HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-RHAC-1992 0ecL
Nor ajf
MINUTES
ITHACA RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1992
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. •
Present: Pierre Clavel, Ed Dormady, John Efroymson, Carol
Mallison, Pam Zinder, Joan Bailey, Terry Pasco
Absent: Mark Finklestein, George Frantz
The agenda was amended to include appointment of new
Commission members to working groups.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Comments from many members of the public were made to
the Commission in response to the Policy Working Group 's
proposal for Rental Housing Officer/ Security deposit
legislation. (see memorandum, date December 18 , 1991 )
APPOINTMENT OF NEW MEMBERS:
Joan Bailey was appointed to the Information Working
Group. Carol Mallison requested an updated list of Commission
Members, length of terms, and working group assignments.
POLICY WORKING GROUP PROPOSAL--RENTAL HOUSING OFFICER:
Proposal was moved by Pierre Clavel , seconded by John
Efroymson. The three components of the proposal were
explained by Pierre.
Lengthy discussion followed.
Amendments : •
Sec. 3 (a) 4 ; insert and add after estimates "available
at that time" and "This will not preclude the landlord from
later proving additional damages which she or he was not reasonably
able to obtain in the 30 day period. "
Moved-- John E. Seconded-- Approved
Amendments moved by Carol Mallison--
Findings (30) substitue phrase "over a hundred cases"
Sec. 3 (a) 1 ; Substitute phrase "prior to occupancy"
Sec. 3 (a) 2; substitute phrase "Within 7 days"
Sec. 3 (a) 1 ; delete "including those for which deductions
from the previous tenant ' s security deposit were made"
Seconded by Pierre Clavel . Approved
Terry Pasco moved to separate the provisions of
Rental Housing Officer (sections 1 and 2 ) and to vote on the
Security deposit provision (section 3) independently. Seconded
Approved 3 yes; 2 no; 2 abstained.
Vote on Security deposit resolution--5 yes; 1 no, 1 abstained
Terry Pasco moved to table action on Sections 1 and 2 until
next meeting. Seconded Approved
Meeting concluded with public comment. Carol Mallison stated
that it has been alleged that people have difficulty filing
claims through the small claims court process. However,
we have heard no testimony from anyone that they have had
problems with small claims court.
Pierre Clavel stated that he wished to register disagreement
with Carol ' s statement.
Meeting adjourned at 8 :50 p.m.
--submitted,
Terry Pasco
MEMO
DATE: January 15, 1992
TO: Rental Housing Commission
RE: Security Deposit proposal
At the Rental Housing Commission meeting, held January 13, 1992, a
motion was made to take the Policy Working Group's proposal and pass it on
to Common Council. Then, during discussion, numerous revisions were
recommended and approved for the Security Deposit section of the
proposal. As a result of the enthusiasm of several Commission members, a
vote was taken and carried to approve sending the Security Deposit section
of the proposal along to Common Council. In doing so, this part of the
proposal is being recommended without benefit of the following:
• the input of absent Commission members Mark Finkelstein and
George Frantz.
• time to consider a memo written to Commission members by
Martin Shapiro (prior City Attorney for eight years) and delivered
that evening.
• time to consider Public Comment made at the end of the
meeting.
• approval of the section regarding a housing officer, which is
later referenced in the Security Deposit section.
• seeing the final document. No Commission Member has seen or
reviewed the final Security Deposit proposal as it was revised at
the meeting on the 13th.
As representatives of the public at large, we owe it to the community to
complete the basic homework necessary to recommend a proposal of merit.
Sending the Security Deposit proposal to Common Council now, without
benefit of the above steps, is an irresponsible mistake and is premature. As
a result, we ask you to approve a reasonable request to review the Security
Deposit proposal, in its revised form, at the next Commission meeting.
CE1 D
COMMUNITYRESOLUTION DISPUTE
CENTER
TO: John Efro so,R, y,
FROM: Judith S � 1
DATE: Februar , 992
RE: Data on Land ord-Tenant Caseload
LANDLORD TENANT CASELOAD
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1991
Total Landlord-Tenant Cases Handled: 188
Successfully resolved: 74 or 39%
Unresolved - one or more party refuses : 73 or 39%
Unresolved - unable to contact one or more party: 27 or 14%
Most cases are not yet in court: 102 or 54% of total
Successfully resolved: 43 or 42%
Unresolved - one or more party refuses : 46 or 45%
Unresolved - unable to contact one or more party: 3 or 3%
Some cases are referred after Court filing: 71 or 38% of total
Successfully resolved: 22 or 31%
Unresolved - one or more party refuses : 23 or 32%
Unresolved - unable to contact one or more party: 23 or 32%
Our current tracking procedures do not allow us to provide the
following information:
- which cases involve security deposits,
- whether it is the landlord or tenant who requests CDRC' s
assistance or files in court,
- whether it is a landlord,,,who refuses to cooperate or is
unable to be contacted. c(-4�
Staff estimates that between two-thirds and three-quarters of
court-referred cases involve security deposits and about half of
other cases involve security deposits.
