06-1131Council File # 06- t�i �[��
Green Sheet # 0 353�
An Ordinance Repealing Chapter 51 pertaining to Dwelling Unit Registration
TIIE COUNCII, OF THE CITY OF SATNT PAUL DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1
z
3
4
5
6
Chapter 51 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code shall be repealed in its entirery.
Sect'tOR 2
¢� �� ��
S�"''' °.�r�;u
� ; '.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days following its passage, approval and publication.
Yeas
Benanav
Bostrom
Harris
Helgen
Lanhy
Montgomery
Thune
✓
✓
�
�
�
✓
Nays � Absent
Adopted by Council: Date ��o?pd�
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
BY' �LC1l- �.'l.(�5�//�
�/ 4
Approved by Mayo • Date: Z� �
B x� �i-��Q�(�
Requested by Depariment of:
�
Form p•oved by � � ttomey
B . /2
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
�f,'�tiz �^,
� G'� ��;
�
ORDINANCE �
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
06 i�3�
CO -co�mcii
CoMact Person & Phone:
Marcia Mcermond
6-857U
Must Be o� Councii Agen
Doc. Type: ORDINANCE
E-DocumeM Required: Y -
DocumeM Contact: Vicki
Canpd Phone: 6�561
13DEC-06
�
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Green Sheet NO: 3035373
0 ounri!
1 ouncil I De artmentDirector
2 ' Aftorne
3 ouncil
4 ' Clerk Ci Clerk
5
An ordivance repealing Chapter 51 of the St. Paul Legislative Code pertainiug to Dwelling Unit Regishnrion.
or
Answer
Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firtn ever been a ciry employee?
Yes No
3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
cuRent city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiadng Problem, Issues, OppoRunify (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Approved:
DisadvanWges If Not Approved:
Transaction:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
Activity Number:
CostlRevenue Budgeted:
December 13, 2006 3:26 PM Page 1
o� -�131
City of Saint Paul
City CouncII Research Center
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
(651)266-8570
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
DAT'E: December 15, 2006
TO: Councilmembers
FROM: Wyn Douglas, Council Assistant � �
and .1�
Marcia Moermond, Sr. Policy Analyst �
RE: Ordinance Repealing Chapter 51: Rental Dwelling Unit Registrafion
(Council File #06-1131)
Summary:
This ordinance repeals, in its entirety, Chapter 51 of the 5aint Paul Legislative Code, Rental Dwelling Unit
Registration. Rental Registration requires that all non-owner-occupied rental single family homes and
duplexes register owner and management with the City's Department of Neighborhood Housing and
Property Improvement. Approximately 5,900 properties are registered in this program. The cost to register
is $50 for a duplex, and $30 for a single family home. The cost to maintain the registration is $40 annually
for duplexes, and $20 for single family homes. Complete inspecrion of the property is not a requirement of
the program.
The proposed Fire Certificate of Occupancy program (Council File # 06-1129) would replace the Rental
Registration program. In this program proposal, non-owner-occupied rental single family homes and
duplexes would be required to have complete and periodic inspecfions. The fee for the "provisional Fire
Certificate of Occupancy" is proposed to be $50 annually and the provisional certificate would be replaced
by a"regular" Fire Certificate of Occupancy when the city inspection is successfully completed. Up to $100
in provisional fees will be discounted from the first Fire C of O fee. The ongoing cost of being in the Fire C
of O program will depend on whether the property is rated A, B, or C under the new classification system
(Council Files # 06-1130 and # 06-1120). For buildings with an A rafing, the cost of being in the Fire C of O
program ($25.60 annual average) will be comparable to rental registrarion ($32.00 annual average).
Schedule for Council Consideration:
December 20, 2006: First Reading
January 10, 2007: Second Reading
7anuary 17, 2007: Third Reading, Public Hearing
January 24, 2007: Fourth Reading and First Possible Date for Vote
March 1, 2007: First Possible Date Ordinance Would Take Effect
Text Changes:
Chapter 51 would be deleted in its entirety in this proposal.
