10/30/1997 - Minutes COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE MEETING
Minutes of
Thursday, October 30, 1997
Tigard City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Andy Miller, Sally Parks and Councilor
Ken Scheckla.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sharon Fleming-Barret, Emily Cedarleaf, Cecilia Maciel, Dedi
Streich and Susan Wilson.
ALSO PRESENT: David Scott, Building Official, City of Tigard; Paul Elsner, City
Attorney, City of Tigard; David Sweet, Housing Inspection Supervisor, City of Portland
and Eric McMullen, Deputy Fire Marshal, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue.
The meeting was convened at approximately 9:15 a.m.
I. SELF INTRODUCTIONS:
All present introduced themselves.
II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 10, 1997, MEETING MINUTES
The minutes were approved as submitted by consensus of the members present.
III. COMMENTS FROM PAUL ELSNER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF TIGARD
Elsner provided some general comments regarding the efficacy of housing codes and
enforcement:
• Housing codes and their provisions are constitutional
• Enforcement policies could lead to issues of constitutionality
• These was one challenge to the "face" of Portland's ordinance, which was
summarily dismissed
• There is one case pending regarding Portland's program. The City is appealing the
lower court's decision. Elsner is confident the City will prevail.
The Task Force followed Eisner's comments with a variety of questions. Highlights are
as follows:
Q. Do issues of how pro-active a program is raise questions of constitutionality?
A. Pro-active programs are OK. You can target anything if you can show it deals
with an issue of protection of the public good or safety. The narrower the focus of the
target, the more difficult to justify the program in this regard.
Community Housing Task Force Meeting
Minutes of October 30, 1997
Page 2
Q. Do we need background data on the particular "problem" to support a target in
the program?
A. Not really for the courts, but it may be a political or policy choice to provide some
data.
Q. Is there specific authority in statute enabling municipalities to pursue a housing
program?
A. No. Municipalities do not need specific statutory authority. We can pursue a
program unless it is specifically prohibited by the state.
IV. COMMENTS FROM DAVID SWEET, HOUSING INSPECTION SUPERVISOR,
CITY OF PORTLAND
The Task Force presented Sweet with a variety of questions regarding Portland's
program. Highlights are as follows:
Q. What happens if an owner cannot afford to comply?
A. Portland distinguishes between investors and owner occupants, being less likely
to seek penalties from or assess fines against owner occupants. Owner occupants with
incomes below 50% median can receive a fee waiver.
Q. What about "investor' owners of multi-family housing with marginal cash flow?
A. Portland currently is aggressively enforcing all violations in non-owner occupied
units.
Q. How much of the program is supported by the monthly non-compliance fees?
A. With the current $65/month penalty, approximately $600k - $700k is generated.
The housing program budget is approximately $1.1 million of the total $2.5 million
housing and nuisance abatement program. The monthly penalty was recently
increased.
Q. What % of complaints are regarding owner vs. non-owner occupied units.
A. Approximately 20% of complaints are regarding owner
occupied units.
Q. Who complains against owner occupied units?
A. Neighbors, police, health officials, school nurses, teachers, friends, relatives,
etc.
Q. Some of your inspections are pro-active?
A. Yes, there are a couple of target neighborhoods where pro-active inspections
are performed. This is funded by HUD grants. There is also a pro-active approach to
some buildings based upon age and size.
Community Housing Task Force Meeting
Minutes of October 30, 1997
Page 3
Q. Do you work with local Community Development Corporations (CDCs)?
A. Yes, in several ways. Portland grants building permit fee waivers for qualified
CDCs and assesses no enforcement penalties if a qualified CDC has just acquired a
vacant building and corrects deficiencies within 18 months.
Q. Do you ever vacate occupied buildings?
A. Only in very extreme cases. Portland does this very infrequently.
Q. Is there anything about Portland's program you wish were different.
A. Not really. Portland enjoys a high level of political support for aggressive
enforcement. This, combined with the strong housing market, has led to marked gains
in the quality of housing. The enforcement fee funding mechanism is the best thing
Portland has done.
Q. How do you feel about not having general pro-active periodic inspections funded
by license fees?
A. OK. It has been discussed twice. Once at the request of the Abandoned
Buildings Task Force and another time. Both times the property owner constituency
strongly opposed the concept of license fees, because it penalizes those owners that
do maintain their properties. The enforcement fee penalizes only those that are in
violation. Many cities around the nation have license fees and have successful
programs. Portland's program is a happy "medium."
Q. Please review the penalty fee cost recovery again.
A. Approximately 60% is recovered from the penalty fees. With the recent increase
in the fee it may increase to 80% recovery. The rest is appropriately a general fund
subsidy.
Q. What % of your work is reactive (complaint driven) vs. pro-active?
A. Approximately 75% of our work is reactive, including those cases where the
housing inspector observes a violation without receiving a complaint.
Q. How many inspections can an inspector do in one day?
A. If all they do is initial inspections and the violation letter, probably 3/day. Follow-
up inspections take less time. However, a lot of the work is intangible and difficult to
factor in.
Q. Are you obligated to respond to complaints? Are you concerned about abuse of
the system?
A. Yes and yes. We always respond to complaints. The individual inspectors use
their judgment as to the necessity of pursuing any issue. If eviction litigation is pending,
Portland doesn't perform an inspection right away. Rather, the owner is notified and
asked to arrange an inspection within 30 days.
Community Housing Task Force Meeting
Minutes of October 30, 1997
Page 4
Q. How is the program changing?
A. We are starting to move into the outer east side and will start to deal with units
built during the 60s and 70s (similar to Tigard's housing stock). This is new territory for
Portland. Portland is very good at dealing with the inner city and houses originally built
for the "gentry." However, Portland is not exactly sure about how to deal with the
60s/70s class of buildings which are now deteriorating.
Q. Do you deal with asbestos?
A. Yes, if it is friable (loose).
Q. Lead paint?
A. Not right now.
Q. Do your inspectors use a check-list?
A. No. Inspectors use their judgment.
V. WORK SESSION
The first decision issue was addressed : Should there be a codified minimum standard
of habitability, safety and sanitation for existing housing in Tigard? (Should Tigard
adopt a housing ordinance?) It was the consensus of the members present that there
should be a minimum standard and a housing code should be adopted.
VI. MEETING SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION
The meeting schedule was confirmed as follows: 11/6, 11/20, 12/4, 12/18 (all meetings
noon to 3PM, same location). It was suggested that to facilitate a meeting with
representatives of Salem's program that a meeting be pursued in Salem for those
members interested.
Vlll. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3PM.
Respectfully submitted,
David Scott
Building Official
i:\bldg\sweber\commhous\ininutes\rninlO3D.doc