124 The Commons Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-9347
A
Recycled paper t a
MEMORANDUM RECEIVED 7.
To: Common Council Date: February 3, 1992
From: Rental Housing Subject: Security Deposits
Commission
Finding: There is a serious housing shortage in Ithaca affecting
rental housing:
1. The ratio of median rents to median income increased markedly
from the 1980 to 1990 census, and was consistently higher than
the state average and all surrounding counties;
2 . A meeting with renters (Renter's Speak-Out, July 1991)
indicated widespread concern on the part of renters;
3 . Testimony before the Commission has indicated a high level of
renter-landlord conflict in the city -- over a hundred cases
per year in small claims and city court; with return of
security deposits a major issue.
Therefore, the Rental Housing Commission proposes the following
actions by City Council:
1. Security Deposits. The city should establish enhanced security
deposit regulation, within the constraints of state enabling
legislation. Steps recommended by the Commission include:
a) The property landlord and tenant shall follow a written
check-in and check-out procedure:
1) Prior to occupancy (transfer of keys) , the landlord
shall inform the tenant that the tenant may inspect the
dwelling unit and notify the lanlord of any damages or
defects which existed before the begining of occupancy.
The landlord shall furnish a written checklist in a
standard form provided by the city, including an
itemized description of any damages or defects. There
should also be a place for both landlord and tenant to
sign, indicating approval of the check-in information.
A dated, signed copy shall be retained by both parties
for purposes of assisting in the resolution of the
deposit situation at the end of the lease. Any
disagreements may be referred to the rental housing
officerl for a factual determination to be added to the
record by either or both parties.
1 "Rental housing officer" as proposed by the policy working
group of the RHC has not been ratified by the full Commission.
; r February 3 , 1992 Page 2
2) Within 7 days after the commencement of tenancy, either
the landlord or tenant shall, upon discovery of damages
or defects not included in the original checklist noted
in SEC. 1 (a) (1) , immediately notify the other party
in writing with reference to the original checklist.
Any disagreements may be referred to the rental housing
officer2 for a factual determination.
3) At the end of tenancy, the landlord provides a check-
out form comparable to check-in forms, containing a
clear place for the tenant's forwarding address, and
for both to sign.
4) The landlord who has accepted a security deposit must,
after termination of tenancy, provide to the tenant as
soon as possible and within not more than 30 days,
either in person or by mail, either: (1) the full
security deposit; or (2) an itemized statement showing
the reasons for withholding all or part of the deposit,
receipts and estimates available at that time, and
forwarding any balance of the deposit. This will not
preclude the landlord from later proving additional
damages which she or he was not reasonably able to
obtain in the 30 day period.
5) Disagreements between landlord and tenant pertaining to
items covered in SEC. 1 may be referred to mediation:
parties are strongly encouraged to go through the
mediation process if requested.
b) The security deposit is the property of the tenant until
proven otherwise. It is the landlord's burden to prove
compliance with the provisions of SEC. 1, or forfeits right
to security deposit.
c) In the event that the landlord has unreasonably failed to
return all or part of the security deposit, treble damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees may be awarded. Failure of
either tenant or landlord to comply with procedures listed
in SEC. 1 (a) may be a factor for the court to consider.The
failure of the tenant to comply with the check-in, check-
out procedure is a factor which the court may consider in
assessing the credibility of the tenant's claim for return
of security deposit.
2 "Rental housing officer" as proposed by the policy working
group of the RHC has not been ratified by the full Commission.
M
February 3, 1992 Page 3
d) Past practices of the landlord regarding return of security
deposits may be a factor in awarding treble damages and
attorneys' fees.
e) Repeated failure to comply with security deposit sections
of ordinance may be cause for court to impose punitive
fines.
f) Section (1) does not apply in the case of tenants who are
not required to pay a security deposit.
g) Section (1) (b. . .e) do not apply in the case of tenants who
have failed to pay the full rent required in the lease by
the time of the end of tenancy.
cc: Rental Housing Commission
Mayor's Office
City Attorney
1 ' &errec tee( app recd
311V172-
RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION .Vail L.
