tax. B. A reduction in the rental housing business registration fee from S60 to 545 will reduce general Lands by 581,000. The per-unit surcharge will generate 516,000. 1111 funds from the surcharge w111 be allocated to residential rental cods enforcement. VI. ECONOMIC IMPACT ON RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS A. The net tax eflsct on owners of single family rentals will be an increase of SS per year. B. theirs taxespbasedn upon the enumber of vunits iwithinethe complex. C. In cases of deficient properties,•landlords will incur the cost of corrections. Y _ VIZ. BENEFITS TO_PROPERTY OWNERS '~ A. All ors of property within the City of San Bernardino will benefit through aesthetic improvements made within neighborhoods. B. Reduction of blight which should lead to increased property :slues. C. Reducticn ci negative impacts through improved management of rentals. D. The cumulative benefits of the above should lead to reduced :-:tee, stabilization o! property values and improve-ert in the overall image o! San Bernardino. VIII. MECHANICS CF 2ROGRA.M , A. City Clerks Office will collect fee. B. Funds will be used to create a housing inspection section in the Department of Planning and Building Services. C. Although inspections will be mandatory, the timeframe for inspections will be adjustable. D. To achieve optimum impact and to minimize lees charged to property owners, inspections will take plats in targeted ' ernes selected by 'the Mayor and Council on the basis of need. Target area selection critsria may includs: 1. appearance o! blight 2. crime levels 3. negative impact on surrounding area 4. high concentration o! rental units IX. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE A. This program will operate as a separate subdivision of the Inspection Division of the Planning and Building Services Department. Housing inspection positions will be specifically created to carry out the program. These positions will be distinct from the coda enforcement and building inspection programs. A proposed organization chart and initial budget are attached. r B. This p gram will operate as a s~rate subdivision o! Plann~ and Building Services. C. The housing inspection• program will build upon current code enforcement processes, but will dilterantiats from currant code enforcement by emphasizing proactive enforcement and focusing exclusively on rental housing. X. ELEMENTS OF THE IaSPECTION PROCESS A. Pro-Act_ve ?rograa The program ~s :Mended to bn pro-active. A systematic process ;:ll be developed to target specific areas o! the City. ::ice ale rental units have been identified and inspecte~, t!:e housing inspection team will move to additional _sreet areas. The Housing Inspection Staff will not respond to complaints in order to dedicate their efforts t~ the systematic program. The Code Enforcement Division :rill continue to respond to all complaints. 8. Inspectic~ Cycle Based on the proposed staffing, it is anticipated that 8,000 to lo,oo0 units can be inspected annually. with the 20,000 rental units now registered and others expected to be identified, it is anticipated that all units can be inspected within a 36 to. 48 month time frame. C. Cooperative Program with Responsible Property Owners Every attempt will be made to dwelop a positive relationship with property owners. The initial steps o! the program will be to schedule joint inspection visits with the property owner or property aanagar. tihare defects are found, a deficiency notice will be given to the owner with a reasonable time frame for correction. The time !tame will vary according to the seriousness of the deficiency. A reinspection meeting will be scheduled with the owner. i! corrections have been completed, an inspection certificate shall be issued. In the event significant progress on corrections has not been accomplished, the owner or property manager will be framed identified C for c the repairs w to be s completede Failure to comply with the Correction Notice will result in an enforcement action through the Hoard of Building Commissioners. The procedure at this point will be the same as for other Cods Enforcement violations. r • D. Inspac~.Qn Standards O • Tha City has property maintenance standards. Those standards deal with the required maintenance o! the exterior o! the structure such as paint, landscaping, and the remcval of junk and debris. The City has also adopted the Housing Code. The purpose o! this coda is to provide :nimum standards to salequard file and limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controllir.q the use and occupancy, location and maintenance of ail residential buildings and structures within t::i~ ;urisdiction. Thasa era the two basic ordinances as part of the program. E. Educaticn ?rogram Develop and implement an education program to assist landlords :+ith tenant screening and other aspectd of owning and operating rental units. S © ~ a 0 y A y M u~+ t~j n w ?~i Y ~aee ~' o~a~uu m v ~wuwuu u a Q~~~~ ~ of N ~ a ~ N O q ~ ~ O M u o u v= ,. 8' a rN+ y M~ G V" a ~ r m O p~ ~ M C ~ u it G C ~ ~y O O~ U ~ N ~ ~M C d L •M aY O O C V] ~ M d 7 C N H 4 I U ~ U y S O U C a u NOY a s. eu o a N N Z f0+~ ~ M •.1 Vi •M N •w w m .ti •p ] G 7 d m' wYY H s vvisF o u m U N M '~ o ~ w ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 8 W M I N p@ 0 5 W ~y u pM>~~~ ~ M ~ y~! a ys~yMM D M 16 y iii'' ~ •.~i 2 WOO M M I3 N 1~ CC u „ W ~ u~ uu ~ ~ ~3~~~ ~- yyQQQQQ M A 6 ~ ~ x a ~aW~ m Ws~u~ r W u ~~ae"io d © 4 RENTAL INSPECTION ANALYSIS I. OVERVIEW OF REPORTED SUCCESSES WITH RESPECT TO RENTAL INSPECTION RELATED PROGRAMS. The cities of Azusa, Santa Ana and Mesa, Arizona all have implemented programs relating to the inspection of rental properties. Each of the respective programs have been operating for at least a one year period; the exception being the City of Azusa which implemented their program in 1990. All three cities have reported nothing but absolute success as a result of implementation of rental inspection related programs. These successes include the reduction of crime and crime related calls, reduction in fire and code enforcement calls and the increase in property appearance, resulting in increased property values. A. Affects of Rental Programs on Crime and Code Enforcement Related Calls: Prior to the implementation of the rental program, Azusa found that there was a direct correlation between degenerated housing and increasing crime. It was revealed that virtually all drug related activity was associated with rental properties, as were assaults with a deadly weapon, battery, spousal abuse and disturbing the peace. Upon implementation in 1990, they registered their rental units to be approximately 56$ of the city's permanent housing stock. Azusa studied the crime rate in specific areas involving high rental occupancy. Since the implementation of the program, Azusa hae realised a 46$ reduction in crime overall in these specific areas including: 58$ reduction in auto theft, 65$ reduction in drug activity, 40$ reduction in battery, 26$ reduction in burglary and 42$ reduction in vandalism. Since the beginning of operation of Santa Ana's Proactive Rental Enforcement Program (PREP) in 1993, the city has completed the inspection of residential rental properties in two designated inspection areas, and is currently in the initial stages of inspections in a third area. The inspection of the first PREP area included the inspection of 123 rental properties containing 1,100 units. As a result of this proactive effort, the City of Santa Ana has realized a 26$ decrease in police activity and a 15$ decrease in fire related incidents. Mesa's program involves a three level process educational program designed to comprehensively train property managers and tenants on issues of property maintenance, tenant eviction processes, security requirements and crime prevention. The decision to implement this program was made upon the determination by the Police Department that the city's crime rates had increased in areas housed with deteriorating rental properties. As a result of the implementation of their Crime Free Multi-Housinq Program implemented in 1993, the City o! Mesa has realised a 67$ reduction in crime related calls among rental property areas. 8. Property improvements of Rental Properties and Effects on Property Values: All three cities have realized a significant increase in property improvements, resulting in increased property values. In addition, these improvements have resulted in an increase in tenant occupancy as well. During the first year of Azusa's program, property owners made approximately $2 millon worth of improvements to their buildings and landscaping. in the second year, approximately $1 millon more in improvements were made. Subsequent years have resulted in ongoing efforts to keep the rental properties up with previous improvements. With respect to resale values, Azusa staff found that those properties selling for less than $125,000 were more likely to become investor rentals, while those over tended to be owner occupied. This finding was most evident in an area housed with condominiums surrounding a golf course wherein the condominiums sold for less than $60,000 in the 1980's and had a 70$ rental rats. Today, these same condominiums sell in the area of $100,000 and have a rental rate of approximately 40$. The inspection program of the City of Santa Ana resulted in many property improvements. Inspections of the first PREP designated area revealed 2,239 violations including the following: 1,160 immediate life-hazard situations, 782 non-threatening conditions, 172 primarily cosmetic conditions and 125 tenant caused violations. Letters were sent to the respective property owners, all of whom eventually complied with no referrals of court action. Overall, the PREP program resulted in upgrades by the property owners in excess of $750,000 within the first phase. The Crime Free Multi-Housing Program of the City of Mesa, Arizona has resulted in improvements made to rental properties ranging from implementation of security hardware (i.e. deadbolts, window locks, etc.) to complete facelifts and renovations of older properties. Many property owners have voluntarily spent thousands of dollars to refurbish and refresh the appearance of their properties to qualify as members of this program. 