Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21- Administrator's Office CITY OF SAN BERN, IDINO REQUEST P t COUNCIL ACTION From: Shauna Clark, City Administrator Subject: RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM Dept: Administrator ' s Office PRESENTATION _ ' 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. I 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. Signature Contact Jeanne ' Fitzpatrick 5122 person: Phone• � Supporting data attached: Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: 1 Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: 7G A•1L•f CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL 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 r 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. RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION TASK FORCE MEETING Members Present at August 5th Meeting 6 Judith Battey, Southern California Gas Co. (Committee Member) Oliver Moore, Economic Development Agency (Committee Member) Shaun Clark, City Administrator (Committee Member) Nora Vineyard, Life Savings Bank (Committee Member) Sue Crawford, Crawford Investment Co. (Committee Member) Rachel Clark, City Clerk (Committee Member) Cindy Buechter, Business Registration Division (Committee Member) David Rudisel, City of Azusa Jeannd 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 Board 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 Ward (Committee Member) r Lorraine Velarde, Mayor's Executive Assistant (Committee Member) Valerie Pope-Ludlam, Council Member Sixth Ward (Committee Member) Jerry Miller, First Federal Bank (Committee Member) Bob Arrowhead, National Home Mortgage Buck Poirier, Wholesale Capitol Corporation r _ CITY OF SAN BEI ARDINO - REQUEST-e-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. Signature ' Contact person: Shauna Clark Phone: 5122 ' Supporting data attached: yes Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: ' Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: CITY OF SAN BER`,ARDINO - REQUEST . JR 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. k E M CITY OF SAS! BERNARDINO - REQUEST =OR COUNCIL ACTION From: Shauna Clark , City Administrator Subject: Selection of funding mechanism -- Rental Housing Inspection Dc Administrative Program and set public hearing Date: May 23 , 1994 for July 5 , 1994 at 10 : 00 a.m. 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. 2�Ag&� Signature Contact person: Shauna Clark Phone: '9199 Supporting data attached: Yes Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct No.) (Acct Description) Finance: Coy• A Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO = REQUEST FOR COUNCIL AC TION 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. Code 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 code 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 life safety issues. Housing stock, especially in the city core where the highest number of single family rental units is concentrated, has continued 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 of rental inspections, alw q with landlbrif" " t programs, gill reduca� ltgat3Va ua ' • �. 1 1-H single family rentals W11??"w i t back to o�Tt1e' -v%Cll�ii @ci wili�:li viii 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. Alternative I - Targeted Inspections - Rental Inspection Surcharge 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. X 75-0264 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 II - Annual Inspection Cycle Fee for service The second alternative is to charge a rental inspection fee (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 be controlled by the department on a strategic basis. Each inspection would occur randomly, based upon business registration renewal cycles and/ inspectors would be placed in a reactive, rather than proactive, mode of operation. Fees would be based upon actual costs for providing the inspection. Alternative III - Two year Inspection cycle - Fee for 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. supporting 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. 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 0 R 4NN •� O O JJ i1 ONON l� 0000000 lw �j al OK1 ..+ .rC1 N OOQOOOC11 j tl1 C 0 0 u f N 0 0 0 u1 tff O Ot O O • . VI 0 C O x N N •r N I N J1. y N .. O U 0 .'. - c� 'vco _" n 000000 .. L. o � � or. e^+ n o00o no U a L O — C O 7 .. ^ L7 C1I Z •� tl� •. N Q v9 C W U y C� 44. C OL l� 0 VN .i �4 ONO �O O 0000000 O Z X O OA 0 L 0% Ln q 0000000 O Ld O C 0 0 e^ -+ O► O O O O If! O O tl1 > O • 4 n • Ol� CDN �O � � NO !"1WO C> 41 rr CO u1 N N O •♦ Q Lip n 4 Q = to H H Vf E41CL Z •� 0 •+ u rO 'O U �•^••• m %aN co 4 rO N � uN11 � f�'1 f m ON m 0 .r N 0-VIP V} U) 0 0 u1 y U .-4 OAj >+ w y y O P C U a. fa 1.4 O U • U 4 C C a C O C O 0.4 r-4 1 O 1J � U V :� CJ y O ;4 Q O 01 7 .a 7 C ► Q a, y y y to y • c, y C LL U > 0 Vf 0 O ► C 0 L ►.+ H O �� L G --4 A► 'fl 0 L 7 C O .-+ Lr yU a. yyB. y N yyLr y •.r C Q y = zoo C 0 C v 0 t3. a ►-r O Z ►� U W y U U :,l 7 L "" Z Cx y O • O coo O ° nw+lo O O N to m U cc .r O fn q'n N s C 0 N s Ln Il) G d v O m U ZII%a 0 OOO O + %CIO y W u1 u1 7 11 .+t n U - r GJ �+ u1 O n CD O apt N �t u1 r. .r NI• N O .mot rtl N C Z �- 1 N N Vf .? H ;Vf U tC OOO O O Ot•1t� 0 coo O O � NtO OOv Q O m %o4 tll O In O O 0 V4 m (n In In o qv in VIP V> V> W rx nJ 0 'mb O O � O O • C O G� 0 Q+ J x VIP V). G U JI N L C w O r. y N O O U •.N�t O a.1 �+ Z O N 04 ix v 1-1 0 0 ,4. 1-4 E 0 to E 4 Q. N 09 ,T° �C v 4 y 0 O 0 Or F U O jT__'`tATZC RENTAL HOUSING NS P' ION PROG iM (Alternative Analysis) Program Revenue Inection " sx Aoorcach spA oach 12 + 24 Month cycle S2 :, Per Zwell _ng Unit $75 for 1st Dwelling ''nit Plus $20 for ea. Additional Dwelling Unit Unit Tvoe Single-Family 520575 Duplex 5Z 40 $95 Triplex $60 $115 Quad $30 $135 5-Unit Complex $100 $155 10-Unit Complex S200 $255 20-Unit Complex $400 $455 50-Unit Complex $1 , 000 $1, 055 Estimated Revenue (Based on the above fee structure) $420, 000 $1,400,000 annually for 12 month cycle $700,000 annually for 24 month cycle Additional Revenue Under a tee Approach, to be Identified to a Tenant/Landlord Support a Tenant/ Educational Program Landlord Education Could Not Be Funded Program' 90 , 000 TOTAL REVENUE REQUIRED $510 ,000 I 5/4/94 m&BCDGETSQ 'If educational funds are not identified, the Tax Approacn would require a $24 per dwelling unit annual charge. :'NTAL HOUSING INSPECTION , GRAM I . MISSION STATEMENT Systematically identify and correct code violations in rental units which result in threats to occupant safety; threats to structural integrity; and negative impacts to surrounding neighborhoods . nddltionally, provide information to propert owners to enhance iair affect VAw4&.!�Ar0Ze rty manage th r h " ' ucationa _ efforts de- al1� ant-landlord sell onsihips , tenant screenin * 4 ocedures, and . P ".iv ailabl�'` to as I litation of �sfandard -properties. IZ . SCOPE The provisions of this program shall apply only to residential rental property within the designated proactive rental housing code 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 for 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 of knowledge, skills, resources and direction from the property owner to perform needed maintenance. D. There is a tendency for crime -rates to be highest in areas where properties are not owner occupied. It is reasonable to make a connection between lack of property maintenance, the deterioration of the neighborhood, and the crime within that nel9hi—d0r1hood. E. Absentee property owners 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 of many housing units . r G. A systematic inspection program v 1 provide responsible rent, property owners with a bas-4 for establishing the condition of 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 Safety Code as well as the State Building Code grant to cities the authority to perform residential inspections. B. The State Cznstitution permits each city to charge a business tax to all those doing business within its jurisdiction. V. FUNDING AND BUCIGET IMPACT A. 75% of the complaints received by Code Enforcement are related to rental properties. Adequate funding to perform a proactive, comprehensive residential rental inspection program has not been set aside in the city's budget and cannot be set aside without significant reductions of funding for other programs. 1. Recognizing that some feel that the existing $60 tax is a hardship;. it is proposed that the business registration minimum tax be lowered to $45 per year. 2 . Assess a $20 per-unit surcharge on the business registration tax. B. A reduction in the rental housing business registration fee from $60 to $45 will reduce general funds by S83,000. The per-unit surcharge will generate $416,000. All funds from the surcharge will be allocated to residential rental code enforcement. VI . ECONOMIC IMPACT ON RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS A. The net tax effect on owners of single family rentals will be an increase of $5 per year. B. Owners of apartment complexes will have an increase in their taxes based upon the number of units within the complex. C. In cases of deficient properties, . landlords will incur the cost of corrections. VII. BENEFITS TO PROPERTY OWNERS A. All t .ters 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 values. C. Reduction of negati of rentals . ve impacts through improved management D. The cumulative terefits of the above should lead to reduced =rime, stabilization of property values and s improvement in the overall image of San Bernardino. VIII . MECHANICS OF PROGRAM A. City Clerk' s 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 fees charged to property owners, inspections will take place in targeted areas selected by the Mayor and Council on the basis of need. Target area selection criteria may include: 1. appearance of blight 2 . crime levels 3 . negative impact on surrounding area 4 . high concentration of rental units IX. