HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Staff Report, Rental Housing Prioritization, August, 2005 Staff Report
Rental Housing Prioritization
Process Improvement
Prepared By
Rental Housing Process Improvement Team
August, 2005
Index
Executive Summary
Background ......................................................................4
Identification of Goals and Objectives ..................................4
Process ............................................................................4
Description of Customer Input Sessions................................4
Summary of Customer Input Sessions..................................5
Summary of Recommendations ...........................................6
Rental Housing Inspection Process Improvement Team (RHIPT)
City Manager's Mandate .....................................................7
Applicable Legal Requirements for Rental Housing Inspections 7
Process Steps....................................................................7
Benchmarking & Best Practices ...........................................8
DataAnalysis ....................................................................9
Current Status .............................................................. 10
2004 Actual Inspections ................................................. 10
2004 Inspection Breakout............................................... 11
List of Major Owners .............................................................. 11
Rental Housing Authorized FTE ................................................ 12
Rental Housing Program Budget .............................................. 12
Alternative Development ........................................................ 13
Alternatives with Pro/Con Evaluation
Alternative 1: Seek an extension of the three year
inspection cycle to four years ......................... 14
Alternative 2: Use a self evaluation by rental housing owners
or management firms.................................... 15
Alternative 3: Use a targeted prioritization............................ 16
Alternative 4: Utilize part-time help or interns to supplement
existing staff efforts ...................................... 17
Alternative 5: Utilize the services of a private firm to conduct
rental housing inspections ............................. 19
Rental Housing Priorifiz ation July 2005 v.4 `t 01712005 Page# 2 of 54
Results of March 21, 2005 Meeting with City Managers
Three Consensus Decisions/Goals ......................................20
Detailed Recommendations .....................................................21
Changes Already Adopted .................................................24
Ancillary Recommendations ..............................................24
Appendix
Appendix A ............ Rental Compliance
Appendix B ............ Three Year Comparison of Cost for
Current Registration Fee Levels Versus
Private Inspections
Appendix C ............ Large Landlord Meeting
Appendix D ............ Tenant/Neighborhood Association
Meeting
Appendix E ............ Small-Medium Landlords Meeting
Appendix F ............ Tenant Meeting
Appendix G ............ Emailed Comments
Appendix H ............ City Housing Codes
Appendix I ............. Consolidated Comments
Appendix J ............. Intern Program
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page# 3 of 54
Rental Housing Improvement Team Process
City Manager's Mandate:
To meet increasing workloads with the same number of personnel, develop for City
Council consideration a new inspection program for rental properties that would allow a
variable frequency of inspections based on relative risk. Also, consider self inspections
as a method for meeting our workload.
Applicable Legal Requirements for Rental Housing Inspections
Municipal Code Chapter 13 doesn't specify periodic inspections, but states, in Section
13.8 that a letter of compliance "shall be effective until thirty (30) days after a change in
ownership or operation..."and goes on with "unless revoked for reasons in Section 13.11
which are not applicable to this discussion." The City has had a long term administrative
policy of conducting rental housing inspections on a three year interval. No record or
recollection can be found that the Council has adopted or passed a resolution regarding
the interval for rental housing inspections.
Iowa Code section 364.17 establishes that cities with population over fifteen thousand
must adopt ordinance housing code ordinance that includes provision for"regular rental
inspections, rental inspections upon receipt of complaints, and certification of inspected
rental housing." The Iowa code does not establish an inspection frequency. For a
complete listing of Iowa Code section 364.17 see Appendix H.
Iowa Code section 562A.19 establishes that for non-emergency access to apartments for
purpose of inspection whenever practicable a landlord must give the tenant at least 24
hours advanced notice.
Process Steps
Developmental Stage
1. Identify goals and objectives.
2. Identify data sources.
3. Identify team members.
Team Meetings
4. Conduct educational meetings regarding process improvement team methodology.
5. Start team meetings.
6. Conduct benchmarking and collection of"best practices."
7. Presentation by Jason Van Ausdall of"The Building Inspectors".
8. Conduct all Inspection Division meeting to discuss Pro's and Con's of identified
alternatives.
9. Team presentation of alternatives and recommendations to city managers.
Customer Input
10. Recommend potential alternatives for discussion with customer focus groups.
11. Conduct customer input sessions.
Decision Phase
12. Meet with city managers to develop final recommendations.
13. Prepare presentation for Council (if necessary).
Rental Housing Priorifization Ally 2005 v.4 101712005 Page# 7 of 54
Benchmarking & Best Practices
As part of the process, the RHIPT chose to benchmark or seek best practices of communities
in Iowa. The following six communities were contacted by team members:
1. Ankeny
2. Cedar Falls
3. Cedar Rapids
4. Des Moines
5. Iowa City
6. West Des Moines
Ankeny
Ankeny has used private company inspections for over 20 years. They're in the process
of looking at adding an in-house rental inspector in the next budget year. Ankeny
utilizes two companies that the ownership groups can call to perform the inspections.
The inspectors are required to be certified by the International Commission of Building
Officials (ICBO) or the International Code Commission (ICC). An interesting component
of this interview is that Ankeny is moving towards the adoption of the International
Property Maintenance Code. Ankeny is on a three year inspection cycle. Although
Building Official Jeff Junker reports that they are generally happy with the private
inspections firms that they utilize, there are two drawbacks.
1. The perception of citizens who want a City employee to respond to complaints
2. There have been instances of poor communications between the City staff,
landlords, and the private inspectors.
Cedar Falls
Cedar Falls is on a three year rotation and estimates they have about 4,300 rental units.
They are currently four to six months behind in their inspection efforts. They utilize a
part-time rental inspector.
Cedar Rapids
Cedar Rapids is moving from a seven year inspection cycle back to a five year rotation.
One of the major activities currently going on in Cedar Rapids is the pursuit of
unregistered rental units. They report finding 10 to 20 unregistered units per week.
Cedar Rapids has five full-time housing inspectors and one full-time nuisance inspector.
They could not say how many rental units the community has.
Des Moines
Des Moines reports that they have an estimated 10,000 rental units. They have 16
inspectors involved in rental housing inspections and nuisance complaints. Des Moines
uses a two tiered inspection rotation. Three-plex units and above are on a two year
inspection rotation. Single family units and duplexes are on a three year inspection
rotation.
Des Moines tried to offer a self inspection program at reduced inspection rates. The
option was opposed by property owners and was defeated at council.
Perd al Housing Prioritizration,hily 2005 vA 101712005 Page## 8 of 54
Iowa City
Iowa City estimates they have 15,600 rental units. They utilize a split inspection
rotation where multi-family units are inspected every two years. Single family units and
duplexes are on a three year inspection rotation. Iowa City has five full-time housing
inspectors that handle zoning, rental, and nuisance complaints. They are budgeted to
add a sixth inspector in fiscal year '06.
Iowa City performs re-inspections on life safety or fire items only. No re-inspections on
maintenance issues are performed.
Iowa City Inspection Division tried to implement a program where a property owner was
able to skip one inspection period if the unit had a clean inspection. The rental property
owners objected. The major complaint of the property owners heard at council was that
they appreciated the inspectors' efforts and the inspectors provided them an in between
agent of the landlord and tenants.
West Des Moines
West Des Moines has an estimated 6,830 rental units. The West Des Moines inspections
staff utilizes two full-time rental inspectors. The rental inspectors also are utilized to
conduct building, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical inspections. In West Des Moines,
the Police Department handles nuisance complaints. There is no stated rental inspection
interval in West Des Moines. The building official prioritizes rental inspections according
to the current construction levels.
Data Analysis
Our Target Is A Three Year Inspection Cycle.
The Inspection Division rental housing database report of August 2005, shows we have
11,069 rental dwelling units. This is the total number of single family, duplex, and
apartment units currently registered with this office.
Recent New Units Added
573 number of new rental units brought on line in 2002
29 number of new rental structures brought on line in 2002
336 number of new rental units brought on line in 2003
13 number of new rental structures brought on line in 2003
403 number of new rental units brought on line in 2004
18 number of new rental structures brought on line in 2004
1,312 total number of new rental units brought on line in last three calendar years
60 total number of new rental structures brought on line in last three calendar
years
437 average number of new rental units brought on line in last three calendar years.
20 average number of new rental structures brought on line in last three calendar
yea rs
Rental Housing Prioritization,fuly 2005 v.4 101712005 Page## 9 of 54
Growth in Total Rental Units
11,069
11,000 - - - -
10,417
10,057
10,000
9,639
w 9,434 "
8,913 9,034
0 9,000
8,329 (u
8,000 —
t'c
7,000 -
Jan-98 Feb-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Feb-05 Aug-05
Classification Jan-98 Feb-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Feb-05 Aug-05
Single Family 928 940 941 912 916 923 946 944 911
Duplexes 1380 1398 1396 1415 1432 1448 1437 1431 1414
3-6 Apts 1314 1333 1317 1323 1314 1308 1303 1291 1298
7-20 Units 1609 1892 2003 2128 2467 2503 2725 2947 3100
Over20 Units 2781 2874 3003 3035 3111 3293 3485 3607 4150
Lodging/Boarding 274 274 209 176 150 123 121 156 155
Fraternity/Sorority 43 43 44 45 44 41 40 41 41
Total 8,329 8,754 8,913 9,034 9,434 9,639 10,057 10,417 11,069
Annual Increase in Rental Units 425 159 121 400 205 418 360 652
Net Increase in Rental Units for Last 3 112 Years Equals 467 Units Per Year
Current Status
At the start of summer 2005, 1,789 units out of a total of 10,417 were behind schedule.
By the end of August 2005, all rental inspections are expected to be current.
2004 Actual Inspections
Staff produced reports show the total number of rentals inspected during the calendar
year starting Jan 1, 2004, through Dec 31, 2004, to be:
3,610 = Number of rental units inspected
1,009 = Number of rental structures inspected
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page# 10 of 54
2004 Inspection Breakout
Rental Units
If we inspected 3,600 rental units in calendar year 2004
Then we can inspect 1,800 units in one half(six months) of a year
Then we can inspect 300 units in one twelfth (one month) of a year
Then we can inspect 75 units in one week
Then we can inspect 15 units in one day
Rental Addresses/Structures
If we inspected 1,600 rental addresses in calendar year 2004
Then we can inspect 270 addresses in six months
Then 44 addresses in one month
Then 11 addresses in one week
Then 2 addresses in one day
List of Major Owners
6,029 Number of rental units owned by 35 companies
Major Rental Dwelling Owners (by # of units)
Owner Number of Addresses Units
Tsai 18 18
Lowman 19 19
Gen'I Prop 20 20
Marty 19 23
Sulzberger 8 24
Gaylon 20 26
Litzel 20 26
Robinson 36 40
Larson 8 42
Ogilvie 22 43
Grove 27 44
Newbury Mgmt 33 48
Hall 29 60
Sorenson 9 62
Mid-Land Mgmt 11 74
Cornwell/Frisk 34 77
Lincoln Manor 12 96
Wandrey 9 102
Cornwell 71 103
First Prop Mgmt 15 117
Sterling Univ 12 144
Randall 24 152
Wuestenberg 16 173
Arkae 30 188
Triplett 107 190
Jensen 23 195
Martin 117 262
Friedrich 133 283
Furman 64 293
Dayton Park 17 294
Total Prop Mgmt 42 374
Haverkamp 19 402
Prof Prop Mgmt 92 485
Cochrane 71 593
Hunziker 87 937
35 Owner/Manager Groups 1294 6029
1,300 Number of rental addresses owned by 35 companies
Rental Housing Priorifization July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page;# 11 of 54
Rental Housing Authorized FTE
Mike Fry Rental Housing Inspector 1.0 FTE
Gayle Hornung, Principal Clerk 0.45 FTE
Russ Scott, Deputy Chief 0.20 FTE
Firefighter 0.15 FTE
Authorized FTE Level 1.80 FTE
Rental Housing Program Budget 04/05 05/06
Personnel Services & Employee Benefits $127,257 $133,577
Internal Services 8,598 7,350
Contractual, Commodities, Capital 2,951 4,849
Total Program Budget $138,806 $145,776
Rental Housing Prioritization.duty 2005 v,4 101712005 Page# 12 of 54
Alternative Development
Over the last year, the RHIPT held a series of meetings to discuss alternatives. The
alternatives can be broken down into five major classifications. The alternatives listed
below became the starting points for discussion in the public input sessions.