2/19/92 cuNcfeav (1/ ev,hrea
PRESENT: Joan Bailey, Pierre Clavel, Ed Dormandy, John Efroymson, Mark
Finkelstein, George Franz, Carol Mallison, Terry Pasco, Pam Zinder
PUBLIC: Jan deRoos, Orson Ledger, Carol Schmitt, Ron Schmitt, Mark
Goldfarb, Tim Terpening, Gordon Van Nederyun, Jr. Rider, William Olney,
T.J. Johnson, Barbar Macera, John McPherson, Lori Teichman, Dan Hoffman,
Chris Garcia, Barbara Blanchard, Larry Beck, Peter Dieterich, Myra
Malkin, Karen Peterson
Prior to Public Comment: The RHC discussed several issues at the
beginning of the meeting. One of them being who should take minutes at
the meetings. John E. said the City cannot give us a secretary to take
the minutes.
1 Minutes were not approved for January since it appeared that all motions
from last month were not included in the minutes. Will discuss them next
month.
Carol made a motion to end the meeting at 9 p.m. It was seconded and
passed unanimously. Carol inquired to who was the co-chair. It appears
she is still the co-chair.
Future meeting time was agreed upon to be the second Wednesday of the
month between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.
Ed will send appointment periods of the Commissioners with next month's
agenda.
Public Comment:
*Mark Goldfarb read the letter from Neal Howard dated 2/13/92.
*Ron Schmidt voiced his concern for the proposal. He was against it
because it will become more difficult for tenants to move in during
the night if a check in is required before receiving the keys.
*Gordon Van Nederyun called the commission a kangaroo committee.
Feels we are driving a wedge betweem landlords and tenants which
will not improve housing. Mentioned that other information is
available within the community, for example Cooperative Extension.
Feels we need education.
*Larry Beck stated that the $4 was a user fee for tenants.
Meeting: Joan made a procedural point regarding the letter that 5
Commissioners signed and sent to Common Council. She suggested that we
need some clear concrete rules on how meetings should be held. Joan and
Terry agreed to draft some procedural rules to be examined at the next
meeting.
Joan mentioned that she looked through the surveys she conducted last
summer for the Resource Guide, and that security deposits were the number
one problem stated by these agencies.
Next we discussed the security deposit proposal:
1.
John E. : Wanted to change a statement in the proposal regarding the
Rental Housing Officer. -and ''' baged from
Vii° }t -tTfr er to_disagreement. Overall, he feels it is a good
proposal but the City Attorney, staff, and Common Council will need to
iron out the bugs. (Not John's words, although that is what he was
saying)
As far as punitive damages, it should only be enforced where there are
blatant problems. John also did some investigating and found that
between Jan. 9 and Feb. 6, Small Claims heard 16 tenant cases regarding
security deposits, ii evictions by landlords, and 16 landlords suing for
damage or nonpayment of rent. The Community Dispute Center in 1991,
heard 188 cases regarding landlord/tenant issues. Many of these cases
are referred by the court. John feels that many tenants do not come
forward with their housing problems because they fear retribution.
Joan: Agreed with John on many of his points. Joan feels that the local
agencies should not bear the total burden of this problem.
Mark: Gave Ed credit for meeting with all Commission members prior to
this meeting to get input. But, Mark feels the Commission has been on
the wrong tracks since day 1. The atmosphere from day 1 has been
poisonous (close to his exact words) . Feels the Commission is inherently
unfair and unbalanced. The State legislation states that a housing board
should be represented by landlords and tenants equally. We have made the
landlord the enemy, and most are small businesspeople trying to make a
' living. Mark suggested that the Commission be restarted by Common
Council.
Pierre: He is happy with proposal. The Commission was organized by
Common Council and not by us. He also agreed with Mark regarding the
current atmosphere. Wants to deal with the security deposit issue
without creating more problems. Found out in Maine, that tenants can sue
for treble damages.
Terry: Felt it was advisable to have a clean copy before passing it on
to Common Council. He basically supports it but has problems with the
findings. Likes the checkin and checkout procedure but not sure if it
should be mandatory. Will increase landlords operating costs which will
be passed onto tenants. Felt courts should decide on damages, not
legislation.