0 0 II. OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM DESIGN AND THE UNIQUE ASPECTS OF EACH APPROACH. Overall, each of the respective city programs offered positive change, yet the designs of the programs offered a uniqueness. The one common aspect among all three was the fact that each program took an extremely proactive approach in order to accomplish their goal of reducing the threat of occupant safety whether it be as a result of structural integrity or crime related activity. A. Asusa'a Program: The City of Azusa implemented a program whereby each property is inspected once per year, which could occur anytime after registration, but generally within six months. The inspection involves the exterior condition only, unless there is evidence that a major problem exists within the unit. The inspector will then attempt to contact the resident living at the location to explain the purpose of the inspection, and further question the tenant with respect to any problems existing in the unit that are not being addressed by the management. The method of surveying the tenants about the interior condition of the unit has had a direct positive impact on the property owners. In some cases, the City of Azusa has gone to court on the property owner's behalf whereby the owner has began eviction proceedings against the tenant as a result of poor tenant upkeep. The City has brought evidence forth from the tenant survey stating that the City of Azusa visited the tenant on X date at which time the tenant stated that no problems existed within the unit. Azusa's program takes a very proactive "neighborhood" approach whereby they work directly with the property owners and tenants in order to help best meet their needs, resulting in the goal of property improvement. One of the unique ideas of their programs involves offering improvement loans. The property owner is offered a loan for improvements, utilizing a contractor designated by the City of Azusa. In turn, the owner makes payments on the loan while a lien remains recorded on the property until full payment is received. Should the property owner default on the loan, the city will immediately place the balance of the loan as a special assessment. on the property tax bill. B. Santa Ana's Program: The City of Santa Ana utilizes a targeted approach whereby the area chosen for inspection is based upon analysis involving specified criteria such as: history of violations, physical deterioration, criminal activity, o tenant complaints, police/fire responses, etc. Under this approach, every rental owner pays an annual inspection fee; however, all units are not inspected on an annual basis as a result of the targeted area approach. In order to reward owners of rental properties that are maintained well, the City of Santa Ana is in the process of developing an incentive program. In order to become eligible for the incentive program (incentive undetermined at this time) there is a set of criteria which must be met. The City of Santa Ana has a Housing Task Force Committee that is directly involved with the implementation of this incentive program and was also involved with the original implementation of the rental inspection program as well. C. Meaa, Arisona's Program: The design of Mesa's program is a unique solution in that it involves a certified training and educational program. The program involves a three level process whereby property owners and tenants are trained in areas relating to the owning/renting of rental properties. In order to graduate to a higher level of the program (i.e. level two or three), all managers must be certified at the lower levels first. Level one consists of property manager training where topics include creating, explaining and enforcing rental agreements; identifying illegal activity, and working with the police. Special emphasis is also given to training managers on the applicant screening and eviction processes. In addition, managers are explained of the drug-free lease addendum which is to be signed by tenants, agreeing that they will not engage in any type of criminal activity. Prior to advancing to the second level of training, property manager must also agree to an inspection of their property. Level two consists of crime prevention through environmental design. During this phase, property managers gain the knowledge they need to protect their properties against crime which include natural surveillance, access control, territoriality and activity reports. When the property manager believes that their property meets the requirements of the second phase, a crime prevention specialist conducts an on-site inspection of the area. Level three consists of training for residents. in this session, police crime prevention specialists address several topics such as an explanation of the drug free lease addendum as it pertains to the crime-free commitment as well as general safety and crime prevention © O techniques for automobile theft, sexual assault and burglary. This level is designed to train tenants to be the eyes and ears of the apartment community. Through this three level program, the City of Mesa has realized that crime can be curtailed in targeted areas when residents accept responsibility for their own environment. Mesa's program demonstrates that even renters can feel pride in ownership towards their communities. III. THE RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAM AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. Last month, Monev Magazine named San Bernardino as the sixth most dangerous city in the United States, clearly illustrating that San Bernardino suffers from a serious crime problem. Recently an analysis of the crime within the city was plotted on a map in order to determine the highest concentrations of crime areas. Upon analysis, it was determined that the highest concentration of crime lies within the area bounded by the 215 freeway on the west, Highland Avenue on the north, Waterman Avenue on the east and 9th Street on the south. A second map of information was also plotted, this being the concentration of rental properties within the City of San Bernardino. Upon analyzing this map, it was determined that the area illustrating the highest concentration of crime was also housed with a high concentration of rental properties. Debra Daniel, Code Compliance Supervisor was asked to arrange video taping of this area in order to illustrate the deteriorating condition of rental properties within this area and the fact that a large number of rental properties are in violation of various health and safety codes which should be addressed immediately. As with the Cities of Azusa, Santa Ana and Mesa, Arizona, it was determined that the crime within the City of San Bernardino is also directly correlated to the high percentage of deteriorating rental properties within the surrounding areas. The solution, as with the determination of the cities interviewed, is to implement a proactive inspection program. The current system of code compliance encompasses 50 square miles of area. On an average, the Code Compliance Division receives between 80 and 90 code complaints per day of which approximately 75$ are in response to rental problems. Unfortunately, because of the size of the city and the lack of staffing, the officers must operate on a complaint response basis only, resulting in a no win situation for the entire community. 0 0 IV. RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM PROPOSED FOR THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. The City of San Bernardino is proposing three alternative rental housing programs which were presented before the Mayor and Council on June 6th. Each of these proposed programs is very similar to the program designs of Azusa, Santa Ana and Mesa, Arizona. Because of the successes documented with respect to the individual programs of these cities, it is anticipated that the City of San Bernardino will also reap similar benefits. The crime and rental statistics of the city clearly indicate that high concentrations of poorly maintained rental properties coincide with higher concentrations of crime. In consideration of the city's resource limitations to address the problem through traditional code and law enforcement channels, it is apparent that a proactive approach is best suited in order to avoid a situation that may ultimately prove unmanageable. It must be considered that San Bernardino does maintain a level of populous considered to be in the lower income category. Such residents, through financial limitations, are most often required to rent housing. It is these same citizens who will continue to be subjected to decreasing standards of living within the future. Considering that housing within the city remains in the "affordable" range for investors, and that renters remain abundant, purchasers of rental properties will undoubtedly continue to be attracted to the area in the coming years. These individuals should be provided with adequate programs/training that will ensure their investment while ultimately providing for a safer and more protected community for lower income residents. The implementation of programs that clean-up target areas while reestablishing safer neighborhoods will serve to positively impact existing, negative influences while generally lending a proactive image to the city at large. A community of better maintained homes and apartments has proven to benefit all parties involved - property owners and their respective property values, renters and their personal living standards, as well as other city residents (owner-occupied properties) and businesses who maintain concerns about increasing crime and declining community identity and direction. MEMO TO COUNCIL AZUSA RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM C[TY OF SAN BERNARDINO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY ADMINIST$ATOR'S OFFICE TO: Honorable Mayor and Common Council FROM: Jeanne Fitzpatrick, Administrative Analy~t~ DATE: June 10, 1994 ~ SUBJECT: Rental Housing Inspection Program COPIES: ~ Shauna Clark, City Administrator; Dan Robbins, Police Chief; Al Boughey, Planning and Building Director; Rachel Clark, Ciry Clerk; David Schultz, San Bernardino board ~f Realtors; Richard Kimball and Richard Brooks, Sun Newspaper On June 6, 1994, the Rental Housing Inspection Program was presented before the Mayor and Common Council ai which time the item was continued to the July Sth Council Meeting fer Public Hearing. In addition, the City Administrator was asked to report on the successes of Rental Inspection Programs of other ties with respect to the reduction of blight and crime, and the increase in property values. I am in the process of researching the success rates of various programs; however, in the meantime, I would like to provide you with a draft report prepared by the Community Improvement Manager of the city of Azusa. Prior to the implementation of the program, the city of Azusa found a direct correlation between degenerated housing and increasing crime. Upon implementation of their program in 1990, the city of Azusa registered their rental units to be approximately 56% of the city's permanent housing stock. In 1994, the city of Azusa studied the crime rate in a specific area involving high rental occupancy. Since the implementation of the Rental Inspection Program, Azusa has realized a 469 reduction in crime in that specified area. Additionally, Azusa continues to track the results of their Rental Inspection Program with respect to property values, business attraction and school drop out rates. Each city surveyed to date has implemented similar Rental Inspection Programs, yet unique to their city. Although each program is distinct, every city representative shares the same view in that the implementation of their respective program has had a direct impact on their crime and blight statistics, resulting in positive change. Any additional information/documentation received with respect to Rental Inspection will be forwarded to your attention. © p 7L~I1'1'71L 2llrlfCT20M »laa» (synopsis) The Rental Inspection r_ogram is codilled under Chapter 16.0 Asusa Municipal cods which beoams operative in February, 19a9. The ordinance was adapted in reeponss to aounoil and public concerns over letarioratinq housing conditions which were