1. Seek an extension of the three year inspection cycle to four years.
1.1 Extend all rental units inspection cycle to a longer period.
1.2 Extend the cycle for single family dwellings to four years, keep multiple family
structures at three years.
2. Use a self evaluation by rental housing owners or management firms.
2.1 Stop conducting rental housing inspections, utilize self inspections for all rental
units.
2.2 Utilize self inspections for a portion of the rental housing units (determined by
age of occupancy).
2.3 Utilize self inspections for a portion of the rental housing units (determined by
history of infractions).
2.4 Utilize self inspections for a portion of the rental housing units (determined by
ownership group).
3. Use a targeted prioritization.
3.1 Prioritize the inspection frequency by ownership group based upon history of
infractions.
3.2 Prioritize the inspection frequency by type of occupancy.
3.3 Prioritize the inspection frequency by age of occupancy.
4. Utilize part-time help or interns to supplement existing staff efforts.
4.1 Hire a part-time inspector.
4.2 Utilize interns for summer inspections.
5. Utilize the services of a private firm to conduct rental housing inspections.
5.1 Utilize outside/private rental housing firms for all rental inspections including
rental housing related complaints.
5.2 Utilize outside/private rental housing firms for all rental inspections, but handle
nuisance complaints with City staff.
5.3 Utilize outside/private rental housing firms for a prioritized set of rental units, but
handle nuisance complaints with City staff.
R€ntrai Housing Priorifization,fuly 2005 v.4 10,-7/2005 Page# 13 of 54
Alternative Pro/Con Evaluation
The RIHPT and customer input sessions developed the following lists of Pro/Con discussion
items for each of the alternatives.
1. Seek an extension of the three year inspection cycle to four years.
1.1 Extend all rental units inspection cycle to a longer period.
1.2 Extend the cycle for single family dwellings to four years, keep multiple family
structures at three years.
Pro:
Easily implemented
Does not require additional involvement of any personnel.
Is cost neutral
Since no legal requirements or ordinances are in place, this would be easily implemented
Annual requirements for units to be inspected would decrease from 3,800 to 2,850.
A partial implementation of this alternative would be to extend out the period from the
time the certificate of occupancy is issued to five years before the first inspection is
necessary for a letter of compliance.
By adopting an alternative where single family dwellings are inspected on a four year
cycle and multi-families on a three year cycle, we are acknowledging the hazards
associated with living in a multiple occupancy dwelling.
Con:
If a first five years with no inspection alternative is adopted, it only postpones the
problem's reoccurrence. This is in effect a temporary solution.
If a four year rotation is selected, the 2,850 annual inspections still represents a
considerable work load during the period where we are at historically high
construction levels.
By inspecting 2,850 units per year, we will be at the same level of rental inspections we
were in 1998. Since rental housing inspections staffing levels have not changed in
over 25 years, construction levels have gone up, and additional levels of
responsibility have been assigned to the Inspection Division, we will still be operating
at a higher workload than we were in 1998.
Four year inspection cycles make our inspection intervals at the high end of the
communities we benchmarked.
2. Use a self evaluation by rental housing owners or management firms.
2.1 Stop conducting rental housing inspections, utilize self inspections for all rental
units.
2.2 Utilize self inspections for a portion of the rental housing units (determined by
age of occupancy).
2.3 Utilize self inspections for a portion of the rental housing units (determined by
history of infractions).
2.4 Utilize self inspections for a portion of the rental housing units (determined by
ownership group).
Pro:
Easily implemented and administered
Evaluation tools, such as shown in Appendix A, are easily developed.
Spot checks could be utilized to monitor success.
Con:
It is not the age of the occupancy that often determines the number of violations found.
It is more often related to the occupants' activities and the effort put forth in the
maintenance of the structure.
Good data may not exist to make the determination as to which owner or structure with a
history of infractions should receive a high or low priority rating.
This system may work for some owners and/or property managers and not others. The
determination which ownership or management group should receive longer
deferments may be viewed as arbitrary and subjective.
Other communities who have tried this have reported a low confidence in its accuracy.
Rental Housing Priorifrzation July 2005 v,4 101712005 Page# 15 of 54
3. Use a targeted prioritization.
3.1 Prioritize the inspection frequency by ownership group based upon history of
infractions.
3.2 Prioritize the inspection frequency by type of occupancy.
3.3 Prioritize the inspection frequency by age of occupancy.
Pro:
Could be used to shorten the frequency for problem structures, owners, and
management groups
Well suited to the 35 owner or management groups that control over 6,000 of the
10,419 rental units
Con:
Good data may not exist to the make the determination as to which owner or structure
should receive a high or low priority rating.
The determination of which ownership or management group should receive longer
deferments may be viewed as arbitrary and subjective.
Current database application will not handle this type of application.
If process favors large ownership or management groups, a perception of favoritism can
result.
Rental Housing Prioritization dirty 2005 v.4 101712005 Page# 16 of 54
4. Utilize part-time help or interns to supplement existing staff efforts.
4.1 Hire a part-time inspector.
4.2 Utilize interns for summer inspections.
Pro:
Could be used as a short burst to catch up the 1,789 units that are past due
Relatively low cost as compared to hiring additional staff
Very flexible in the utilization of part-time help
By using student interns, we could help reach the Council goal of uniting the community.
Would help the student community become involved in ownership of their neighborhoods
and in the resolution of problems there-in
Con:
Increased cost not in current or next year's budget
Staff does not have additional time to closely supervise the intern inspectors.
Cost Estimates (For detailed cost estimates see appendix I)
Summer 2005 Program Costs
Cost per day for 1 summer temporary employee $131.44
Estimated Cost for 2 summer temporary employees $18,050
Projected Per
Increase in 05/06 Unit
Fiscal Year 04105 05/06 05/06 With Costs
Registration Interns for
Fees Interns
Single Family Dwellings $16.92 $17.14 $0.22 $17.89 $0.75
Duplexes $12.62 $12.84 $0.22 $13.59 $0.75
3 to 6 unit apartments $12.22 $12.44 $0.22 $13.19 $0.75
7 to 20 unit apartments $11.42 $11.64 $0.22 $12.39 $0.75
Over 20 unit apartments $10.92 $11.14 $0.22 $11.89 $0.75
Lodging and Boarding
Houses $11.72 $11.94 $0.22 $12.69 $0.75
Fraternity and Sorority
Houses $60.00 $60.22 $0.22 $60.97 $0.75
Rental Housing Priorifizcation July 2005 v.4 101712 05 Page# 17 of 54
2005 ISU School Year Program Costs
Two part time student inspectors would cost a total of $13,896 per academic year.
Hours Available for a Student Part Time Employee
Start on own inspections Sept 1, 2005
# of work hours per week that 2 PT students work 27
( 12 hours per week per student 6 hours one Saturday per month)
# of total hours per month 108
Employee cost per hour (wages and expenses) $14.30
Cost per week for 27 hours $386.10
Cost Per Month $1,544.00
Cost per academic year $13,896.00
The recently completed summer program added $0.75 per unit to the annual rental
registration fees.
Hiring two part time student inspectors for academic year 05/06 would add $1.25 per unit
to the annual rental registration fees.
Projected Per Unit Per Unit Fiscal
Fiscal Increase in Fiscal Costs Costs for Year
Fiscal Year Year 05/06 Year for Academic 05/06
04/05 Registration 05/06 Summer Year With
Fees Interns Interns Interns
Single Family Dwellings $16.92 $0.22 $17.14 $0.75 $1.25 $19.14
Duplexes $12.62 $0.22 $12.84 $0.75 $1.25 $14.84
3 to 6 unit apartments $12.22 $0.22 $12.44 $0.75 $1.25 $14.44
7 to 20 unit apartments $11.42 $0.22 $11.64 $0.75 $1.25 $13.64
Over 20 unit apartments $10.92 $0.22 $11.14 $0.75 $1.25 $13.14
Lodging and Boarding
Houses $11.72 $0.22 $11.94 $0.75 $1.25 $13.94
Fraternities and Sororities $60.00 $0.22 $60.22 $0.75 $1.25 $62.22
Rental Housing Prioritization Aly 2005 v.4 10/7/2005 'rage# 18 of 54
S. Utilize the services of a private firm to conduct rental housing inspections.
5.1 Utilize outside/private rental housing firms for all rental inspections including
rental housing related complaints.
5.2 Utilize outside/private rental housing firms for all rental inspections, but handle
nuisance complaints with City staff.
5.3 Utilize outside/private rental housing firms for a prioritized set of rental units, but
handle nuisance complaints with City staff.
Pro:
Would free up existing inspectors to focus on building construction, life safety, and
zoning issues
Multiple options in firms interested in this type of work
The one firm that made a presentation was very flexible in its approach.
Private firms may offer Saturday inspections. Many smaller owners or managers would
appreciate an option for a Saturday inspection.
A decrease in costs to owners and management groups may be possible.
This alternative may be cost neutral to owners and management groups with the City
still able to derive some revenue for administration of the program.
Some firms offer an extension of inspecting for zoning compliance in addition to rental
inspections.
Con:
Does not eliminate all need for administrative services within the Inspection Division
Could distance the communications between the Inspection staff and the owners or
management groups
Could increase cost to ownership groups
Financial Implications
In the next fiscal year 05/06, the Inspection Division budget for rental housing as
adopted is $145,776. The majority of which, $133,576, is salary and benefits for the
1.8 FTEs assigned to the rental housing program. Of the 1.8 FTEs, 1.15 FTE is used for
conducting actual inspections and .65 for administrative duties.
By using an example received from "The Building Inspectors", and comparing it to the
rental registration fees charged in fiscal year 04/05, we can see that in some types of
rental occupancies, the cost to the owners will increase and in others it will decrease.
(Please see Appendix B for details)
For example purposes, if we use 04/05 City of Ames rental registration rates and current
charges for private inspections, we would anticipate that our present system would bring
in $411,726. If it were changed to a private inspection program, the owners and
management firms could expect to pay $351,060. The difference of $60,666 could be
used as either a selling point to the owners and ownership groups of making this
transition, or we could keep the transition cost neutral and use the balance to offset the
administrative costs the City would incur.
Without reducing one full-time FTE, the Inspection Division will incur additional costs if
private firms are utilized. The additional cost of the one FTE would have to be folded
into the permit cost for building and structural enforcement.
Remit Housing Priorifizration July 2005 u.4 101712005 Page# 19 of 54
Results of March 21, 2005 Meeting with City Managers
Three Consensus Decisions/Goals were established after the RHIPT met with the City
Manager in March.
1. Short Term Catch-up - The intern option should be pursued immediately. Cost
estimates to be at city managers by Tuesday 29 March, 2005. Goal is to present to
Council by Tuesday 12 April, 2005. CAF due by Thursday 7 April, 2005.
2. Medium Term Program Changes - Produce cost estimates and prepare for meetings
with customers. Present to city managers results of customer visits. This will go
along parallel to the short term efforts.
Three customer service meetings are to be scheduled. Customer visits should include
tenants and two meetings with owner/management groups divided into:
One meeting of managers and a separate meeting with owners.
or
One meeting with small to medium owners/managers with a separate
meeting for large owner/managers.
3. Long Term - What could be developed to reward property owners who work with
neighborhood associations and maintain their properties?