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUC'JR z 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 code enforcement and building inspection programs. A proposed organization chart and initial budget are attached. .r� B. This nrogram will operate as a , narate subdivision of Plan: g and Building Services. C. The housing inspection, program will build upon current code enforcement processes, but will differentiate from current code enforcement by emphasizing proactive enforcement and focusing exclusively on rental housing. X. ELEMENTS OF THE :NSPECTION PROCESS A. Pro-Act_ ,,e Pr^^-a The program is ;:Mended to be pro-active. A systematic process w-1111 l ce developed to target specific areas of the City. _:;ce ail rental units have been identified and inspecte-J , t!:e housing inspection team will move to additional target areas. The Housing Inspection Staff will not respond to complaints in order to dedicate their efforts _o the systematic program. The Code Enforcement Division will continue to respond to all complaints. B. Inspection Cycle Based on t::e proposed staffing, it is anticipated that 8 , 000 to 10 , 000 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 develop a positive relationship with property owners. The initial steps of the program will be to schedule joint inspection visits with the property owner or property manager. Where defects are found, a deficiency notice will be given to the owner with a reasonable time frame for correction. The time frame will vary according to the seriousness of the deficiency. A reinspection meeting will be scheduled with the owner. If 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 issued a formal Correction Notice with a second time frame identified for the repairs to be completed. Failure to comply with the Correction Notice will result in an enforcement action through the Board of Building Commissioners. The procedure at this point will be the same as for other Code Enforcement violations. D. Inspection Standards The City has property maintenance standards. These standards deal with the required maintenance of the exterior of the structure such as paint, landscaping, and the removal of junk and debris. The City has also adopted the Housing Code. The purpose of this code is to provide -lnimum standards to safeguard life and limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controli :nq the use and occupancy, location and maintenance of ail residential buildings and structures within :n-* s ;uris31ction. These are the two basic ordinances as tar= of the program. E. Education Przgram Develop and implement an education program to assist landlords with tenant screening and other aspects of owning and operating rental units. I N U y �0 M I lN-1 V O. U M N �+. z0 U 'y}y,�� 0 d w W 9 OI U 8 0.U u u O �•.4 O.4 OW U wUwVAi O Uw w W W 00 .1 .1 i I L U 0 r. z U 01 yy C6 U c H LLm �v, OM m(n C14 41 C+I N C Sw O C O� 01 H qqM C L H y z <. U •11 T4 JW 4J •-4 0.%4 01 N HO C a) •'1 N U u1 ul S4 U 00 ti 0.-1) m O H-4i Q m � r m� U x v C. U M qJJ C r C41 to I to Z � 'a O M to i O•M N .1 01•.1 y a m-.a 0' I H c a c = a N O 0 .. O -W 00 ON .4 3 u U � w m O N , a of 0 H y a 4. Fi N q _ u W 01 O O N AN W 01 V ci W NN H o U a .0•a w u 10 cn C) U � N .1 .1 8 �S z ro v �fe N a .i N SC a a u -4 w•1 a+ U 0 V 0 0 01 C .1 OAA N ^� C tto to U CL N iCFtl� 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 has realized 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. -ai-O iVyMV..i V.. Van m. 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-Housing Program implemented in 1993, the City of Mesa has realized a 67% reduction in crime related calls among rental property areas. B. 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 rate. 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. 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. Azusa's 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, -, 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. Mesa, Arizona,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 I 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 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, Money 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 vari^,-,c health and safety cedes whir-h 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. 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. I I i i MEMO TO COUNCIL AZUSA RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE TO: Honorable Mayor and Common Council / FROM: Jeanne Fitzpatrick, .Administrative Analyst DATE: June 10, 1994 _ SUBJECT: Rental Housing Inspection Program COPIES: Shauna Clark, Citv .Administrator; Dan Robbins, Police Chief; Al Boughey, Planning and Building Director; Rachel Clark, City 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 at which time the item was continued to the July 5th Council Meeting for 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 46% reduction in crime in that specified area. Additionally, Azusa continues to tract: 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. Anv additional information/documentation received with respect to Rental Inspection will be forwarded to your attention. 7l NTAL 1weplCTZON PNOQRAX ` (Synopsis) The Rental Inspection rrogram is codified under chapter 15 . 40 Azusa Municipal Code which became operative in February, 1989. The ordinance was adopted in response to council and public concerns over deteriorating housing conditions which were attributed to absentee rental property owners. In 1998 , complaints concerning rental housing accounted or approximately 90% of all complaints handled by code enforcement. The ordinance came out of a workshop session with the City Council along with a property maintenance ordinance which was codified under Chapter 8. 51 Azusa Municipal Code which attempted to create objective standards for property maintenance. Prior to adoption of the Rental inspection ordinance, the city conducted a workshop wherein all rental property owners were invited to give their input on the proposed ordinance. At the time of the workshop virtually all owners in attendance, along with the Los Angeles / Pasadena Apartment owner's Associations, agreed that something had to be done to curb the degradation of housing since it was impacting both property values and the desire of good tenants to rent in Azusa. As areas with high rental rates degenerated we also saw increasing crime, graffiti, and the movement of long term residents 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. The meeting with the owners also detailed what the program would be targeting including paint, landscaping, roofing, refuse storage, illegal housing, and substandard housing conditions. rTnon the ordinance becoming effective the city began the registration process. Almost 5 months lath iii Jule, 1°°° the first Inspectors were hired to begin the inspection process. In the first year of the Rental inspection Program rental property owners made approximately 2 million dollars worth of improvements to their buildings and landscaping. In the second year we saw approximately 1 million dollars more in impprovementa, subsequent years have resulted in ongoing maintsnance efforts to keep the rental properties up with previous improvements. In 1990 the city registered approximately 6, 800 rental units out of the approximately 11 , 000 residential units within the city (excludes 525 mobilehomes) which represented approximately 56% of the city's permanent housing stock. In 1994 the city contains 6 , 006 registered rental units out of approximately 12 , 050 residential units or approximately 50% of the city' s permanent ."ousinq stock. This reduction is attributed to several .actors, including down zoning of high density areas, single-family home infill projects where substandard rentals were demolished, construction of the Lewis Homes project at Citrus and Foothill, the demolition of the 106 unit Balboa Apartment complex, and a reduction in the number of overall rental * condominiums and single family hones due to higher resale values and market forces. With respect to resale values, 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 phenomena is most evident in the condominiums surrounding the golf course area which sold in the 1980's for less than $60, 000 and had a 70% rental rate. Today 'these same units sell in the area of $100, 000 and have a rental rate of approximately 40% . As part of the Rental Inspection Program staff continues to examine trends in Azusa' s housing stock, as well as examine problem areas which are identified in the course of making the inspections and talking with tenants. often problem tenants are brought to the attention of property owners as the source of increased police activity on their properties in which the owner is encouraged to evict problem tenants. This was most evident in the "Mountain View Apartments" at Citrus and Arrow Hwy. in 1990 wherein an enclave of e approximately 30 Crips gang members had moved into the complex. The net result was a dramatic increase of police activity which included outside law enforcement agencies making routine search warrant inspections and drug arrests at the location. After conducting inspections of the property staff ordered approximately 40 apartments out of 125 to be vacated and rehabilitated. Prior to this action Azusa Police received approximately 5 calls per day to the complex. After the enforcement action calls to the property were reduced to approxia-,tely ,7 per week. As units became reoccupied staff continue,.. to monitor conditions which have remained relatively steady. -.n the Balobea Apartments cage at 600 N. Cerritos Avenue, staff recently compared crime statistics based on the years of 1991-92 (before enforcement action) and 1993-94 (after demolition) . This analysis revealed the following crime reduction in what is known as "Azusa Police Reporting District 323" which is bounded by Foothill Blvd. on the North, Cerritos Ave. on the West, Aoekvale Ave. on the East, and rifth Street on the 8outht Auto Theft -58% Druq Activity -65% Battery -40% Bur Lary -26= vanialism -42% In short, a strong enforcement program does in fact have spin-off benefits in the area of crime reduction, as well as improving and maintaining the existing housing stock. ' operationally, the Rental Inspection Program is set-up to inspect registered rental property once per year, which could occur anytime after registration. Typically, however, once a property is registered as a rental the property will be inspected within six months. This inspection involves an onsite visit to the property wherein inspectors look first to general appearance and whether or not any "maintenance violations" are visible. The inspector will then attempt to contact residents living at the location to explain the purpose of the inspection, and to ask if the tenant has any problems with the unit which are not being addressed by the owner or management. This interview with the tenant will