« Your Cultural Dose | Main | The First Router »
November 26, 2009
Public Safety Commission on Rental Inspections - November 24
The only item on the agenda was discussion of the proposed Residential Rental Unit Inspection program. Here's a PDF copy of the first draft version of the proposed ordinance that the commission referred to during discussion. The version presented to the city council on December 1 will reflect changes requested by the city council and, we hope, those suggested by the public safety commission.
Chairman Jeff Bowman began by describing the proposal as a monumental ordinance, but he commended staff for their due diligence on it. He said he has heard that up to 75% of the rental properties in DHS are not owner occupied. Martin Magaña said he didn't have a specific number for that, although he was sure it is high. Mr. Bowman asked if additional staff might be hired, or would it be out-sourced. Mr. Magaña said he foresaw the hiring of additional staff. After 180 days staff will come back to the city council to report on how the process is working, and at that time they should have a good idea of how much staff may be needed.
City staff do not yet have a specific number for the fee to be charged. The amount of the fee will not be included in the ordinance itself, so that info will not necessarily be available when the ordinance comes before the city council on December 1. Some cities charge $100 per unit, others charge as much as $225. The fee, under California law, can be high enough only to reimburse the city's expenses, but not high enough to turn a profit.
Commissioner Russ Martin said he is concerned about the fee, especially with the consideration of the parcel tax coming up.
Commissioner Terry Scheurer asked how public safety issues in rental housing are handled now. Mr. Magaña said it's driven by complaints. A complaint is received and code enforcement investigates.
Chairman Bowman discussed the definitions in the ordinance. The ordinance includes only one item defined as a "major violation" and that is "Heating system not fully operational at any time between October and May of the following year." Mr. Bowman suggested that needs to be more specific, such as a requirement to maintain a specific temperature at a certain height above the floor. He also pointed out that the ordinance does not address cooling systems at all. He also suggested adding "evidence of mold, rodent droppings, roaches" to the list of "Hazardous code violations." Mr. Magaña said that the revised ordinance will add a lot of items to that list.
The ordinance defines "residential dwelling" as "a single-family home, duplex, multi-family dwelling, hotel, motel or other similar living accommodations." Mr. Bowman suggested revising the final item to: "...or other similar living accommodations used for stays longer than 29 days." That would align the ordinance with the definition of hotels for the Transient Occupancy Tax. He said that places run as actual hotels are already judged by their customers. The city needs to focus on the flop houses and single-room-occupancies that used to be hotels, but are now rented as apartments.
Commissioner Young asked about an exclusion for single family homes. Mr. Magaña clarified that the intent of the city council is to exclude single family homes based on how many homes the landlord rents out. If the landlord has only one house rented (or available to rent), then that house is excluded from the ordinance. But if he rents two or more, then they are subject to this ordinance.
There was a discussion of how rental properties will be identified. Obviously, multi-family dwellings will be easy to identify. To find single family homes, the city will compare tax records with utility bills. If the names don't match, it may be a rental property. Commissioner Martin suggested that some people will just say that the utility bill happens to be in the name of some other family member who also lives there.
The ordinance doesn't define "rent" or "available for rent." Maybe "rent" is defined somewhere else in the city's ordinances or in California law, but I think it might be good to clarify if renting a unit to someone in return for labor is the same as renting for cash.
Attorney Duran said the city's jurisdiction over rental housing hinges on the fact that money is being paid for the rental unit (it's a business). The ordinance exempts all units that are occupied by a manager. Commissioner Martin pointed out that some managers pay a reduced rent, and are are not necessarily living there rent-free. He went on to say that while the ordinance includes "Sewage leaking into walls, floors or onto the grounds" as a "hazardous code violation," it says nothing about having a working, functioning toilet.
Chairman Bowman suggested adding a septic system check to the list, or requiring the absence of evidence of non-functionality. Commissioner Young said that if many more items are added it will become the equivalent of a full building inspection, while the ordinance is only meant to identify major problems.
