Order.

This is our third hearing of the proposed creation of city rental registry.

I would like to thank my colleagues who have joined me as well as our department our departments of development and building and zoning for the work they have put in during this process.

Additionally, I would like to thank Steve Dunbar from the City Attorney's Office who is here with us as well, and for all the work that he has done behind the scenes to help get us to this point.

Similarly to the last hearing to date, our office has received several emails and calls, sharing support, constructive criticism, and general comments about the registry.

Based on the feedback from our residents and stakeholders, the Department of Development and Department of Building and Zoning made a third round of changes to the proposal, which they will present followed by public testimony for this evening.

Before I pass the mic over to uh Director Messer, again, I just want to thank all sides of folks that have engaged with this.

I think this has been a very uh I would say transparent process and a sausage being made, if you will, in real time.

And so I just want to thank everyone who has uh both come out in support, but then also those who have helped, I think, strengthen uh the the proposal and where we are.

Uh before I move to uh our administration to give us presentation, any opening remarks from my colleagues?

No, okay, thank you.

And thank you again to our housing chair for being here, Councilmember Ross.

Um she's been in the space of a long time.

And so thank you again for your feedback and your leadership uh in our housing efforts.

Uh now with that, I will turn the uh floor over to Director Scott Messer with our Department of Building and Zoning, as well as Deputy Director Hannah Jones with our Department of Development for uh the presentation for today.

Director.

Thank you, uh Councilmember, other members of council.

I also would like to uh express my uh thanks and gratitude to all of you and your um staffs, as well as the city attorney's office, uh folks in development, and a lot of the stakeholders for uh their input up to this point.

Um as you mentioned, we've made a few changes um in this latest round, and I'm going to summarize a few of those and then um take any questions that you all may have, or as we uh hear from the presentations and the speakers tonight, I'm happy to answer any questions along with my uh peers here from development.

So um the first thing that I want to highlight is um, and I'm just gonna go through a few uh items that are different now from previous proposals.

Uh when you look at the information that we're requiring as a part of the registry, we have made a few changes um to that uh section, but nothing significant.

Uh primarily what we did is um a few clarifications of the information that we need, and we added a category of information that's linked to what I'm going to describe uh in a couple of moments, which is a uh inspection component that has been added, a preventative education inspection.

So, in order to carry out that inspection that I'm gonna talk about in a minute, um, we need some additional information from registrants.

So we're going to be asking for things like um what kind of shared mechanical systems they have, whether they might have a boiler system, uh identifying common areas, um, identifying uh interior um egress, retention ponds, things that exist on their sites uh are going to help us in doing um what I'm gonna describe in a moment in terms of the inspection process.

That's the major change that we made to um information that we need from the registry.

Um another big change that we made was to the fees.

So the fees um that we're proposing uh right now are fifteen dollars per unit down from twenty dollars per unit prior to this, with a maximum of fifteen hundred dollars per complex.

So a complex with a hundred units would max out on the fee uh and only have to pay the fifteen hundred.

Um we clarified that all fees collected as uh part of this uh registry can only be used for purposes connected to the registry.

They would not be going into the general fund.

Um so we made those uh clarifications.

And then as I mentioned before, we added uh what we're calling a preventative education inspection.

Uh if you recall in our previous proposal, um we talked about self-attestation and that on an annual basis uh uh folks who register would have to submit a document certifying that to the best of their knowledge um there are no violations or code outstanding code uh violations to their uh critical systems.

Um, but then once every three years, we're going to create uh conduct what's called a preventative education inspection.

This inspection is at no extra charge to the registrants.

So not only have we lowered the fee to the $15 per unit, but we have also provided an added service that once every three years we will go out and conduct an inspection.

Um the purpose of that inspection is as it's named, uh preventative and educational.

So we will not be writing orders and issuing violations during that inspection.

If there are critical problems that we identify, those will be referred to the appropriate um department or agency to handle.

Uh but the purpose of the three-year inspection is truly to provide um education, feedback, and to try to come alongside the um owner of the property to try to address any um problems that we identify in that inspection.

Um above and beyond those um issues, um, we just made a couple of um specific um changes and clarifications, nothing significant.

Um we are highlighting that um uh uh that we will be using civil action only to enforce uh this registration, so not criminal penalties will not be a part of this.

It'll be um through civil penalties and civil action through the court system.

Um we also uh have committed to a review, a full review and report of the program to city council uh on a timetable to be determined, but um rather than it be nebulous, we are making a formal commitment to review um the entire registry uh and the rules and regs associated with it and fees uh uh within a specific timetable so that we can really look at how this is functioning.

So those are basically the main changes um that we made.

Um and I'd be happy uh I'll turn it over to development to see if you have anything additional.

Thank you, Director.

The only thing that I would add is the Department of Development really sees the uh educational component of this as an area where our division of housing stability can lean in.

How do we come alongside BZS to help on the education component, both for the property owners and the tenants?

So does this give an opportunity to engage proactively with them?

Does it help us be able to communicate more effectively what the expectations are for a landlord, but also for a tenant, so that it does not become necessarily a punitive exercise, but one that's more proactive to help maintain good relationships between landlords, tenants, and the city?

And I would just also add council members that this um three-year inspection uh that we've um added to the registration, it is not an automatic inspection of any interior units.

So the inspection will be focused on critical systems, exterior areas, um, all the areas that I mentioned that we've added to uh information required from the registrant.

Um the only um way that we would be doing interior inspections is if there are violations that are referred out to the appropriate parties that already have a process to deal with actual unit inspections, or if the owner or the tenant requests us to do um an inspection of an interior unit, we're willing to do that.

Um but I just want to highlight that as a as a matter of course, that three-year inspection does not include um interior inspections automatically, but those could be a result indirectly from that inspection.

Uh thank you, Director, for that uh that overview.

Um I do want to kind of stick in that uh inspections uh piece of this.

Um really I think you know, my I think my first initial reaction and thing and many folks are are would be that uh this doesn't have necessarily teeth to it, right?

But I think that uh this idea of being proactive and going out is the thought process there that uh if there are glaring external issues, uh right, then that would improve or warrant uh code to come out or to for us to investigate even further uh versus the I think the uh more enormous task of going into every single unit.

And then I'll have uh uh our our city attorney chime in as well, kind of the legal hurdles uh around that other kind of more enforcement mechanism that folks will would want to see.