Pam: Did not feel that the findings supported the results. Stated that
there is currently no housing shortage. Besides concern on tenants part,
there is also widespread concern by landlords. Brought up that other
agencies have available information and assist tenants such as
Cooperative Extension. Questioned the role of the alderperson in
assisting tenants with disputes. Also felt that before moving forward
with our discussion, we need to find out what is within our realm.
Carol: Echoes concern about findings. Does not justify the proposal
mh-ich i3 an embarrassment. Feels the intent of the proposal is valid and
landlords or tenants who abuse the relationship should be held liable. A
reasonable amount of time should be stated in the lease or defined by the
court regarding time to return security deposits. Feels that the checkin
and checkout procedures are good but should not be mandatory. Wants the
City Attorney to give us some answers before the proposal is passed along
to Common Council. This proposal has not promoted better relations
between landlords and the Commission. Feels that a security deposit
brochure would be useful and helpful. If a brochure was mailed to every
resident in the City, it would cost less than this proposal. Need to
have an impartial and balanced Commission.
George: No strong evidence for this proposal. Feels the City is biased
against building affordable housing. The proposal still does not address
the problem for the tenant who moves far away, and does not receive their
deposit. Feels their is a shortage of affordable family housing which
should be discussed. Does not feel the proposal can be salvaged.
Round 2
John E. : Thought there were good points that were brought up as we went
around the table. He still agrees with the basic premise of the proposal
1 and feels Chuck Guttman should discuss some of the legal points. We are
recommending policy not legislation.
Joan: Contacted the court who stated that landlord/tenant disputes
increased 57% in the first quarter of 1991. Stated that Massachussets
has a 30 day limit to return security deposits. Housing is a basic human
need and feels the city should support this effort since the money is not
ill spent money.
Mark: The city is in the midst of a budget crisis. Feels that we should
start from square .1 regarding this issue. It does not protect the
interests of all parties.
Pierre: Thought the finding regarding the housing shortage was a finding
needed for the proposal. Does not want to discuss this issue all summer.
Wants to see a plan on how we are going to carry this proposal out. He
feels that landlords should support this document because it will not
hurt the ones who are responsible.
Terry and Pam: Passed, gave time to City Attorney, Chuck Guttman.
Carol: Can't look at one month worth of court cases and say they are
representative of one year. Need to address fear of tenants to come
forward. Feels as a Commission we should focus on what we agree on.
Need to establish a penalty for people who are abusive. Also need to
agree on a reasonable period of time to return security deposits.
Ed: Had asked every member to produce a memo with an agenda on it, but
only one member did it.
George: Agrees with Carol. There is a problem with rental housing in
Ithaca, although we are not sure what the problem is. We, as a
Commission are facing a major credibility problem within the community.
Chuck: He is the staff member appointed to the Commission. The ultimate
decision is made by Common Council. Received documentation that in 1991,
there were 331 Small Claims cases. One half were landlord/tenant issues
which were almost all security deposits. He received this info from
Judge Olds. The Court defines reasonable amount of time as immediately.
New York law does not have a time period to return deposits. Contract
law states termination at the end of the contract. Mark brought up that
Neal Howard contacted Attorney General Abrams office and they stated that
reasonable time is 60 days. Chuck stated he has not seen this written.
The city can pass legislation that is consistent with state law. Chuck
does not think our proposal is inconsistent with state law.
Ed: Asked that this proposal be on the March agenda of Charter and
Ordinance which meets on March 12.
Carol: Made motion to not pass this along. The commission voted, 4
were in favor, 4 opposed and 1 abstained. Therefore, ' ass and
be on th4 agenda. d`""�'"' T r' f/ `"'1"4
LCa.-0
Public Comment:
*Larry Beck stated this proposal will force landlords to do 2
inspections a year per apartment, which would be a hardship.
*Myra Malkin stated if landlords do not do inpections, how do they
have documentation to the condition of rental unit.