generally ask if there are any roof leaks, proper comfort heating, vermin infestation, a working smoke detector, proper plumbing, or any other ascause of currier Y C itY Q t � be made if the tenant requests it and signs a consent form. ��.... `4or problem may In cases whore there in evil nC6 WA - exist inside a unit and the tenant will not give consent, a court ordered Inspection Warrant is obtained. Where tenants are not contacted during a routine inspection, Inspectors are typically leaving a note that an effort to contact the tenant was made, or a letter is sent p etheytenants may haveexplaining with they may contact us with any y p roblem a second visit to the housing.ous If requested by a tenant, ho sing. will be made without additional charge. and when violations are found, °ownerompsaisents ar""qu st for verified by inspection, th e Compliance" . Unless the violation is very hazardous, the owner will be asked to correct the violation within 30 days as required under state !aw. If the owner subsequently contacts us regarding the violation or the amount of time allocated to comply, and has some difficulty in meeting the time frame, or has a financial difficulty, we will extend the time if a good faith effort to comply is demonstrated. When the allocated or extended time has lapsed, a second inspection is made to verify compliance. If corrections have bean completed the case is than closed. If the violations remain, enforcement actions are then initiated and all enforcement costs are charged to the property owner. The program utilizes an Administrative Hearing procedure which is informal , _fair, and efficient, and avoids many of the cases having to be heard by the City Council, or in court. Essentially, this process allows for a neutral third party to listen to and see all relevant evidence concerning a violation* our process currently utilizes a retired Azusa police Captain who is under contract to provide services as an Administrative Hearing officer. His only instructions are to be impartial and independent in reaching a decision after listening to both the city's staff and the affected property owner. This process is much more expedient and cost affective than the criminal prosecution of violations since the entire process can be noticed and concluded within ten (10) days. The prosecution process requires a large expense for attorney's fees and can take as long as a year to resolve in the court. Over the 1993-94 Fiscal Year staff conducted approximately 160 Public Nuisance Hearings involving rental properties, of these only one appeal was made to the City council which denied tthe (appellants appeal and extended the compliance time for An analysis of Azusa rental housing reveals that suthe most of all rental housing was constructed in 1964. As ""4 4—g were built with inadaquata off-street parking, �4j• �`+`` riO built-in appli�.,�.a carports rather than garages, (dishwashers, ovone, or stoves) , and were equipped with wall heaters rather than central air conditioning. As such these same units are now less desireable to more affluent tenants who prefer a mors up-scale iapartment with all the amenities one would typically find in a modern Our observations are that this aging of the housing stock has resulted in the at of a largely lower income tenant population with lase disposable income simply because the units command less rent when comparcrasadothemovviabilitypand housing units. This has in turn demand for more local retail merchants dealing in home furnishings, and more up-sca1* 'restaurantsI while at the same time increasing demand for more lower-and merchandizinq in t the form of swap meets, second hand stores, fast rood restaurants, and used car dealers. rn the area of police services, staff found that 4st of all site specific police calla were to rental properties, Is% were to single family owner occupied housinq, and 34% were to commercial properties (based on a one year review) . A breakdown of these calls further revealed that virtually all drug related activity was associated with rental properties as %.:e assaults with a deadly weapon, battery, spousal abuse, and disturbing the peace. On the owner occupied side staff found that police calls to these locations were predominantly victims of property crime including burglary, vandalism, and theft. The commercial calls revealed their use of police services were largely for theft, burglary, and silent alarm responses . We believe that the large quantity of rental housing has also impacted the Azusa Unified school District in several ways. These impacts are largely related to the transient population associated with rental housing, and the lower income status associated with this population. This was perhaps most evident in 1986 when Azusa High School had the dubious distinction of having the second highest drop-out rate of any high school in Los Angeles County (83.51) . what in fact the District found was that the large number of transient tenants who moved in and out of the District created this anomaly. Up until 1968 the District counted a withdrawal from the school as a drop-out and did not attempt to determine what happened to the student. Today the District will not count the student as a drop-out if a transcript is requested within one year. It was the District's belief that if a transcript was requested that the student simply moved into another district. cr.:i::,_e• ^„ While this large movement Of e�.+�+Qntz �% a yearly basis the drop-out rata based on transcript requests has been reduced to 6. 4% in 1993 , which is now the third lowest in Los Angeles County. The impact of this large transient school population on the I character and quality of the school system is difficult to quantify. Inherently, since this population is largely associated with a lower income transient population, it is possible that tho less stable student population adversely affects the learning environment since a majority of the students never establish roots in the community, or within the school system. While the Rental Inspection Program was not intended to be a study of the social and demographic impacts on the community, these issues keep arisinq in our analysis of how a community can easily suffer as a result of 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 is typically in the form of graffiti, broksn windows, holes in interior walls, unpermitted storage of dismantled vehicles , removal of smoke detectors, the appearance of cast-off Appliances / hirnitura, and the throwing of trash and debris around many of the rental properties. While most rental property owners are aware that some of their tenants are responsible for damages and the dimunition of surrounding property values in some neighborhoods, most are reluctant to enforce rental agreements. This reluctance is most evident when an absentee owner has difficulty renting the units, or when in spite of being a bad tenant, the tenant pays his rent. „Then absentee owners are confronted with deteriorating property conditions they will more often than not attribute the problems to their tenants and add a qualifying statement such as "This -a the way these people livel " . RESIDENTIAL RENTAL INSPECTION 15.38.020 USE OF MOBILE HOMES FOR COMMERCIAL, LTC., PURPOSES. The use of mobile homes, trailers or coaches for office,commercial or manufacturing purposes shall be limited to temporary use only for a period of time not to exceed six months. Application for temporary use permits shall be made to the Planning Director. He shall issue the permit if he ends that the proposed use complies with all applicable toning ordinances in. cluding setback requirements. parking requirements and sign requirements. The permit shall not authorise any utility hook• ups. except temporary telephone or electrical service may be provided by means of a temporary power pole. An additional time period may be authorised aver a public i hearing in each case under a Conditional Use Permit in accord• ante with procedures stated in Chapter 18.00. (Ord. 1091 1 1, 1974; Ord. 1018 12(part), 1971: prior code 18401). Chapm 11.40 CR$SIDE.NTIAL RENTAL INSPECTION j Seotionst 13.40.010 Definitions. 18.40.020 Required. 13.40.030 Utility connection. 15,40,040 Application—Filing. 16.40.030 Annual inspection required. 13.40.080 Reinspection. 15.40,065 Certificate—Contents and when void. 13.40.070 Exemptions. 16.40.080 Owner-occupied dwellings. 13.40,090 Interior inspection. 15.40.100 Appeals by aggrieved persons. 1 13.40.110 Violation—Penalty. 15.40.120 Enforesment—Public nuisance. 15.40.130 Penalti4a—Late filing. 15.40.140 Lnforaement alternatives. 16.40.010 DEFINITIONS. A. "Director" means :n.e :);rector of Community Deveiopment for the City of Azusa. (Uuss 3.14,00) 353 ' I BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION B. "Change of-use" meant to occupy a unit for other than a residence for one family, C. "City" means the City of Asuss, D• "Occupancy" means any person who occupied a unit, whether u an owner or tenant or permittee of the owner. E. "Owner" includes the agent of the owner. F. "Person" means the individual, partnership, corporation or / association or the rental agent of say of the foregoing. G. "Unit" means the residential dwelling unit In a single- family, two-fsmily or multifamily residence building, which is not owneroccupied, excluding motels, hotels, rooming houses and boardinghouses and similar living accommodations.(Ord.2389 f 111989). 18.40.020 REQUIRED. No persons shall rent. lease. occupy or otherwise permit any dwelling unit which is hereafter vacated by the previous occupant thereof to be reoccupied until such unit is registered with the City of Azusa Community Dwelopment Department or provided with a certificate of exemption. (Ord. 2389 11, 1989). 13,40.030 UTM= CONNECTION. No connection of utili. ties, including water, electricity, and gas, shall be made for any dwelling unit which has been vacated by its prior occupants unless such unit has been registered u required In this chapter and the owner presents proof of registration or proof of exemption to the utility company. (Ord. 2389 11, 1989). 13,40,040 APPLICATION—MING. The owner of every rental unit shall, prior to renting or reoccupying a rental unit,obtain an annual registration and inspection certificate f) m the Commu- nity Development Director by tiling a written application on a form to be prescribed by the Community Development"Director and payment of an annual registration and inspection fee there- for. Said fees shall be set by separate resolution of the City Council in accordance with applicable State Law, (Ord. 2389 11. 