Loading...
FINAL REPORT - January 1999 City of Tigard Community Housing Task Force FINAL REPORT Tigard, OR January 1999 City of Tigard Community Housing Task Force FINAL REPORT Task Force: Paul Alig ( 6/11/98-present), Robert Flug (2/12/98-5/28/98) and Andy Miller (10/10/97- 1/8/98); Oregon Legal Services Corporation Sharon Fleming-Barrett, Oregon Apartment Association (entire process) Emily Cedarleaf, Multi-Family Housing Council (participated by review of documents) Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Community Partners for Affordable Housing (entire process) Cecilia Maciel, resident of multi-family rental housing (able to attend several meetings) Sally Parks, Metro Multi-Family Housing Association (entire process) Councilor Ken Scheckla (entire process) Dedi Streich, Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors (10/10/97-1/8/98) Susan Wilson, Washington County Department of Housing Services (entire process) Staff: David Scott, Building Official, City of Tigard Additional Support: Eric McMullen, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Tigard, OR January 1999 Community Housing Task Force Final Report Table of Contents Executive Summary p.1 Section 1: Background p.4 Section 2: Task Force Process p.8 Section 3: Task Force Findings/Actions p.9 a. Should there be a codified minimum standard of habitability, safety and p.9 sanitation for existing housing in Tigard? (Should Tigard adopt a housing ordinance?) b. What is the minimum standard of habitability, safety and sanitation? p.9 (What should the housing ordinance require?) c. What types of properties should be subject to the provisions of the p.9 ordinance? d. How should the ordinance be enforced. (Should inspections be p.12 proactive, reactive or some combination?) e. What resources need to be applied? (How many inspectors, support p.12 staff, vehicles and other equipment/supplies are needed?) f. What is the cost of this Housing Program? p.12 g. How should the Housing Program be funded? p.12 h. What implementation and program policies should be adopted? p.13 Occupant Displacement Issue p.14 Section 4: Task Force Recommendations p.16 Section 5: Final Statement p.17 Appendix A - Proposed Ordinance and Resolution Appendix B - Written Testimony from Social Care Facility Stakeholders Appendix C - Program Staffing Analysis Appendix D- GAO Testimony before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, Re: California Nursing Homes (Submitted by Paul Alig, Oregon Legal Services) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July 1997, the Council formed the Community Housing Task Force to address growing community concern regarding the deterioration of some of the existing housing stock in Tigard and a desire to mitigate deterioration and prevent it from increasing in the community. The Council appointed representatives from the rental housing industry and tenant advocates to the Task Force. The Council gave the Task Force the charge of studying the issues and recommending a Community Housing Program. The Task Force decided to address the following specific questions in completing its analysis: • Should there be a codified minimum standard of habitability, safety and sanitation for existing housing in Tigard? (Should Tigard adopt a housing ordinance?) • If yes, what is the minimum standard of habitability, safety and sanitation? (What should the housing ordinance require?) • What types of properties should be subject to the provisions of the ordinance? • How should the ordinance be enforced. (Should inspections be proactive, reactive or some combination?) • What resources need to be applied? (How many inspectors, support staff, vehicles and other equipment/supplies are needed?) • What is the cost of this Housing Program? • How should the Housing Program be funded? • What implementation and program policies should be adopted? The Task Force established general criteria for guiding their decisions on these questions and issues. These criteria reflect the over-all scope and intent of the Task Force's recommendation for the Community Housing Program. The criteria are: • The program should be equitable for all property owners and residents of Tigard. • Specific provisions of the ordinance should be limited to those necessary to provide for minimum standards of safety, sanitation and habitability. The Task Force concluded that Tigard should adopt a Housing Code. The Task Force recommends that enforcement of the substantive provisions of the ordinance be based exclusively upon complaints and referrals and that the existing Civil Infractions procedure be followed for compliance. The Task Force recommends that all types of residential structures, including social care facilities, be included within the scope of the 1 ordinance. To provide the necessary resources to implement the program, the Task Force recommends that one Housing Inspector (Inspector 1) be hired in the Building Division, and that all costs associated with the program be borne by the general fund. The Task Force recommends no specific funding source for the program except for fines collected under the Civil Infractions process. The Task Force recommends that the City establish a relocation plan with the County and other agencies and that a $10,000 emergency fund be established to provide for temporary housing and/or immediate repairs in emergency life-threatening situations. Finally, the