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
?4,s ccfr-e-ly . ��rue�
��� �� ;)� 92
cd/s/ (
r"b L). 1,
,,�;
Ifiirir l
' • 92
oQp: 1 ? 19
�'� �• RECEN ED
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: (607)274-6508
BUILDING COMMISSIONER FAX: (607)272-7348
Building Department Advisory Board Meeting - March 10, 1992
Board members present: T. Bronsnick, E. Franquemont, G. Chiang,
C. Peterson, L. Beck
Absent: B. Schickel, R. Colbert
Staff Present: Rick Eckstrom, Carol Shipe, Mayor Nichols
While waiting for some of the members to arrive, Chair
Bronsnick began the meeting by congratulating Rick on his
appointment as Building Commissioner. Mayor Ben Nichols was
present for a brief time and explained the probationary period of
Rick's appointment. Mayor Nichols went on to explain the Rental
Housing Officer and fees to support that position proposed by the
Rental Housing Commission. His purpose was to get a feeling from
the Building Department Advisory Board. Mayor Nichols felt that
the Rental Housing Officer idea should be done but without adding
an additional fee or personnel. He though it could be done by a
Housing Inspector - one person half-time to deal with this
position. Rick explained that there would be additional
paperwork involved, and that the Department needed the half-time
account-clerk typist position back. Discussion followed, and it
was suggested that it could be a mistake to add another person to
the Building Department staff. Rick explained it would require a
new job description.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Reorganization in Building Department. Rick reported on
progress. The target date was March 10, 1992 but top priority
inspections postponed the deadline. Question was asked if there
might be more emergency inspection, and Rick said it was
possible. Rick explained that Peter would be able to devote more
time starting next week, and that he will begin working on
revising forms. Rick said he would bring a report to the next
meeting.
2 . Brochure. Rick said Phyllis has not made much progress.
She is dealing with the new job administering three Building
Inspectors. Board members reported that they were working on
getting the information into a form that could be distributed. A
suggestion was made to do a combination of both the Building
Department language and the brochure. Suggested developing a
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program' t✓ Recycled Paper
�U LDIty u rtucT'MENT burIRD MiNUIES
year-long plan to do several brochures and utilize A.C.S. to
help. A Board member is to give Rick a contact at A.C. S.
Chair Bronsnick reported on his report to the DownTown
Vision Task Force and Common Council. He asked if there was any
other old business. A discussion followed on the summary of
goals and recommendations. Rick explained that as part of
recodification, the language would change so that responsibility
for have a Certificate of Compliance is put on the landlord.
3 . Housing Inspections. There was a discussion about
landlords knowing what the violations are. Board member
questioned whether it would help if there was a handout when
approaching tenants. There was more discussion, and it was
suggested that literature be made available to students when they
are looking to rent apartments.
NEW BUSINESS
Chair Bronsnick discussed the Mayor's recommendation on the
Rental Housing Commission that someone on the existing staff do
the job of the Rental Housing Officer, and not hire anyone or
charge a fee. Rick explained that someone is needed who has some
legal knowledge. Based on the type and number of calls the
Department receives, Rick felt that the position should not be
considered a full-time position.
There was discussion on language of leases, and Board member
asked if the City had any control over leases. A report on the
Rental Housing Commission was made, and a review of the job
description. The suggestion was made that pamphlets or brochures
about security deposits be included. Rick suggested that someone
from the Rental Housing Commission should discuss the proposed
job description of the Rental Housing Office with him. The
proposal is going before the Charter & Ordinance Committee.
The next meeting will be March 24, 1992 at 12 : 00 Noon in the
Building Department Conference Room.
Nothing specific was mentioned for the Agenda for this
meeting.
` 04yor
RCF' c 1�L Gll�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ithaca Rental Housing Commission
RE: Security Deposit Ordinance Proposal
DATE: March 11, 1992
Dear Commission Members:
The Cornell Legal Aid Clinic has been following with
interest the security deposit ordinance being considered by the
Rental Housing Commission. Cornell Legal Aid provides legal
representation to low income residents of Tompkins County in many
areas, including landlord-tenant disputes. A security deposit
ordinance in the city of Ithaca will have a significant impact on
many of our past, present, and future clients who live in the
city. For this reason, we feel compelled to comment on this
legislation.
We support the proposal to require landlords to return
security deposits within 30 days of the end of the tenancy or
face the possibility of treble damages for an unreasonable or
willful failure to return the deposit. This legal memorandum
outlines the current state of the law in this area and presents
our analysis of why the proposed ordinance is both necessary to
protect tenants and also fair to both landlords and tenants.
NEW YORK STATE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR RETURNING SECURITY
DEPOSITS
Neither the statutes nor the case law in New York provide a
specific procedure for the return of security deposits at the end
of a tenancy.
§7-103 of New York's General Obligation Law states that a
security deposit paid to a landlord continues to:
"be the money of the person making such deposit or
advance and shall be held in trust by the person with
whom such deposit or advance shall be made . . . "
Since the security deposit legally belongs to the tenant, it
should be returned to him at the end of the lease term unless the
landlord can show that he has been damaged by a breach of a
covenant of the lease. We have enclosed a copy of General
Obligations Law §7-103 with this memorandum.