1989), (A U"3.19.00) 354 RESIDENTIAL RENTAL INSPECTION 16.40.050 A,\NVAL INSPECTION REQLMED, The Commu• nity Development Director shall cause each rental property to be C '!uus� �•',9 901 964.1 M • �' RESIDE`rTL4L RENTAL rNSPEC"ION inspected At least once annually for compliance with applicable sections of State and local codes relating to toning, building, health and safety, and property maintenance. More Inspection res•sels a violation. the property owner shall be provided with a written notice describing the violation, loca- tion and a reasonable time for compliance, (Ord. 2339,1 1, 1999). 15,40.060 REI.NSPECTION. Where violations are found. tits property owner will be charged for all costs incurred by the City for obtaining compliance pursuant to provisions set forth in Sec. tion 15.08.100 at seq. a(this Code. (Ord. 1390 12, 1989). 15.40.0660 Cr6R=1CATE—CO.*gMN"M V?D WHZ.N VOID. A. The rental registration certificate shall expire one (1) year from the date of issuance or upon chugs of property awnership. H. The rental registration certificate eha11 state: 1. no date of issue. 2. The legal use of the property, 3. The address of the property. 4, lilt property.y Cwre. s mpnCi and add—ro-aw 5. A registration number. 6, The date of expiration. T. Any other pertinent information.(Ord. 2339 8 1, 1989). i 16,40970 EXEIIPTIONS.The requirement for an artnual in spection and annual registration shall not apply to the toi!owing 1. Ownemompied dwellings. 2. Mobile horse parks which have been issued a cerc:":ate o: exemption, 3. Reconnection of utilities turned off by the utility :ack o payment. (Ord. 2389 ! 1, 1989), •Chapter moo aoetained two notions numbered 13-40 060 7`e editor renvrt r� the 3eeond of the" *+Coosa a 13.40.043. subsequently, :ae at>' "sn•�aea corrected ordinance adopttnt this change, 353 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION 16.40.080 OWNER-OCCUPIED DWELLINGS. All owner• occupied dwellings shall be issued a certificate of exemption in lieu of a registration certificate upon request in conjunction with a Real Property Racords Report. Saki certificates of exemption shall be valid for thirty days from date of Issue and then voided. Requests for exemption %will be processed and issued upon receipt of the City's copy of the Real Property Records Report signed by ' the buyer. No fee shall be charged for certificate of exemption issued in conjunction with a Real Property Records Report. (Ord. 2389 11. 1969). 13.40.090 DMERIOR MFECTIONS. Whare the exterior in- spsction gives evidence of possible interior defects or an extreme state of exterior dilapidation exists. the iaspactor shall have the right to make an interior Inspection Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit an interior inspection of any dwolling unit where the director or his designee requests.and is granted,entry by the owner or occupants of a unit.(Ord. 3330 11, 1960). 15.40.100 APPEALS 21' AGGRIEVED PERSON'S. Any Per- son aggrieved by the determination of the Director under this chapter may appeal to the City Administrator. Said appeal must be filled in writing within seven days after the notification to the aggrieved person of the decision bein g pP a ::l:d• Saiy �MM��• must be in %writing and must state %rich particularity the reason why the Director's decision is being contested.The City Adminis• trator shall issue a written decision on the appeal within thirty days of the receipt of the written appeal. The aggrieved person shall be notified in %vriting of the decision on the appeal. (Ord. 2380 1 1, 1989). 13.10.110 VIOLATIONS—PENALTY.Any,person who violates any provision of this chapter is deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 3500.00, or by imprisonment in jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (Ord. 2389 11, 1989). 15.40.120 ENFORCEME`n'—PUBLIC NUISANCE. It shall be considered a public nuisance to have or maintain any rrrntal ci4w� i�l�e► 356 RESIDENTIAL RENTAL INSPECTION property which. upon inspection, fails to comply with Mate and vocal laws as they relate to housing standards. property mainte• nonce, building codes or local taming requirements. The director .hall have the power to require correction of deilcioncies identi- fled through property inspection by wing the procedure set forth in Section 13.08.010 st seq. of this Code.(Ord. 23891 1, 1989). 13.40.130 Pg.NALM—LATE TMIN0. Any person who fails to apply for an annual registration and inspection csrtificats as required by this chapter, and within the times required by this chapter, shall pay a penalty of ten percent of the application fee set pursuant to Section 10.40.040 for each month or part thereof after the date the application was due.The enalty may be waived or abated by the Director of Community pevelopment for good cause. (Ord. 2442 11. 1990). 10.40.140 LN-TORCEhiENT ALTERNATIVES. A. Nothing herein shall pre%vnt the entbecemeat of tWs ahapter by criminal. civil,or administrative actiom either,undertaken individually or in cor4unation with other resmedlea. B. The enfomment of this chapter by a criminal, civil or ad• ministrative action shall not relieve the property owner of his or her obligations under this chapter. (Ord. 2442 13. 1990). iT1te%at p.p 9- A,u,a 3-19 oar $07 MEMO TO COUNCIL MESA, ARIOZONA CRIME FREE MULTI HOUSING PROGRAM CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE TO: Honorable Mayor and Common Council FROM: Jeannd 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 Bernardino Board of Realtors; Richard 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 Multi-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 Police Department that the city's crime rates had increased in areas 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. The Mesa Crime-Free MuNwHousing Program By TIMOTHY L. ZEHRING f ike most cities in ;he Sun Bell, Mesa, Arizona. continues to experience rapid growth, its population has , nearly doubled each decade this century. Such growth and it.s ac- is companying increase in crime cre- ate great challenges for local law '` r ' enforcement. fti v ` For the Mesa Police Depart- ment, spiraling crime rates in the city's numerous apartment commu- nities presented a particularly de- manding problem. To reduce this criminal activity, the police depart- i ment developed the Mesa Crime- free Multi-Ilousing Program.' I The program uses a three-level I approach cT a minate crime in apartment communities and to m- c ucc ca s or olicc service. This is accomplished e through a cum• prchensive training program for property managers, strict security requirements for participating �� l properties, and crime. ion y!+ training for residents. Mesa Pvlicn 1 Department crime prevention spe I I 1 vialists conduct each phase of the program. UVEL ONE—PROPERTY MANAGER TRAINING 'The first level, an 8-hour iruin- Mg seminar t'or managers. cuvcrs agreements, Aentifvmv illegal ac- Applicant Screening topics pertinent to the overall i-iviiv, and working with illy n<lllea property managers learn io ()licration or an apartment com- Special cnililiaNis is -,twit it; traill' begin the screening process !?;, Alex. These to ics include creating. ing managers on uppiicant screen-_ discussing the Crime-Free Multi- explaining. zind enforcing rental ental ing and1he eviction proceZ. Housing Pmgrmn with applir,int, i i 8 ' FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin -- _— - I i Thcy advise potential residents that I �� the cnmplex cooperateti with the Mesa Police Department to main- The program uses a tain the quality of the neighborhood, , three-level approach Property managers also inform ap- to eliminate crime plicants that they will undergo an j In apartment extensive screening process, based communities.... on a list of selected criteria that they arc asked to review. The screening critcrix set forth the reasons for which management cannot deny rental to applicants, based on Fair Housing laws. These ( Reserve ONk*rAhringtoaohm@ proven tion law%prohibit discrimination for rea- speclakar with the Mass,anion.Pbkv Deparimenr. son% of race. color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, marital status, familial status, and others, depending on the area. apply. In this way, providing infor- according to local landlord and ten- However, managers may mation tip front regarding the span- ant laws. choose not to rent to pet owners or ment compiex's participation in the smokers, because they are not con- crime-free program acts as a deter- The Eviction Process sidered "protected classes" under rent to some potential tenants. For Property managers know the Fair Housing laws. Managers may applicants who choose to seek resi- types of eviction notices available also deny rental to individuals con- dency, property managers screen and the process for serving them,as victed in the last S years for manu- them by checking references and by well as understanding the prose- • facturing or felling drugs, or fur using local credit reporting agencies durc%of the entire eviction process. any crime that would pose a threat to conduct background and credit For example, while convicting an to the properiy or interfere with checks. individual on a criminal charge re- other residents' m1c6ful en'o meat Approved applicants receive a quires proving guilt "beyond a rea- ot the residences. Such offences copy of e rug- pee lease asi- sonahte doubt,"landlord%may evict may ins u e repeated disturbances, can um developed by+he U.S. De- resid nt%based on a single violation 931,11111119. 