attributed to absentee rental property owners. In 1999, complaints eoncernirq rsrtal housing aooouatsd or approximately got o! all complaints handled by code enloraement. The ordinance cams out o! a workshop eesoion with the Cttyy Council nlonq with a property maintenance ordinance which was codilisd under Cha ter 9.61 Asusa Munlolpal Cods which attempted to create ob~ective standards for property maintenance. Prior to adoption of the Rental Inspection ordinance, the City Conducted n workshop wherein all rentnl property owners were invited to give their input on the proposed ordinance. At the time o! the workshop virtually all owners in attendance, along with the Los Angeles /Pasadena Apartment Owner's Associations, agreed that eomsthinq had to bs dons to curb the degradation o= houeing.sinae it was impaoting both property values and the desire o! good tenants to rent in Asusa. Ae areas with high rental rates degenerated ws also . ¦aw inareteinq crams, graltiti, and the movement o! long term reridents out of the city. With lower property values in many areas we also saw homes which had previously been owner occupied become rentals due to the lower values. Ths m~etinq with the owners also detailed what the prograa would bs targeting including paint, landscaping, cooling, refuse storage, illegal housing, and substandard housing aonditlons. Upon the ordinance becoming •ltevtiv the City began the registration process. Almost 3 months later in July, 1989 the first Inepeetori were hired to begin the inspection prooeee. In the first year of the Rental Inspection Program rental property owners Wade approximeteiy 2 million dollars worth of improvements to their buildings and landscaping. In the second year we saw approximately 1 million dollars more in improvements, subsequent years have resulted in ongoing maintenance efforts to keep the rentnl properties, up with previous improvements. © O In 1090 the city registered approximatnlyy 6,600 rental unit¦ out of the approximately 1],000 residential unite within th• city (sxclude• s2s mobilehomes) whioh reprerented approximately s6t of the city's permnnnnt hourinq stock. In 1!!1 the city contains d,0o6 registered rental unite out o! approximately 12,050 .residential unite or approximatelyy 503 of the oity~s permanent 7ousinq rtoek. Th1¦ reduction is attributed to several :actors, including down aoninq o! high density areas, single-family home intill projects wham substandard rentals ware demolished, construction o! the Lewis Homes project at Citrus and Foothill, the demolition of the l0a unit Dalboa Apartment complex, and a reduction in the number of overall -ental t condominiums and •ingl• lamily homes due to higher :eaa~s values end market loreee. With respect to resale values, staff lound that thorn properties selling !or less Shan 5125,000 were more likely to become investor rentals, while thoe• over tended to be ewnsr occupied,. This phenomena is most evident in the aondomihiume surrounding the gait course area whioh ¦old in the 1960's !or lass than $E0,000 anQ had a 7OZ rental rata. Today'thea• came unite roll in the +~rsa o! $100,000 and have a rental rate o! approximately sot. A¦ part o! the Rental inspection Program eta!! oontinues to examine trends in Azusa's hourinq stock, ns well as examine problem areas which era identillad in the cousee o! making the inspections and talking with tenants. Often problem tenants are brought to tho attention o! property owners a• the source of increased police activity on their prapertiss in which the owner is encouraged to evict problem tenants. This was most evident in the "Mountain view 7lpartmente" at Citrus and 7?rrow Hwy. in 1990 wherein an enolave o! approximatnly ao Crips gang members had mound into the complex. The net result was a dramatic increase o! police activity which included outside law enloreement agencies making routine search warrant inspections and drug nrresta at the location. Attar conducting inspections o! the property eta!! ordered approximatnly a0 apartments out o! 123 to be vacated and rehebilitatad. Prior to this action Aauss Police received approximately 5 calls par day to the oompiex. Alter the snlorcement activn calls to the property were reduced to approxia~tely,7 per wnek. As units beoame reoeoupied staff contlnus~ to monitor conditian• which havn remained relatively steady. Zn the Baloboa Apartment• case at 600 N. Cerritos Avenue, staff recently compared crime statistics based on the years of 1991-92 (helots enforcement action) and 1997-94 (after D demolition). Thi¦ analysis revealed the tollowinq crime Oistsiotn723"wwhich alaKnboundeda by"ToothillolilvQ.Reon~thi North, Cerritos Ave. on the Wert, Aeckval• Ave. on the Sast, and filth street on th• 9ouch~ J?uto Tlselt -58i Oruq Activity -ey+ /attely -40~ hllfflary -26~ vandalism -o2t In short, a strong entorcem•nt program dees in Tact have spin-oti benelits in the area o! crime reduction, as well as improving and maintaining the existing housing stook. Operationally, the Rental Inspection Program ie set-up to inspect registered rental property once per year, which could occur anytime after registration. Typically, however, vacs e property i• registered as a rental the property will be inspected within six months. This inspection involves an onaite visit to th• property wherein inspectors look list to general appearance and whether or not any „maintenance violations" ar• visible. The inspector will then attempt to contact residents living at the location to explain the purpoa• of the inspection, and to ark i! the tenant has any problems with the unit which ere not being addressed by the owner or management. This interview aith the tenant will generally ask i! there are any root leaks, proper aomlort heating, vermin inlestatlon, a working smoke detector, proper plumbing, os any other condition. Deeaus• of vase law in ~r y ~y ~ IID an interior inspection will only b• made i! the tenant requests it and signs a consent loan. In cease where there is evidence that a major problem may exist inside a unit and trie tenant will not give consent, n court ordered Inspection Warrant is obtained. Where tenants are not contacted during a routine inspection, Snspectora ar• typically leaving a note that an elLort to contact the tenant was made, or a letter is Bent to th• tenants explaining that they may contact us with any problem they may have with their housing. I! requested by a tenant, a second visit to trio property will b• made without additional charge. When violations ar• 2ound, or a complaint !s received and verilied by inspection, the owner is sent a "Request Lor Compliance". Unless the violation is very hazardous, the owner will be asKed to Correct th• violation within 30 days ~ Q a• required undtr stets law. i! the owner subeaquently aontaots u~ regarding tht violation or the amount of tuna alleaated to Comply, and has soma dittioulty in meeting the time frame, os has a finanaiai dittioulty, wt W111 txttnd tht time it a good faith ettort to comply la demonstrattd. When the allocated or extended time has lapsed, a second inspection it made to verify compliance. It aorrectione have bean Completed the ease is than Closed. It the violations rtmain, enlorcemtnt actions era than initiata4 and all enlorCSmtnt Costs era chargod to the property owner. The program utilizes an Administrative Heasinq proetdurt which i• informal, :air, and ettiaisnt, and avoidr many of the cases having to be heard by the City Council, or in court. Essentially, this process allows !or a neutral third pasty to listen to and see all relevant evidence concerning a violation. Our process currently utilises a retired Asusa Police Captain who is under contract to provide sarviaes as an Administrative Hearing 0lticar. His only instruotiona era to bs impartial and independent in reaching a deoision attar _ listening to both the city~s stalt and the attested property- owner. Thin process is much more expedient and cost etitetivs than the criminal prosecution o! violations sines tht entire procaaa can be noticed and aonaluded within ten (i0) days. The prosecution procaeo zequisas a largt expense ' !or attornty's lass and can take as long as a year to resolve in tht court. Over tht 1993-9{ Fiscal Ysar stet! conducted approximately 16o Public 9uisancs Hearings involving rental properties, o! these only one appeal was made eo the city CCUnoil whlah denied the appollants appeal and extended the compliance time Lor two years. An analysts of 7lzuswa:sconstructedgine1964~ l?stsueh~ most o! all rental housing the units wars built with inadequato o!t-stssat parking, carports rather than garsgts, no built-in appliances (dishwashtrs, ovens, or stoves), and ware equipped with wall heaters rather than central air conditioning. As ouch these same units art nos leas deoiraable to more atlluent tenants who prstss a more up-scalo apartment with all the amenities one would typically Lind in a modern home. our observations are that this aging of thloworainoomeotenant resulted in the attraction of a largely unitsacommandtlessarentawhenbcompazedmto morilmodernaaquipped demanQgtorimort Trilocals retails marahants tdealingbiintyhome © O furnishings, and more up-seale•rsstnurants, while at the ¦ams time inoreasinq 4emand !or more lower-and merehandialnq in the form of swap meets, aeoond hand stores, last food restaurants, and used car dealers. In the area of police esrvioes, staff found chat 48t of all site epeoiilo polioe aalla were to rental broperties, 1N weri to single family owner oooupied housing, and 74! were to commercial properties (bawd on a one yeas review). A breakdown of these calla further revealed that virtually ali drug related activity was associated aith rental properties as w.re assaults with a deadly weapon, battery, spousal abuse, and disturbing the peace. on the owner oeoupisd side stet! found that police calla to these locations were predominantly victins of property crime inaludinq burglary, vandalism, and theft. Ths commercial calla revealed their use of police aervieea were largely !or theft, burglary, and ¦ilent alarm responses. Ws believe that the large quantity o! rental housing ha¦ also impacted the Axuaa Unified School District in several asya. These impacts are largely related to the transient population associated with rental housing, and the loser income status associated with this popuiation. This was perhaps most • evident in 1986 when Azusa High School had the dubious distinction o! having the second highest drop-cut rate of any high school in Los Angeles County (3~.sf). Nhat in loot the District found was that the large number o! transient tenants who moved in and out of the District orlated this anomaly. Up until 1988 the District counted a withdrawal lro~ the school as a drop-out and did not attempt to determine what happened to the student. Today the District will net oount the student as a drop-out i! a transcript is re ested within one year. it was the District's belie! that i! a transcript was requested that the student simply moved into another district. While this large movement o! students continues on a yearly basis the drop-out rate based on transoript requests has been reduced to 6.4t in 1993, which is now the third lowest in Los Angeles County. The impact o! this large transient school population on the character and quality o! the sohooi system is difficult to quantify. Inherently, since this population is largely associated with a lower income transient popuiation• it is possible that tho less stable student population edverseiy affects the learning environment since a majority o! the students never establish roots in the community, or within the school system. o While the Mental 2nepeotion Program was not intended to be a study of the sooial and demographio.impaot• on the oemmunity, these issues keep ari¦inq in our analysis o! how a community oan easily salter as a result o! a high transient population. It is evident through our inspections that a great deal of damage is caused in rental properties by the tenants themselves. This la typically in the loan o! gra!liti, broken windows, holes in interior wells, unp•rmitt•d storage o! dismantled vehlclee, removal o! smoke deteotor•, the appearance o! cnst-ott nppliencee / tnrnlture, and the _ throwing o! trash end debris around many o! the rsneal properties. While most rental property owners are aware that some o! their tenants are rasponsiblo !or damages and the dimunition of surrounding property values in soma neighborhoods, moot are reluctant to entoree rental agreements. This reluatanee is most evident when an absentee owner hnr di!lieulty renting the units, or when in spits o! being a bed tenant, the tenant pays his rent. when absentee owners are conlronted with deteriorating property conditions they will more olten Chan not attribute the problems to their tenants and add n qua11lyinq statement ouch as "This the way these people live !'