Task Force recommends the following program policies: • The ordinance will be enforced and inspections performed only when a complaint or referral is received. • Self-referral by inspectors is allowed when obvious violations are observed during the regular course of business (includes conducting an inspection or driving to and from inspections). • Anyone can complain or refer. Anonymous complaints not accepted. Complainant's name cannot be given out unless complainant gives permission (privacy right under the Oregon Public Records Law). • When a complaint or referral is received from a tenant or the tenant's representative regarding a non-owner occupied property, the City will ask the caller if they are being evicted. If they are, no inspection will be made until staff has contacted the owner or owner's representative. • When a complaint or referral is received from a tenant or the tenant's representative regarding a non-owner occupied property, staff will ask the caller if they have tried to resolve the issue with the landlord. If not, the City will not pursue until the caller has tried to resolve the issue with the landlord (except for serious safety, habitability or sanitation issues). • When a complaint or referral is received from someone who is not the tenant or the tenant's representative the City will attempt to notify the property owner or authorized representative prior to performing an inspection. • If the tenant or tenant's representative has tried to resolve the issue with the landlord, the City will attempt to notify the property owner or authorized representative prior to performing an inspection. The owner will be given chance to correct the problem and call in when corrections are made, within an agreed timeframe. Staff will then confirm this with the tenant or tenants representative. If confirmed, no inspection will be required. This "self certification" process will not be used for complaints regarding significant safety, habitability or sanitation issues. To facilitate this process, rental property owners will be encouraged to voluntary register a contact phone number and contact person so notification can be made. Registration can be part of the business tax process. Owners who fail to register 2 may not receive notice. Staff will search property tax, utility and will ask the complainant for contact information regarding the property owner. At the onset of the program, a mailer will go to rental property owners to solicit their registration. Complaint or referral inspections will be limited to the unit(s) and specific code item for which the complaint or referral is received, or the specific portion of the common area(s) if the complaint or referral is regarding the common area. No inspection will be done of other areas unless the inspector notices obvious violations during the course of conducting the inspection. When called to inspect compliance with previously noted violations the inspection shall be limited as above. Any new violations discovered in the subject areas shall be treated as separate and new violations. Any violations resulting from additional complaints or referrals on a unit or area already under a compliance action shall be treated as separate and new violations. 3 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND Introduction In early 1997 the City Council requested that staff investigate and report on the issue of maintaining a safe, sanitary and affordable housing stock in the City. The Council initiated this work in response to growing community concern regarding the deterioration of some of the existing housing stock in Tigard and a desire to mitigate deterioration and prevent it from increasing in the community. In the summer of 1997, the City Council considered a report from staff regarding the issue. Because of the complexity of specific issues and the diverse stakeholders involved, staff recommended that the Council form a task force to study the issue and report back to the Council. In July 1997, the Council formed the Community Housing Task Force. The general issues which the Council considered are presented below. General Nature of Housing Problem in Tigard: As Tigard's housing stock ages, the occurrence of housing blight and deterioration is increasing. While this is most evident in older multi-family rental properties, similar problems occur in single-family properties. Tigard currently has no housing program designed to address this problem. Tigard's "Dangerous Buildings" code, which focuses primarily on structural or damage issues, does contain a provision dealing with housing issues. However, the language of this provision is ambiguous because it does not contain standards from which to determine inadequacy for human habitation, etc. Further, the "Dangerous Buildings" code is not intended for this purpose and is therefore not administratively crafted to provide for a housing program. Objective of a Community Housing Program: The general objective of a Community Housing Program is to reverse the debilitating effects which housing blight and deterioration cause to a community. At the center of such a program is the housing code, which establishes minimum standards essential to make dwellings safe, sanitary and fit for human habitation by governing the condition and maintenance, the supplied utilities and facilities and the occupancy. Items inspected under a fully