11iostitution. violence, partment of Housing; and Urban and with only a preponderance al' threais of violcnce. and rape- Development. The lease addendum evidchcc. That is, ifevidcncc exists In additionjewanagers tell appli- represents a civil agreement be- to prove that residents "probably" cants that they can be denied rental twecn the proe2rty managemem anti violated the lease agreement, they r,. privilckcs if a previous landlord re- the resident. Residents agree not io can he evicted. This evidence may pnrted such problems as damage to engage in any type of criminal actin- he no more than the testimony of' rental property, failure to pay rent, ity, including drug-related crimes other residents who witnessed the allowing nonresidents to move into and acts or threats of violence,on or violation. their apartments, or failure to pro- near the premises. Although tine Mesa Citing-Free vide proper notice when vacating a The lease addendum also act.as Mulli-Flousing Program reviews property. Misrepresenting informa- it screening tool for manager., U-W- the eviction process with managers, tion on the application may also Iend ally, dishonest applicants will not the program is governed by the phi- tot rclection. sign such an agreement. because it' losophy that "tai ounce of hreven- Ai this point, high-risk indi- they do voinni t any of the listed Lion is worth a pound of cure." Fie- vietuals often screen themselves out offenses, the landlord can inrmedi- cause the eviction process is of cemsideration by opting not to niely begin the eviction process, difficult and expensive, managers --- -- — June 1994 , 9 MMMOM 1 I • prefer to screen out potentially dis- their properties a ainst crime. The had been equipped with a simple ruptive applicants when they apply. concepts of CPTED include natural device—an eyeviewer, or "peep- Property managers use every legal surveillance,access control, tetrito- hole."Had there been an eyeviewer, means available to accomplish that riality, and activity support she might not have opened the door. goat. To many, CVMD represents a Or, quite possibly, the suspect new concept, but it has existed for would have skipped her door com- L.evel One Conclusion and many years. For example, the pletely. He would have chosen an- CartlAeatlon Anasazi Indians of the Southwest other door—one without an eye- An overview of the next level of lived high above the plains on cliffs, viewer—in order to catch his victim the program concludes the first which afforded natural surveil- off guard. training session. At this time, man- lance.From the clifftops,they could As noted, property managers agers learn what they must do to see invaders who were miles away. learn during the first phase of their satisfy the requirements of the sec- The ladders used to reach the plains training that the apartment complex and level, which is based on a below the Anasazis' clifftop homes must meet certain minimum secu- property inspection. This allows provided access control. Removing rity requirements mandated by the managers to progreaa to the next these ladders at night made access police department to qualify for level only when they feel their prop- difficult, if not impossible. level-two certification. These in- erty is ready, thus saving them- clude deadbolts on all exterior selves and the Mesa Police Depart- doors, double locks for windows, menu the time and expense that more �. 180-degree eyeviewers on all ftont than one inspection would require, doors, and shrubs trimmed below As they will in levels two and m the window line. In addition, Mesa three, managers who complete the s COnCQ�t9 Of crime prevention specialists may first level of trainin receive a cer- CPTED Inelud@ natural crime other measures, depending tiflcate proclaiming require their achieve- Surveillance,access on the complex. ment. Displaying it in the properry control, territoriality, When property managers be- office of the apartment complex ,. and activity support. lieve that their complex meets the lists in attracting honest applicants, requirements of the second phase, a while deterring dishonest ones. 55 Mesa crime prevention specialist In addition to providing written conducts an on-site inspection of the recognition of the managers' sue- apartment complex. Following a cess, members of the Mesa Police In addition,the city looked well successful inspection, the managc- Department's Crime Prevention cared for and protected, thereby ment receives a second certificate. Unit ensnurage managers to main- exhibiting territoriality.Collective- twin close telephone contact with the ly, the Anasazis would conduct LEVEL THREE—T1RAA1niN%'j unit. The unit also monitors pro- their daily chores of gathering food FOR RESIDENTS gross by requiring that property and cleaning, thus creating activity If managers wish to progress to managers submit monthly reports. support. the third and final level of the pro- Unfortunately, many modem gram,they must schedule crime prc- LEVEL TWO---CRIME cuu111unities are not designed as vention training for residents. Most PREVENTION THROUGH carefully as the Anasazi villages. A managers provide incentives—such ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN recent case in Mesa demonstrates as pizza parties, barbecues, or pot- The second level of the pro- the need for CPTED. A woman was luck dinners—to draw residents to gram is crime prevention through brutally raped in her apartment after this event.Added incentives include environmental design ( ), she opened the door to see who was musical entertainment provided by which gives property managers knocking. This crime might have residents and door prizes donated the knowledge they need to protect been avoided if her apartment door by local businesses. In Mesa, many 101 FBI Law Enforcement 8ullefln local businesses willingly donate least one crime prevention meeting, appearance of false advertising giveaways to support the crime-free in conjunction with the Mesa Police should illegal activity occur on the effort, because they realize that the Department, during the year. Many promises. well-being of the neighborhood has managers conduct these meetings a direct effect on their businesses. quarterly or even monthly. OTHER TRAINING Police crime - ntivn spe- Property managers may also The Mesa Fire Department also cialists address several t ics use the Mesa Police Department provides optional training for apart- during these meetings. First, they program logo in all of their ment managers, which is separate px21ain the lease addendum as it advertising,including the telephone from the police department's pro- pertains to the crime-free zone. directory, apartment guides, and gram. An hour-long session in- They make it clear that the adden- forms managers about general safe- dum addresses only illegal activity ;r,�o,:y... c ty and fire safety in apartment committed on or near the property; communities. managers wish to maintain a safe The training covers such topics environment for residents, not to as exiting systems, fire alarm sys- dictate morality or noncriminal '' - ,o„'d terns, safety committees, pool behavior. Owl'�"__ safety, chemical storage, property The specialists also discuss ��IM NQ inspections, and cooperating with general safety and crime prevention i� n,Nt?".il the fire department. The depart- jec piques for specific offenses, �t'y'' ment also provides an information such as automobile theft. sexual as booklet for residents and on-site Sault,and burglary.Many aspects of inspections when requested by these meetutgs parallel a neighbor- management. hood watch presentation, and in ef- fect,train tenants to be the eyes and BENEFICIARIES OF THE ws of the apartment community. PROGRAM After completing this level, the manager receives the third certifi- Property ManagersaiT,*AF catc.This certificate,along with the M�ers who Join the Mesa others,sends a message to all appli- Q1 Crime-Free Multi-Housin Pro- cants—honest and high-risk—that gram may lose tenants to the screen- residents look for and report crimi- ing ai�yiction process. M t en, nal activity. would managers want to 'oin the In addition,properties that com- -pro gram piste all three levels of the program �ulw s��„ply, .coot „,a:agers may purchase a striking, four-color want to rant to nondisru rive ten- sign imprinted with the Mesa newspaper ads. This alerts potential ante, Further. ranting to criminals Crime-Free Multi-Housing Pro- applicants of the partnership be- can lead to dramatic declines in gram logo to post on their property. tween the police department and the property values, severe property While they have earned this privi- apartment community. It also at- am e, ru raids toxic contami- lege, it is just that—a privilege. tracts honest trnters, who want to nation from rug labs. loss of rent Managers must sign an-agreement live in a "crime-free"environment. during evictions and repairs, and with the police department that they In that regard, managers sign an animosity between residents and will abide by all program guidelines agreement not to advertise that the managers._ or lose permission to post the sign. property is, in fact,crime-free,only In contrast, participating man- Complexes qualify for the manda- that they have joined Mesa's crime- agers reap numerous benefits tory yearly renewal by holding at free program. This removes the from this program. The benefits to June 1994/ 11 managers include mom stable and The Department offenders from a particular area satisfied residents, increased de- Since the program's inception usually evokes a docreaae in crime mand for rental units, lower main- in January 1943, the Mesa Police In the entire area,affecting as much tenance and repair costa, higher Department has trained over 600 as a square mile. Armed robberies, property values, and peace of mind managers. There has been a auto theft,and criminal damage are from spending more time on routine groundswell of support from just a few of the crimes that may management and less time on crisis managers and residents alike. Offl- decrease.Thia improves the overall control, cers are also receiving more cooper- health and appearance of the entire For example, one apartment ation in their dealings with property community and may increase prop. complex had only 60-percent occu- managers. erty values as well. pancy and was so crime-ridden that Further, because of the higher police never entered the community incidence of crime and graffiti in without backup. After joining the ` inner cities nationwide, many crime-free program, the complex people spend their money at re- increased its occupancy to 100 per- Apartment managers gional shopping centers and malls cent, with a waiting list. And, the and resldents...are outside of once-flourishing down- s police department now receives learning that they town districts.Inner-city businesses few, if any,calls for service. can help to control certainly benefit from cleaner and Liability and forfeiture are other safer neighborhoods as they set up reasons t managers rarttcipate in crime. crime-free and drug-free zones. the program. If t)rooerty managers rent to dangerous criminals but i - k�s Y CONCLUSION non err vto ens avtor,mane : While one individual or law en- ers could a In addition. because managers