Chairman Bowman suggested an additional item in the Scope section to explicitly exempt "audited, TOT-paying hotel, motel or spa."
The ordinance requires landlords to register their rental properties within 6 months. Chairman Bowman asked how the city will know that landlords will receive notice of this ordinance. He said that good landlords will comply, the flaky landlords will not, and then enforcement will proceed with only the good landlords. As a result, the public could perceive that the ordinance is being used only against good landlords, while the bad places are ignored. He also asked what the penalty will be for failure to register.
Commissioner Scheurer said his concern is that passing this ordinance now may make it more difficult to get the parcel tax passed, as people will see it all as too much of a burden. Commissioner Martin also expressed his concern, saying the landlords will pass the fee on to their tenants. The commissioners referred to the inspection (and the inspection fee) as an annual thing, but the draft ordinance says the inspections will take place once every three years. So even the very highest possible fee mentioned ($225) would come out to only $6.25 per month. Commissioner Scheurer said the requirement to have an on-site caretaker in multi-family dwellings with 16 units or more [the caretaker's office must be staffed Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM] will really drive up the price of rental housing. He went on to say that one of the attractive attributes of living in Desert Hot Springs has been the lower cost of living.
Mr. Magaña said the reason for the ordinance is the high number of complaints about substandard housing and absentee landlords. He said the investments in the city's parks and streets need to be protected, and the ordinance is needed to provide decent housing for residents and visitors.
Chief Williams said he supports the effort of the ordinance. He said that while low-cost housing is one of the city's attributes, it also attracts those "from that end of the spectrum [of human behavior]" who are trouble. At the end of the day, this ordinance will improve the health of the community, the chief said. The city will be using the foreclosure registration program as the model to work from for this rental inspection ordinance. It will be a challenge to identify all of the single-family rentals. The ordinance is a huge toolbox, the chief said, to deal with the knuckleheads who have not responded to traditional methods. Being able to get inside a property is a huge benefit.
I'll say that one clear benefit of rental inspections that I don't think has been discussed publicly, is that once an inspector is inside the property, if he observes an illegal situation that happens to fall outside the scope of a simple property inspection, that illegal situation is reported to the police and dealt with. IOW, if the tenant is so foolish as to leave a stack of drugs out on a table, or displays a collection of illegal weapons, or even abuses a puppy, then the police can deal with that. It's very similar to the vehicle safety code. How often do we read about knuckleheads being arrested for guns, drugs or DUI after first being pulled over for something trivial like a non-functioning taillight? The ordinance does include this provision to protect the property rights of the owner and tenant:
Owners shall make every effort to make Unit(s) subject to this Chapter available to the City for inspection. If the Owner and/or Occupant does not consent to entry by the City for purposes of this Chapter, the Code Enforcement Officer may not force or otherwise attempt to gain entry except in accordance with a valid inspection warrant issued in accordance with California Civil Procedure Section 1822.50, et seq.
Public Comments
Russ Augustine, a home inspector, had some suggestions. He acknowledged that his home inspections are different from code enforcement, because he doesn't care about nuisance violations like a car parked illegally. He said he focuses on
- Safety
- Habitability
- Things in working condition
- Leak-free
He said you could go on and on with items to inspect. He did suggest checking water heaters not for temperature but for carbon monoxide. Same with vent-free fireplaces and decorative firelogs. He said almost all of the dangerous fire risks he finds are in attics. He said an inspection of a single family residence can be done in two hours, as long as there isn't a lot to write up. He prices by square footage: a home under 3,000 s.f. is $300. Each additional 1,000 s.f. above 3,000 is another $100. A small apartment can be done in 45 minutes.
Chairman Bowman asked if the fee could be based on square footage or time.