Research/Additional Information:
See also memos attached to Council File #06-1130, #06-1120, and #06-1129.
Attachments:
None.
06-1131
»> "Warns, Benita B- Eagan, Mtd" <benita.b.warns@usps.qov> 1/17J2007 9:32 AM
»>
Please enter this message into the official record of the January 17, 2007 Public Hearing
for Agenda Items 16-20. These are Resolution 06-1120, and File 06-1129, 06-1130, 06-
1131, and 06-1132. All of these items concern proposed changes to the rental
registration process for the City of St. Paul, including establishing inspection of all singie-
family and duplex rental units and instituting a points system to ciassify these properties.
The overall objective of this proposal is to reduce the number of code violations for rental
dwellings in St. Paul, which will improve the quality of life for residents who rent these
units. While I support this overall objective, I have some major concerns with the
changes as proposed.
My first concern is that the number of points that place properties in Class C is too low. I
believe a more appropriate cutoff is 20 points, provided that none of the individual
violations are scored 7 points or higher. With the current cutoff of 11, it is far too easy
for a few lower-point value violations to add up to 11, which would place the property in
Class C. Class C status will stigmatize a property that doesn't have any major safety or
health issues by treating it in the same manner as a property that has numerous major
problems. Class C status may discourage good tenants from considering a unit that
they otherwise would find suitable for their needs. I agree that the bar for Class A status
should be set high, but the Class B bar needs to be lowered.
My second concern is the process for conducting the inspections. Most landlords who
only manage a coupie of units also have full-time jobs. Will inspectors be available
during evening or weekend hours so that working people will not have to incur the
unreasonable expense of having to miss work, or use precious vacation time to meet
this new requirement? If the inspection process becomes too onerous to small-scale
landlords, most of whom live either in St. Paul or nearby communities, many will
consider selling out because the hassle factor is too high. St. Paul needs to encourage
local ownership of rental properties, this wiil discourage it.
My third concern is with the price for the inspections. I manage one unit on a break-
even basis. I wilf need to raise the rent in order to cover this new cost, as weil as the
added costs of going through the very extensive list of requirements and spending a lot
of money all at once to fix stuff that doesn't put my tenant in any danger. If I don't fix
everything right now, then I will face expensive annual inspections if my property gets
placed in Class C. My tenant is low-income. I don't want to force this person to have to
move because my unit is no longer affordable.
This brings me to my next point, and that is affordability. This will have an impact on the
number of affordable housing units available in St. Paul. Landlords cannot continue to
absorb expenses and keep rents affordable.
D(�-113�
There is no mention in the ordinance as to the timetable for impiementation, or how
sefections wili be made of who gets hit first. Will it be by lottery, or by the number of
complaints that have been filed? What about inspections in winter months, when
weather-related deficiencies cannot be corrected (such as painting exterior surfaces,
roofing, etc.)? Guidelines must be developed that will treat landlords fairly under these
circumstances.
I recommend that the inspections for one and two-family dwellings not begin until
January 2�08. Between now and thert, the City needs to publicize the change, put out
the requirements list in piain language so any ordinary person can clearly understand
each and every item, and the City needs to provide technical assistance to landlords
who request it so they can be sure that their properties wili pass the inspection.
One finaf note: is there evidence that the overall condition of single-family and duptex
rental units is substantially different from the condition of similar owner-occupied
properties? If we are going to enforce building codes to such a high level of detail, then
we should treat all properties the same, not single out ow�ers of rental properties.
Property taxes are aiready substantially higher for residential rental units than for similar
owner-occupied dweiling units. We all know of owner-occupied houses that are in
terrible condition. Whatever is finally adopted, it needs to treat everyone fairiy. This
plan, as proposed, does not.
Benita Warns
1440 Lafond Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104-2438