forccnmt officer may not be able or ur- better understand the difference to prevent crime single-handedly in ther. if property managers know- between civil and criminal mattM an entire State or city,crime can be ingly rent to drug criminals, they following the first phase of the curtailed in targeted areas` when risk seizure of their property by law program, the department has ex- residents accept responsibility or enforcement.By participating in the perienced a substantial decrease in t�etr own environment. c esa program,then,managers have a de- calls of a civil nature. In fact, rime- ree Multi-Housing Pr - fense against law suits and legal overall, the department receives gram demonstrates that even renters forfeiture. can feel pride o ownership to- fewer calls for service from com- Finally, participating managers plexes that have completed the w-jtrd their communities. also benefit from the favorable Apartment managers and resi- program. dents, workin in cam- tic:; ::irk publicity generated by the program. S The Mesa Chamber of Commerce The Community law enforcement, are learning that publishes a list of participating The Mesa Crime-Free Multi- they can help to control crime. members, which is available to pro- Housing Program reaches more Tmy cAn live in a crime-free zone, spective tenants upon request. than the apartment communities; it and together, they can make a Complexes with one certificate re- benefits the entire Mesa area. Many difference,♦ ceive a three-star rating; two cer- burglars and other criminals work tificates, a four-star rating; and all within close proximity of their resi- Enenote three certificates, a five-star rating. deuces, but their activities can Mesa'scdine-preeMulti-liousinil Pm1ram This feature has induced man wu adapted from a program orisinaiiy Y spread into neighboring communi- developed by JottaCampbell,a pnvste property managers to join the ties as well. As a result, removing cun.uitantinfbetiano.oreson. program. 12 1 FBI law Enforoement Bulletin 4 III 1-1 J--177-+ 1..7•YJ1C•1 r PRJI I r Ic-Dnk.R 1 I I irILL. Z y,,AU �i,J 91 5093845461 P.02 VRDIE FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM In April 1992, 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 was conducted in the summer of 1992 to learn about any successful 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 in November of 1992. This new Crime Free Multi-Housing Program offered a unique, more structured approach to the growing problems of urban corruption and decay. One of the basic principles of Community Oriented Policing is the development of a partnership between the police and the community. The most effective way to address societal problems such as crime, fear of crime, soUai disorder and neighborhood decay is y g a proactive stance to neig ox and housing t Maintenance. The Mesa City Council gave official sanction to this program in January of 1995, and it was implemented city-wide immediately. Proven benefits from the first year have keen: • A positive impact on crime in our community by reducing calls for service in the participating rental properties. • An increase in public support of the law_ e_nforcement efforts in participating rental properties. • Improvements made to rental properties ranging from implementation of securitv hardware (i.e. deadbolts, a eviewers, window locks etc.) to complete facelifts and renovations of older properties. (Many properties have spent thousands of dollars to refurbish and reftash the appearance of their properties to qualify as members of 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 J UN-i ItP:4 15;d 1 F kUM ME l f iEr mtt,`UU 7 I NGUS i NG TO 919093845461 P.03 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, persoaslly signed by Chief Guy Meeks, that they display in their rental offices. In 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 on the property. The second phase requires property managers to meet the minimum security requirement of the police department under C.P.T.E.D. guidelines (which are nationally used and accepted). The third phase requires a blockwatch type of participation 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 become a national model. Many of the goals that were slated for the first year were achieved in the first quarter, The pro am has met with such phenomenal success, it has surpassed all of our own goals and expectations. In May 1993, just five months after implementation, the Crime Free Multi-Housing program was a highly touted program presented to hundreds of law enforcement officials at the L.E.C.C. Conference in Phoenix. It was here the program received it's greatest exposure to police agencies around and beyond the metropolitan Phoenix area. Immediately, police agencies contacted Tim Zehring to receive help in developing their own Crime Free Multi-Housing programs. Since the summer of 1993, there have been several police agencies from the Valley, the tats, an even other states who Have implemented their own programs based on the successM Mesa program. In Arizona: Phoenix, Glendale, Tempe, Peoria, Gilbert, Kingman and Buckeye. The next cities slated for certification to teach the program are Scottsdale, Chandler and Tucson. To keep the program uniform from city to city, all police agencies must have their appointed instructor certified by Tim Zehring. They must attend a minimum of eight hours of classroom instruction, eight hours of program management instruction, and them become members of the Arizona Crime Free Multi-Housing Association, This :association (founded by Tim Zehring) meets monthly to keep the integrity of the program at an optimum, and communication channels open between agencies. The Arizona Multi-Housing Association and the Arizona Mobile Housing Association were so impressed with the program and it's results, they petitioned Tim Zehring to become members of the coalition of police departments involved in this effort. In r.U4 exchange for their membership, these Associgttions have provided free legal help in regard to the multiple-family industry, technical support for developing pamphlets and training materials for the classes, and their official endorsements of the program to encourage participation from their members. In November 1993, the city of Aurora, IL sent two (2) police Lieutenants and their City Attorney to Arizona to be certified to teach in Illinois. They have also begun to form the Illinois Crime Free 1-- fulti-Housing saocin .inn, and are in regular contact with us. In December 1993, the Sellars Group, a Salt Lake City based property management company, organized a statewide training for all county and municipal police agencies in 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 agencies have begun the first steps in forming the Mah Cijme FJP,..e. M l i-Tiousing Association. In Arizona, a very successful media campaign was waged with local television- stations and newspapers. Because of similar programs in other cities meeting with extremely negative newspaper and television reports, it was essential.*to develop a positive rapport with local reporters and successful property managers to show the great benefits to the program. Near! two (2) dozen newspaper articles have been �,•' written about the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program, and it is no ezaWation to eay they have been very, very-supportive-of the m.- Other cities that have modeled the Mesa progUm, have met with only positive responses from the media. IN of one negatave story bAs come out against this program inArizona, Minois or ME to tas--clate. There have also been at least a half-dozen television spots that have featured property managers, residents and 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. These shows were met with extremely positive feedback. _Many chiefs of PoHce, citizens and property managers have written countless letters -supporting the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. The spreaa-of this program is limited only to the few people who cant train enougU people quickly enough. This program is expected to achieve even greater recognition as it is being featured in two (2) national publications very soon. Cnr:a=JtJg 3&gazim is running 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 Law-Enfi2reempitt Rude tin. To garner support from local judges, Tim presented his program before the bench of the Maricopa County Justices of the Peace, It was widely accepted and has been supported valley-wide 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 Off ce and H.U.D., receiving strong support for the programs' content and viability. In 1993, the Mesa program solicited nearly 2500 telephone inquiries, and over 1900 people completed one of the 44 classes-held. s accounted for b rental properties in and around the Mesa area. ere were 54 properties who a ed for C.P.T.E.D. secunty certifleation of their property.701 but one achieve-aMs goal in the first year. A total of 42 apartment communities conducted a Blockwatc4-4w-ogram 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 on and around their properties. In December 1993, the Crime Free Multi=Housing Program received State awards from the Arizona Crime prevention Association. Tim Zehring was recognized as the 5ii tstansiing !Crimp Pr _v _ration P"etitinnar in Arizona. The-View Apartments, who facilitates most of the trainings, received the award for Outa 2n inc,C„ntrihLtian To Crime Prevention h;a RuainPSa_ (Incidentally,the Mesa Crime Prevention Unit was also names as the djit&a ding C;riTne Prevention TTnitiathe-Rate), The Crime Free Multi-Housing Program is just beginning.. We anticipate even greater accomplishments in 1994, with the implementation of the Crime Free Mobile Housing Program and The Crime Free IHntpl/Matel Program, scheduled to ldck off this year. In 1995, we are anticipating the Crime Free Mini-.Storap Program and the Crime Free Mini-Ma11 Program. It is our goal that these programs will become national models and show that Mesa, Arizona is truly a pioneer in Community Oriented Policing. I 51936�54b1 P.06 WINDSCAPE APARTMENTS Total Calls For Service 2 Years 1 Year Thus Before Before 1 st Year Far 350 1991----] 1992 1993 1994* 300 ` E 1 1 28 1 2 200 '1994: 1st Quarter Stats MultIpiied By 4 WINDSCAPE APAR"TMENTS Total DC 1's I 1991 1992 1993 1994• 75 71 70 65 60 61 60 33 S ~ . .. e .,.m. qm 50 •1994: 1st Quarter Stats Mukipiied By 4 ..