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v,4 10/712005 Page# 20 of 54
Detailed Recommendations
Recommended Administrative Changes
1. The building official is to produce, evaluate, and distribute a quarterly analysis of the
rental housing inspection program. The analysis will include:
1. The number of rental inspections conducted.
2. The number of rental inspections due during the period being evaluated.
3. The number of rental inspections conducted broken out by inspector.
4. The number and list of outstanding re-inspections.
5. A listing of past due properties.
6. The total number of rental units
7. The number of rental units due next quarter.
8. A list of the units due next quarter.
9. Further analysis as requested.
2. All written communications regarding rental inspections need to be clarified to
enhance effective communications.
All written communications with clients are to be a standard form and format. All
communications are to follow the guidelines established in the "Footsteps" manual.
When the rental unit inspection scheduling letters are sent, a punch list will be
provided to the landlords/managers in order for them to facilitate corrective action
prior to the inspection's occurrence. (Appendix A is the punch list)
Inspectors will utilize a standardized form that parallels the one provided to the
landlords/managers. (Appendix A is the inspector's list currently used)
3. The use of part time employees for rental inspections should continue.
The department has moved forward with the use of a summer "intern" program
during the summer of 2005. The priority for the summer full time temporary
employees has been to assist the Inspections staff to address the 1,789 units that
have not been inspected within the last three years. The use of temporary
employees had multiple concerns during customer input sessions held with property
owners and managers. Concerns were expressed about the objectivity of using
student inspectors. Others were concerned about adequate training and consistency
of temporary or part time employees.
As of August 16, 2005, not a single complaint has been received about the intern
inspectors. In fact, quite the contrary, we have received compliments on the
inspections conducted by our interns.
4. Options to improve the rental housing database should be explored. The rental
housing database was written over 15 years ago and is inadequate and inflexible. A
new database with expanded query options should be developed. It needs to be
available to the Inspection Division, Ames Police Department, and Ames Fire
Department. It needs to be able to be queried and modified easily when needed.
Should the analysis prove changes are warranted applicable costs would be a part of
next fiscal years budgetary process.
5. A process improvement team should be established to explore in-field technologies
for use by the rental inspections staff. During the team's investigation of
alternatives, including the privatization of the rental housing program, a private
contractor made a presentation. Their firm uses in field personal computers or palm
devices and produces printed reports to the property owner or manager. The
Rental Housing Prioritization duly 2005 v.4 101712005 Page# 21 of 54
information is automatically entered in their database, thus reducing the amount of
clerical time necessary to input handwritten reports. By updating the database and
utilizing in field technologies, we will reduce the additional burden placed upon
clerical staff to maintain our information gathering system.
6. Establish responsibility and accountability for the rental inspection program.
Consolidate the rental inspections to fewer team members. Use clerical resources for
scheduling and inspectors for inspections.
For the past several years, the rental inspections have been conducted by all
inspectors within the division. By focusing one full time employee inspector and .4 of
a full time clerical employee we can focus the division's efforts. Due to the increased
number of units, additional part time help is necessary.
Recommended Ordinance Changes
1. The frequency of inspections should be determined by the last inspection conducted
and should vary in length from one to four years. The current practice is to inspect
each occupancy every three years.
The resources available to conduct inspections should target the occupancies that
manifest the greatest need. The City should establish a sliding schedule with one
year to four year cycles for inspections. The inspection cycle would be determined
by the results of the last inspection conducted. The history of the most recent
inspection is believed to be the best indicator of the need for future inspections.
Inspectors would set the next inspection date at the completion of each inspection
cycle. The inspectors' criteria for the length of the inspection cycle needs to be
identified and objective. For example:
One year cycle issued for:
Issuance of a restricted certificate of occupancy
Conviction of over occupancy
Fraternities and Sororities
Two year cycle issued for:
Life safety violations including broken doors, ceiling, wall, and floor
penetrations
Repeated/multiple violations of small infractions
Property complaints with verification by Inspections staff of
maintenance issues below neighborhood standards
Three year cycle issued for:
Dwellings with minor violations
Multiple family dwellings without sprinkler systems
Four year cycle issued for:
Single family dwellings with no violations
Multiple family dwellings with no violations and code compliant
sprinkler systems
2. Cancellations and no shows for appointments should count as the first free inspection.
Rental units are inspected twice without additional charge. Normally the initial inspection
and, if necessary, the first re-inspection are free. If the manager/owner does not show
up for the scheduled re-inspection or is unavailable for the scheduled date then we incur
lost time. Failure to make the scheduled time should constitute the first free inspection.
The owner/managers need not incur any additional cost due to this change. The new
Rent of,Housing Priori€iz<a#ion duly 2005 v.4 101712005 Page## 22 of 54
written materials sent in advance give adequate information to prepare for a successful
first inspection. If an owner/manager is not available for the first free inspection, they
can still pass without additional costs on the second free inspection. Additional
inspections are $40 each.
3. All letters of compliance should include an expiration date. If the letter of compliance
expiration date has expired, then the rental unit is not in compliance with the ordinance
and is not a legal rental unit. Failure to appear for scheduled inspections will result in a
certified letter stating the units are no longer in compliance and cannot be rented.
4. Condominiums and townhouses should be charged the same annual rental registration
fee as freestanding single family rental dwellings. Many condominiums that in the past
were apartments have been converted and are now legally registered as individual units.
The City could consider charging an individual unit cost to each condominium rather
than the lower per unit cost of an apartment complex. By charging condominiums and
townhouses the same annual rental registration fees, we would address the issue of
fairness and place condominiums on the same schedule as freestanding single family
rental dwellings.
Recommended Current Year Budget Changes
1. Hire part time employees that are resident student renters. The estimated annual
program costs of $31,946 will increase annual rental registration fees by $2.88 per
rental unit. Expand the hours and periods when rental inspections can be conducted.
With the historic high in construction going on within our community, we would normally
not conduct rental housing inspections during the summer.
Initially, property owners and managers expressed difficulties with conducting rental
housing inspections during the summer months. Summer represents a busy time for
landlords, managers, and Inspections staff that have dual responsibilities for conducting
other types of inspections.
Due to the success of the intern program, our recommendation has changed. In fact,
our description of the intern program should change to utilizing part-time help
throughout the year. Although there are difficulties conducting rental inspections during
the summer, many property owners have been cooperative in the endeavor. Also, the
interns provide us an opportunity to address additional needs within the department
during times where rental housing work is unavailable. The interns have proved useful
on special projects and could be used to increase enforcement of zoning issues.
Benefits of an "intern" program:
The use of part-time staff helps reach the Council goal of connecting our
community with each other and the City government. It also helps reach the
goal of strengthening our residential neighborhoods.
Part-time staff can be used to perform routine inspections.
Part-time staff can make more time available for full-time staff to investigate
complaints.
Part-time staff could be used to extend flexibility to landlords and managers to
conduct inspections later in the day and on Saturdays.
Rental Housing Prioritizafion July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page# 23 of 54
Changes Already Adopted
1. Immediate steps were taken to address the inspection of all 1,789 units with a
compliance date of 1999, or older.
2. A summer intern program started 17 May 2005.
3. An expiration date has been added to the letters of compliance sent when a unit has
passed inspection.
4. All written communications have been reviewed and rewritten in the style explained in
the "Footsteps to a Great Impression." The "Footsteps" manual establishes
communications styles that enhance the delivery of the message.
5. The use of clerical time to make and schedule rental housing inspections rather then
individual inspectors making their own appointments has started.
Ancillary Recommendations
During team meetings, recommendations related to the subject of rental housing inspection
prioritization were identified and are listed as follows:
1.1. The Inspections staff could utilize more help in the enforcement of zoning
ordinances. One possible alternative would be to educate public works
employees in zoning ordinances. This would provide additional street level
observations and could make zoning enforcement more proactive.
1.2. Inspection Division staff believes that the enforcement of junk car removal could
become more effective if conducted by the Police Department.
1.3. Mitigation of neighborhood complaints in the campustown area regarding junk
could be enhanced if free cleanup days were provided during three transition
periods:
1.3.1. End of ISU academic year
1.3.2. End of lease year (end of July, first week of August)
1.3.3. Start of ISU academic year
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v.4 10/7I2005 Page# 24 of 54
Appendix A RENTAL COMPLIANCE
INSPECTION REPORT & NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS
Inspection Address:
Property Owner: Address:
No. of Buildings: No. of Units: No. in Violation: Inspection Date:
Type of Inspection:
Regular ❑ Re-Inspection ❑ Complaint ❑ Re-Inspection Date:
EXTERIOR:
1. Sidewalks/Patio: 7. Walls/Ceilings: 11. Electrical
❑ Abrupt change in elevation ❑ Paint peeling ❑ Improper outdoor wiring
over 1/2" needs replaced ❑ Damaged, holes ❑ Overhead line too low
Broken needs to be
❑ replaced ❑ Deteriorated ❑ Main panel lacks
disconnect
2. Steps: S. Steps: ❑ Openings in main panel
❑ ❑ Water meter lacks jumper Rise/run uneven ❑ Rise/run uneven ❑
❑ Needs guard railing ❑ Inadequate head room
Circuits not identified
❑ Needs hand rail ❑ Lacks railing ❑ Exposed wires
Broken needs to be ❑ Dangerous treads ❑ Connections not in
❑ replaced junction box
❑ Outlet(s) not wired
9. Mechanical: properly
3. Deck: ❑ Furnace unsafe ❑ Open outlet(s)/box(s)
❑ Unsafe, deteriorated Need GFCI outlets within
❑ Flues lack fire stops ❑
❑ Lacks railing/balusters 6' of sinks
❑ Deteriorated flue pipe Light in closet needs
El Place balusters less than ❑ Improper gas piping ❑ P
4" apart rotection
❑ Laundry lacks gas line
4. Garage: shutoff 12. Smoke Detectors:
Range/Oven lacks gas line ❑ Missing
❑ Deteriorated, dangerous ❑ shutoff
❑ Inoperative
❑ Exposed wiring ❑ Appliances need
❑ Open outlet(s)/box(s) independent gas line
Dryer flex pipe greater 13. Fireplace/Stove
❑ House door not fire rated ❑ than 6'
❑ Too near combustibles
INTERIOR: 10. Plumbing:
5. Doors: ❑ Unacceptable "S"type Comments:
❑ Glass broken/damaged traps
❑ Screen missing ❑ Unacceptable "Drum"
traps
❑ Knob missing ❑ Inoperable fixture
❑ Latch/jam split ❑ Spout below level of
❑ Lacks closure fixture rim
❑ Incorrect water heater
relief valve or piping
6. Windows: ❑ Extend relief piping to
❑ Broken within 6"of floor
❑ Pane Missing
❑ Screen missing or torn INSPECTOR
❑ Lacks basement egress
window
M L. Lr) O 0 0 0 0 Ln O Ln O Ln 0 0 0 Ln O Ln O Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
n .4 U) "T00 Lf) oO N N N CO N n F, Oq- O M 07 -b,)- Ln CO Mq, ifr
L O LL Ln Lr O n 0 .� L, � Ln ,� N O m N 0 � M CD 00 L, 0 -'T Ln
N LIJ w y -0 0) 0 O 00 �--� �--� M O r �--� N M .--i n ri N M M +-� N 1 Lr
_ d > G7 mj 'ri N N ,-i .1 iPr ,1 ,1 ifi- Efr isr .1 if} i& iPr iPr iPr iPr ifr ifl- iPr ,1
•- w i3r
a�
II E W a. CL
H
CL _ (AUW
(A L u >' (,
C
M
L Ln d' 00 +1 (N N O m Ln d- d *+ N tD Cn N N N M N 0 t0 O *i 0
O 'p t0 0 0) a) M +-I It +1 I' t
N N O O m r, O w 0 Ln 00 ifr N O N 0) «r
° 3 W45 - n � +-N 0L l0 N 00 tO 00 00 tD N N N Nt N •-I O M t n O D L
LC = 10 C N 00 N M Ln Lr Ur rl � Ln i Q) ,i Ln f Ln .-1 tD *-L Lr *{ C0 � 0)
41'L ur Ln m O Lv L LU - 0 +1 ifr ,--� ,--� iPr ifr ifr N ifr ifr ifr ifr ifr ifr ifr iPr ifr ifr i& N
d E } ' = L. if? - iPr iPr ifr ifr iPr ifr
II M LD
7 � (7 V
LL
L
^ ^ 00 'IT 0 0 N 00 T 0 0 N CO It 0 0 N w It 0 0 N W 'cr 0
W O. y N m t0 M 0) 00 O M t0 00 +--1 M 0 m *-L I- to0) N 0) N It O
N L t fA M �' t0 00 M T M N -4 .--1 O Cn 00 00 n 6lf', Ln N O 00 to 4
(A 41 m W It ifT N � 0N M �--1 M Ln N m O � t0 00 O N N •-I M "T 0 00
L LA w L N +--i {fr ifr if} i& {fr .1 .1 ,-A .1 ri N N N N N M M M M M M M
y L C o U U � if} fPrfr i i& ifr ifr ifr Id)- i& i& i& ifr ifr ifr ifr ifr Id)- ifr
3 °
LL C � o
LL
c w- c 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O OLu O p 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� 41 LO L � Ln O Ln O In O Ln O LnO Ln O In O Ln O Ln O Lf'1 O L!') O In O In
W LC 9 Lv E n 0) O N Mn 0L w 01 .--1 fV In n 1 M L 00 0 • NT tD N 0) 0 N M
LA
d ,i p.j� ,--I ,1 r-L r-1 r-I rl r-L N N N N N N M M M M M M M T �
} n tA IA
CLU
M L•L
O ifr ifr ifr tsr 'Ur ifr ifr irr ifr ifr ifr ifr -Ur itr isr ifr ifr isr ifr ifr ifr ifr ifr ifr ifr
= tD N CO O t0 N CO M O t0 N 00 v O 0 N CD m O t0 N CO N O
C N n O) tD M M 00 O M t0 O0 +1 mom 1• ct tD 0) N m n It N O
i 3 .2 O Ln 6 0 M c1 6 4 CO N tD 1-4 Ln 6 M 00 N tD O Ln L� O M 6o�
U) N
U Ln n 0 � 00 .1 M N 0 T N --I ;T N --IL ;TCO --I Ln 00 00 N Ln M .1
i{r if} ,1 1 ,1 N N N M � Ln 0 t
M M ,T ,t Ln Ln D t0 0 n n N co
L.° 10 L. 0 ifr ifr ifr ifr iPr ifr ifr iPr ifr iPr ifr ifr if} iPr ifr ifr ifr ifr ifr, U)- itr ifr ifr
L 41 LL
0
U) M �
O
U
m aU 45 Ln
C ++ ,1 00 Ln O 00 0 l0 O Ln 0 Ln It N � Ln 0 T, 0 N 0 N 00 00
= U Q E d '_ co M lfl d N n N M n t0Lf) Ln N 0Lr) 00Ln
00 tD M 00 0
O II 7 w D Cn N M M +4 It Ln i 1 00 1-4 N .1 ,-L 1 N *-i 00
i
U Z O
m
Q.