comprehensive program cover all facets of habitability. This objective is distinct from that of the building code, which is intended to require buildings to be constructed in such a way to sustain safely, the loads expected and to be reasonably safe for occupancy against fire and similar hazards. Types of Community Housing Programs: Once an effective housing code is adopted, there are several ways to implement the program: • Complaint and Referral Inspection - Housing inspections are performed only after a complaint or referral is received. This approach satisfies the person making the 4 complaint or referral and helps improve some of the community's sub-standard housing. However, this unsystematic approach does little to bring about general improvements and is an inefficient way of using inspections staff. Also, staffing levels are difficult to predict. • Proactive Inspection - Housing inspections are routinely performed at a specific interval. Any sub-standard items discovered are required to be corrected. Inspections are also performed when a complaint or referral is received. A proactive inspection program can be very comprehensive, including all multi- and single-family units or can be limited to rental units only, multi-family rental units only or certain target neighborhoods or properties. Funding Options: Comprehensive, proactive programs require a steady funding source. Options include license fees for landlords, general fund and fines for failure to timely comply with deficiencies noted upon inspection. Programs which target specific neighborhoods or projects may qualify for HUD grants. Sometimes various permits may be required for corrective work. Fees for these permits would cover the costs associated with issuing and inspection and would not subsidize the proactive inspections. Complaint and referral programs are difficult to fund directly because workload and activity are difficult to project. General fund designation is the most practical funding source. Fines for untimely compliance can provide some additional revenue. Models from Other Jurisdictions: Currently, no municipality in Washington County has an adopted housing code or a housing inspection program. Staff is only aware of two such programs active in Oregon (Portland and Salem): • Portland - Portland compiled existing housing provisions into one title of its municipal code in 1970. These housing provisions were replaced in 1993 with new provisions based upon the work and report of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Quality Rental Housing. Portland's program consists of a combination of proactive and reactive inspections. Proactive inspections are performed in three target neighborhoods and for all multi-family rental housing (three stories or higher and older than 20 years) considered at risk. All other inspections are complaint and referral based. Funding for the target neighborhoods is 100% from HUD grants. Funding for the other proactive multi-family inspections is 50% HUD grants and 50% general fund and fines. Funding for the reactive inspections is general fund and fines. Portland performs approximately 16,500 inspections/year and has a staff of 18 inspectors, 2 inspection supervisors and 7 support staff (including 1 supervisor). • Salem - Salem began its program in 1972. Salem's program is fully comprehensive and proactive. All multi- and single-family rental units are inspected every 3-5 years. Hotels, motels, homeless shelters and room and board facilities are also included. 5 Inspections are also performed pursuant to complaints and referrals. Owner occupied single-family units are covered by the code, but are inspected only on a complaint/referral basis. Funding for the program is by an annual license fee of $7.50 plus $7 per unit. Salem performs approximately 4,500 inspections/year and has a staff of 2 inspectors. Salem staff indicates that they are behind in their proactive inspections at this staff level. Implications of a Community Housing Program: The question of whether to start a Community Housing Program in Tigard represents a significant policy decision. Options of program comprehensiveness and funding are varied. A program will impact multi- and single-family rental property owners, as well as potentially all owners of single-family and condominium units and other properties. To ensure program equity, the social and economic benefits of reversing housing blight and deterioration and attempting to ensure that housing in Tigard meets minimum standards of habitability should be weighed against the specific cost to property owners and the general cost to Tigard's taxpayers. Task Force Composition To ensure that all stakeholders in this issue were represented, the Council solicited and received the participation of the following organizations and constituencies: Oregon Apartment Association, Metro Multi-Family Housing Association, Multi-Family Housing Council, Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors, Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Washington County Department of Housing Services, Oregon Legal Services Corporation and a resident of multi-family rental housing. The Council gave the Community Housing Task Force the following charge: The Community Housing Task Force is charged to review the following issues and recommend a Community Housing Program to the Council. 