�-• w i i�w i�.rn� ur R..c. i t nuu�t wu i u `j 19493645=;61 r.I]8 SHADOW RUN APARTMENTS Total Calls For Service 1991 1992 1993 1994' 180 !I 9 170 4 168 160 150 14 r 140 i 37 130 f 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 *1994: 1 at Quarter Stats Multiplied By 4 SHADOW RUN APARTMENTS Total DC1's 1991 , 1992 1993 1994' 50 45 44 dr I 40 35 30 25 4 20 `1994: 1 a Quarter Stats Muhipiied By 4 SUN RIDGE APARTMENTS Total Calls For Service i 1991 1 1992 1993 1994` 77 75 _ 70 1 i 65 60 i 33 50 l 43 I 40 •1994: 1 st Cuarter Stats Multiplied By 4 SUNRIDGE APARTMENTS Total DC 1's 1991 1992 1993 1994* 35 i 35 30 25 i 1; I 20 ` 2 I 4 f is 10 '1994: 1st Quarter Stats Wftlpiled By 4 co Q1 Q �► jo °0 0 0 0 °a o o fTl 1 I Cn j■ ■ a ■ ■ �� t � w !zzcnz m to 0 o C) m ! m � �O w. w♦ �1► I--• '� 46 CL y C co � w y "1 �e TOTAL P. _= 0 i INFORMATION ON SANTA ANA RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM t MEMORANDUM NI to M - �— a 16, 1994 To. Assistant Ci Manager �ducatic�n j t' Date. —� xecutrve erector From: Plannin d Buildin A Reac Subject: E 4 E Since beginning operation in January of 1993, the r a two des orcement Program inspection areas completed the inspection of residential rental p p ertes in French Court and Heninger Park, and currently is in the initial stage of inspections in our third designated area, French Park. Inspections in the first PREP designated area, French Clie a,uvereresulting franom the�nspectao s completed the following July. A summary detailing Y i 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 "9" conditions hepviolations cosmetic equired 26 conditions and 125 tenant caused T violations. building permits, 30 electrical permits, 53 plumbing permits and 5 mechanical permits for a total of 114 permits. Five letters�larni� Pi �o gibllep legal action by the City Attorney were sent to owners s eventually complied and no referrals ed the rental own rsAn French Court to rove t Overall, the PREP program taus in excess of $750,000 to upgrade their properties. PREP has recently begun the annual reinspection of proper-ties on French Court required one year had our e t 993 inspections. A reinspection of p French Court violations u�I1,ng th_ r�� 1–Y case file is closed. The number Of �ci-Vections in from the date that property's rt owners needed the allotted will become much higher in June and July as most of the property ninety days for completion of the necessary repairs. The PREP staff recently completed inspections in the second inspection area, Heninger Park. Inspection of this area could not he completed in six months, as originally planned, due to the number of rental properties to schedule and inspect beini ePark anticipated. Following the PREP staff in the Heninger is a summary of the activity by containing 1,804 rental units were inspected. A total of 364 rental properties contai g Notices of Violation to correct deficiencies were issued 1 o the and wners of 347 of 136 the 364 properties• Violations uncovered totaled 5, B " N immediate life-hazard A " violations, 2,060 serious, non-life threatening violations, 697 primarily cosmetic "C" violations and 240 tenant cause violations. Correcting of the violations required 100 building permits, 195 plumbing permits, 87 electrical p ermits and 28 mechanical permits for a total of 410. To date, 310 properties are in full complian ce and most others are very near to completing their repairs. Eight properties have g o the foreclosure or are set for Legal for auction. Eleven case files have re �� for referral. action and at least five others are being p p French Park was approved as the third inspection area for the PREP program on April 18, 1994. sent to the rental property owners requesting that they contact the On April 19th, letters were se. PREP office to schedule an appointment to inspect their As of this date, sixteen out inspected. sixty-six p ro��xty-six additional owners have either scheduled of 166 rental properties have been appointments or called to state they would contalae1ast the tgns actns n the French Park an inspection. Future updates will be provided Pe neighborhood continue. Robyn Uptegraff, Executive Director Planning and Building Agency cc: City Manager City Council - ..-. . 0 FTIQ n � N N W t I a 0 rb 5 5 e E 8 w 00 o � 7d H W 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING SECTION 3 5.04.527 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL RENTAL SURCHARGE IN THE BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEE 4 5 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 6 DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : 7 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 Residential 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 . 22 All provisions for the enforcement, collection and recovery of 23 unpaid business license fees shall likewise apply to the 24 enforcement, collection and recovery of any unpaid surcharge. The 25 amount of said surcharge shall be established by Resolution of the 26 Mayor and Common Council . 21 SECTION 2 : If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, 28 phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be FLR:cma CResident.Ord] 1 June 20, 1994 j ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING SECTION 5.04.527 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL SURCHARGE IN THE 2 BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEE 3 invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of 4 competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the 5 validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City 6 Council of the City of San Bernardino hereby declares that it , 7 would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, 8 sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the 9 fact that any one or more sections, subsections , sentences, 10 clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or 11 unconstitutional . 12 SECTION 3 : Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor 13 the repeal hereby of any ordinance shall in any manner affect the 14 prosecution for violation of ordinances, which violations were 15 committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as 16 affecting any of the provisions of such ordinance relating to the 17 collection of any such license or penalty or the penal provision 18 applicable to any violation thereof, nor to affect the validity of 19 any bond or cash deposit in lieu thereof, required to be posted, 20 filed or deposited pursuant to any ordinance and all rights and 21 obligations thereunder appertaining shall continue in full force 22 and effect. 23 24 25 26 27 28 FLR:cma CResident.Ord7 2 June 20, 1994 1 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING SECTION 5.04.527 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL SURCHARGE IN THE 2 BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEE 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly 4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of 5 San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on 6 the day of , 1994, by the following vote, to wit: 7 Council Members : AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 8 NEGRETE 9 CURLIN i0 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 JAMES F. PENMAN, 23 City Attorney 24 By X__Z) L,L 4' Q _ 25 26 27 28 FLR:cma CResident.Ord7 3 June 20, 1994 ti CITY OF SAN BERI,._ARDINO - REQUEST . JR COUNCIL ACTION From: Shauna Clark, City Administrator Subject: Selection of funding mechanism -- Rental Housing Inspection Dept: 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: 5122 Supporting data attached: Yes Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: �` � CITY OF SAN BERG. .RDINO - REQUEST l JR 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. Code 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 code 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 life safety issues. + Housing stock, especially in the city core where the highest number of single family rental units is concentrated, has continued 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 program of rental inspections, along with landlord and tenant educatio.. programs, will reduce many negative impacts. Eventually, some single family rentals will shift back to owner-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. Alternative I - Targeted Inspections - Rental Inspection Surcharge 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. 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 II - Annual Inspection Cycle - Fee for service The second alternative is to charge a rental. inspection fee (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 be controlled by the department on a strategic basis. Each inspection would occur randomly, based upon business registration renewal cycles and inspectors would be placed in a reactive, rather than proactive, mode of operation. Fees would be based upon actual costs for providing the inspection. Alternative III - Two year Inspection Cycle - "ea for sar"yice Alternative three is a variation of number two, but cuts inspections in half, requiring inspections once every two years. Fees would also be reduced. Supporting 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. 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. * i *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 s i 1 f c U U U) O cQ > O �oNN NONN CI- 0000000 O -4 0 Oil 0 L r-q -4 c'1 N 0000000 0 41 �4 tn C 1` 00111m (h N O O OU1t1100 O U a t � 0 Q) a 41 O $ —4 tl t- f- �D c0 v to �o r1 N U1 N O a r_ �1 r 1 co M Q N N V) O d N I cJ N i r„� •. v v v� v C U U UI _ O rp > C) ^ J -4Inc•l -4 0000 ^'i co 000000 g 0 O41 0000000 Q 41 L, 0 0 O tf1 O r c^ I1 000 0 a) 0 c , U c z • O u OLrrnco 10 NN1OU OV' o o a c N � enl- 1.O (N 0 :. C a) x 1 r-� 1 F.r U 0 ` W -14 U1 >4 Z r-1 V H b z L+ vvvv C W U N Qa ;Q 0 r, O d' Nr1 �4 ONa �oN O 0000000 O Z X O Olt L11 0111 v a% u') IT 0000000 O w O C r O O c^ 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 L11 U1 > 0 . 0 . . . . . . . o ,� a 1. E 0r, co r, co �O Va� NWMWO an rl co U1 N N O f-4 _ � �O r1 C u k Q a 4 E-4 4J z r1 O F a) O O C �o t11 �o N >+ l) LL O N co G► 1n g •1c11111 ('1 rp N l� cw. O N • 4 H b mco VJ Or 41 4 a) U v cry N N y -+ U) 1 1 N ••4 VIP v).Or V), v v v..r lj M (44 N 41 N O O U1 U)ul N r U O -W a m O a C a) U) C U NU [ C A 100 a0 m cn Q) H H m a) 4 V 41 U N Ul L4 110>4 a) U Z DA O O O U)a) C •� UI a) U) ON D a C )4 C 0 (1) > c C O S-1 �l U) 0 N 0 0 F i a U S4 0 C u UI 7 OG^ 11 C a O U ZP (2) > Cl. CT U H N > U m a) u) �+ v a -4 U vcwa r1 W ul U a N 04 N cn U) U) (1) •.4 c a) cn c c O w c c c N 3c oa c X014 •-+ OON � >. Z. ti c C7 ro b c - _ 41 ' � 0 ro U •^+ O U 000 O O O 41 >4 OOO O O NU1 CO U a a 00 n (1) a -W c Ul O c0 m :n N .