Residential Rental Permit Bylaw Needs More Review

Report On The Meeting Of the Amherst Town Council Meeting, August 7, 2023. Part 2

Because neither of the council clerks was available for this meeting, it was held entirely over Zoom. The recording can be viewed here.

All councilors were present. Shalini Bahl-Milne (District 5) joined at 7:30 p.m. and Michele Miller (District 1) left at 10 p.m.

Staff: Paul Bockelman (Town Manager)

There were eight people in the Zoom audience.

Residential Rental Bylaw
The Community Resource Committee (CRC) of the Town Council has been working on a revision of general bylaw 3.50 on residential rental permits for the past 16 months. The 43-page proposal was presented for a first reading at this meeting. It was then referred to the Finance Committee (FC) and Governance, Legislation, and Organization Committee (GOL) before it returns to the council for a second discussion and possible vote for adoption. 

CRC Chair Mandi Jo Hanneke (At large) thanked Inspector Jon Thompson and Building Commissioner Rob Morra for their extensive input into the policy, and also noted the extensive outreach that the committee did, receiving over 250 comments from renters, landlords, and neighbors through the Engage Amherst website. The plan includes recommendations for a bylaw as well as regulations, and there is a separate section on the fee structure. Because it is difficult to change a bylaw, many of the specifics, such as the frequency of inspections, are in the regulations; the Board of License Commissioners is responsible for amendments to these regulations. 

The existing bylaw does not require inspections. To obtain a rental permit, landlords self-certify that their property complies with all state and local building, zoning, fire, and health codes. Inspections occur only after complaints are filed, although several tenants reported that fear of retaliation from their landlord prevents them from submitting complaints. The proposed regulation mandates an inspection by a town official once every five years, with some properties at risk for violations being inspected every two to three years. In addition, enforcement mechanisms are clearer in the new bylaw. 

The sponsors estimate that the new inspection system will cost $450,000/year and require three inspectors. The CRC produced a table that estimated the net cost of the program to the town using various fee schedules that they would like the FC to evaluate. Hanneke said that the guidance from the council was that the CRC should propose a structure that would be cost neutral, meaning that the fees collected would cover 100% of the implementation and enforcement of the policy. The cost of the current complaint-based inspection program is $150,000. However, none of the proposed options will cover the additional $300,000 of the new program. The CRC is hoping that the Finance Committee will find justification for covering some costs through the town’s operational budget or other receipts, such as property taxes or strategic partnership agreements. 

According to the proposal, a rental permit could be suspended for six months if there are three violations in three years; the suspension would occur at the time of permit renewal, so it would not affect current residents. Suspension would require due process, so the committee “tread lightly” on the topic, according to Hanneke.

Council Discussion
CRC Co-chair Pam Rooney (District 4) said that the CRC plans to draft a separate bylaw addressing rental property management; the town currently has a Nuisance Property bylaw. 

Dorothy Pam (District 3) liked the inclusion of a reduced permit and inspection fee for landlords who live in town, but quipped that the reduced fee only apply to landlords who live near the rental property, saying,  ”There are some local landlords who have unruly houses, but they obviously do not live nearby because they wouldn’t tolerate the noisy chaos if they did so.”

Cathy Schoen (District 1) noted that the proposal came about “…because we know there are some properties that are perennial problems,” she said, and asked, “Couldn’t we zero in on them?” She suggested that well-managed properties might not need to be inspected every five years and owners of properties with lots of complaints could be billed for the full costs of the ensuing inspections. . Both Schoen and FC Chair Andy Steinberg (At large) were concerned about the added cost to the town for more inspections. Steinberg also expressed his concern that landlords would pass the cost of inspections  on to their tenants by increasing rents.

According to Hanneke,  Building Commissioner Morra has said that inspections every five years is a good number of years  for inspection of every unit.  The frequency of inspections, however, would be in the regulations, not the proposed bylaw, and could be changed as needed. Renewing a permit should take less time and perhaps cost less  than a complete initial inspection. Also, Morra is said to have said that inspections after a complaint should be charged a separate fee. The CRC proposed that each inspection triggered by a complaint should include a follow-up inspection if the property fails the first inspection.

CRC member Jennifer Taub (District 3) said that the CRC discussed the kinds of problems that can arise when required inspections are absent or inadequate. The duplex at 780-800 North Pleasant Street, for example, had five pages of health and safety violations and was found to be unfit for human habitation. Another large property, this one on Amity Street, had a fire shortly after a semester ended; no students were in residence. Neither property had been inspected for at least 10 years because the town does not require  regular inspections . She stated, “As a parent, if my child went to [college] in Amherst, I would want to be assured that whatever apartment they were renting met all health and safety standards. The Building Commissioner advised us that mandatory inspections every five years was a good place to start, and we can always revisit it.”

Council President Lynn Griesemer said she was glad that subsidized housing was not specified in the inspection plan, because they must undergo federal review every year. Hanneke commented that those properties nevertheless need rental permits, and the Building Commissioner can determine if they need to be inspected to meet local standards. Hanneke also said the town could deny a rental permit to a property with  more than four unrelated people in residence, but the permit would be difficult to revoke or suspend later for having too many unrelated residents. Building Inspector Thompson said that in a court case, if a judge asks him whether it is unsafe for five people to live in the unit, and he cannot testify that it is unsafe, he believes that the court would throw out the violation.

Financial Considerations
Steinberg noted that inspections would mean a significant financial change for the town, and the FC always has to consider whether the benefits of a program justify the money being requested for it. He said that every department in town could request more money and staff, and the town always has to set an amount that is supportable in the budget. The FC needs to grapple with the implications of the policy, he said.

Considerable discussion ensued on whether the FC should review all aspects of the proposal with financial implications or only the fee structure. Hanneke objected to the FC discussing changes to the substance of the proposal, such as the frequency of inspections, but most other councilors disagreed. Pam said she had no problem with the FC looking at various aspects, but doesn’t want them to “kill the bill.” Taub said she hopes the town will get support for the program from UMass. 

The motion to have the Finance Committee discuss all aspects of the proposal with financial implications passed unanimously. The FC will take up the rental registration bylaw and regulations at their August 20 meeting.