1. How comprehensive should a housing program be in Tigard? Should all rental units (single and multi-family) be included, only multi-family, or only specific units based upon some threshold of age and size? Should hotels, motels and other similar uses be included? 2. How often should targeted units be inspected? 3. Should inspections cover a fully comprehensive list of habitability issues, or should only certain limited issues be covered? 4. Should the program be fully proactive, only reactive or some combination thereof? 6 5. How should a housing program be funded? Should landlords be assessed a license fee, should general fund appropriations be used, block grants (if they are viable for Tigard's situation), or some combination thereof? The Task Force met twenty (20) times from October 1997 through December 1998. The Task Force was assisted by the City Attorney's office, David Sweet (City of Portland), Eric McMullen, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, and David Scott, Building Official. The results of their work are presented on the following pages. 7 Section 2: Task Force Process At its first meeting, the Task Force heard presentations from Tigard's Police Chief, Ron Goodpaster, and Eric McMullen, from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. Both presentations described the problems associated with deteriorating housing in Tigard and the efficacy and timeliness of the work of the Task Force. During subsequent meetings, the Task Force heard presentations from the City Attorney staff and David Sweet, a supervisor with the City of Portland's housing inspection program. The Task Force determined to proceed by addressing the following "decision items" in order, culminating in a full recommendation and report to the City Council: a. Should there be a codified minimum standard of habitability, safety and sanitation for existing housing in Tigard? (Should Tigard adopt a housing ordinance?); b. If yes, what is the minimum standard of habitability, safety and sanitation? (What should the housing ordinance require?); C. What types of properties should be subject to the provisions of the ordinance?; d. How should the ordinance be enforced. (Should inspections be proactive, reactive or some combination?); e. What resources need to be applied? (How many inspectors, support staff, vehicles and other equipment/supplies are needed?); f. What is the cost of this Housing Program? g. How should the Housing Program be funded? h. What implementation and program policies should be adopted? The Task Force's findings and actions regarding each of these decision issues are presented in the following section of this report. 8 Section 3: Task Force Findings/Actions a. Should there be a codified minimum standard of habitability, safety and sanitation for existing housing in Tigard? (Should Tigard adopt a housing ordinance?) The Task Force reached consensus that there should be a minimum standard and that a housing code should be adopted. b. if yes, what is the minimum standard of habitability, safety and sanitation? (What should the housing ordinance require?) • After reviewing several models for a housing code, the Task Force crafted a proposed ordinance that reflects the general criteria for the program. The Task Force used "minimum standards for safety, sanitation and habitability" as its benchmark in evaluating the substantive provisions of the ordinance. c. What types of properties should be subject to the provisions of the ordinance? Listed below are the types of properties the Task Force determined should be included within the scope of the ordinance. For each type of property a summary of the Task Force's findings excerpted form Task Force minutes is included. • Owner occupied single-family: "these should be included because of the general intent of the program to mitigate the effects of blight and deterioration on neighborhoods. Also, owner occupied can also mean owner abandoned, where dwellings are vacant and a nuisance. Some concern was raised regarding the applicability of requirements to owner occupied dwellings and the "intrusion" of local government into this area. It was suggested that an equity issue also is pertinent in this case. If a code applies to a rental single-family dwelling and the landlord must meet certain minimum standards which include exterior issues, then an owner occupied dwelling on the same street should also have to meet these standards. Comments made by David Sweet, City of Portland, at the 10/30/97 meeting were also discussed. According to Sweet, owner occupied dwellings can have issues which expose children and others to unhabitable living conditions. All of these issues confirm the appropriateness of including owner occupied single-family dwellings and the Task Force reached consensus on their inclusion." • Owner occupied condo, townhouse or rowhouse: "the Task Force reached consensus that these should be included for the same reasons discussed above." • Renter occupied single-family: "the Task Force reached consensus that these should be included for the same reasons as an owner occupied single-family dwelling with the additional reason that the program is also intended to ensure that landlords (and tenants) maintain their units in compliance with minimum standards. 