~ . G O { RitSIDENTIAL RENTAL INSPECTION 16.36.020 VSE OF ~tODILE HO1LS9 FOR COMMERCIAL. 3TC„ PU1tlOS@S. Th• uN of mobile home. eraii•rs or troaeh•a for onlse, somm•roial or manufaeturln~ purpews shall be Iimit•d ' to umporary ua• Daly for a period e< elm. nee e• •xend rix months, Application for temporary uw parmiu shall b• made to the Plannln~ Dfrsoter. H• shall Issw the permit it ha nude that th• propowd ute eompli•s with all applleable tonln~ ordinanns in• eludlrt~ •eebaek r•quir•m•nta. parklnr rpuir•menu and •ian r•quirementa. The permis .}tall not tathorla• any ueillty h•ok• ups. except t•mporvy t•l•phone oe eletrlaal ..rule. may b• provided by m•atu of a c•mperary p•w•r pol•. An additional time p•tiad arty tf• authariaad aRsr • public hearln3 is sash ease under a Condltlonsl UN P.rmit to accord. area with proeedtuw seated to Cltapesr if.l0. ford. 1091 { i, 11741 Ord. 101{ f ~ (part).1l71: prior cede 1 A3041. Cltapta 11.40 1t)cilDt.*R'IAL IIiRYI'AL IPiJP6CTI0N Medonat la.4o.olo D.nnittena. 1e.4o.oso Ra~aired. I6.i0.030 Vtl lty eonnaatioa. 18.40.040 Application-Ftlin~. 16.40.Od0 Annual in•p•etion r•Quired. 16.40.OA0 Aainspe•tion. 16.40.084 C•rtineat•-Conunte and when void. 14.40.070 fat•mptiona. 14.40.080 Own•r.aeeupi•d drr•llin8a. ' 14.40.090 Inbrier inap•ctlen. 14.40.100 AppsYis by a~risr•d persona. 14.40.110 Violation-hnalty. 16.40.120 Entornm•nt-Publio nulsanee. 16.40.130 petualetaa-Leta 4lWti• 16.40.140 Dntorament alttee+atlws. 14.40.010 DEFINITIONS. A. "Director" m••n• t'n• Director of Community D•~elopmene !or eh• City of Aru•a. rn•uw 341.101 383 o © - 8UbD1NGB AND CONSTRUCTION B. "ChanQa oFuw" means a oeoupy a axis fer other than a rNtdanes foe otu family. C. "City" Rsatu the City otA:ttw, D. "Oaeupanoy" mwna any parNn who aeeupisd a unit, whether u an owns or aaane or parmittaa of eha ownos. 1~. "Owner" inaludN ihs spat of the owner. , T• "Porwn" maaaa t!u individual, partno»hlp, sespoeation or assoetaefon or the »ntal spat of any at eba laaloial. 0. "Veit" m.ana eho »sidandal dwollial wait !a • sittlir family, twa•hmtly ar multllataily rssidsaw bulUlal, whWt is tsoe awttae~eeupisd, saroludlnl meals, heals, rsomlal housN sad boardin~houws aad similes lirial aemmatodattons. (Oed. 4319 ~ ' 1.1919). !tl.40.010 REQV1REa. No parNna shall roar, lsaN, assupy or oeharwiw po.-aut aay dnllin~ wait whleb 4 heaBsr vaaaad by ehA p»viow ooeupaat th•»of to bs rsoseupiod aattl ~teh unit U rs~iaarad with rho City of Anw Commuaiq Dwoh~pmsnt Dapsetmont or provided with a neti!!wa of aaompdon. toed. 43891 1, 1919). 1840.010 UTII.I1'Y CONNECTION. Ne counaaion of utill. tiw, lneludinl wear, slaetrieity, and pa. sha11 ba made fbr ray dw•llina unit which hw bwn vacated by ita prior osoupana unlsN such unie ha. bwn rs~isared w rsqut»d In ehis ehapar aad eho owner p»wnes proof of rs~istratloa or proof of exemption to ehs ueility company, (Ord. 4319 1 1,19191. ls,4o.o4o APPLICATION-!'II.INa. The owttN alewry rmtai unit shall. prior to ranting er raeeeupyin~ a »nW uait, obain sn annual »pfateaelen and inepaetien aeeitieaa IFom the Commu• niey Dawlopmant Dirsocos by AIln1 a wrltaa applleattoa on s form to ba prosesibsd by the Community Devtlopment"Dltestoe and payment of an annual ra~i~traelon sad inspection fN theca tor. 9ald be. shall be we by Npasate »wluttoa of the Ctty Couacil la accordance with applicable State Law. (Ord. 23x91 1. 1911). ~A.u.. ~•is•so~ gi4 p O RL9IDtNTIAL MENTAL 1N9PECTION 16.10.060 ,V\:\'L',v, IIVdP=CTION REQUIItf~D. Thy Commu• nity D~volopmortc Otrwsor oh~p awo nob Haul prepom• oo by C 964.1 i~,w. ~~:i ooi . « M © o C R=lfDE~'TL1L REYT,tf, f\'SPSC'.'f0Y taapeeted at lent Dace annually for eompltanee with appiicable aeetiene at State and )opal eodee relsttn~ ee wnind, building. haaleh sad satiey, and property mainteaaaa, Where Inepeettoa reveals a vielacioa. the progeny ownee shall be provided with a written noetee d•aeetbirt` the violation,loea• lien and a rsaaonable time for eompUaaee. (Ord. 2919,; 1. 1919:. le,d0.0A0 R>.I~'SPLCTION, Whe» vlelations aro found. the property owner will tw ehaepd for ap Dees ineterred by the City far ehainin! oempiiaan pterauaat to provie{oas acs fersh in Sae• tioa 16.08.100 K seq. ~ th(a Cede. (Ord ~l19 { Z, I930). 10.f0.011• CIIt'liIICA?15~C0.~1'PE.\"1'D AND WfJl'Y VOm. A. Tbo rental e~)straeten eerel!leaa shall expire one (1) year (kotn eha date of Wuanee ss upon cheap dpeopersy own.rahtp. 1. 'Rte natal relletracioa aetilleate shall sate: 1. '1'!~a daa of leeuo. 9. The lepl uw of the property, 5. The addrea of tke peoperry. 4. 'Ihe property ovrnei a name sad eddreu. 6. A nlleeration number. 1. Zhe date o! expiraeion. 7. Any other pertinent taformaeioa. (Ord. 4939 i 1, 198Gi. IO.a0.070 E:CEa1PTI0,?8. The rpuiremans fee an annual in apeetion and annual »Sistsation shall rest apply to the iol2otvin~ 1. Orrnarooeupled dwelling. Z. Mobile home paeka whleh ha\y been issued a :art:^:a:e m axamptioa. 5. Maenneetlon o[uciittin turned ott by eha ut:l;t>• !sek o payment. (Ord. 2589 { 1, 1119), •CfuOarta.e0eatwtneltteeeento,tenumberedll.~O.OeO "•c~ei:er-enunlerw the eeeonA of ta.e. eee+tetu a 10.+0.000. OuowOwntly.::e :nY "1'+,»re correetef oMtnena abp,ne qtu ehenp. ~tue . is S4 99S f` • ~ © O ~ - . . tifL'ILDIYGS AND CONBTIIUCTIO.i ' 18.10.080 OWN>Clt•OCCUlIlD DWlLLINOl. All owner• oeeupitd dwelllnp than b• tawd a eeetlAeaa of txtmpeion in 1Seu of a re~tatratlon CereiAeate upon roQnat In eotyunetfon with . s Real property Reeorda Report. Sdd eertillcattt of txemptton shall be valid !or thirty 4yt hem dace of tau. and ehen velded. Aequeets for exemption will be proesssed and issued open reeetpt of the Citp's copy o! she Reai Proptrry Ateoedt Report stirred 6y ' the buyer. No G. shall be eharpd for eertilkaa of exemption issued in aonjunetien with a Real Property Records Report. (Ord. . 4389 ; 1,1969). 1S.i0.090 IIVTBRIOIt L~'SPLCTIONS. When she essee(or in• tptetion pva evtdena of poatbll tateetor dt8tta ar an exentae eeau of exactor dilapidation taista. she ~ than haw the diht to make an leerier iatpeetlea .i to thlt thapar than prohibit an lnarior fntpeeeiea d tuty derelWy unit when the direetee a< hie dasiinee roquaa, and u ieanted, entq b ttte owner or oeaupaaa a<s unit. (Ord. 488911,1Nh. 16.10.100 APPEAI,9 SY AGGRDI;t'=D 118:11810\!. Any pee. ' an aiirievwl by the dewrminstien of eh. Dtreear under thta ehnpar may appeal to t!u City AdmlNttncor. Sdd appal mwt be (lied in writin3 within even days alter the noti!leacien to the aiiriewd person of the decision betel appalled. Seld appal muse b. in writini and rows etas with paretealaritY she mason why the Dlrector'e decision !s betel eoatactd. The City Adminia• tutor shalt iaue a wr(tan deeisiea on the apppd within thirty dq•e a< the reee(pc oi' the weieten appal. 'Ate alp(ewd penoa shall be noeified In wrltlnl of the deetsioa en tlu appal. (Ord. • 4989 1 1, lilts. • 18.10.110 ViOLATiONS-pa~'~TY• A+W PeMp° who violaus any provision of shit chapter is deemed iuttty of a mi yen e n of and open eenvietien the rot' ~ i Sul fe~a p•rtad not exeeedini 8800.00. or by P exetedlnl six moneht, or by beth such tine sell tatpriwnment. (Ord. 22881 1,18081. 18.50.120 ENFOACE~IEN•I'-Pt'BLIC NUISANCE. Ie shall 6e eensidered a public nuisance to have or mainealn any Wesel Wwe i•tt its 966 0 0 C RE'ID6NTLAL IIZNTAL 1.~'SFECTION proptny which. upon latptotloa, hilt tt comply with teats tnd local laws u thty rtiatt v heutia~ ttaadatyt, ptroptrty ttuinte• aanat. buildla~ redo or !oral teplty rtyubttptast, T1u dlmtor ~ha11 hart tht powtr to epulrt terrtttka of dtAtientitt ldtntt• fitd through proptrty ierptatlat by utia~ tlu preetdttre ttt fetch in 9tosioa 1e.09.010 to ttq. olthit Cods. (Otd.1~l9 ! 1, 19aY1. 19.10.190 PE,\AL?IE~~LA'Pl~!'II,1N(}, /ytyptrwnwhatdla to apply for as aanuai tr~atiatt and intptction ctrtiNebtt u nquutd by shit ehapar, and wlthia tha tlma rtquired by chit ehapur, shall pay a panalq of taa pareaat of tht application fn set purtuaat to Stedoa 16.40.040 !bt taeh month or part ehtreof afar eha data tha apppy8aatiea+raa dun, ?ht~a~l ty may bt waved or abattd by tht 1)trtewr oi' Catttmtiaiq Dawlapmtat foe good oauN. (Oed. 244411.1/101. . 16.10.140 >~'FOllCLAtdMP ALT6RNATNE9. A. Netltin~ htrtla t6all prtrvaat tba tnlbeeitamal d tWa ohspta by eeimlttal. dull. or adtttialteratiw atulea ttlliae wtdaetalwa ladlvlduaUy or is oett{tttuciea wttlt odw taetdlat. t 8. 1?u aefornmttu o! thla ahaptar by a aiatinal, dull or ad• tttinlttsatiw action than not rallwa eha preparq owatr of !tit or htr oblt4atioat tutdtz tblt ebaptK. (Oed. !44919. liti0t. itn~ v.r rat ' ~ ~.it to set © O MEMO TO COUNCII. MESA, ARIOZONA CRIlVIC FREE MULTI HOUSING PROGRAM © Q CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE TO: Honorable Mayor and Common Council FROM: Jeanne Fitzpatrick, Administrative Anal st DATE: June 21, 1994 SUBJECT: Rental Housing Inspection Program COPIES: Shauna Clark, City Administrator; Dan Robbins, Police Chief; Al Boughey, Planning and Building Director; Rachel Clark, City Clerk; David Schultz, San Bernazdino Board of Realtors; Richazd Kimball and Richard Brooks, Sun Newspaper At the meeting of June 6, 1994, the Council asked for information on the success of rental housing regulation programs in other cities. I received some information from the city of Mesa, Arizona with respect to their Crime-Free Mutti-Housing Program implemented in 1993 which resulted in a 67% reduction in crime related calls within the rental property areas. This program involves a three level process designed to comprehensively train property managers and tenants on issues of property maintenance, security requirements, crime prevention, etc. This program also encompasses the inspection of rental properties. The decision to implement this program was made upon the determination by the Potice Department that the city's crime rates had increased in azeas housed with deteriorating rental properties. Thus, combined with the inspection of rental properties, a comprehensive educational program was implemented. Mesa, Arizona has a population of 325,000 of which 1/3 (100,000) are renters. An integral part of the Rental Housing Program proposed to be adopted within the city of San Bernardino, is the implementation of an educational program for property managers and tenants similar to the program developed by the city of Mesa. Attached is an article about Mesa's program as well as a report written by Timothy Zehring, Crime Free Zone Coordinator with the city of Mesa. These documents outline the positive impacts of their program. I have highlighted areas of interest within these documents that we hope to incorporate in our program as well. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at Ext. 5122. '~ © O The Mesa Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program By TIMOTHY L. 2ENRING t ,~ L Ike moat Ntlea In ;hc Sun Bell, Mexa, Arizana. continues to experience rapid growth. Its population hart ~ _ nearly doubled each decade this r~ • ~ ' 1 century. Such growth end its ac• companying increase in crime ere- ~ ~ 1~ • ,• ate great challenges for local law • r enforcement. w ~ t For the Mesa Police Deparl• ~ ~ meet, spiraling trims rates in the eity'x numerous apttrtment commu- nines presented a particularly de• r mending problem. To reduce this criminal ectivity, the pollee depan- ~ meet developed the Mess Crime- ~rce Multi-I(ousing Program.' i ~ The program u.~ae a three-level , _ approac to a un nos crime m • a'~, '• _ -~' _ a anment communities and to rc• I ~ i, ~ ucc ca s or~_cc scrvfce. This , tx aceomp is e t rou-Ta curtt• prchcnsive training program for prapcny managers, strict security ~ I ~ I I rcyuircmentx for Dar[icipeting propcrtiea. and crime prevention twining far residentx. Mexe Pvlit:e I i I Department crime prevention spe ,~ cialists conduct each phau of the program. l•t:vk,L ONE-PROPERTY v1AVAGF•R TRAINING The firs) ICVCI, an g•hour truin• ing seminar far managers. covers agreemerRS. idantifvme ille al ac• Applicant Screening topics pertinent to the overall itvn ', an war t ~ wi t I t property mann`crs Icurn operutiun of an aparunent cam- pccial etttplta.is t~ ~ivou to u'nin• begin the xeteening pmce~. h) Alex. These to tax include crcatin ing managers un .a ~IicantreraQn- dtscusxing the Crime-Free ~1ulu- explaining an enforcing rental ittg and the cYie~irnt ProcaS9. - Housing Program with rpplie:uu` I ---. 8 ' F91 Law EnfOrcamant 8ullllln ------- --- -- I . ® 0 They advita ptnemial tresidentx that the complex cooperrtex with the Th1 program uasa a Mega pollee Department to muin- tainthequalityofthe neighborhood, rhI19'IeVllaPprOlClf Pntperty managerx also inform ap- t0 ellminlt0 Cllm6 plicantx that they will undergo an j In apartment extensive screening process, based ~ eommunlt/ea.... an a list of selected criteria that they arc nsked to review. The screening criteria ut t'orth the trousons far which management cannot deny rcrnal to applicants. ` based on Fair Housing laws. These I gassrvsprncv,Zrnrrrpgaarnapwwnnon laws prohibit discrimination forrca• I spedaeara«Mrnsnraa,nmm~a,pyanpapnrmnr. sons of race, color, religion, sex, nrtional origin, handicap, marital status, familial statue, and others, depending on the area. apply. In this way, providing infor- according to local landlord and ten- However, managers may motion upfront rcgttrding the open- ant laws. .' choose not ro rent to pct owners or mane complex's participation in the smokers, because they arc not con- crime-free program acts •as a deter, 7'he Bvletlon Procetts sidercd "protected classes" under rent to some potential tenants. For Property managers know the Fair Housing laws. Mana¢ers may applicants who choose to seek resi- types of eviction noticca available also den rental to indivi uals con- dency, properly managers s:rcen and the procesa forserving them, as - vteted in 1 e last S ears for menu- them by checking rcfercnres anti by will as underxtanding the prnce- • actunn er ullin dru s or fur using htcal credit repotting agencicx dares of the entire eviction procexs. ens' creme that wou pose a Ihrcat to conduct background and credit h'or example, while carvicting ;m to the ru en or interfere with checks. individual on a criminal charge re• of ter t'estdentx' coed ul en•o mane Approved applicants receive. a quirex proving guilt "beyond a rea- ol the rest enrex. Such o enses copy oF~Ire~rug i'rae e~ +onuhle douht:'landlords may evict may me u e rct±eated dtsturbancex. c ten un ve o e e residrntx based on a single violation amblin trostitution, viol tee partment o Housing and Ut•ban and with only a prcptrndernncc of r vents of violence and rata, Lkvelopment. The lease addendum evtdchce. That is, if evidettcC exists In addition~ttanagers tell appli- re resents a civil a reemanY be- to prove that residents "probably" cants that they van be denied rental twerp t tc ro Crt mans ~entrnt and violated the Icase agreement, they r pnvdcpes if a previous IandloM rc- rite rest ant. Zsidents agree ncn lu can he evicted. Thix evidence may ponedsuchpmblemsasdamageto engagcinuttytypeofcrimin;dactiw he no more than the testimony of rental property, fuilurt: w pay rent, ley, including drugaclated crimes other residents who witnessed the allowutp nonresidents to move into and acts or threats of violence, on or violation, their aparlmems. or failure to pro- near the prcntises. Although the Mesa Crintr-~rcc vide proper notice when vacating a The Icascaddendunt alsoactsas 11uhi-Ilottsing Program reviews property. Misrepresenting infomta- a sc•rcening tool for nuutagcr~. l'~u- ihC eviction process with managers. tiros un the application may also Iced ally, dishonest applicants will nut the program is governed by the phi, to rclecunn, sign such an agreement. tncausc if lusuphy that "an ounce of prcvt:n• At thts point, high-risk indi- they do coatmit any of the listed lion is worth a pound of curt." [3e- vidualsoften screen themselves ow offenses, the IandloM can inuncdi. cause the evictiun process is . of cunstdcrmirnt by opting not to atcly hegin the eviction process, difficult and expensive, ntan;tgers _- - Juns t991 % 9 I n w V1 -_ ~ , • ' © o prefer to amen out potentlally rile- thek ro ernes ainat crime. The had been equipped with a simple ntptlve applieann when that apply. corteepta o nc writ natural daviae-an eyeviewer, or "peaP- Proparty manager use every legal surveillance. atx:eaa comro , tart to- bola"Had then been an ayeviewer, msana available to aeeomplieh that nality. and activity suvoort. she might not love opened the door. Ta many, C F; rapn~arnea a Or, quite poadbty, the auapeet Level One Coneluaion and new concept, but it hu existed for would love shipped her door com- CertlAeatlon many yearn. For extmpie, the plately. He would have ehoaen an• Anaaazi Indians of the 5outhweat other door-one without an eye- Moverview ofthe rtextlevel of lived high above the plains oft cliffs, viewer-in ruder to catch hie victim the program concludes the first which afforded natural surveil- off guard. training session. At this time, man- farce. From the clifftopa, they could As noted, property managers agar Team what they mwt do to see invaders who were miles awtay. Icon durlnj the first phase of their satl+fy the requirements of the sec- The Iadderx used to mach the plains trining that the apartment complex and level, which is based on a beiew the Anaaazia' ciifflop homes moat meet certain minimum sau- ~D-4riY__inapeetlon. This allows provided access control. ]tanoving rity requiremenn etlu?dated by the lave whan~tlr~feelthek next rheas ladder u~ t tetade access police department to qualify For Y eY prop- difflculb if not ossible. level-two eertiflatlon. Thane !n- arty fa seedy, shwa saving them- elude deadbolta on all exterior selves and the Mena Pollee Depart- doors, double locks for windows, mentehetimeatedexpensethatmore ~,~ Ig0•degres eyeviewer on an front than one insptectlon would require. does, sad ahtvba trimmed below M they will in levels two and TI1s conceppts of window litre. In addition, Meaa throe, mattagets who complete the CPTED /ne/uaM nBtUf'sl c~R1e pr'°1e°tl0° specidisu may first level of training receive a car- irUrve/1/ante trim rtxasutss, in titicate proclaiming [hair achieve- , ACCee9 ~ the g - relent. Displaying it in the ptnperty control, hrrlta~lillfy, managers be• office of the apartment complex ~ and setivhy auppOrt: lives deaf tlteir complex moats the sign in attruting hotxat applicants, requttanatn of the aeetend phase, a while detetrirtg dlahonest ottea. " Mau crime proventlon apocialiat In addition to providing written eoreduananott•aitatnt~paceionofthe rocognidon of the ma»agcn' sue- aptutmsnt complex. Fallowing a teas, member of the Mwa Folica In addition, rho city itwkad well successful inapeetlon, the manag~~ Deputment's Crime Prevention cared for and prorated, thereby meet receives a second certlflcate. Unit etteounge managers to main- exhibiting territoriality. Coilxtlve- tainclosetelephotucontactwiththe ly, the Maaazia would conduct L&VEL THRE&-TRAINING unit. The unit also monitor pro- their daily chore of gathering food FOR RESIDENTS gresa by requiring that property and cleaning, thus treating activity Itmanagen wteh ro progrosa to meruger submit monthly reports. stepprrrr, the third and Mal level of the pro- LEVEL TWO-CRIMH Unfortunately, many modem gram, they moat schedule erttne prc- PRBVENTION THROUGH cvrnntunitiea a,e no[ daaigned as vention training for rosidents. Most ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN carefully as the Anttsazi villages. A manager provide incentives-such rocent case in Meea demanstratea as pizza parties, barbecues, or pot- The second level of the pro- the need for CPTED. A woman was tuck dinners-to draw roaidents to gram is crime rovention throw h 6rulally raped in her apsrttnent after thiaevcnt. Added inexrtdvea include environments eaten she opened the door to sec who wac mudptl entenalrttnent provided by which Ives ro err mans era knocking. This crime might have reaidenn and door prizes donated the know a rte t rev nee ro protect been avoided if her apartment door by local busineu~ea. In Mese. many t0 / f81 Law ENOrcement Buneun ' -- -- -- 0 local bwitteaaaa wUlingiy donate leue one crime prevention meeting, appeuanee of f~lae advertising glvwways to support the crime-free in catjunctlon with the Mew Police stwuld illepl activity occur on the effort, becatrae they realize that the Department. dating the year. Many prsmises. well-behtgofthenelghborhood has managers eondt?et these meetings OTNERTRAININC a direst et'lbct on their bwineseea. gwnerly or even monthly. Police crime orovention a~ Property managers may also The Mew Fire Department also cialieta address several tooica_ use the Meu Police Department provides opdorul training for apart- t~uring thew meetings. First, they program logo in all oP their meet tttanagen, which is aaparate ex lain the lease addta+dtrm as it advertising, including the telephone Prom the police department's pro- ertaine to the crime- tee zone. directory, apartment guides, and gram. An hour-long session tn- ey make it clear that the adder- forms mattagen about general aafe• dam addrt.atea only illegal utivity , : ,~; . ~ , - ~ ty and firo safety in apartment committed on or treat the properly: '.