E C w v►
o O p L
L m U NN 1-4
i1 .�-I Ln .1 M M CO N lD M 0
Ei rni1
} mp 41
O U Z
�l
L
t 0 ,1 N M It Ln t0 n CO m 0 L N M t Ln
Q ++ i .4 N M 't Ln tD n co 0) i1 1 ,1 rl I ,L .1 .-I I .i N N N N N N
'= 7
4J
.{y V Ln Ln Ln Ln to Ln Ln a Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln cn Ln Ln Ln w Ln 0
�F 3 41 &1 4- 41 a-+ -W a-+ 1J 4. 41 N 4-- 41 J-d +J 4L a-+ -W 41 iJ 4-1 4� y
N N 0) d � v d N N N v d N N v w N N N
m 7 1 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E c E E E E E
rxw - � mommEmmmmmmmmmmmmmmEmmmmm
K wa E E a ca. aat Lsnnnnannannanat naano.
Q U o L L)`ni m Q Q Q Q m Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ro Q Q Q Q
L Q
X Q M Ln t0 Q n W Cr O [V ch Ln t0 n ob O) O d e rV (h 4 L!)
N 2 Q Q N N N N N
a rn Q 0 0
C. O N N
000000000000000MCM00000m0000
M 0) L. M ifs d- fR fs�O OW ( i i0OO nis f)-
O H It 0 .10N O N0iOMl, N L, n 00
W O C LL C M N ,-- N rl rj if}i&,-i il}if& ifs ifs
* -0 C if}ifs-�� if>
47 > +O+ M ;
0.
E11 La� aU)
~
c
N L La u>-
C
O
NOL- OL,� N r, ,t00 , 0 0 M 0 M N M 10N00M00 'It 0
L
M {f}�j ifPr M lO C� N iPr tPr M if}ifF M ,-i t M 0 I�t if}0 if}iPr 0 id?t!}0 if}
G) O G �, 00 0) CO O O M CO Ln M M n 't Ln lO n
N47 �' 3 +O+ w ifs if} U rt N Ln rl I_ 1 N
if}i&i&i& iR iPr if}iPr if}if}if} i& if} if}
M = 7
crC t7 (7 U
W
'i
O' L ,DNM totoNO t- CONWItOONWIt0 ONO 't CON W
(n a O r, MN0MMMQM .DM .--1w0 "t +--Am0 'IT NCn1l IQ- N0r, mN
3 W � O ,-ip) � LnNOO6 �OM -qcO � 4N000L!) M +-f 6 -,64N000 � M �--1
) m O C:) Lr) r, 0) 0N tor, n -iry) Lo0000NMLnr,, m 1N ;d- 000
� � lA fQ - d qt td' LnLnLnLnu) Ln0 -.01O00r- r- Nr, I, 1, 000000OCO
' W 0 C V i if}iPr if}ifr ifT if)-V+iPr 4f3 iPr iPr ifT if}iPr iPr iPr ifs iff if)-iPr iPr if)-ifs iPr ifs if}iPr ifr
d LL o N �
> ..o
O
J
0000000000000000000000000000
O GC) p y o 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00000000000000 0
w .o O O
U. iUOmnmnnn n n n
O nOmm 1NctmNm0 .-4Mt- 0r, m0NMnO0O .1Nt- m
W m > OE Ln 4
� d' [t � LnLnLnLnLnLnl6IOI 0oi-DoF, , I, I, I, I, I, 0000C000
O Cl .L C.-+ o
} a Ln in
f0 M 1-4 if}
if}iPr id)-if}if3 iPr if}ifs ifs if}tPr V+ift ifr ift if}ift A&Aprif?iPr Apr ifs V+if}iR iPr-b} N
}I
(�
0NCOt- 00N00t- 0lDN00d' 00N00It0l0NCOIt00NCO �a
•G1 I* LnNOORLnMOOO1Or +10J1O 'd' •--� O� IO � NO� L": :� NOrl, U N
O •CO r-q 0 N m m T-A m 0 m N t- N 0 m n00 .1 'I 0mNmm0M �O
D: 1 LnC0 ,1tn00 , 4 't00 -4t- N --idJ- N A IQ- N0It N0mN0mN0M
y, Ln y) 0000O1mm0CC +4 1 -1NNNMMMNt I LnLnLniDiO0NN
L L i -if}4_1_if}iPr r-I ri ri ri rl �-I rl �--1 r-I rl rl ri rl r•� r-I r-I ri ri r-I rl �--I ri r-I
L. LL iPr iPr'AA&iR i+iR if}iPr fPr i14 iR if}iPr iff i&iH-iPr if}1Pr if}if?if}
L } 01
U M
L.
O
W
W
N m O
L
V
* a) 45 41 t0 00 o [t It N O 00 0 .1 I- M I O O) N t�
U Q C '= N0 000N � r) 000000N � � � t- ;I- OONO N
O Ems = ci
C U z
O
N
m C
O y
a o L„ L
E Z i) o >
O m f0 O V *10 -qO0ItN IQ- OOLnOON1-1 .1N +11-10 .100 +100 +-10 L"
C7
U E L
3 z V) Zl-
}
L 0N00O10 *1Nmt- m 0Nm (7) 0 -1NM 'tLn0N00O10 .1NM .�
3- Q C 3 N N N N M M M M M M M M M M It 't "j- d' 't 't "t "t ;I- d' M Ln LnM
Z V v
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m C
Q) L C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
N N N U1 N N N UJ N N 4J 41 N N N 41 N N N N
a E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
t t t t t t t t t t t t t t . t t t t t t.. t+ t t t t t tr
U a a a a ma a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a o. a a a a a
a aaaa a a a a a aaaaa a a a a a a a a aaaa a _M.
l0 n W Q1 O .1 N M V' Ln L n 00 c� O .1 N M Ln n W c� O N M '^
N N N N M M M M M M M M M M 4 4 V 4 V' V' 4- V V Ln Ln Ln m cr
O O O M O M O O O O O m O m O O
M 111 L. 'If {f} O +--1 M It L,D d} if-? N M m 0 O O
LL C = LL = i �� iiT if} A& if? O O O O m O
w (9 - a4) 0 � iPrLn
= L0 a0+ Gl +' U iA-
u E da a
c c
c Lu >. (7 ~
O
L m O m N O M O O O O N N M N 'V• �0 U)(1 M if} M lD O M 0 if} if} if} O M m O -'T N 41
ul
Q C LO d �+ Ln M m m 0) m O n m It 00 n O
a+ M n .--L ,--L ,--i .--i N N N C' rj U
++ c m c {{} if} ifs ff? ifs ifs iPr iPr if)- ifs
~ (,7 m m O y L a) rl c
II le 0
en G�1 O L Aft- +7
LU � � U a
U)
Q c
It O O N m V• O i0 N m It It 00
Q O m Ln M O CO m tD m m O CA{� LU M O iD 'CI- N O N Ln M L m 0 0 N N O m
(A ,N m 0) ,1 M M Ln N 00 O N Ln L, ra M ,T U U 9
d L L. (A L 00 0) m 0) Cn 0) 0 0 0 O O N m M 1:
> lL A7 O i ifs iR ifs if} if)• ifs ,--i ri � ri r-i ,-i ,--i N O Q
y II c U C cu Q ifs if)- iPr iPr iR if? 4A iPr ;, L
c7 u' O o L. w
J p
i+
w c 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 O L. L.Li 0 07 .0 w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 m
41 +' M O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O m O m O Ln Ln
= O
LU m > u E N m O � M � O n M O N M U)1 t0 N (A } N"
O d ._ 0.a:+ 00 m 0) M m 0) O� 0) 0) O O O O O i M 47
i M H LU L
41iR if} if} AA- ifp if} if} iR if} if} if} if} iR if} if} �O N
N _
•� It O tD N m d• O �D N 00 It '�I- 00 � t0 41
O
O c m Ln M O m L,p M i CO L O m m O i 0
Z
O 01 +� N CD m m .4 M LD r+ N N Ln
i+ O - 00 M 0 O M �.O m M I'O m m m O M M C
c N (A L\ m m m Cn 17 O CT O O O n m It ifl
d L. L. 41 , i -1 .4 ,q ,4 ,-4 -4 -4 N N N N N M 111
i O !41 tl1 ifT if} ifr if} if)- ifr ifs ifr ifs if} if- ifr if} tF}
7 �- '01LL M
V M
L.