9 Most housing code issues stem from renter occupied units, as evidenced by the fact that 80% of Portland's complaints are regarding rental units." • Renter occupied condo, townhouse or rowhouse: "the Task Force reached consensus that these should be included for the same reasons as discussed above." • Apartments: "the Task Force reached consensus that these should be included for the same reasons as stated above." • Motels and Hotels: "It was determined that the intent of the program is not to regulate the `Best Westerns,' but rather those properties where units are rented out in daily, weekly or monthly blocks and are essentially providing the primary housing for tenants, although the sign outside may say `Motel.' Portland's ordinance provides clear guidelines to distinguish legitimate motels and hotels from those properties which are really providing housing. The Task Force reached consensus that Portland's provisions would be appropriate..." • Boarding Houses: "the Task Force reached consensus that these types of uses should be included because they are similar to apartments because they provide the primary housing for tenants." • Homeless Shelters: "the Task Force reached consensus that these should be included, but that the specific provisions should recognize the unique nature of this type of use and not be such that homeless shelters were not viable in Tigard." • Dormitories: "the Task Force reached consensus that these types of uses should be included because they are similar to boarding houses." • Social Care Facilities: the Task Force crafted a definition of Social Care facilities to include group living facilities such as retirement facilities, half-way houses, youth shelters, homeless shelters (see above) and other group living facilities. Included in this category is Adult Foster Care Homes, which are defined as single-family dwellings by state and federal law. The Task Force reached consensus that it is appropriate to be concerned with the maintenance of these facilities. However, concern was expressed that other agencies may already regulate these types of uses through their licensing programs. Further, the Task Force acknowledged that stakeholders representing providers in this category and state licensing agencies were not yet involved in the process. To facilitate an informed decision on this issue, the Task Force invited the participation of stakeholders from the "social care" constituency. These stakeholders were invited to participate on 6/4/98, and the Task Force's 8/6/98 meeting was devoted exclusively to this issue. Additional discussion was held regarding the matter at subsequent meetings. The following individuals were invited to participate: • Sally Goodwin, Director, Oregon Alliance of Senior and Health Services 10 • Margaret Carley, Staff Attorney, Oregon Health Care Association • June Sulfridge, Adult Care Providers of Oregon, President/Treasurer • Margaret Cervenko, Oregon Alliance of Senior and Health Services • Mary Monnat, CEO Tualatin Valley Centers • Brad Huber, Executive Director, Luke-Dorf • Jean Olsen-Meyers, Oregon Rehabilitation Association The following individuals participated: • Sally Goodwin, Director, Oregon Alliance of Senior and Health Services • Margaret Carley, Staff Attorney, Oregon Health Care Association • June Sulfridge, Adult Care Providers of Oregon, President/Treasurer • Kathy Labadie, Oregon Senior and Disabled Services Division • Katalin Ratkei, foster home owner • Donald Nyberg, Health Facilities Consultant, Oregon Dept Of Human Resources • Grover C. Simmons, Representing ACPO After reviewing the information provided by and the position articulated by the social care stakeholders, the Task Force reached consensus that Social Care facilities and Adult Foster Care facilities should be included, notwithstanding other state licensing programs which might apply. Specifically excluded from inclusion are institutional occupancies (I occupancies in the state building code). Additionally, conflicts between Tigard's ordinance and licensing regulations were eliminated with deference given to the licensing regulations. This was done to avoid placing operators in a "catch 22" situation between state and local requirements. The Task Force's determination is based upon the following findings: • Institutional and institutional like uses are beyond the scope of this type of ordinance and the original charge of the Task Force to evaluate requirements for the maintenance of residential uses. • It is equitable for Tigard to include all types of residential uses within the scope of the ordinance, regardless of other existing regulatory mechanisms. • Tigard's ordinance will not conflict with licensing requirements (when conflicts in the draft are eliminated), therefore, inclusion does not add an additional layer of different regulation, but rather a complimentary layer. • Local responsiveness may be an important component of the over-all regulation of licensed facilities, providing for a quick, non-confrontational resolution of issues. It is noted that the social care facility stakeholders are opposed to inclusion of state licensed facilities within the scope of the ordinance. Appendix "B" includes the written testimony received by the Task Force from the social care stakeholders. 