°•-•:+hi ~ '~'~; ~ ,.j • ,}*.~ , commuNtlw. managers wish to maintain asafe -'~~~ ~ ~~" ' ' • The training coven such topics environment for rcsidenu, not to es exiting syuema, flrc alarm sys- dictate morality or noncriminal . • r~ m• terra, safety committees, pool behavior. ~ ~ safety, chemical storage, Property The apee{aliau also diacuaa '~ inspectlatu, and cooperating with neral sofa and crime roventioe ~ the tiro department. The depart- tee guee or s eai c o ens- ems, ~ went also provides an in[ornution such u automobile the ,sexual ee- booklet Pa rcddents and on-site wait, end bu~rgla~. Marry wpscts of inspeetiona when rcqueated by eaet~mee~ngi parallel aneighbor- tnanaiemeat. hood watch ptzeattadon, and in ef- fekt, train tenettu to be the eves and BLNEFICIARIES OF THE L;.., PROGRAM e:us o~-iwttittent cortununity. ,',' ,.,,~~ . ,. Auer wmpladng this level. the ~"'-"~~` mattagtu re~ivea the third txttiCt- ) ~u~~~~~siCi?af ~ rate, This txrtittcate, along with the ~(~pM~,~~pppgAy - Ma~et en who loin tits Mea. others, sends a message to all appli- ~ d I+n~ Crime tee Multi-Houain Pro- cants-honest end high-tick-that ram ma use taunu to acreen- rcsidenb look for end report crimi- ev on roceas. ten, nal activiry. en want to n t e In addition, properties that com- plete all three levels of the program Quite simply, most managers watt to root to nondiwotive ten- msy purchase a striking, tour-color sign imprinted with the Meaa newapapcrada. This alerts putentiel •"'¦. - rcnuna to rnmmals Crime-Free Multi-Housing Pro- applicants oP the partnership be• cart lead to dramatic deelinea in gram logo to post on their property. resort the policc departtttent and the art ve]ues, aevero ro art While they have earoed this privi- apartment community. It also at- + rat ru a tosi~a='- lege, it is just that-a priviit:ga, tracts honest tenter, who want to +wt on rrom ~~a °°s-'°" "~~ Managers must sign en agreement live in a "crime-tree" environment, dunrta evicdona and rcodn, and with the police department that they In that regard, managers sign an enimoaity between residents and will abide by all program guidelines agreement nor to advertise that rho '"'-"'°w- or lose permission to pool the sign. property is, in fact, crime-free, only ht contrasb Participating man- Complexea qualify for the tttenda- that they have joined Mesa's crime- agars reap numerous benefits tory yearly renewal by holding at free program. This removes the from this program. The benefits to Jana 1 ee4 / 11 i ^ i" ~ Q manager Include more sable and The Dapartmanl offenders from a particular area utlafled residenp, lnereued de- 51noa ~ Drogeun~s Inception wually evokes a decroaae In crime mend for ronhl aria, lower mattt• in January 1 3, the Meu Police In rite entire area, afheting a much [enanee and repair coca, highor Deperunem has valved over 600 u a squaro mile. Amid robberies. ptopertyvaluW,andpeace of mind managers. There has been a autothsRs,aMerlmhtaldamageere fromaptmdktgmtmtirtteonroutine groundswell of support from just a taw of Use crimes that may management and le:a rime ort crisis managers and residents alike. Offl- decrease. ThL improves the oven!! control. cars are also receiving more cooper- and appearanes of the entiro For example, one apartment scion in tlteir dealings with property community and may increases prop- cotnplex had only 60-percent accu- managers. arty values u well. pancy and was so crime-ridden that Purtlrer, because of the higher pollcamvsren[eredthecornmunitY incidences of crime end grffltl in without backttP~ After 1o+n+ng rite ~ ` toner cities nationwide, many crima•ttee program, the complex people spend their money at re- incroased its occupancy ro loo per- Apartment managers gional simpping center end malls cent, with a wdrhtg liar. And, the and rea/denta...are outside of ottoe-flouttiahing down- pollce department now receives /earn/n ti}i81Nfe tovmdisalea,Ltrbr-cityb"smasaea few, if any, aUe for urvice. can help tO control wr~"ly benefit from cleaner end Liability andforfeihtreareothu afar aeighborfiooda as they set up reasow mattagen paehctpate a Crime. ~ dnrg-{~ zones. the crotnm-i~etnosrev maetaaen rent m crow vales but i - 't;~r, ' ~ CONCLUSION om vto ~, Wh11e ow lrtdivldwl or law an- on c ~ addition. because mantgcra forantem offlou may ttoe be able " better understand the dlfferentx to prevent crhne single-harrdadly in the. it property marugen know- between civii and crimjpal tnatt>~ _ an eotira Stara or city, crime cart be ingly rent to drug ctimiwla, they following tM tint phase of the ~ ~ ~n risk seizure of their pttrporty by law aooe t tea ova 'iii Toi enforcement. B atticl ~ - ~ depatment hu ex- Y P iKt+ng in the arced a substantial decrease in n~ own acv a aces program, then, manager have a dc• Calls of a civil naturo. In fat, ms- u tt- o s n fence against law suits and legal overall. the department receives tntet that even renters forfeiture. can owner tp Io- Finall , artici tin mane ers fewer calla for urvice from cum- w es Y P Pa g g plazas that have completed the also benefit from the favorable ro Apatment manager and resi- publieity generated by the program. P data, working in cooperation with The Mesa Chamber of Commerce Tha Community law eafDi'eetrlCnt, rue teaming that publisher a list of partteipating The Meaa Crime•Free Multi- they can help to control crtme. member, which is available to pro- Housing Program reaches more Tho' ~t true in a crime-free zone. spective tenants upon request. than the apartment communities: it dndt~ t~ ~t«r, they can make a Complexes with orre eertiflate ro- beneftta the entire Mesa area. Many ceive a three-cur raring; two ear- burglars and outer criminals work tiflcatea, a four-star rating; and all wnhin close proximity oftheir resi- p'ta"0t' three certificates, a flue-stu rating. dances. but their activities can ~~s~~A10'P/O0M"nt'rr°"'insrroa..m This feature has induced many a read into nei hborin communi- "'Oidipt0a°t°sp°arw"°nsu~+t~r ro art mane ers to sin the P g g aewtoo.ebrrata P P Y g J ties as well. As a result, removing wawttraNlbn~we. ~, program. . ' i t Z ~ FBI Law Enroramsnt 9uHetln ~W.-.~~.»~ 1J•VYJ rrtuii i~icx+~Rti~icr rtcc~~..~i .1-~uUSi^IV IU 915093845461 P.02 cRnv~ ~ n1vi,~-xoUSnvG In April 1882, Tim Zehring took a comprehensive approach in dealing with chronic drug dealing and illegal activity occurring within Mesa's apartment complexes and multi-housing units. A national search wan conducted in the summer of 1882 to learn about aqy aucceea~l programs locally or abroad. Based on a Landlord Training Program developed by John Campbell and the Portland Police Department, the Mesa Police Department piloted the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program is November of 1992. Thin new Crime Free Multi-Housing Program offered a unique, more structured approach to the growing problems of urban corruption and decaq. One of the basic principles of Community Oriaated Policing is the development of a partnership between the police and the community. The most effective wav to address societal blems such as crime fear of creme, soaat~er and neighborhood sexy is y g a proactive stance to an maintenance. The Mesa City Council gave offidal sanction to thin program in Jannaiy of 1998, and it was implemented city-wide immediately. Proven beaeiib fibm the first year have sere: • A positive impact on crime is our community by reduang calla for service in the participating ran properties. • An increase in ublic sup rt of the law enforcement efforts in artici afire ro ernes. • Im rovementa made to rental ertiea from im lamentation of securit hardware (i.e. ea to a viewers w locks atcJ to complete facelifts and renovations of of p ea. ea have a ant thousands o oars tore i and refresh the appearance oz their properties to q as mem re o program. Because nearly one-third of the metropolitan area lives in rental properties, we had to develop a program that was honest and direct. It had to be solution oriented. It had to be simple, yet very effective in dealing with drug activity and violent crime in rental properties. A very unique coalition of property owners, managers, tenants and the police was SUN-lYl'd74 LS~bl FkUM ME~r+~rtlMErkttilU~TIHOUSING TO nn 919093845461 P.03 Cr' V formed to facilitate this goal. A comprehensive, eight hour training program was developed to train all who would be a part of this massive effort. All of those participants receive a diploma, persomtlly signed by Chief Guy Meeks, that they display in their rental offices. Ia conjunction with a "Crime Free Lease Addendum", and criminal background checks, applicants are immediately aware of the sincerity of the police and property manager to reduce criminal activity oa the ProP~Y• The second phase requires property managers to meet the minimum security requizemeat of the police department wader C.P.T.E.D. guidelines (which are nationally used and accepted). The third phase requires a blockwatch type of partiapation from the residents of the property. After completion of all three phases, the property is eligible to display the full compliment of certifications and metal signs on the property. This program was developed with hopes it would becrnme a national model. Manv of the goals that were slated for the first year were aehiewd in the first quarter. The program has met with such p enome success, it has surpassed all of our own goals motions. Ia May 1893, just fiw months aRer implementation, the Crime Free Multi-Housing program was a highly touted program presented to hundreds of law snSarcement off vials at the L.E.C.C. Conference in Phoeaia. It was hers the program received it's greatest exposure to police ageaaes around and beyond the metropolitan Phoeniz area. Immediately, police agencies contacted Tim Zehriag to receiw help in developing their own Crime Free Multi-Housing programs. Since the summer of 1993, there have been sevexal olive a aces from the Valley, e fate an enea o er states w ve im emeate own a as on the succeesllil Mesa ro am. na: Phoenix, en e, Tempe, Peoria, Gilbert, Kingman uc .The nest cities elated for certi$cation to teach the program are Scottsdale, Chandler and Tucson. To keep the program uniform from sty to city, all police agencies must have their appointed instructor certified by Tim Zehring. They moat attend a minimum of eight hours of classroom instruction, eight hours of program management instruction, and tbem become members of the Arizona Crime Free Mrclti•Housing Association. This Association (founded by Tim Zehring) meets monthly to kasp the integrity of the program at an optimum, sad communication channels open between ageaaes. The Arizona Multi-Housing Association and the Arizona Mobile Housing Association were _ so impressed with the program and it's results, they petitioned Tim Zehriag to become members of the coalition of police departments involved in this effort. In _- .-~_.. 71000.