O
W
41
� L
O
U m � c ++
O U Q E 'c 0 O N Ln u) Ln 0 0 0 O i0 m m o It It 00 It "I-
z
II >
c U Z O
O
N
•L y1
m c
Q O w Ln
Cto 10 i N O 1- , i O O O i , i N
V
U .0U L u
L E O O
R V O L
Z U) cn
Ct Ln t0 N m 0) O 1-4 N M It It 00
Q Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln m 0 0 0 t0 0 m m 00
L ^'
t y.� to Gl Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln n '�
it •E 0 C C C C c c C C C C C C C L
c c
41 U E E E E E E E E E E E E E E r�o
V O anana0-C La- annnn ¢ c' � �
L Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q E
l30 Lin uL�i u i L i Lin � 0 � mm w - 0 m 0
c
c�
Appendix C Large Landlord Meeting
Tuesday March 29, 2005
Conference Room 135 City Hall
3 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
Present: Mary Thompson (Furman Property Management), Gary Hunziker(Hunziker Property),
Diane Borcherding (Friedrich's), Paula Shriver(Shriver Properties), Chris Martin (MPM Inc), Brad
Stehr(Total Property), David Happe (Ev Cochran &Assoc), Curt Stoecher(Jensen Property
Management), Gary Denner(Professional Property Management), Thad Brown (Haverkamp
Property), Todd Wuestenberg (Haverkamp Property), Todd Petersen (Jensen Design Building),
Chief Petersen, Deputy Chief Scott, David Brown Building Official, Craig Hageman Inspections
and Kathy Toms Inspections
Agenda Item 1: Call to Order
The meeting started at 3 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room 135.
Agenda Item 2: Functions of the City of Ames Inspections Division
David Brown, Building Official, gave an overview of the Inspections Division.
Agenda Item 4: City Council Goals
Chief Petersen presented the City Council goals (commercial revitalization, connecting our
community with each other and the City government, strengthening our residential neighborhoods
and developing affordable housing opportunities)to the group and explained the Excellence
Through People program.
Agenda Item 3: Goals of the Rental Housing Program
Chief Petersen explained the goals of the Rental Housing Program.
Agenda Item 5: Status of the Rental Housing Program
Chief Petersen showed where we are currently at with inspections on our three-year cycle (the
Council has not adopted a resolution regarding the interval for inspections, however we have an
administrative policy of three years)and that we would need to do 5589 rental unit inspections in
2005 to be current.
Agenda Item 6:Proposed Changes to the Rental Housing Program
Chief Petersen discussed that six communities in Iowa were used as benchmarks for how
inspections were done as well as frequency of inspection. Ames was in the middle with
inspections on a three-year cycle.
The following five alternatives were identified by City of Ames staff: (handouts provided)
1. Lengthen inspection cycle from 3 to 4 years
2. Self evaluations
3. Targeted prioritizing
4. Part time/interns supplementing staff(2 will be hired this summer)
5. Private firm
Cost effects for each of the five alternatives were given on a per unit increase. The rental-housing
program is paid 100% by rental fees collected.
Agenda Item 7: Customer Input
Discussion on self-inspection: Landlords liked self-inspections with the landlords being held
accountable.
Discussion on prioritization:
Rental Housing Pr€oritization,Italy 2005 vA 10,171200 5 Page# 30 of 54
Would the basis be the track record of the owner/manager group or the size of the building? The
group agreed it was the track record not the size that mattered. That spot-checking would allow
better use of City resources. That each landlord is accountable to his or her own insurance
providers.
Discussion Question: Do you feel newly built units should have a longer cycle before their first
inspection? Group felt that age of building was not as important as the owner/manager or the type
of tenants. They agreed that tenant type was very subjective.
Discussion on Private firm inspections: There was a concern of consistency and not seeing the
inspectors they know as well as the increased cost. The landlords felt they have a good working
relationship with the City of Ames inspectors and do not want to lose that. They suggested
charging $40 fee for first time re-inspection instead of a free one or charging per hour fee instead
of per unit fee. No one in the room favored private inspections
Discussion on Intern program: There were several concerns noted by this group including June,
July and August being their busiest times; the intern's knowledge and consistency. Chief assured
them that it was happening this summer. They would be trained for a week, then go with a City of
Ames inspector for another week and that they can also do zoning and some other work with data
analysis. The interns could be students in criminal justice, social work or public administration.
Therefore, there would be a career incentive. There was also a concern about power going to
their head. They feel that they are getting quality inspections now and that they enjoy the working
relationship they have with the inspectors.
Group Conclusions
• There is not a tie between the age of the building and the condition of the property. It is
the owner/manager that controls the condition, with some realizing it can be the tenant
group. However, it is too subjective to label occupants as good or bad.
• They did not feel that the size of the building mattered as much as the track record of the
owner/manager group.
• Prioritizing must be data driven and start forward instead of City or landlords going back
into inspection records.
• They liked the personal service and consistency of City inspectors.
• They did not like the idea of using Interns
o They especially did not like the use of interns during June, July and August.
o Some were skeptical of the intern's ability to provide same service that receives
from City Inspectors.
• They felt private companies were expensive, could take longer to do the inspection, and
might not have the relevant history and knowledge of Ames codes. They liked knowing
whom they are dealing with as opposed to the unknown.
• Did not ask for monetary reward but realized time is money. They were more concerned
about time as a reward for good inspections
• Why should 80% of good managers/owners be paying for the 20% poor
owner/managers? They felt spot-checking the 80% and inspecting every unit in the 20%
could better use resources.
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page#1 31 of 54
Group Recommendations:
• Use a system of rewards and penalties. Rewards: longer inspection cycles, random
sampling instead of inspecting every unit. Penalties: revoke Letter of Compliance,
charging for the first re-inspection and looking at charging per hour instead of per unit
would work as a deterrent also increase the frequency of inspection to two years.
• Agreed that random sampling must be data driven starting with the current inspections in
2005..
• Some are doing self-inspections now before the City inspector comes. Have 2-year self-
inspections for those receiving passing inspections with every other cycle spot-checked
by the City inspector.
• Do not have interns inspect their units in their busiest months of June, July and August.
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page# 32 of 54
Appendix D Tenant/Neighborhood Association Meeting
Wednesday March 30, 2005
Conference Room 135 City Hall
4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Present: Sharon Guber, Stephen Ringlee, Gloria Betcher, Gary Fox, Alex Gaylon, Barbara
Pleasants, Tony Borich, Bert Schroeder
Agenda Item 1: Call to Order
The meeting started at 4:10 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room 135.
Agenda Item 2:Functions of the City of Ames Inspections Division
Chief Petersen presented the functions of the Inspection Division. He also explained our
problem is too many units to inspect on a three year cycle.
Agenda Item 4: City Council Goals
Chief Petersen presented the City Council goals (commercial revitalization, connecting our
community with each other and the City government, strengthening our residential neighborhoods
and developing affordable housing opportunities)to the group and explained the Excellence
Through People program.
Agenda Item 3: Goals of the Rental Housing Program
Chief Petersen explained the goals of the Rental Housing Program.
Agenda Item 5: Status of the Rental Housing Program
Chief Petersen showed where we are currently at with inspections on our three-year cycle (the
Council has not adopted a resolution regarding the interval for inspections, however we have an
administrative policy of three years)and that we would need to do 5589 rental unit inspections in
2005 to be current.
Agenda Item 6:Proposed Changes to the Rental Housing Program
Chief Petersen discussed that six communities in Iowa were used as benchmarks for how
inspections were done as well as frequency of inspection. Ames was in the middle with
inspections on a three-year cycle.
The following five alternatives were identified by City of Ames staff: (handouts provided)
6. Lengthen inspection cycle from 3 to 4 years
7. Self evaluations
8. Targeted prioritizing
9. Part time/interns supplementing staff(2 will be hired this summer)
10. Private firm
Cost effects for each of the five alternatives were given on a per unit increase. The rental-housing
program is paid 100% by rental fees collected.
Agenda Item 7: Customer Input
Ideas from group: Charge $40 for first re-visit, Provide landlords with inspections check list
Discussion of Alternative 1: Extend the years between inspections:
Group believed that the inspection cycle should be based on the quality of the landlord/property
manager using a deficiency rating system/past track record and then the cycle could be extended
if passed or shortened if they did not. The Neighborhood Association members agreed that safe
housing for renters was important and they were concerned with non-professional landlords.
Concerns included escape routes in older houses and using the appropriate watt bulbs. They
asked about retrofitting sprinklers in multi-family units. Chief Petersen explained that retrofitting
sprinklers in fraternities and sororities would be discussed this year, but not in multi-family units.
Rental Housing Prioritizration.hrty 2005 v.4 10/7/200 5 Page# 33 of 54
As a whole, there was no support for this option. Some were concerned that three-year
inspections were not frequent enough for life safety issues in student housing.
Question: Are the majority of rental programs self-funded? No, for example Sioux City is 80%
funded.
Question: Can the Letter of Compliance be pulled for those with dings so they can no longer rent?
Chief responded that the staff levels are not such that this has been done and our past
philosophy has been to gain landlord's compliance.
Suggestion: Involve renters in the inspection process. Renters are usually a high source of
complaints and we ask them to write a letter to their landlord and the cc City of Ames Inspections.
Suggestion: Encourage Government of Student Body to fund an off campus housing position that
could work on behalf of student renters. The group felt that perhaps the reason the neighborhood
association and student's had grown apart was the elimination of an off-campus person. In the
1970's this position held up student's grades if the landlord had a problem with the student.
Discussion of Alternative 2: Self-evaluations
There was not a lot of support for this alternative. It was suggested involving the renter in this
process and having them submit an evaluation of their unit. The group was concerned by the
training needed to accurately fill out an evaluation form, the level of student interest, and making
sure a resident filled out the evaluation.
• It was suggested that landlords post rules in rental units.
• The group felt that there was an information/learning gap with renter's needing to learn to
be good renters and felt it was the City's job to teach them how to be responsible tenants.
Chief explained that the Ames Fire Department is part of freshmen orientation.
• How would landlords be educated to complete self evaluation forms so the data was
accurate and meaningful? The inspector's would need to do random inspections to verify
that accuracy.
• Felt that if used self-inspections they would not be in lieu of a City inspection but as a
way to decrease man-hours.
• Could be used as a perk for those who have a good clean record of inspections.
Discussion of Alternative 3:Prioritization
The group felt that this could be a reward for good inspections but felt the size of the landlord
was not the determining factor.
• How powerful is the threat of an inspection?Which motivates people?
• If landlords receive a positive inspection and are able to do self-inspections will they
keep up their good record or will they slack?
• Penalize landlords/property owners with poor inspections by increasing inspection
frequency to two years. Reward those with good inspections by decreasing
inspection frequency to 4 years and send out self-inspection forms at a two-year
interval with random sampling.
• Discussed tenants doing an evaluation. Implementation concerns. If GSB funded a
position then they could assist students in how to complete the evaluation forms.
Concerns that students would not be educated/informed. Suggestion to use letters to
inform the renters about the program and then a simple 1-page evaluation and a self
addressed stamped envelope. Felt this would also help tenants know whom to
complain to. Funding for this could come from charging for first re-inspections.
• Increase to a 4 year cycle if"clean" inspection and decrease to a 2 year cycle if
"problem" inspection. Abate the cost for a"clean" inspection while charging $40 for
first re-inspection.
• Feel that the goal is safe rental housing for tenants. Landlords/property manager's
should know the code, know the rules and that ignorance is no excuse so pay the
penalty.
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2€05 v.4 1017/2005 Page# 34 cal 54
• Talked about complaints and 1/3 do not have any basis. Discussion on should
landlords/property managers be penalized due to their tenants? Felt luck of the draw
on tenants. If the complaint is substantiated what role do student evaluations have?
Could be unmotivated.
• The Neighborhood Association representatives felt that it's a renter issue and not
solely a student issue.
• Discussion on property maintenance and aesthetics. Currently we do not have a City
Code on property maintenance, it would have to be adopted by Council. There is an
International Property Maintenance code that could be adopted by Council.
• Discussion on who handles nuisance parties and illegal parking. The answer was the
police department.
Discussion on Alternative#4:Interns
They discussed the City and GSB jointly funding an ombudsman office of off campus housing.
Peer to peer interaction and this could take the burden off of the neighborhood associations who
don't enjoy calling in complaints.
• Shared concerns of using interns: landlords are busier in the summer, educating them
would take time, possible"power trips".
• Shared benefits of using interns: help resolve complaints, do drive bys to target
properties with maintenance issues, look for unregistered rentals, and catching up on
rental units that are behind on.