11 d. How should the ordinance be enforced? (Should inspections be proactive, reactive or some combination?) The Task Force reached consensus that the program should be a reactive, complaint and referral program. If the need to expand the program arises in the future, the issue of pro-active inspections can be addressed. This determination was based upon Councilor Sheckla's articulation that the Council's goal for the program 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. Proactive inspections are unnecessarily invasive to those properties which do not have problems. After considering several compliance mechanisms, the Task Force also reached consensus that the City's existing Civil Infractions process be employed for this ordinance. If this approach proves ineffective, further options could be explored. Issues for further consideration include fine minimums (should there be for certain violations) and use of a specially knowledgeable hearings officer vs. use of a generalist hearings officer. This determination was based upon the fact that the Civil Infractions process is local and allows for the most flexibility. Additional discussion of other compliance mechanisms considered is in sub-section g below, regarding funding options. e. What resources need to be applied? (How many inspectors, support staff, vehicles and other equipment/supplies are needed?) Based upon staff's analysis shown in Appendix "C," the Task Force determined that a reactive program will require one inspector and accompanying support resources. f. What is the cost of this Housing Program? First year costs are estimated at $81,500 (if a vehicle is purchased, less if leased). On- going costs are estimated at $59,500 annually, plus an inflationary factor. g. How should the Housing Program be funded? Several funding mechanisms were explored by the Task Force. The Task Force acknowledged that it is reasonable for the housing program to be subsidized by general property tax funds because of the general community good the program provides. The Task Force reached consensus that no specific funding mechanism other than potential civil penalties from the Civil Infractions process be explored. Other funding options considered and a brief discussion follow: • earmark existing business taxes assessed to rental property owners to the housing program (revenue currently $5,000 - $6,000 per year, based on $55 per owner- 94 owners paid so far in 1997), tax is currently assessed when more than 3 rental units 12 are owned. The tax formulation could be modified. This proposal was not forwarded because it really does not represent any new general fund revenue. • assess monthly penalties against owners who fail to comply with correction notices in a timely manner, penalties to assess automatically and be recorded on the property. Staff reported that based upon a pro-rata analysis with Portland's data, similar to that used to determine the potential number of housing inspections, Tigard might anticipate $10,00 - $12,000 from this source. This proposal (modeled after Portland's program) was not forwarded due to concerns that it uses compliance as a revenue generation scheme and stakeholder concerns with Portland's application of this process. • assess relatively high fines through a hearing process against owners who fail to comply with correction notices after some excessive period of time has transpired. This proposal was not forwarded because the existing Civil Infractions process allows for the imposition of daily fines. • assess monthly penalties and fines as described above for failure to comply on a timely basis with correction notices from the code enforcement officer (this is an existing program area, the proposal is aimed at generating general fund revenue to off-set general fund costs associated with the housing program - the proposal does not anticipate increased code enforcement activities). This proposal was not forwarded because it was felt that existing code enforcement processes were beyond the scope of the Task Force's charge. h. What implementation and program policies should be adopted? • The ordinance will be enforced and inspections performed only when a complaint or referral is received. • Self-referral by inspectors is allowed when obvious violations are observed during the regular course of business (includes conducting an inspection or driving to and from inspections). • Anyone can complain or refer. Anonymous complaints not accepted. Complainant's name cannot be given out unless complainant gives permission (privacy right under the Oregon Public Records Law). • When a complaint or referral is received from a tenant or the tenant's representative regarding a non-owner occupied property, the City will ask the caller if they are being evicted. If they are, no inspection will be made until staff has contacted the owner or owner's representative. • When a complaint or referral is received from a tenant or the tenant's representative regarding a non-owner occupied property, staff will ask the caller if they have tried to resolve the issue with the landlord. If not, the City will not pursue until the caller has tried to resolve the issue with the landlord (except for serious safety, habitability or sanitation issues). 