Update: Watch Monday night's council meeting. Neal Andrews will be introducing a policy consideration to end the 911 fee. The document can be found here. The item is No. 9 on the agenda. The meeting is packed with interesting items and could run late.
THERE'S NOTHING LIKE the mention of new fees or taxes from Ventura city staff to strike fear in the hearts of our citizens. Two-plus hours of testimony and 47 comment cards later, an exhausted City Council decided to table their own comment Monday night on five different versions of a plan to regulate one- to three-unit rentals, which are now entirely exempt from taxes. The issue will come back again on Jan. 12.
According to a staff report, there are an estimated 6,000 unregulated rental units in Ventura. These rentals make up less than 40 percent of the city's rental housing, but account for nearly 90 percent of the documented substandard housing complaints. City staff would like to be more proactive with these rentals before they become severe problems and affect the safety of tenants.
Multiple plans to finance inspections of these units did not sit well with the large crowd of landlords gathered Monday night who complained that adding a business license tax based on gross receipts plus annual inspection fee of $33 would be a hardship. This was just one of five options presented; two required no additional fees or taxes. The staff report can be found here.
The city already taxes four-or-more-rental-unit businesses and inspects rentals of three or more connected units on a property. One- to two-unit rental properties, such as single family homes and duplexes, are entirely exempt from taxes and inspections.
THIS PLAN TO RECOVER COSTS for city safety services directly from those involved went over about as well as the $99 weed abatement fee plan did in April and the 911 fee did in February. City staff backed off on the weed fee and now is considering ending the 911 fee, too.
So how DO you keep citizens safe in these challenging budget times? Perhaps 20-30 city positions will be lost in the upcoming budget process and cutbacks may include up to $8 million dollars following a round of cutbacks last year totaling more than $7 million.
A few weeks ago the chambers were pretty much empty as the City Council was briefed on these cuts. I figure it was only me, the Star's Ventura reporter and a council gadfly or two who were really listening to City Manager Rick Cole's predictions of the upcoming gloom and doom.
It seems many of our citizens only get activated when they think government services may end up costing them more. News of cuts doesn't draw much of a crowd, unless of course that government service is something that directly affects someone. And then they want it taken care of pronto.
Just a thought as I'm not really involved in this issue in Ventura.
Why wouldn't the City of Ventura identify units that ask for little city service and cut those fees while at the same time raising those who use the services the most?
Reward safe with fee cuts and punish unsafe with hikes.
Then, develop a graduated pricing system for the units in question. The ones with the highest use of public safety time and resources, get the highest fees.
Wouldn't this encourage those landlords to potentially take action to reduce demand for city safety resources?
It appears there are two objectives here that are not are contrary to each other.
Is the objective of the fee to ensure the revenue structure is in place to keep public employees in their job?
Or
Is the objective to develop a fee exposure system to increase community safety?
If government solves problems, there generally would be less demand for their services. Correct?
Option 5 would involve transferring staff out of building inspections to do some of this. There is not much new building going on. Then perhaps they could up the fines on these really egregious violators to cover expenses. There wasn't enough information presented on this option.
I believe extending the business license tax to one- and three-unit rentals in option 2 requires a vote of the people, which won't fly.
Doing nothing, which is option 1, would mean that after cutbacks there would be fewer people to respond to complaints and there still would not be a way to be proactive.
Options 3 and 4 would only require nominal fees, which don't seem much of a hardship to me. I think the complaints here were that these folks consider the inspections a violation of their privacy rights.
What is the reason 1- to 3-unit rentals are currently exempt from taxes and inspections? Whose brilliant idea was that? The issue here is that the owners of these units are apparently not keeping them up, and they are becoming hazardous to the renters (if the reported complaints are to be believed).
Venturans at large should not foot the bill for inspectors to deal with the complaint load coming from these units--the owners should pay. End of story. Scott's suggestions above sound reasonable, except that the blog entry implies that lack of oversight led to lack of upkeep on the part of the rental-unit owner. I would hate for a lower fee (and potentially less corresponding inspections) to become a disincentive for good behavior on the part of previously responsible 4-5 unit rental owners.
Make the owners names for the various props around town easy to find. It is amazing what people will do/say when they are anonymous. Avoid the fees and shine the light.
Question, if an inspection is done on an older rental house, what version of the building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, energy, etc codes will be used? Since the codes have tightened over the years, past practices would not pass current code requirements.
Who would fund any upgrades required?
That is an excellent question. One would assume that current code practices would be used but I don't know. The repairs would be footed by the landlords and could be passed on to the tenants through rent increases, which was a complaint I heard a lot Monday night.
Me? Blogging?
In response to application of codes for existing buildings I offer this reply:
I cannot think of any State building, plumbing, electrical, or mechanical codes that, once adopted by a City, became retroactively effective and deemed properties to be immediately substandard. This is usually specifically addressed and prohibited in the administrative chapters of these codes. (See 2007 City Building Code section 102.6)
So, which code IS used?
As long as no new construction is proposed, the City of Ventura uses it's 2007 Property Maintenance Code for maintenance of existing properties. Both of these documents can be found at (http://www.cityofventura.net/fire/building_safety/)
The City also has codes dating back to 1923 that we use as references when we review building requirements for legal construction made in prior years. (How many exits were required, how wide did hallways have to be, were wood roofs allowed then, etc.) The code edition in effect at the time of the legal construction is the standard used.
All new construction and all illegal construction (done without or contrary to permits) is not vested in a prior code and must comply with today's code. Get permits - get vesting. Don't get permits - lose your vesting, insurance coverage, and pay much more to legalize the work - if it is even possible.
I guess that I am a blogger now. Hum, that wasn't so hard. :)
Well thank you, City Building Official. I assumed wrong and stand corrected.
Hope you enjoyed your brief blogging experience. Please visit us again.
Hold the violators accountable with big honkin fines. Leave the other guys alone. Set up a system whereby renters can complain anonymously.
I imagine that the citizens who are venting disapproval of these fees for Ventura will be the first to complain when substandard housing causes property to lose value in their neighborhoods. Now this is a real threat to those who have recently purchased property and have mortgage payments on loans reflecting much higher original costs. Perhaps this is the reason for the ill humor of some? Rents in Ventura are high and families who are renting at a premium cost should be protected from unsafe and unhealthy situations.