03/05/1998 - Packet �Y4
rh.
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
COMMUNITY HOUSING
TASK FORCE MEETING
at
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW HALL BLVD
Red Rock Conference Room
Thursday, March 5, 1998
1:00 pm to 3:00 pm
AGENDA
I. Self introductions.
II. Approval of February 12, 1997 meeting minutes.
III. Work session.
A. Program efficiency and equity.
B. Who should pay for the housing program?
C. What compliance mechanisms should be employed?
D. What funding/compliance package should be adopted?
E. What implementation and program policies should be adopted?
F. Other.
V. Meeting schedule confirmation.
VI. Adjourn.
is\bldg\sweber\con ffious\agendas\agd03O5.doc
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: CommunityH
ousingTask Force Members
FROM: David Scot Official
DATE: February 19, 1998
SUBJECT: 3/5/98 Meeting
Attached is the meeting packet for the 3/5/98 meeting. The packet includes the agenda and the
2/12/98 meeting minutes. As we decided at the 2/12 meeting, we need to address some over-
all policy issues before continuing any detailed discussions of compliance/funding mechanisms.
We identified these issues as (1) What is the appropriate balance of program efficiency and
equity to be reflected in program funding and compliance policy? (2) Who should pay for the
program - everyone, or just those in violation, or somewhere in between? The second issue is
framed by the first. These will be the first two items in our 3/5 work session. To facilitate this
discussion I have included in your packet some worksheets on these issues. Please review
these, jot down any ideas you have and bring them to the meeting. If time allows, we will
move into more detailed discussions.
I anticipate having a draft substantive ordinance to distribute at the 3/5 meeting. We could then
devote the next meeting to discussion and consensus on the substantive provisions of the
ordinance.
Thank you for your continuing commitment to the City.
!•Mqa.wM•c«�1wu`cert�M 3 S.mnm.dsc
STAFF REPORT ON HOUSING INSPECTION MANAGEMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION SEMINAR
Overview:
The seminar was very useful in providing staff the opportunity to network with other
officials from around the Country involved in Housing Code programs. The sessions
involved many small and general group discussions to provide a forum for sharing ideas
and concerns. As a result, staff compiled some very useful information which is presented
below. Of note is the fact that 50% of attendees administered a program of mandatory
inspections. (A * indicates Task Force and/or staff interest in a concept listed
below)
Funding Options:
corporate sponsorship*
rental housing license fee w/ mandatory inspection
business tax/license*
point of sale fees w/ mandatory inspection
transfer tax
re-inspection fees*
compliance fees (Portland's program)*
civil penalties/hearing process*
CDBG funds*
vacant building registration fee
fire damage escrow fee
criminal justice grants*
Program Policies for Efficiency/Effectiveness:
citizen participation (neighborhood groups do surveys/inspections
property owners check/inspect their peers - use peer pressure to effect compliance*
"phone" inspections in certain cases*
ask person complaining if they have spoken with the landlord, if not refer to landlord*
ask person complaining if they are being evicted or paying rent, if yes, handle differently*
send formal notices "self-certified" vs. certified mail*
automation*
no duplication of services (i.e. Section 8)*
education for landlords and tenants*
monitor re-inspection to inspection ratio (above 3 too high)*
monitor "verification" rate on complaints (less than 50% or review screening policy)*
no anonymous complaints*
rental owner group cooperation - keep them involved*
Alternative Enforcement Mechanisms to Fines/Court for "Difficult" Cases:
involve other agencies*
court order to abate*
involve media
receivership*
force sale
appoint guardian/conservator
incentives*
order demolition*
mortgage and/or insurance company notification
"shame" ordinance
mediator - takes government "face" off the enforcement*
Complaint Response Policies:
written complaints only*
if being evicted or not paying rent, inspect after they are out of unit*
"self" certification by land lords/tenants*
cut-off persistent complainer of"no violations found" after a certain # of calls*
refer landlords who blame tenants to their lease/eviction rights as landlords*
Education:
landlord/on-site manager training program*
free code books ("no excuse")*
put code and policies on Internet*
maintain list of contractors for referal*
City newsletter*
articles in landlord association newsletter*
public service announcements
Records Request Policies:
at all times don't give out complainants name unless required by court order*
charge for copies of records*
do not release records on active cases unless under court order*
i:\bldg\sweber\commhous\misc\hoconrep.doc
PROGRAM EFFICIENCY AND EQUITY
What is program efficiency?
What is program equity?
What elements of each above are compatible?
What elements of each above are incompatible?
Can we reconcile the incompatibilities to achieve balance?
WHO SHOULD PAY FOR A HOUSING PROGRAM?
CONSTITUENT SHOULD SHOULD EQUITABLE METHOD
CATEGORY PAY NOT PAY SHARE TO PAY
OWNERS OF RENTAL
UNITS W/ VIOLATIONS
OWNERS OF OWNER
OCCUPIED UNITS W/
VIOLATIONS
OWNERS OF RENTAL
UNITS GENERALLY
OWNERS OF OWNER
OCCUPIED UNITS
GENERALLY
OWNERS OF
COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY OR
BUSINESSES