Next public comment came from Judy Bowman who, as President of the Hoteliers Association, could say more about the issue of excluding TOT-paying hotels from the inspection than Chairman Bowman could in his position on the commission. Hotels (including motels and spas) pay business license fees that are proportional to the number of rooms. She praised the goal of a good-looking, safe and habitable town. She said that sometimes snowbirds will stay for more than 29 days, but that doesn't make them permanent residents. She suggested that the definition of a hotel to be included (or excluded) could be based on the percentage of residents who are permanent. Snowbirds who might put in a postal mail forwarding notice, still maintain a permanent residence elsewhere. At one time there were more than 100 hotels, motels and spas in DHS. Most of those have been converted to rental apartments. She offered to provide staff with a list of those addresses.
Commissioner Scheurer asked if staff had an estimate of what percentage would be out of compliance. Mr. Magaña had no estimate. He thinks that when he provides the 180-day report he'll have some idea of an estimate. No other city in Coachella Valley has an ordinance like this.
Commissioner Martin said this ordinance is another piece of the puzzle this city needs to improve the quality of life in our community. Chairman Bowman agreed with that and asked about the fee amount. Some units will be easy to inspect, others will take longer. Attorney Duran said the fee rate will be based on a general average in order not to bog the system down.
I would suggest that there will be some economies of scale when inspecting multi-family dwellings. They may share one roof, possibly the heating system will be shared as well. Possibly a sliding scale for multi-family dwellings could be set up. Something like charging X percent less per unit beyond Y number of units, so that the landlord is not overcharged.
Commissioner Scheurer again said he didn't want this ordinance to jeopardize the passage of the parcel tax. Chairman Bowman said this will happen below the radar of most residents. Indeed, what percentage of landlords live within DHS and vote?
Commissioner Young said staff had done a great job on a great ordinance and that as a renter he would not mind $10 or $15 more per month to assure better housing. Chairman Bowman pointed out that a landlord could not pass on the full cost of the inspection immediately, but could only raise rents piece by piece, according to the leases.
Commissioner Scheurer moved to request the city council to delay implementation until the fees are accurately know. Mr. Magaña said the fees will be set by city council resolution and that can't be done until after the second reading of the ordinance. The motion died for lack of a second.
Chairman Bowman made a motion to support the ordinance and asked the city council to heed the feedback from Mr. Augustine and Mrs. Bowman. The motion was approved 3-1 with Commissioner Scheurer voting against, saying he was uncomfortable with the ordinance.
Commissioner Young asked that the 180-day report be given to the Public Safety Commission as well as the City Council.
Filed under Desert Hot Springs,Public Safety | permalink | November 26, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Comments
What a wonderful information... I found you via on google! This is great!
Deirdre G
Posted by: Deirdre G at Dec 14, 2009 1:02:19 AM
Desert Hot Springs, The Micro Managing City.
So now we have Bowman EXEMPTING his industry, but sticking it to everyone else. No surprise there. And the city officials re-elected once again spend all their time doing things that federal, state, and county laws already address. Note to the landlords, don't invite the inspectors in as once you do, they have a legal right to keep inspecting everything which is clearly their goal here, to micro-manage everything and fine as much as possible to make Desert Hot Springs picturrrrr purrrrrfect like Rancho Mirage, disregarding all indicators that it's an impossible goal. The facts are that you have no legal obligation to let city inspectors in unless there is a valid complaint and then they have an obligation to only inspect that complaint. If YOU the owner invite them in, it's like inviting the fox into the hen house.
Now let's ask these great leeders, with all the promises of making the Spa City great, where are the new industries and businesses in the last 2 years? Oooooooo, there's sidewalks in some public places (while others are still death traps, ignored) and cheap low quality paving (with long term interest rates embedded directly into the pavement) and more police and more police shootings, and more crime, that's what's happened since. There's more failures of dreamy projects. Now there's more dreamy projects to fail for the future, of course "these won't fail" they say once again. LOL. Here we go again and again and again, but hey, it's a paycheck. I see business moving out and now shootings at food stores and more holdups where there weren't any before. Oh, now cameras will solve THAT.....surrrrrr it will.
Posted by: Dreamy Day Springs at Nov 27, 2009 5:28:17 AM