• We have committed to using two interns this summer with Council approval. Using ISU
students should help achieve a Council goal of bringing the community together;
therefore, we cannot use retired building inspectors.
• Group suggested we consider following a Des Moines procedure: landlords there cannot
evict tenant without a current letter of compliance.
Discussion on Alternative#5 Private Inspectors
Discussion on the cost: landlord's cost would see the most increase with this option and
Inspections would not reduce staff.
• The outside company would have staff trained on our City of Ames
ordinances/amendments. The landlord would pay the company and City of Ames would
issue the Certification of Occupancy.
• This alternative could be used in combination of two and four year inspections.
• This alternative could be used to catch up the approximately 1800 units with the interns
• Concern: this could disconnect the community that we're trying to join together
Group Conclusions:
1. Who does the inspections is not a big issue to this group.
2. Tenant safety is a big concern to this group.
3. This group felt the term student was not synonymous with bad tenants/neighbors.
4. Landlords need to be provided a checklist of what to expect during inspections.
5. Interns will need a checklist during inspections.
6. The group did not support self-evaluations.
7. The group felt ignorance was not an excuse for avoiding penalties.
8. Perhaps it's time for Ames to rethink fees as you've shown Ames to be on the low end.
Rental Housing Prioritization,1uty 2005 v.4 10/7/2005 Page# 35 of 54
Group Recommendations
1. Involve tenants in evaluating their landlords.
2. GSB and City Council co-fund an off campus ombudsman.
3. Do not just lengthen the inspection cycle for all to 4 years.
4. Consider requiring retrofit sprinkler systems in multi-family units.
5. Base inspection cycle on quality of landlord/property management's past track record and
if good extend cycle one year and if deficiencies shorten the cycle. Use a prioritization
system.
6. Charge $40 re-inspection fee for first re-inspection. Would even support reduction in fees
for quality inspections.
7. City of Ames should be responsible for teaching tenants how to be good tenants through
education.
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page# 36 of 54
Appendix E Small-Medium Landlords Meeting
Monday April 4, 2005
Conference Room 135 City Hall
3:00 p.m. —4:35 p.m.
Present: Tim Babcock (Babcock Construction), Jim Zehr (General Property), Lori Sulzberger, Lad
Grove (Grove Real Estate), Mark Hanson (Horizon Properties), Keith Arneson (Horizon
Properties), Jo Bauman (Rainbow Properties),
Mike &Toni Robinson (MTR Properties)
Agenda Item 1: Call to Order
The meeting started at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room 135.
Agenda Item 2: Functions of the City of Ames Inspections Division
Chief Petersen presented the functions of the Inspection Division. He also explained our
problem is too many units to inspect on a three year cycle.
Agenda Item 4: City Council Goals
Chief Petersen presented the City Council goals (commercial revitalization, connecting our
community with each other and the City government, strengthening our residential neighborhoods
and developing affordable housing opportunities)to the group and explained the Excellence
Through People program.
Agenda Item 3: Goals of the Rental Housing Program
Chief Petersen explained the goals of the Rental Housing Program and the City's Excellence
Through People program.
Agenda Item 5: Status of the Rental Housing Program
Chief Petersen showed where we are currently at with inspections on our three-year cycle (the
Council has not adopted a resolution regarding the interval for inspections, however we have an
administrative policy of three years)and that we would need to do 5589 rental unit inspections in
2005 to be current. Benchmarking six cities similar to Ames yielded some comparison data.
Question: Why would interns be used in the summer for inspections when it's our busiest time?
The room was in agreement. Chief explained the need to catch up, but stated there would be
other assignments for interns as well.
Question: Looking at your presentation there has not been a new FTE added in the last five
years, why wouldn't that be the answer?
Discussion on rental housing fees: what fees have been, how fees are used and the cost of
adding a new inspector with wage, benefits, car, gas etc. Net registration fees in the past four
years have decreased. The increase in revenue has gone into the City's General Fund and has
not been used to hire a new inspector.
Agenda Item 6: Proposed Changes to the Rental Housing Program
Chief Petersen discussed that six communities in Iowa were used as benchmarks for how
inspections were done as well as frequency of inspection. Ames was in the middle with
inspections on a three-year cycle.
The following five alternatives were identified by City of Ames staff: (handouts provided)
11. Lengthen inspection cycle from 3 to 4 years
12. Self evaluations
13. Targeted prioritizing
14. Part time/interns supplementing staff(2 will be hired this summer)
15. Private firm
Rental Housing Prioritization,fuly 2005 v.4 101712005 Page# 37 of 54
Cost effects for each of the five alternatives were given on a per unit increase. The rental-housing
program is paid 100% by rental fees collected.
Agenda Item 7: Customer Input
Discussion of Adding FTE or lengthening inspection cycle
• Some support given to adding FTE
• Some support given to extending inspection cycle to four years. They felt if years can't be
extended past four years then consider using fee increases.
Question: Did your cost projections use the same rate of growth? Chief stated that construction
may slow down, however, based it on 12,000 rentals.
• Questioned the cost of adding FTE as they would also do construction inspections and
bring in revenue there
• Discussion on number of inspections per inspector and compared Ames with Sioux City.
The average is about one inspection per hour.
Discussion of Intern Program
The City will hire two interns for this summer to help catch up the approximately 1800 rental unit
inspections. Other duties for interns this summer would involve zoning, unregistered rentals and
rental inspections. Intern qualifications would include looking at their major: community planning,
fire science, architectural, sociology, criminal justice, and being an ISU student. This program
goes along with the City Council goal of connecting our city. Funding for this year will come from
the General fund and funding for the second half would come from an increase in rental fees (.75
cents per unit)The group felt that interns should be provided with a checklist so that it does not
take more time to do the inspection and have uniform inspections. Some felt students might be
more thorough than the City of Ames inspectors as they feel City inspector's just spot check.
They would also like to have this checklist provided on our web site with the web site listed on
appointment letters. They would like the opportunity to provide feedback on the intern program
after it is completed. Suggested a comment card and a synopsis of the summer program. Their
fear was that this would be a perpetuating position. Their other concern was that they did not
want interns inspecting the building they lived in or even those their landlord owned.
Question: Could the interns work on a semester basis instead of landlord/property manager's
busiest time of July and August?
Answer: This year will be during the summer months and will evaluate the program to see if
feasible for school year.
Question:What is your timeline to make a decision on these options?
Chief stated that the interns will happen this summer and that hopes are to finish input sessions
and have a decision in six to eight weeks.
Discussion of Self-evaluations:
Most of the group could see this as part of another alternative instead of as a stand- alone option
or as a reward. (self-evaluation one cycle and City inspector the next) If there were anomalies
then those rentals would have inspections more frequently. Small landlords did not feel
comfortable doing self-evaluations and felt that it would take more of their time. The group also
had interest in electronic interfacing for their self-inspection.
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v.4 1017I2005 Page## 38 of 54
Discussion on prioritization:
• The group did not agree if a new building was safer than an older building.
• Common infractions that the City inspectors find included: smoke detector not working,
over riding the fire doors, doorways broken, holes in drywall
• Group felt that if there was a $40 charge per re-inspection some leeway should be given
as they realize even the best landlords may get a ding for a battery. Set up a system
where less than two dings = $0 charge if more than two dings $40. At times inspectors let
them fax receipt for fire extinguisher instead of coming back out. Not a consensus on
dropping the free re-inspection.
• Those with more infractions should be inspected more frequently. If poor do on a two-
year cycle along with increased fees. If good do on a four year cycle.
• Believe could be fee based as they realized those that need multiple inspections have an
additional cost to them in money and in time spent.
• Performance based once past due inspections are made. Results could have people on
2-3 or 4-year inspection cycle.
Discussion on privatization: The group liked this option the least.
Group Conclusions
• The group did not like the idea of private inspectors.
• The group did not like interns for rental inspections during July and August, but would be
open to using interns during the school year. They wanted the chance to provide and
receive feedback on the intern program.
• The group did not agree as to the safety of old vs. new buildings.
• Most felt the $40 re-inspection fee should be charged for the first re-visit with the
exception of a"get by for free"type pass for 1-2 dings. Liked the ability to fax in fire
extinguisher receipts.
• If the inspection cycle can't be inspected past four years they agreed increase fees for
the"bad" rental units.
• Prioritization should be performance based.
• Self-inspection should be performance based.
• Some landlords/property managers did not feel comfortable doing self-inspections.
Group recommendations
• Liked a hybrid of self-inspections/prioritization based on performance. Could see having
units that would be inspected in two, three or four years based on performance.
• Provide inspection checklist on the website as well as include the website address on
Inspection letters to landlords/property managers.
• Look at the ability to electronically interface self-inspections.
• Use fees as basis reward/penalty. Charge $40 re-inspection fee starting with the first one
except for those with 1-2 dings who would qualify for a free re-inspection. Split
registration fees where the annual fee would be dropped but there would be an
inspection fee. If you were inspected on two-year cycle you paid more than if you were
inspected on a four-year cycle.
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page# 39 of 54
Appendix F Tenant Meeting
Monday, April 11, 2005
Conference Room 135 City Hall
5:30 p.m. —7:00 p.m.
Present: Sue Stupp, Ryan Haaland, Brent Mayhew, Nick Behr, Chief Petersen, Deputy Chief
Scott, David Brown Building Official and Kathy Toms Inspections
Agenda Item 1: Call to order
The meeting started at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room 135 City Hall.
Agenda Item 2 Functions of the City of Ames Inspection Division
Chief Petersen gave an overview of the Inspections Division and the City of Ames Excellence
Through People program.
Agenda Item 4 City Council Goals
Chief Petersen presented the City Council goals (commercial revitalization, connecting our
community with each other and the City government, strengthening our residential neighborhoods
and developing affordable housing opportunities)to the group.
Agenda Item 3: Goals of the Rental Housing Program
Chief Petersen explained the goals of the rental-housing program.
Agenda Item 5 Status of the Rental Housing Program
Chief Petersen showed where we are currently at with inspections on our three-year cycle (the
Council has not adopted a resolution regarding the interval for inspections, however we have an
administrative policy of three years)and that we would need to do 5589 rental unit inspections in
2005 to be current.
Agenda Item 6 Proposed Changes to the Rental Housing Program
Chief Petersen discussed that six communities in Iowa were used as benchmarks for how
inspections were done as well as frequency of inspection. Ames was in the middle with
inspections on a three-year cycle.
The following five alternatives were identified by City of Ames staff: (handouts provided)
16. Lengthen inspection cycle from 3 to 4 years
17. Self evaluations
18. Targeted prioritizing
19. Part time/interns supplementing staff(2 will be hired this summer)
20. Private firm
Cost effects for each of the five alternatives were given on a per unit increase. The rental-housing
program is paid 100% by rental fees collected.
Agenda Item 7 Customer Input
Discussion on interns
• This will happen this summer because the budget allows it, the City Council goal of one
community and the need to get caught up exists.
• Would like this to go on during the school year
• They liked involving students.
o Felt that interns should not inspect their own units (owned by the owners where
they live)
o that personality was important as well as communication.
o They did not feel that age but, power, bias were concerns.
• They suggested having interns work non-traditional hours; 3-7pm during the week or
Saturdays.
Re ntaJ Housing Prioritization duty 2005 v.4 101712005 Page# 40 of 54
Discussion on lengthening inspection cycle
• This group was not in favor of lengthening the cycle 5, 6 or 7 years. Their concern was
that multi family should have a shorter inspection cycle than a single family.
• The group stated that by itself as an option lengthening the cycle from 3 to 4 years is not
unreasonable, but other options may be better.
• Use the 4-year cycle as a reward for landlords/property managers with a good track
record.
Question: What determines whether a rental passes or fails?
Answer: The minimum housing standards are the safety guidelines. Items looked include
stairwell, staircase, smoke detectors/alarm/extinguisher, windows, and locks. Do not look at
aesthetics but are concerned with rubbish, old appliances;we are concerned for tenants' safety.