Under the trust relationship set forth in General
Obligations Law §7-103, a tenant should be entitled to the return
of his or her security deposit immediately upon moving out at the
end of the lease term. Theoretically, a tenant could begin a
court action to recover his security deposit the day after the
end of the lease term. However, no court in New York has
addressed the issue of when a tenant can begin an action to
•
reclaim his security deposit. We believe there are two reasons
why this issue has not arisen before courts: (1) few tenants are
going to begin an action to recover their security deposit
immediately at the end of the lease term, and (2) by the time
these disputes reach a court, the issue of the timing of the
return of the security deposit is usually moot since at least
several weeks have passed.
New York law also does not provide for any damages against a
landlord who unlawfully withholds a security deposit. When a
tenant sues a landlord for the return of the tenant's deposit,
all the landlord stands to lose, besides court costs, is the
money which belongs to the tenant in the first place. Landlords
have no economic incentive to return security deposits to
tenants, since all they stand to lose is money which does not
belong to them, money which they should have returned weeks ago.
Fortunately, many landlords would never operate this way.
However, an unscrupulous landlord would make a rational
calculation to withhold the deposit and say to the tenant "sue
me. "
THE PROVISION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE REQUIRING LANDLORDS TO
RETURN DEPOSITS WITHIN 30 DAYS PROVIDES ESSENTIAL PROTECTION TO
TENANTS WHILE STILL BEING FAIR TO LANDLORDS.
The Cornell Legal Aid Clinic represents low income residents
in the city of Ithaca and in Tompkins County. For many of our
clients, it is a heavy burden to provide a security deposit on an
apartment. When these people move, this burden is doubled; they
must put a security deposit down on a new apartment before they
receive the security deposit back from their original apartment.
Many persons and families cannot afford new housing until their
original security deposit is returned. Unless the original
security deposit is returned in a timely fashion, they simply
cannot come up with the next deposit plus the first month's rent
for a new apartment.
Given that unscrupulous landlords have an incentive not to
return security deposits at all, low income tenants need the
protection of the proposed ordinance that requires a landlord to
return a security deposit, or provide an accounting of damages
within 30 days. This 30 day provision allows a tenant to get on
with his life and make reasonable plans to find new housing. It
is easier for people on low incomes to borrow money from friends
or family for a new security deposit, or to put off paying some
bills in order to pay a new security deposit, when they have some
guarantee of receiving their original deposit within 30 days.
A 3.0 day return provision is the minimum time period necessary to
protect tenants. 30 days, however, does not solve all the
financial problems of finding new housing for low income tenants.
2
In Syracuse, the Housing Code only gives landlords two weeks to
return a security deposit. (Syracuse Housing Code § 27-124 (2) ,
(3) • )
Codifying a 45 or 60 day delay however, would most certainly
mean that most, probably all, landlords would take advantage of
the legally sanctioned deferral (the law already gives them a
pure economic incentive to withhold security deposits as long as
they can) . The resulting delay would mean: (1) a tenant would
not be able to file a claim against a landlord who willfully
misappropriated her deposit for 60 days, thereby increasing the
wait for judicial relief; (2) such a provision could increase the
time before which a poor family could move into another home,
could force families into homes of other family members, thereby
increasing the potential for health risks and code violations;
(3) at the very worst, such an extreme delay could make homeless
those tenants who have nowhere else to turn.
Since tenants are entitled to their deposit immediately upon
moving out under State law, a 30 day return provision also
provides landlords with protection. The 30 day provision gives
landlords a reasonable amount of time in which to assess the
condition of the apartment, and to determine how much, if any, of
the deposit they are entitled to withhold for damages.
The proposed ordinance does not punish a landlord who needs
more than 30 days to accurately calculate damages, or to complete
repairs on an apartment. The ordinance requires the landlord
either to refund the deposit or to provide a statement on the
withholding of the deposit within 30 days. A statement on the
withholding must include receipts and estimates available at that
time. Furthermore, the ordinance does not require that the final
calculation of damages be completed within 30 days. Those
landlords who in good faith are not able to calculate damages
within 30 days will not be punished by this ordinance simply for
missing the 30 day deadline. Only landlords who act unreasonably
in failing to return the deposit would be liable for treble
damages under the proposed ordinance.
