12/04/1997 - Minutes COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE MEETING
Minutes of
Thursday, December 4, 1997
Tigard City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sharon Fleming-Barret, Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Kathy Mattison (for
Emily Cedarleaf), Sally Parks, Councilor Ken Scheckla, Dedi Streich and Susan Wilson.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Cecilia Maciel and Andy Miller.
ALSO PRESENT: David Scott, Building Official, City of Tigard.
The meeting was convened at approximately 1:15 p.m.
1. SELF INTRODUCTIONS:
All present introduced themselves.
11. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 6, 1997, MEETING MINUTES
The minutes were approved.
III. WORK SESSION:
A. How should the code be enforced?
The Task Force continued its discussion of this issue. The Task Force questioned
staff and Councilor Scheckla regarding the Council's general goal for this program.
It was indicated that the Council's goal is to mitigate health and safety problems
that exist in housing, especially in those properties where sub-standard conditions
are obvious. Further, Council's goal is to prevent similar conditions from occurring
at properties which are not currently sub-standard. It was the consensus of the Task
Force that this goal did not seem to indicate any proactive inspections, but that
inspections be performed when problems arise or are identified. The Task Force
reached consensus that the program should at least be driven by complaints and
referrals, including self-referral from City staff and referrals from other agencies.
There was some interest in trying to identify properties which should be subject to
automatic inspections, however, no consensus was reached on criteria or the need
for this level of proactivity. Concern was expressed that proactive inspections are
unnecessarily invasive to those properties which do not have problems. It was
suggested that the program begin as reactive, and if the need to expand the scope
presents, that the issue could be addressed at that time.
Community Housing Task Force Meeting
Minutes of December 4, 1997
Page 2
Flemming-Barret expressed several concerns regarding the enforcement of a housing
code. She explained that problems for landlords occur even with a reactionary
inspection program. She cited experience with Portland's program and policies to
identify areas of concern. Areas of concern include: who can complain, are all
complaints treated the same, are landlords notified of complaints so that eviction
issues are considered by inspection staff, how are issues caused by tenants dealt
with (is the landlord always held responsible?), when reinspection reveals additional
violations are they considered new or "tacked on" to the existing violations, when
an inspector is responding to a complaint on a specific item is the unit or building
opened up to full inspection or is the inspection limited to the item called in, etc.
Additionally, the penalty provisions and policies of Portland's program were
criticized because it is difficult to get a property "closed" when each reinspection
reveals a minor violation causing the file to remain "open" and therefore subject to
the monthly penalty fee. This was noted as especially frustrating when the issues are
tenant caused. Tenants using the inspection process as leverage in eviction
proceedings was also cited as a frustration. Other members of the task force
representing the property owner constituency echoed these concerns. All members
of the Task Force acknowledged these concerns. It was discussed that Tigard could
learn from these issues in crafting policies. Councilor Scheckla and staff indicated it
was the City's goal to have a reasonable inspection program that did not unduly
burden landlords while effecting compliance. It was noted by staff that these issues
of policy and implementation would be dealt with when the task force considered
its final question: "What Implementation and program policies should be
adopted?" The discussion of penalties was reserved for the program funding topic.
At the conclusion of this discussion, the consensus of the Task Force was that the
program should be complaint and referral driven only.
B. What resources need to be applied?
Staff presented "Program Option A," (attached) which shows staffing requirements
and resources necessary for a complaint and referral program. The Task Force
accepted this option, which indicates that 1 inspector and accompanying materials
and supplies would be necessary.
C. What is the cost of this Housing Program?
The attached "Program Option A," presents cost implications. First year costs are
estimated at $81,500. Costs thereafter are estimated at $59,500. First year costs
,include purchase of a vehicle and other one-time expenses such as a work-station,
etc. Leasing a vehicle would reduce the initial costs, but would increase the on-
going costs. The Task Force accepted these cost estimates.
Community Housing Task Force Meeting
Minutes of December 4, 1997
Page 3
D. How should the Housing Program be funded?
The Task Force continued its discussion of the funding issue. The "open" file
penalty concept utilized in Portland was discussed extensively. As previously noted,
this funding mechanism causes much frustration for landlords. It was noted that if
Tigard is to move toward this mechanism that policies to ensure reasonableness
need to be established. Ideas for such policies include: not starting penalty
assessment until 60 days have elapsed, notifying landlords when complaints are
received, treating violations found upon reinspection as new violations and not
keeping the file open and limiting the scope of inspections and reinspections to the
item(s) called in (except for obvious safety issues). Other funding ideas include:
pure general fund support (property tax), business tax on property owners and
high penalties for failure to comply assessed via a hearing process (in addition to a
monthly penalty or without a monthly penalty). The idea of mandatory licensing or
other fees imposed on landlords is not being considered, especially since the
program is recommended to be complaint and referral driven. It was noted that the
Council would need to be prepared to provide a high percentage of general fund
support because revenue from most of these sources is very difficult to project.
Concern was expressed that the long-term viability of the program be ensured and
that a stable revenue source be identified. Discussion of the item will continue at
the next meeting.
It was suggested that a program evaluation be scheduled sometime after the
program is initiated, preferably using this group, to review program effectiveness.
IV. MEETING SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION:
The previously scheduled future meeting of 12/4 was confirmed. The next meeting
following the 12/18/97 meeting was scheduled for 1/8/98. Both meetings will be from
1 PM to 3PM at the same location.
V. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3PM.
Respectfully submitted,
David Scott
Building Official
is\bldg\sweber\commhous\minutes\min 1204.doc
PROGRAM OPTION A
Assumptions:
• Reactive inspections only
• Inspector can do 660 inspections/year
400 inspections/year (based on 44% of Portland's ratio of reactive inspections
performed to number of housing units. 44% used because 86% of Portland's stock
is at least 25 years old, compared to 41% for Tigard. Other demographics such as
ratio of owner to rental occupied and breakdown of# of units per building are very
similar).
• Require .7 FTE (use 1 FTE)
Unit Costs:
• 1 FTE Housing Inspector $50,000
• 1 Vehicle $18,000
• 1 Work-station set-up $4,000
• Forms, documents $2,500
• Other (gas, training, etc) $2,000
• Legal $5,000
Total Costs:
• First year $81,500
• on-going $59,500
Note: no inflation factor included
i:\bldglsuew\commbous\misc\pr&opta.doc