Question: New buildings must follow the 2003 IBC and 2003 IRC so wouldn't they already be at
safety standards?
Answer: Yes, and when a new building is completed an inspection is done to issue a Certificate of
Occupancy but a rental inspection is not done until the building is three years old.
Question:Would you as tenants have a problem skipping one rental cycle inspection and instead
inspecting new buildings at 6 years?
Answer: The ownership group is more important than the age of the building. One tenant stated
living in a new building currently but did not think the quality was good.
Discussion on self-evaluation
This is not their first choice as it's hard to verify, hard to collect accurate data and would take
more time.
This group was skeptic on the landlord's ability to be honest. They felt the only way this would
work would be with sampling and then wondered what the acceptable margin of error would be.
They suggested having the tenant(s)do the evaluation. Which led to questions as to whether all
tenants would take the time, would they be vindictive? Chief Petersen stated that when the City
does surveys only about 20% are returned. He also stated landlords were not very receptive of
tenants completing evaluations. Suggestion was to compare results which would add a step to
the process instead of streamlining the process.
Discussion on prioritization
This could be done by building type or building age. They felt that it should be done by the results
of your next inspection. If good reward with 4 years, if poor down to 2 and if average keep at 3
years. The 2, 3,4 year cycles would be an incentive to focus on life safety.
Discussion on privatization
The group said no. Discussed cost sharing the savings with the landlords if there was any. Chief
Petersen shared that the landlords did not favor this option.
Question to tenants: Why did you rent the place you live at now?
Answers: Location, price, number of roommates, upkeep.
Discussion on ombudsman: This group did not like. They want to keep private and school life
separate. They currently use legal services. Their suggestion was to hold a workshop showing
how to be a good apartment dweller and how to select the appropriate living space for you.
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page# 41 cat 54
Group Conclusions:
• Did not favor self-inspections
• Look at expanding interns throughout school year as well as non-traditional inspection
hours
• Use inspection cycle as reward/punishment.
• Adding an additional FTE was second choice to using interns
• Oppose university playing a role ie the ombudsman
• Felt multi-family needed shorter inspection cycles than single-family residences.
• Some concern that landlords/property managers are only in compliance during the
inspection.
• They did not feel that ISU interns would have a bias, they would be able to communicate
with landlords/property managers, would not be intimidated and their age would not be a
factor.
Group Recommendations
• Combine prioritization with interns.
• Extend inspection cycle to 4 year for good units, leave at 3 for okay units and decrease to
2-year cycle for poor units.
• Use interns during the school year and use non-traditional inspection hours like 3-7 p.m.
during the week and Sat. inspections
Rental Housing Prioritization Judy 2005 v.4 101712005 Page## 42 of 54
Appendix G
Emailed Comments:
Sharon Gruber:
Sorry I haven't gotten back to you, Clint. I have to
take care of a health concern right now, but please
understand that the many previous years of
"encouraging" landlords, managers, tenants to "do the
right thing" only resulted in very temporary
"abatements" until the inspector left. The recent
enforcement of city codes has resulted in continual
compliance by most. What I'm saying is, whatever your
recommendation to City Council, do not reduce the
level of enforcement regarding initiating
inspections/consequences including denial/removal of
Letter of Compliance and fines. Thank you, Sharon
Guber
Lad Grove:
I had to leave the meeting early, so did not get to express my
thoughts.
First I think that the concept of having student interns from ISU to do
inspections is a bad idea. It is good public relations, but terribly
inefficient. You will have to train the interns, then you will have to
supervise them to get consistency, and about the time they become
dependable and proficient they will be gone and you will start the
process over. You would be much better off, if you hired permanent
part time persons to do the extra inspections on an as needed basis.
There are an abundance of semi-retired or under employed qualified
persons in this town that would do that kind of work for $10 to $15
dollars per hour and you would not have to pay them insurance benefits,
vacation pay, etc. It is a much better solution to your problem.
The time period for inspections should be spred to 4 or 5 years between
routine inspections. Complaints and Property transfers will generate
additional inspections and will probably alert you to the properties
that need more frequent inspections.
You said that your inspectors, inspect about one property per hour.
That is a very low performance rate. When we inspect my properties, we
inspect them all in about 3 hours, so that is about 12-14 per hour.
Inspections are like every type of work, efficiency depends on the
personel and the expectations of the boss.
It would seem to me that the reason that Rental Housing Inspections was
put under the jurisdiction of the Fire Department is so that you can
utilize some of the on duty firemen at the fire station as inspectors.
They should be able to do the inspections, instead of playing cards and
watching TV. They are already on the payroll, so they can perform the
additional function without any additional expense to the city. Many
of them already have side jobs of businesses that they work at on their
two days off.
Rental Hoijsing Prioritization,/city 2005 v.4 10/7/2005 Page# 43 of 54
Appendix H
364.17 City housing codes.
1. A city with a population of fifteen thousand or more may adopt by ordinance the
latest version of one of the following housing codes before January 1, 1981:
a. The uniform housing code promulgated by the international conference of
building officials.
b. The housing code promulgated by the American public health association.
c. The basic housing code promulgated by the building officials conference of
America.
d. The standard housing code promulgated by the southern building code congress
international.
e. Housing quality standards promulgated by the United States department of
housing and urban development for use in assisted housing programs.
2. Every city with a population of fifteen thousand or more which has not adopted
another housing code under this section by January 1, 1981, is subject to and shall
be considered to have adopted the uniform housing code promulgated by the
International Conference of Building Officials, as amended to January 1, 1980. A city
which reaches a population of fifteen thousand, as determined after July 1, 1980,
has six months after such determination to comply with this section.
3. A city which adopts or is subject to a housing code under this section shall adopt
enforcement procedures, which shall include a program for regular rental
inspections, rental inspections upon receipt of complaints, and certification of
inspected rental housing, and may include but are not limited to the following:
a. A schedule of civil penalties or criminal fines for violations.
b. Authority for the issuance of orders requiring violations to be corrected within a
reasonable time.
c. Authority for the issuance of citations pursuant to sections 805.1 to 805.5 upon
a failure to satisfactorily remedy a violation.
d. Authority, if other methods have failed, for an officer to contract to have work
done as necessary to remedy a violation, the cost of which shall be assessed to the
violator and constitute a lien on the property until paid.
e. An escrow system for the deposit of rent which will be applied to the costs of
correcting violations.
f. Mediation of disputes based upon alleged violations.
g. Injunctive procedures.
The enforcement procedures shall be designed to improve housing conditions
rather than to displace persons from their homes.
h. Authority by ordinance to provide that no rent shall be recoverable by the owner
or lessee of any dwelling which does not comply with the housing code adopted by
the city until such time as the dwelling does comply with the housing code adopted
by the city.
4. A city which is subject to the uniform housing code or which adopts another
housing code under this section may provide reasonable variances for existing
structures which cannot practicably meet the standards in the code but are not
unsafe for habitation.
5. Cities may establish reasonable fees for inspection and enforcement procedures.
6. Cities with populations of less than fifteen thousand may comply with this
section.
7. A city may adopt housing code provisions which are more stringent than those in
the model housing code it adopts or to which it is subject under this section.
[C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, § 6327 - 6451; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, §413.1 - 413.125;
C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, §413.1 - 413.11, 413.13 - 413.125; C81, §364.17]
83 Acts, ch 101, §81
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v,4 101712005 Page## 44 of 54
Appendix I
Consolidated Report of Customer Input Sessions Regarding Prioritization of Rental Housing
Inspections
Four Meetings Were Conducted:
Large Landlord/Manager Group Tuesday March 29, 2005
Tenant/Neighborhood Association Group Wednesday March 30, 2005
Small-Medium Landlords Group Monday April 4, 2005
Tenant Group Monday April 11, 2005
Five Alternatives Were Presented:
1. Lengthen the rental inspection cycle to four years (possibly longer).
2. Utilize self evaluations conducted by the landlord or manager.
3. Targeted prioritization of inspections.
a. By age of structure
b. By type of construction
c. By type of occupancy
d. By ownership group
e. By history of previous inspections
4. Utilize part-time interns to supplement inspection staff
5. Utilize a private firm to replace all or part of the rental inspection services provided by the City.
Rental Housing Prioritization Judy 2005 u.4 101712005 Page#45 of 54
Consolidated Comments
Alternative 1: Lengthen the rental inspection cycle to four years (possibly longer).
Comments from large landlord/manager group:
This group would support lengthening the time between inspections. A four or five year inspection
cycle is acceptable to this group.
Comments from tenant/neighborhood association group:
This group believed that the inspection cycle should be based on the quality of the
landlord/property manager. They suggest using a deficiency rating system or past track record
when deciding what cycle should be used. The cycles could be extended for a good inspection
record and shortened to two years for a poor inspection record.
There was no support for the option of extending the inspection cycle from this group. Some
expressed a concern that three years was too long.
Comments from small-medium landlords group:
Some support was expressed for adding an additional full-time employee to the rental inspection
effort.
Some support was expressed for extending the inspection cycle to four years.
Lengthening the inspection cycle should be tied to the history of past inspections and may be
supplemented by the use of self inspections. Spot checking during the mid cycle could determine
whether a complete check should be made.
Comments from tenant group:
This group does not favor lengthening the inspection cycle.
The concern was expressed that multi-family units should have a shorter inspection cycle than
single-family units.
Some support was expressed for lengthening the inspections cycle from three to four years
conditional upon sampling or self-evaluations being a part of the extensions. They expressed that
there are better alternatives than lengthening the inspections cycle.
Rental Housing Pi brlfi zatlo n.July 2005 v.4 1017,12005 Page#46 of 54
Alternative 2: Utilize self evaluations conducted by the landlord or manager.
Comments from large landlord/manager group:
The landlords like self inspections with the landlords being held accountable.
The group agreed it was the track record, not the size of the ownership group, that matters.
Spot checking would allow better use of City resources.
The age of the building is not as important as the owner/manager group.
The type of tenancy is not a good predictor of the need for inspections.
Relying on the type of tenant will be very subjective.
This group did not like the idea of renters being able to fill out self inspections.
Comments from tenant/neighborhood association group:
There was a lot of support for this alternative if the renter had a role in the process.
The group was concerned about the necessity of training needed to accurately fill out an
evaluation form since renters do not understand the City ordinances.
There was concern about the level of student interest in making sure the occupant was the one
filling out the form.
This group does not support self evaluations by owners/managers.
This group advocated a reasonable rate increase such as $6/unit/year to fund an additional FTE.
Comments from small-medium landlords group:
There is considerable doubt about the effectiveness of self inspections.
Small landlords did not feel comfortable doing self evaluations in that they do not know the codes.
Small landlords feel that it will take more time for them to conduct self inspections than to assist a
City inspector.
Comments from tenant group:
Concerns were brought forward regarding difficulties in verifying the data, the collection of
accurate data, and that this alternative would actually take more time.
The group was skeptical on the landlords' ability to be honest.
Self evaluations would have to be spot checked.
Suggestions were made to have both renters and landlords fill out self evaluations and then for
Inspections staff to compare the results. Concerns were expressed about the difficulty of
conducting this and the amount of time that it would consume.
Rental Housing Prioritization,July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page#47 of 54
Alternative 3: Targeted prioritization of inspections.
Comments from large landlord/manager group:
Large landlords would choose, as the basis for prioritization, the track record of the
owner/management group.
There is not a tie between the age of the building and the condition of the property. It is the
owner/manager that controls the condition with some influence being from the tenant group. It is
too subjective to label occupants as good or bad. The type of tenant should not dictate the length
of the inspection cycle.
If prioritization is used, it must be data driven and start forward instead of the City or the landlords
going back to their inspection records.
This group did not ask for a monetary reward but realized time is money. They are more
interested in reducing their time commitment as a reward for previously good inspection records.
Comment "Why should 80% of good managers/owners be paying for the 20% poor
managers/owners?"
They felt spot checking of good managers/owners and inspecting every unit in poorly managed
addresses was a possible solution.