A 30 day return provision provides those tenants who do not
damage apartments with a reasonable time frame within which they
can expect the return of a deposit which is rightfully theirs. A
30 day return provision also provides landlords with a reasonable
time frame in which to calculate damages in most cases. Finally,
the proposed ordinance protects those landlords who are unable in
good faith to calculate damages within the 30 day period.
3
TREBLE DAMAGES AGAINST LANDLORDS WHO UNREASONABLY OR WILLFULLY
MISAPPROPRIATE A TENANT' S SECURITY DEPOSIT BALANCE THE INHERENT
UNFAIRNESS IN THE LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP.
New York common law and the general trust principles of
General Obligations Law S7-103 make it clear that the security
deposit is the property of the tenant, and that the landlord
merely holds it in trust. However, there is no incentive for
landlords to return the deposit in a timely fashion under state
law. In fact, there is a very real, easily discernable economic
incentive for unscrupulous landlords to hold the deposit for as
long as possible.
Landlords have no incentive to return the deposit even when
the tenant fully complies with the terms of the lease. Brutal
economics dictate that landlords currently have an incentive NOT
to return deposits in a reasonable amount of time. Clearly, many
landlords never operate this way. However, unscrupulous landlords
are often able to keep deposits because of the ignorance or
powerlessness of their former tenants. Tenants often do not
realize that they have a right to get their deposits back; and
even when they do know this fact, they often do not have the
time, knowledge, or resources to compel a return. An unscrupulous
landlord can take advantage of this situation--and so often delay
a deposit refund in hopes of winning a war of attrition. Tenants
move or graduate, and the landlord ends up with deposit after
deposit through sheer default.
Currently when a landlord who willfully misappropriates a
security deposit is taken to court, all he stands to lose is
money which was never his to begin with, i.e. the tenant's
security deposit. In many cases, tenants are not familiar enough
with the legal system to take a landlord to court. In these
situations the tenant gets nothing and the landlord gets to keep
the tenant's security deposit.
The potential for treble damages for willful or unreasonable
misconduct precludes these particular landlords from making this
simple brutal economic calculus, and in no way affects the
dealings of landlords who act in good faith. When faced with
treble damages, it is no longer "economically rational" for a
landlord to withhold a security deposit and dare the tenant to
sue him. Treble damages for the most egregious behavior on the
part of landlords addresses the inherent imbalance in the
relationship, restores proper incentives, and creates equity on
both sides.
•
It is important to emphasize that treble damages only apply
when the landlord unreasonably withholds the security deposit
under the proposed ordinance. Treble damages are not assessed
every time a landlord fails to refund a deposit within 30 days. A
landlord who in good faith is unable to refund a deposit within
4
30 days would not be liable for treble damages. A landlord would
not be liable for treble damages simply because he had not
received estimates or finished work on the apartment within 30
days. The provision only applies to those landlords who
unreasonably or willfully fail to refund a tenant's security
deposit.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST TENANTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE AND SHOULD NOT
BE PART OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
Security deposits already protect landlords from
unreasonable abuses by tenants; the landlord can keep the deposit
if the tenant damages the apartment or home. Thus, the tenant has
a strong incentive to relinquish the leasehold in decent
condition--she wants to get her deposit back. The goal of any
treble damage award is to provide an incentive for proper
behavior. Tenants already have a strong incentive to keep the
property in decent shape--so no further incentive is necessary.
Under the current law however, landlords have a strong
economic inducement to withhold a security deposit for as long as
they can. If the tenant succeeds in going to court and winning
the return of his or her security deposit, the landlord will only
have to return the money that legally belongs to the tenant. The
landlord will not lose any of his or her own money. Treble
damages against landlords who misappropriate security deposits
places the landlord on equal footing with the tenant--just as
tenants do not want to damage their apartment in order to avoid
losing their own money in the form of security deposits,
landlords will not want to misappropriate a tenant's security
deposit in order to avoid losing their own money in the form of
treble damages.
Any provision which allows a landlord to collect punitive
damages from tenants merely reinforces the imbalanced power
structure of the current landlord-tenant relationship. The threat
that tenants will lose more than their deposit will create fear
among tenants with meritorious claims. Adding treble damages
provisions to both sides ignores the basic economic realities of
the landlord-tenant relationship and the legal incentives built
into the proposed ordinance. The threat of punitive damages
against tenants (coupled with the 30 day legally sanctioned
delay, which landlords cannot currently claim) would effectively
transform the proposed ordinance into a powerful tool for
landlords to wield against tenants.