-I (q (n O ON O v mr� O c 0 x -4 o H Q) 1 us I Q). N LO Ul Q) r-4 c U U O ro > 000 O •- 0 000 o O r+ �oio 41 w ooU') LO n U 0 C 01 0 11 U1 O C1 C9 N Q c Ul e1 �D 0 r-1 � C Q) I N C O I e-1 .-1 Gr. C,4 VIP VY L' v U ro 0 0 0 O O 0 M m O 0 0 0 O O r' N %D U" O U1 O O 'O rl 0 rt �D I, n N in O l V IA k ro ro � o ^ 00 .� c o x yr v> U ro w EE c J-► N W c °' N ra N I Q) c O 0 a o U UwWwW�WOi ° .0 o 4 m 0 >9 r-1 Q) a r-� > c c ai � •� N a � � a� Q N v a F J > cn \ > U z .. ..� -W fn � w c s-4 cn o �i) a z :,I �• c J '� \ � SYSTEMATIC RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM (Alternative Analysis) Program Revenue Inspection .'ax Approach Fee Aowroach 12 + 24 Month Cycle $20 Per Dwelling Unit $75 for 1st Dwelling Unit Plus $20 for ea. Additional Dwelling Unit Unit Type Single-Family $20575 Duplex $40 $95 Triplex $60 $115 Quad $80 $135 5-Unit Complex $100 $155 10-Unit Complex $200 $255 20-Unit Complex $400 $455 50-Unit Complex $1, 000 $1 , 055 Estimated Revenue (Based on the above fee structure) $420, 000 $1,400,000 annually for 12 month cycle $700,000 annually for 24 month cycle I Additional Revenue Under a Fee Approach, to be Identified to a Tenant/Landlord Support a Tenant/ Educational Program Landlord Education Could Not Be Fended Program 90 . 000 I TOTAL REVENUE REQUIRED $510,000 5/4/94 mkt!B l DG ET;&W lIf educational funds are not identified, the Tax Approach would require a $24 per dwelling unit annual charge. ALTERNATIVE I RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM I . MISSION STATEMENT Systematically identify and correct code violations in rental units which result in threats to occupant safety; threats to structural integrity; and negative impacts to surrounding neighborhoods . Additionally, provide information to property owners to enhance their effectiveness as a property manager through educational efforts dealing with: tenant-landlord relationships, tenant screening and eviction procedures, and programs available to assist with rehabilitation of substandard properties. IZ . SCOPE The provisions of this program shall apply only to residential rental property within the designated proactive rental housing code 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 for 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 of knowledge, skills, resources and direction from the property owner to perform needed maintenance. D. There is a tendency for crime -rates to be highest in i areas where properties are not owner occupied. It is reasonable to make a connection between lack of property maintenance, the deterioration of the neighborhood, and the crime within that neighborhood. E. Absentee property owners should be held accountable for maintenance and safety of their units and required to t help mitigate the impacts generated by tenants. I 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 of many housing units . G. A systematic inspection program will provide responsible rental property owners with a basis for establishing the condition of 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 Safety Code as well as the State Building Code grant to cities the authority to perform residential inspections. B. The State Constitution permits each city to charge a business tax to all those doing business within its jurisdiction. V. FUNDING AND BUDGET IMPACT A. 75% of the complaints received by Code Enforcement are related to rental properties. Adequate funding to perform a proactive, comprehensive residential rental inspection program has not been set aside in the city's budget and cannot be set aside without significant reductions of funding for other programs. 1. Recognizing that some feel that the existing $60 tax is a hardship, it is proposed that the business registration minimum tax be lowered to $45 per year. 2 . Assess a $20 per-unit surcharge on the business registration tax. B. A reduction in the rental housing business registration fee from $60 to $45 will reduce general funds by $83 , 000. The per-unit surcharge will generate $416, 000. All funds from the surcharge will be allocated to residential rental code enforcement. VI . ECONOMIC IMPACT ON RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS A. The net tax effect on owners of single family rentals will be an increase of $5 per year. ` B. Owners of apartment complexes will have an increase in their taxes based upon the number of units within the t complex. C. In cases of deficient properties, . landlords will incur the cost of corrections. VII. BENEFITS Z PROPERTY OWNERS A. All owners 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 values. C. Reduction of negative impacts through improved management of rentals. I D. The cumulative benefits of the above should lead to reduced crime, stabilization of property values and improvement in the overall image of San Bernardino. VIII . MECHANICS OF PROGRAM A. City Clerk' s 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 fees charged to property owners, inspections will take place in targeted areas selected by the Mayor and Council on the basis of need. Target area selection criteria may include: 1. appearance of blight 2 . crime levels 3 . negative impact on surrounding area 4 . high concentration of 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 code enforcement and building inspection programs. A proposed organization I chart and initial budget are attached. B. This p, ogram will operate as a separate subdivision of Planning and Building Services. C. The housing inspection, program will build upon current code enforcement processes, but will differentiate from current code enforcement by emphasizing proactive enforcement and focusing exclusively on rental housing. X. ELEMENTS OF THE INSPECTION PROCESS A. Pro-Active Program The program is intended to be pro-active. A systematic process will be developed to target specific areas of the City. Once all rental units have been identified and inspected, the housing inspection team will move to additional target areas. The Housing Inspection Staff will not respond to complaints in order to dedicate their efforts to the systematic program. The Code Enforcement Division will continue to respond to all complaints. B. Inspection Cycle Based on the proposed staffing, it is anticipated that 8 , 000 to 10 , 000 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 develop a positive relationship with property owners. The initial steps of the program will be to schedule joint inspection visits with the property owner or property manager. Where defects are found, a deficiency notice will be given to the owner with a reasonable time frame for correction. The time frame will vary according to the seriousness of the deficiency. A reinspection meeting will be scheuuled with the owner. If 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 issued a formal Correction Notice with a second time frame identified for the repairs to be completed. Failure to comply with the Correction Notice will result in an enforcement action through the Board of Building Commissioners. The procedure at this point will be the same as for other Code Enforcement violations. D. Inspection Standards The City has property maintenance standards. These standards deal with the required maintenance of the exterior of the structure such as paint, landscaping, and the removal of junk and debris. The City has also adopted the Housing Code. The purpose of this code is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life and limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all residential buildings and structures within this jurisdiction. These are the two basic ordinances as part of the program. E. Education Program Develop and implement an education program to assist landlords with tenant screening and other aspects of owning and operating rental units. l 7 N 41 •�+ O�►N M W U .d Uq P1 N M 0 0 U U U U U 4 wU Oj UO81O J N U �h N 4 4 O 0 N - L V y CL _ c _ m C A - s ti .4N� arryl C i N 1� 10 0 O4 m ..r 0--4 vi I N r Od ,+ -I Vf t7 V1 F V W 0 C12 0 A � , D � V N •d N a 4 - " 0 i w 04 O $ j 14 I N pi tp 1W C 1 W4 1! v N � �+ �' d _yy, zl �VU �+ 4 m 4 m � CJ C1 0G1 U 4 7 C. w q q4q a . 4•.miVNaJ J 0 U m m Y C tll m 11 U SA,,I B V r-,LLEY © AsSOCIATION OF Pg4j-QWP� REALTOR 1798 NORTH D STREET - SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 P.O. BOX 2183 • SAN BERNARDII$1b, (W9W49 :56 (909) 886-5031 z TO: City of San Bernardino, Mayor and Council C' Coe) < FROM: David Schulze, Vice President, Chairman, LodQL J Government Relations SUBJECT: Alternative to the Proposed Financing for the Rental Inspection Housing Program September 19t4i rn Council meeting at 10:00 a.m. After active participation in discussions of this issue as a member of the "Rental Housing Task Force", appointed by the Mayor, and after extensive research of the issue with practitioners of property management along with the accumulation of data from various departments within the City, the San Bernardino Valley Association of REALTORS supports the overall intent of the Rental Inspection housing Program, however, we strongly oppose the proposed increases in taxes directed to ALL rental property owners within the City and urge the City Council to consider the following recommendation: 1. The current fee schedule charged for a license to operate a property (1-4 residential units) for the use by persons other than the legal owner be continued without any scheduled increase. The total number of such accounts with the City as of September 15, 1994 is 5304, estimated revenue from this source based on tha} nun^'^ ^,,,�' be c3, 4 '"0. 00 arnuall�� V ♦NJ✓�rL WculM 4$ 18 1 4- l 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. 9 > 1994 OFFICERS:RITA NORTON,President•SUE MOLLER,President Elect,•DAVID SCHULZE,1st Vice President•LILLIAN MILLER,Secretary M 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 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 1 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 j 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 awe 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 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 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. I 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