They recommended using a system of rewards and penalties. The rewards should be longer
inspection cycles and random sampling instead of inspecting every unit.
Another recommendation may be to use a combination of self inspections every two years and
spot inspections every four years unless spot inspections reveal problems warranting inspection of
all units.
Comments from tenant/neighborhood association group:
Penalize landlords/managers with poor inspection records by increasing the frequency to two
years. Reward those with good inspections by decreasing the inspection frequency to four years.
Then send out self inspection forms at two year intervals with random sampling.
Abate the cost for a clean inspection while charging $40 for the first re-inspections.
Comments from small-medium landlords group:
The group did not agree that a new building is safer than an older building.
If a charge to conduct re-inspections is implemented, some leeway should be given as even the
best landlords may get a ding for a battery.
A two to four year span for rental inspections based upon the history of the building would be
supported by this group.
Owner/managers on a two year cycle should be charged a higher rate than persons on a three or
four year cycle.
Comments from tenant group:
Prioritization could be done by building type or building age.
They felt the best method was a two to four year cycle dependent upon the previous inspection
results.
Rental Housing Prioritization.July 2005 vA 10/7/200.5 Page#48 of 54
Alternative 4: Utilize part-time interns to supplement inspection staff
Comments from large landlord/manager group:
Several concerns were noted by this group regarding the use of interns. Of special concern was
the use of interns during their busy time of the year in June, July, and August.
Concerns were expressed about the interns' knowledge and consistency.
Concern was expressed about power going to their heads.
They feel they are getting quality inspections now and they enjoy the working relationship they
have with the City's inspectors.
No one from this group expressed any support for the use of interns.
Comments from tenant/neighborhood association group:
There were a couple landlords represented in this group who expressed that they are busier
during the summer.
Educating the interns will take time.
There are concerns about the possibility of"power trips" by student interns.
Overall, this group could see the use of interns during the school year if properly educated, and if
good supervision was in place. Moderate to strong support for the use of interns was expressed.
Interns will need a checklist during inspections
Comments from small-medium landlords group:
This group felt that interns should be provided with a checklist. This would reduce time needed for
the intern to conduct the inspection and help consistency.
Some thought that interns may be more thorough and take more time than an experienced City
inspector.
This group would like to have an opportunity to provide feedback on the intern program.
Although some support for an intern program was expressed as a temporary way of catching up,
this group does not want to see it long term.
Interns should not be allowed to inspect units they live in or other units owned by their landlords.
Comments from tenant group:
The use of interns was this groups best alternative. The second option would be adding
employees to the City staff.
Suggested that the intern program be conducted during the school year.
Strongly supported involving students in rental housing inspections.
Felt that interns should not inspect their own rental units or those of the owner's where they rent.
Felt that the interns' personality was important, as well as, good communication skills. They do
not fear any age bias or age related problems, but are concerned about the interns' use of their
powers or the interns starting with a bias.
They suggested having interns work non-traditional hours; for instance, 3-7 PM during the week
and on Saturdays.
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 vA 101"Tt200 5 Page#i 49 of 54
Alternative 5: Utilize a private firm to replace all or part of the rental inspection services
provided by the City.
Comments from large landlord/manager group:
The large landlord group was concerned with consistency.
They were concerned about losing the relationship and not seeing the inspectors they have grown
to know.
They were worried about costs rising in the future (no guarantees of future cost control).
Several landlords felt they have a good working relationship with the City of Ames inspectors and
do not want to lose that.
They suggested charging a $40 fee for first time re-inspection.
No one from this group favored private inspections.
Based upon experiences from some in this group in other communities, they felt that private
companies were expensive and could take longer to do the inspection. There was a concern that
firms will low ball their way into the community and increase rates later. Support was expressed
for the low rental registration rates that exist currently in this city.
Comments from tenant/neighborhood association group:
This method could disconnect the community that we are trying to join together.
This alternative could be used to catch up the approximately 1800 unit inspections we are behind.
Who does the inspections is not a big issue to this group.
Comments from small-medium landlords group:
This group does not want a private company.
Private companies increase the cost for rental inspections of single-family units and small
apartment buildings.
Comments from tenant group:
This group did not like the idea of using a private company. Thought this type of program was in
need of an official enforcement agent.
Renta/Housing Ptiorifization July 2005 v.4 10/7/200 z Page 4 50 of 54
Ideas Generated in the Group Meetings
1. Do away with the free re-inspection and charge if re-inspections are necessary. This could
possibly be on a sliding scale, where if there was only one item to re-inspect, nothing was
charged; but, if there are two or three, a $30-$40 charge would occur.
2. A letter of compliance should be revoked if units are failing inspections. This could be done for
some degree of severity, repeated failure to pass inspections, and/or repeated complaints.
3. A cooperative position should be established at ISU to fund an ombudsman position for off-
campus housed students. Possibly this could be joint funded through ISU, Government of
Study Body, and the City of Ames rental inspection program.
4. Post on the Inspection Division's area on the City's web site the checklist for rental inspections
form.
5. Interns could work non-traditional hours; for instance, 3-7 PM during the week and on
Saturdays.
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v.4 101712005 Purge#51 of 54
Appendix J
Public Works has provided us a framework to cost estimate the program. Public Works'
temporary employees are paid the standard $0.26 per mile and provide their own transportation.
Hourly wages range between $11 and $13 per hour. Table 1 represents the cost per day for an
intern:
Salary and Mileage Costs Per Intern Per Day
Average Number of Miles per day 40
Cost Per Mile for Mileage $ 0.26
Expenses for Mileage Per Day $ 10.40
Hourly Rate $13.00 $ 12.00
FICA (6.2%) 0.81 $ 0.74
Medicare (1.45%) 0.19 $ 0.17
Worker's Comp (1%) 0.13 $ 0.12
$14.13 Per Hour
# of Hours Paid Per Day 8 8
Salary Per Day $113.04 $ 96.00
Vehicle Expenses Per Day $ 10.40 $ 10.40
Total Variable Costs Per Intern Per Day $ 131.44 $ 114.40
Estimated cost per hour $14.30
Summer 2005 Temporary Employee Costs
The ISU academic calendar allows us to calculate an estimate of 66 available work days for each
intern:
Number of Workdays Available for a Summer Intern
Start May 16, 2005
Training 5 days 5
Start on own inspections May 23, 2005
# of work days in May (May 23 to May 31) 6
# of Work Days in June 22
# of Work Days in July 20
# of Work Days in August (ends August 17th) 13
School resumes 22 August
# of days inspecting 61
# of days on payroll 66
By first establishing the goal for the number of inspections we want to accomplish we can move
to the calculation of the number of interns necessary. Second, we need to estimate the average
number of inspections we can expect per day. The number of inspections per day is affected by
factors including: the owner/managers' preparations and maintenance program, the type of
structures, and the proximity of the units. Since we have a wide variation in the number of units
inspected per day, a range was developed. Table 3 shows that we expect a summer intern to
inspect somewhere in the range of 800 to 1,160 units.
Table 3 Low Medium High
Average Number of Units Inspected Per Day 13 16 19
# of days inspecting 61 61 61
# of Inspections Completed 793 976 1159
# of Inspectors to complete 2000 Inspections 2.5 2.0 1.7
Rental Housing Prioritization July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page#52 of 54
# of Inspectors to complete 3000 Inspections 3.8 3.1 2.6
The current estimate of 11,069 units means during an average year 3,689 units need to be
inspected. In 2004, 3,600 units were inspected. Rental records show 1,789 units were overdue
for inspections at the start of summer 2005.
5,478 = Number of rental units required to be inspected in 2005 to catch-up to three year cycle
(3,689 units due in 2005 + 1,789 units past due = 5,589).
Several factors are influencing the Inspection Division's abilities to conduct rental inspections.
Construction levels in the City remain at historic highs. By committing to a dedicated plans
examiner, less time is available for inspections. Revenue levels are exceeding projections. A goal
of interns conducting a minimum of two thousand summer inspections was recommended. As
such, a two intern program would fit into the center of Table 3 projections.
Table 4 shows the estimated cost for a two intern summer program:
Startup Costs $400
Cell Phones ( $50/month, 3 month rental) $150
Salary and Mileage Costs Per Intern Per Day $131
Number of Paid Days 66
Number of Interns 2
Total for 2 Interns for Summer $18,050
One option to pay for this intern program would be to utilize the increase in current year revenues
to offset current year expenses. Program costs incurred after 1 July, 2005, can be included in the
fiscal year 05/06 rental housing registration fees.
Table 5 shows current year revenue projections:
04/05 04/05 YTD 03/04 04/05 Revenue
Adopted YTD Adjusted Increase
Fire Department $1,082,875 $817,752 $768,749 $1,074,828 -$8,047
Building Safety $752,171 $518,070 $502,019 $897,992 $145,821
Health $39,580 $31,166 $30,118 $39,580 $0
$1,874,626 $1,366,988 $1,300,886 $2,012,400 $137,774
Since startup costs occurred in the last fiscal year, and one half of the 66 day intern work period
occurs in each fiscal year, The estimated costs follow:
Fiscal Year 04/05 $9,225
Fiscal Year 05/06 8,825
Total $18,050
The $8,850 was added to the 05/06 rental registration fees. If the growth in units continues as
expected and 400 additional units come on line, the rental rates will show only a slight increase.
This pilot program has both great aspects and some anticipated issues.
On the Pro side:
The program helps facilitate the Council's goals.
It provides fast relief to the continued growth of past due inspections.
It is relatively low cost to other identified alternatives.
On the issues side:
Rr nial Housing Prioritization July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page#53 of 54
It has many assumptions.
Some owner/managers may not want summer inspections.
Some inspections will need to occur prior to the actual month in which their three year
rotation falls.
Projected Per
Increase in 05/06 Unit
Fiscal Year 04/05 05/06 05/06 With Costs
Registration Interns for
Fees Interns
Single Family Dwellings $16.92 $17.14 $0.22 $17.89 $0.75
Duplexes $12.62 $12.84 $0.22 $13.59 $0.75
3 to 6 unit apartments $12.22 $12.44 $0.22 $13.19 $0.75
7 to 20 unit apartments $11.42 $11.64 $0.22 $12.39 $0.75
Over 20 unit apartments $10.92 $11.14 $0.22 $11.89 $0.75
Lodging and Boarding
Houses $11.72 $11.94 $0.22 $12.69 $0.75
Fraternity and Sorority
Houses $60.00 $60.22 $0.22 $60.97 $0.75
Revenue Generated $138,823 $145,785 $154,641
ISU Academic Year 2005/6 Temporary Employee Costs
Hours Available for a Student Part Time Employee
Start on own inspections Sept 1, 2005
# of work hours per week that 2 PT students work 27
( 12 hours per week per student 6 hours one Saturday per month)
# of total hours per month 108
Employee cost per hour (wages and expenses) $14.30
Cost per week for 27 hours $386.10
Cost Per Month $1,544.00
Cost per academic year $13,896.00
Projected Per Unit Per Unit Fiscal
Increase in Costs Costs for Year
Fiscal 05106 Fiscal for Academic 05/06
Year Registration Year Summer Year With
Fiscal Year 04/05 Fees 05/06 Interns Interns Interns
Single Family Dwellings $16.92 $0.22 $17.14 $0.75 $1.25 $19.14
Duplexes $12.62 $0.22 $12.84 $0.75 $1.25 $14.84
3 to 6 unit apartments $12.22 $0.22 $12.44 $0.75 $1.25 $14.44
7 to 20 unit apartments $11.42 $0.22 $11.64 $0.75 $1.25 $13.64
Over 20 unit apartments $10.92 $0.22 $11.14 $0.75 $1.25 $13.14
Lodging and Boarding
Houses $11.72 $0.22 $11.94 $0.75 $1.25 $13.94
Fraternities and Sororities $60.00 $0.22 $60.22 $0.75 $1.25 $62.22
Rental Housing Prioritization,July 2005 v.4 101712005 Page#54 of 54