13 • When a complaint or referral is received from someone who is not the tenant or the tenant's representative the City will attempt to notify the property owner or authorized representative prior to performing an inspection. • If the tenant or tenant's representative has tried to resolve the issue with the landlord, the City will attempt to notify the property owner or authorized representative prior to performing an inspection. The owner will be given chance to correct the problem and call in when corrections are made, within an agreed timeframe. Staff will then confirm this with the tenant or tenants representative. If confirmed, no inspection will be required. This "self certification" process will not be used for complaints regarding significant safety, habitability or sanitation issues. To facilitate this process, rental property owners will be encouraged to voluntary register a contact phone number and contact person so notification can be made. Registration can be part of the business tax process. Owners who fail to register may not receive notice. Staff will search property tax, utility and will ask the complainant for contact information regarding the property owner. At the onset of the program, a mailer will go to rental property owners to solicit their registration. • Complaint or referral inspections will be limited to the unit(s) and specific code item for which the complaint or referral is received, or the specific portion of the common area(s) if the complaint or referral is regarding the common area. No inspection will be done of other areas unless the inspector notices obvious violations during the course of conducting the inspection. • When called to inspect compliance with previously noted violations the inspection shall be limited as above. Any new violations discovered in the subject areas shall be treated as separate and new violations. Any violations resulting from additional complaints or referrals on a unit or area already under a compliance action shall be treated as separate and new violations. Occupant Displacement Issue: An important issue considered by the Task Force is the potential for enforcement of the code to give rise to situations wherein a tenant or other occupant of a residence needs to be displaced to facilitate necessary repairs or to remove an occupant from an emergency health or safety situation. Discussion on this issue included the concept of the City paying for relocation of tenants when a property owner is unwilling to do so and potential resources and assistance from other agencies (County Housing Services). The Task Force considers this to be a serious issue but recognizes that a City relocation program would be complicated to develop and costly to implement, a task which cannot be contemplated within the timeframe and scope of the current work of the Task Force. However, the Task Force recognizes that there will be emergency situations wherein repairs could be effected or very short-term relocation could be provided by the City to 14 remove an occupant from an emergency safety or health situation. Any funds expended by the City in this manner could potentially be recovered as penalties resulting from enforcement of the code. Additionally, the Task Force believes that the City should establish a "relocation" plan in coordination with County Housing Services and other agencies. The consensus of the Task Force is that no full relocation program be explored, that staff establish a relocation plan with the County and other agencies and that a $10,000 emergency fund be established to provide for temporary housing and/or immediate repairs in emergency life-threatening situations. 15 Section 4: Recommendations The Task Force submits the following recommendations for the Community Housing Program to the City Council: • Adopt the proposed ordinance shown in Appendix "A" (includes use of existing Civil Infractions process) • Adopt the proposed resolution shown in Appendix "A" stipulating the program policies to be followed. • Hire 1 Housing Inspector (Inspector 1) in the Building Division and provide inspector with necessary materials and supplies (already in FY 98/99 budget) • Establish a relocation plan with the County and other agencies and appropriate a $10,000 emergency fund to provide for temporary housing and/or immediate repairs in emergency life-threatening situations. • Support all costs associated with the program from the general fund • Apply any fines collected from the Civil Infractions process to the general fund 16 Section 5: Final Statement The Community Housing Task Force met over twenty times during the past 14 months developing consensus on this report among stakeholders from the rental housing industry and tenant advocacy constituency. Representatives from the regulated industry and tenant advocates, with the exception of the social care facility providers and state licensing regulators, stand in support of the program as recommended in this report and are committed to working with the Council and staff to ensure its effective implementation. Therefore, the Task Force submits this report in good faith that the City Council will recognize the value of the Task Force's consensus and will make a commitment toward the intent of the Task Force's recommendations. 17 APPENDIX A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION APPENDIX B WRITTEN TESTIMONY FROM SOCIAL CARE FACILITY STAKEHOLDERS Note: In addition to the written testimony contained in this appendix, Social Care Facility stakeholders submitted copies of Oregon Administrative Rules governing Social Care Facilities. APPENDIX C PROGRAM STAFFING ANALYSIS APPENDIX D TESTIMONY OF THE GAO BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, REGARDING CALIFORNIA NURSING HOMES (Submitted by Paul Alig, Oregon Legal Services)