~04J401 r.r~4 O eachangro for their membership, these AasodrFtions have provided free legal help in regard to the multiple-family industry, technical support for developing pamphtete and training materials for the classes, sad their official endorsements of the program to encourage participation from their members. Ia November 1993, the city of Aurora, IL seat two (2) police Lieutenants and their City Attorney to Arizona to be certified to teach is Alinois. They have also begun to form the 211inni ~nma F~ Mult~ i_ H~pin°F Aseci~tinn, and 8r8 1II TBgtllar CpntaCt .Vith Lle. In December 1993, the Sellars Group, a Salt Lake City based property management company, organized a statewide training for all county and municipal police agendas is Utah. Tim Zehring presented the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program to over 60 law enforcement officers and property managers from all over the State of Utah. Several of those agencies are already printing their class materials and implementing the program statewide. These agendas have begun the first steps in forming the ut h8~~1P '~T.SP 1~~1~17~~-¢+ng ~saeciatien. In Arizona, a very successful media campaign was waged with local television. stations and newspapers. Because of similar programs is other dtiea meeting with extremely negative newspaper and television reports, it was esaeatial: to develop a positive rapport with local reporters and auccessltil property managers to show the great benefits to the program. Nearly two S2) dozen newspaper articles have been written shoat the Crime Free 11~uTh ao esaageratioa to th have been su ve°afthe - ve modeled the Mesa m ve met wi s • m 0 o ne ve s s come ou a s »Ia, ar' to 's te. There have also been at least s half-dozen television spots that have featured property managers, residents sad police program coordinators on local news stations. All of these news reports have been overwhelmingly positive. A radio and a television talk show have also given substantial air time to discuss the benefits of this program. Thews shows were met with extremely positive feedback. Man chiefs of lice dtlzens and mass hays written countless letters ~unvorting the Crime Free M ti- easing Program. a aprea o program is limited only to the few peep e w o can aia a people quickly enough. This program is expected to achieve even greater recognition as it is being featuxed is two (2) national publications very soon. C r:o„~,ypg,Ma~a~ is *+,nn;ng a February story which will be circulated nationwide to members in local, county and state government positions. The F.B.I. is planning a "cover story" to be featured in their March issued of ' " ~"'^"" "' Hr~n9ci2. o O To garner support from local judges, Tim presented his program before the beach of the Maricopa County Justices of the Peace. It was widely acwpted and has been supported valleywide with referrals from judges to property managers appearing in court. The program has also been attended by members of the A.C.L.U., The Arizona Attorney General's Office and H.U.D., receiving strong support for the programs' content and viability. La 1893, the Mesa program soliated ae~arl ~252500 telephone inquiries, and over 1900 people completed one o e acs hT~'1'his acxoua r ren a '~ in anc~aroui-T a eea area. There were 64 properties w~p a for C.P.T.E.D. security cera'~tzon' o~~Tieir pivper~y. au outi one acnievea tale goal 3a the tiraL year. A total of 42 apartment communities conducted a Bloclcwatcl~..~rogram for their property, reaching nearly 3,000 residents in the first year. Of those properties, 34 achieved full certification in the Mesa Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. These properties now proudly display 111 Crime Free metal signs oa and around their properties. In December 1993, the Crime Free Multi=Housing Program received State awards from the Arizona Crime prevention Assodatioa. Tim Zehring wu recognized as the iy °+'nding (:r;rno Pro ntien Prsetii3nn.r is Arizona. ThaView Apartments, Wh0 facilitates most of the traiaiags, received the award for ~~~a=*g ~'•e~+~~~ Tn !'.rune Pr~vantinn by s Rmtineee• (Iacidentaliy, the Mesa Crime Prevention IInit was 81ao names ae the illit8f°^ (!r9Tne ntien flsit•iat~oe•Sbats). The Crime Free Multi-Housing Program is just beginning.. We aat3dpate even greater accomplishments in 1984, with the implementation of the Crime Free Mobile Housing Program and The Crime Free Hnte]m2otel Program, scheduled to kick off this year. In 1995, we are anticipating the Crime Free M;n; S nrn~ a program and the Crime Free M;.,,_Matt program. It is our goal that these programs will bernme national models sad show that Mesa, Arizona is truly a pioneer in Community Oriented Policing. ___, .., ,....,, ~..,.....,,~~,.~_. __,,rn+u..+u iU 91'31x93645461 P.Oi-, - WtNDSCAPE APARTMENTS Total Cails For Service 2 Yoara 1 Yeu Thw Bvforo Before 18t Yeu Far 1881 1992 1993 1994• 350 300 28 . - - - - -- 2 200 '1994: i9t ~u8rter State Multiplied 8y 4 r ~ ~ • V 1 o O WINDSCAPE APARfiMENTS Total DCi's ta9~ ~9es ~9ea t9sa• ~s 71 ~o ~ 6i ~ 61 60 b0 5 - _ _ 39 • ,.~ . J 50 •1994: 1st Quatbr Stab MulEpli~d By 4 ~s" ~W• ~V ~JJ~ 4J V1 ~I\VI~ IIUrPI\.rl\~1 PVT Rrr. .rrl 1!'11.JU~lI`41 ~V JLJV JJO~..~YO~ F.VV i . ~ O SHADOW RUN APARTMENTS Total Calls For Service 1991 1992 1993 1994• lso 170 ~ 168 160 1S0 ~ 140 130 ~ . 120 110 100 40 f~ 80 70 60 50 40 •1984: 1st Quarter Stab MulUpli~d By 4 _ ~ JaJWJa0'~.i~G. ~.U7 © O SHADOW RUN APARTMENTS Total DCi's 1991 ~ 1992 1993 1994• SO 44 45 40 35 ~ ; ~ 30 ' Y~ . 4 25 20 •1994: 1!t Quar6~r Stab Mukipii~d By 4 p • SUN RIDGE APARTMENTS Total Calls For Service 1991 ~ 1892 1993 1994• 77 75 r 70 I 6j 50 S5 ~-..~ ~ 50 4j 40 •984: tat Quartsr State Multipded ey 4 p d SUNRtDGE APARTMENTS Total DC1's 1991 1992 1983 1984• 35 35 30 25 2 ZO I 13 10 '1994: 1st Quarter 5tats Muftiplled By 4 .,.-- ` N 1~ c c ~ o ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ •' a~i w' ~'C1 ~ ~ 'Ti ~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., ~, ~ Z G ~' ~ v, ~- ~ ~ ~~,~- ~ ~ ~~' Z ~ ~ ~ TOT~- . © O INFORMATION ON SANTA ANA RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM © O ,~iEMURA.NDUM ~I ~j Tor Assistant City M_ onager Edu~aa~n 1 F Date: May 16, 1994 Ftecu ve From: P1ann~g.an~Bui1 ±*lc A¢en~v Subject: P>~P PROGRAM, AT . Since beginning operation in January of 1993, the Pr~ctive Rental Enforcement Program has completed the inspection of residential rental properties in two dwignatod inspection areas, French Court and Hettinger Pazk, and eurrcntiy is in the initial stage of utspections in nur third designated area, French Pazk. Inspections in the first PREP designated area, Ftench Court, were begun in January of 1993 and completed the following July. A summazy detailing the activity resulting from the inspections in French Court is as follows: PREP inspected 123 rental properties containing 1,100 units. The Inspections revealed 2,239 violations, including 1,160 immediate life-hazard category "A" conditions, 782 non-life threatening "B" conditions, 172 primarily cosmetic "C" conditions and 125 tenant caused "T" violations. The violations required 26 building permits, 30 eiectritxi permits, 33 plumbing permits and 5 mechanical permits for a total of 114 permits. Five letters warning of possible legal action by the Ciry Attorney were sent to owners slow in completing repairs, but all eventually complied and no referrals to the Ciry Attorney were necessary. Overall, the PREP program caused the rental owners in French Court to invest in excess of 5750,000 to upgrade their properties. PREP has recently begun the annual reinspation of properties in French Court that had violations during the 1993 inspections. A reinspection of each property is requued one yeaz from the date that property's case file is closed. Tkte number of roinspections in French Court will become much higher in June and July as most of the property owners needed the allotted ninety days for completion of the necessary repairs. The PREP staff recently rnmpieted inspections in the second inspection area, Heninger Pazk. Inspection of this area could not be completed in six months, as originally planned, due to the number of rental properties to schedule and inspect being higher than anticipated. Following is a summary of the activity by the PREP staff in the Heninger Pazk neighborhood: A total of 364 rental properties containing 1,804 rental units were inspected. Notices of Violation to correct deficiencies were issued to the ownet~ of 347 of the 364 properties. Violations uncovered totaled 5,133 and included 2,136 immediate life-hazard "A" violations, 2,060 serious, non-life threatening "B" violations, 697 primarily cosmetic "C" violations and 240 tenant caused violations. Correcting of the violations required 100 building permits, 19S plumbing permits, 87 electrical permits and Z8 mechanical penniu for a total of 410. To date, 310 properties are in full compliance and most others aro very neaz H. © 4 to completing their repairs. Eight properties have Yone into foreclosure or are set for auction. Eleven case files have been referred to the City Attorney for Legal action and at least five others are being prepared for referral. French Park was approved as the third inspection area for the PREP program on April 18, 1994. On April 19th, letters were sent to the rental property owners requesting that they contact the PREP office to schedule an appointment to inspect their property. As of this date, sixteen out of I66 rental properties have been inspected. Sixty-six addidonai owners have either scheduled appointments or called to state they would contact their tenants to arrange a convenient data for an inape>:tion. Future updates wiii be provided as the inspections in the French Park neighborhood continue. Robyn Uptegtaff, Executive Director Planning and Building Agency cc: City Manager City Council 4 C~ '~ 0 d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ N 9 ~ ~ ,p. ~, ,~ ~ ~ a, ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ dD ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ' ~ `,7 1 r.L..~ -`~ p 4 1 ORDINANCE NO. _ G{~ 2 ~ ~ dy? 9lyc/9r~r scrsox ORDINANCE OF T8E CITY OF SAH 3 5.04.527 TO T8E MUBICIPAL CODS TO 88TA RENTAL SURCHARGE IH T8S SUSIHESS REGISTRATION 4 5 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO s DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ~ SECTION 1: That the San Bernardino Municipal Code is 8 hereby amended by adding a section, to be numbered 5.04.527, which 9 said section reads as follows: 10 5.04.527 Reaideatial Rental Surcharge. 11 The business license fee for residential property rental and 12 residential apartment rental shall consist of the fees established 13 by Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council, plus an annual 14 surcharge for each property rental unit or each apartment rental 15 unit. The surcharge hereby established shall be due and payable 16 and shall be paid at the same time and in the same manner that the 17 fee due under section 5.04.525 is due and payable. No business 18 license shall be issued unless the surcharge is paid. Penalties 19 and interest shall be assessed upon the total amount due and 20 unpaid as specified in this chapter until such time as both amount 21 due and the surcharge due under this section are paid in full. ~ All provisions for the enforcement, collection and recovery of ~ unpaid business license fees shall likewise apply to the 24 enforcement, collection and recovery of any unpaid surcharge. The ~ amount of said surcharge shall be established by Resolution of the 26 Mayor and Common Council. 2'] SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, 2g phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be FLR: cma CReaident.Ord] 1 June 20, 1994 -~ o T0; City of San Bernardino, Mayor and Council FROM: David Schulze, Vice President, Chair, Local Governmental Relations, SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS SUBJECT: Ordinance to establish the San Bernardino Rental Housing inspection Pzogzam. Landlords and other innocent citizens are now the victioa of the behavior of an irresponsible element within the City. People who rent property and do not pay rent as agreed, refuse to trim the shrubs dig the weeds or mow the lawns and destroy the property they sent, disassemble automobiles and scatter parts around property they occupy and prey on the property of their neighbors have created an atmosphere of fear and anger among the responsible people of San Bernardino. Responsible persons throughout the City are now reacting, including the City Council, to the cries of the victims of such recklessness. " The damage done to a rental unit within a short time (in some cases only weeks) has been in the hundreds and in some cases in the thousands of dollars for each housing unit damaged. Landlords in this City have been looking at a diminishing supply of tenants due to economic events beyond their control for some four years now. There seems to be the notion among responsible citizens within the City that landlords are not reinvestirtq their profits in the properties they own. All one needs to do is examine the rolls at the Tax Assessor's Office to learn that there has been little or no profit generated from residential investment property as evidenced by the volume of properties now in the hands of financial institutions or loan guarantors. HOST RENTAL PROPERTIES IN SAN BERNARDINO ARE NOT GENERATING PROFIT, THEY ARE SHOWING SIGNIFICANT LOSSES AND HAVE BEEN FOR FOUR YEARS. While some owners have willing neglected their properties, most have only neglected their properties when their resources to maintain them were exhausted due to the actions of irresponsible tenants or long periods of excessive vacancy. This particular response, an ordinance to enhance the code enforcement within the City, is in our opinion just another tax. A tax to do something the citizens have been told repeatedly is being done, by applying the license tax already charged owners of rental property to the job of getting the bad guys to maintain their property. We are now told that the license money is deposited into the General Fund where it vanishes and somehow Sa no longer available for code enforcement. So the new tax will add to moneys now being collected, we have been told, for code 0 0 enforcement but not being used for code enforcement. NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO ADD ANOTHER TAX TO THE COST OF MAINTAINING RENTAL PROPERTY IN SAN BERNARDINO. M08T OF THE LANDLORDS ARE VICTIMS JUST A3 THOSE OF US WHO ARE FORCED TO LIVE WITH BLIGHT AND SAD NEIGHBORS ARE VICTIMS. The San Bernardino Valley Association of Realtors recommends to the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Beznardino that the following actions be taken at the meeting of November 7, 199 1. The Council oppose the ordinance to establish a new tax for the inspection of rental properties in the City. 2. The Council exercise its authority as legislative body for the City of San Bernardino to prioritize the use of those funds, now on deposit in the General Fund, but collected and designated for code enforcement for code enforcement. The funds referred to in this recommendation were identified and discussed in a previous memo to the Mayor and Council (Memo to Mayor and Council, from David Schulze dated September 16, 1999. "Alternative to the Proposed Financing for the Rental Inspection Housing Program"). The amount being collected was estimated at $602,000.00 in the prior memo, and since, the City Administrator has identified some collection expenses associated with the fees. We estimate the collection may cost the City some $50,000.00 leaving a balance available for Code Enforcement of $752,000.00. We are aware that some of this money is deposited into the General Fund, but we are equally aware that the Council has the authority to allocate General Fund money and it is apparent from the level of interest the Council has taken in enhancing code enforcement efforts within the City that such a use of funds would correspond to the priorities of the Council. 3. The City convene the Housing Task Force appointed by the Mayor to continue its work toward development of a strategy to revitalize those neighborhoods within the City now blighted. 4. The City, in cooperation with the County, develop and implement a program of pro-active rental property management certification similar to that used in Mesa, Arizona. Such a program recognizes that landlords, as well as other citizens within the community, are victims of the population of people now residing in the City who are irresponsible at best, and in some cases have chosen to pursue a career of crime. The San Bernardino Valley Association of Realtozs is prepared to offer our facilities, our professional knowledge and our resources to assist with such an effort. t ~ O 5. work with the Housing Task Force to develop programs, using resources from both the public and private sectors of the community to facilitate the conversion of rental housing and other blighted housing to owner occupied housing throughout the City. Establish communications between the City and those financial institutions who own properties due to foreclosure actions to improve the maintenance of REO Properties within the City and support self help gzoups emerging within the City trying to reclaim their neighborhoods. F..~2 © DIANA d. HARKISQN O a7s w. z3,,. a,.ca, ~ \ /~. Sew ac~nue~eo. CA 92403 / _ Mayor and City Council °/l `-' 300 N. "D" St. San Bernardino, CA 92418 'l~ - ~ ': ;, , 11/2/94 ~' ,„ ,; '' Dear Mayor and City Council, ~ i lte: rental property inspections As a San Bernardino resident, not an absentee landlord, I strongly oppose these inspections and fees. The present economy has been hard on landlords. There are vacancies with "Tor Rent" signs all over San Aernardino. The competition for good tenants is fierce. In the free enterprise system, tt?e tenant chooses the best home for the rent he can pay. Naturally, the nicer it looks, the sooner it rents. Rents have dropped dramatically, along with security deposits. Houses that used to rent for $525 with a deposit of x725, for a total of 51250 to move in, are now renting fur St50 with a deposit of 5250 for a total of 5700 to move in. Costs for maintenance and utilities have continued to rise. Vacancies }lave increased dramatically. Properties that used to rent within 24 hours to 1 week, now may sit vacant for a month or more. Every day` the property is vacant, we lose money we have no way to recoup. Aiso, vandalism has increased alarmingly. Some of my properties haven't even been vacant for a day before the windows are broken and ttlc water heaters and evaporative coolers are stolen. And what hnppcns when expenses mount so high that the landlord can no longer keep up? The property goes into foreclosure and is boarded up. Besides a costly loss to the lender and the owner, we all lose. There are vacant and boarded properties in nearly every block in San Bernardino. These properties are targets for vandalism and crime, and they devalue the entire neighborhood. 1'o add expenses to landlords who do maintain their property is unnecessary and unfair. Why penalize everyone? At 575 minimum inspection fee, for 10 properties, that's 5750; for 50 properties, that's 53,750. Landlords are already paying SGO per house per year for a licence. Duplication of services is also expensive. Code Enforcement already exists as s department to report substandard and blighted properties to. Sincerely, Diane D. Harkison © - -- 0 - -------_ October 27, 1994 ~j )•A An Open Letter to the City Counsel '~ t) The article in October 18, 1994 Sun Telegram referencing the fines to landlords if a property does not meet the inspect- ion requirements is very untimely. Landlords are having a very hard time keeping their units filled right now. With the closing of Norton and the loss of many jobs that were related to Norton gone and no immediate relief in sight it is hard for landlords to make their payments if they don't have the units rented. ,.r, The results are the properties go back to the lender and are --- boarded up and a1T~the landscape dies and the properties are vandalized and occupied by homeless, drug addicts and other _ incorrigibles, making things even worse.-----The homes that go ba'ck` to the lender are unsafe for me as a Reai Estate Agent to show. You walk in the door thinking the place is empty and there you find people in the house shooting up heroin. It is very unsafe for myself and my clients. Our office manages as well as owns a few rentals. There has been numerous times that we have rented a property in good con- dition and the following month the property looks deplorable. We have six properties vacant right now. We have rental ads running since the first of October. We have had nine applicants all of which are on AFDC and cannot meet our income requirements, which must be twice the rental amount. Some of these rentals have been vacant for two to three months. How long do we endure this? You cannot keep blaming all the blight on the landlords when the city should be. trying to bring manufacturing and business into, . our area. Many investors buy properties in many of these same blighted areas. They rehab them and then attempt to sell the properties. During this period of time, many of the properties are vandalized, graffitted and the process must be reaccomplished. No- an ~-i.-s- given to the investor that spends his money, hires local people to - -work and attempts to keep his properties looking neat in an effort to resell them. Instead, the city sends the "Code Inspectors" out to repeatedly cite the homeowner for infractions, i.e., lawn needs mowing, with little or no investigating as to how long it has been owned or who the current owner is. This citation fee then mushrooms up from a relatively small fee of under $50.00 to over $450.00 be- cause of administration fees etc. it's time for our City Fathers to reanaylize this unfair practice against landlords and other absentee owners. This practice MUST STOP. _2345 N. Sierra Wav Sue Moller San Bernardino, California 92405 - - ---- , ri ~ m_ V b L7+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ti~~o.fi~c~•v3~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • -- o~ .a - d ; fF=' ~e'. ~ ~ g ~ ~' ~ o~ ~g~ ~ ~ ~~e g ~H ~ 'om ~•5t j ~ r o3 a.m~ ii~ v~g ~m ~ ~ - CITY OF SAN BE~IARDINO -REQUEST FOI~OUNCIL ACTION From: Councilman Ralph Hernandez Subject: Fite Department Development Permit Costs Council Office Date: September 12, 1994 Synopsis of Previous Council Actlon: 1DYIN- OFF1Cfll 2 Recommended Motion: To discuss and take possible action regarding Fire Department requirements a~ fees associated with the obtaining of Development Permits. Signaturo Contact Peroon: Councilman Ralph Hernandez Phone: 5333 Supporting Data Attached: Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct.No.l IAeet. Dssaiption) Finas:e• Coundl Notes: p'//~~~` AGENDA ITEM NO..Z~