5
CONCLUSION
The current landlord-tenant relationship with regard to
security deposits is biased in favor of landlords. Unscrupulous
landlords have no incentive to return a tenant's security deposit
in a timely fashion. Although a security deposit legally belongs
to the tenant, many tenants do not have the time, knowledge, or
resources to pursue a landlord in court for the return of a
deposit which is rightfully theirs. The 30 day period to return a
security deposit in the proposed ordinance provides tenants with
a reasonable expectation of when they will receive their deposits
back, while also giving landlords a reasonable period in which to
calculate damages and make repairs. The provision for treble
damages for landlords who unreasonably or willfully
misappropriate security deposits provides landlords with an
incentive to return security deposits in a timely fashion while
still protecting those landlords who have suffered damages. Since
tenants already have an incentive not to damage their apartments,
i.e. they want their deposit back, the proposed ordinance should
not include punitive damages against tenants.
We submit this memorandum on behalf of our tenant client
population in the city of Ithaca, and in support of the original
proposed ordinance. If we can be of any further assistance to the
commission on either legal issues or in providing insight into
the needs of our client population, please do not hesitate to ask
for our help.
Very truly yours,
CORNELL LEGAL AID
by: Christopher Garcia
Roy Tilsley
Sonya Kim
Todd Lang
Law Interns
Karen A. Peterson
Supervising Attorney
6
Proposal for IRHC Structure March 11 , 1992
Submitted by Terry Pasco and Joan Bailey
1) Quorum - 6 people
2) Order of meeting
- Call to order,
- approve agenda, add any new business items for consideration
and set time limits for discussion,
- approve minutes ,
- public comment , 1 round of no more than two minutes per
person. During discussion itself , commission members may use
the privilege of the floor to respond to any comments by
the public . Also, the public is encouraged to send any
letters in advance and simply summarize their contents
during the public comment period. We should try to
facilitate additional public comment through some other
format ,
- old business,
- new business,
- working group reports,
- miscellaneous
- summary - read back any votes taken or amendments to any
working proposals .
3) Minutes - these should be read and corrected at every meeting.
We need to develop some standard for what should be included. There
shall be one person serving as the primary recorder for each
meeting, assisted by a back-up note taker. We should also try to
tape the meetings . Minutes should also have copies of any voted-
upon measures attached to them.
4) Changes in meeting time - The chair shall have the right to
change a meeting time, providing that all commission members and
the Mayor's office has been notified and that at least a quorum of
the commission can attend at the rescheduled time. The public shall
also be notified via a notice placed in the Ithaca Journal at least
3 days prior to the meeting. The chair can also exercise the right
to cancel a meeting in case of an emergency.
5) Information - we should make copies of information and set aside
a certain amount for the public. If any member of the commission or
public has information they would like to see circulated, the IRHC
will see to having it copied if the information is received a week
before the meeting. (perhaps we could rotate this responsibility,
if necessary)
6) Records - a commissioner's notebook should be kept for agendas ,
minutes , other related information so that incoming commissioners
will have a source of reference materials .
Ja S.S ' bij h y/ �-0 "
ri/(49/f 3
Ithaca Rental Housing Commission - Minutes March 18th, 1992
Present: Joan Bailey, Ed Dormady, John Efroymson, Mark Finkelstein,
Carol Mallison, Pam Zinder.
Absent: Pierre Clavel, George Franz, Terry Pasco
Public: Robin Palmer, Mark Goldfarb, Gordon van Nederyun, Jimmy
Rider, Tim Terpening, Larry Beck, T.L. Johnson, Myra Malkin, Joel.,_
Dan Hoffman, Richie Berg, Theresa Alt, Martin DeSanto, Vivian
DeSanto.
Law Intern- there is a possibility of having a second year law
student from Cornell to do some work for IRHC this summer. John
Efroymson asked that he and Mark Finkelstein work with the intern
to see what tasks he might be able to help with.
Public comment:
Larry Beck asked that the proposal for the check-in/check-out
procedure be done on a voluntary basis and incorporate the
suggestions and concerns of those who are aleady familiar with
these procedures. John Efroymson asked the public for copies of
already existing check-in lists.
Myra Malkin asked that the provision for triple damages in cases of
abuse not be extended to tenants. Myra stated that the
relationship between landlords and tenants is not balanced one and
that the proposal's intent is to deal with those who are in the
business of providing rental housing and to establish an orderly
procedure for doing so. Myra also mentioned that there are two
groups of tenants in Ithaca, short-term tenants who are students
and long-term tenants, including many families, who cannot afford
to buy a home.
T.L. Johnson asked about how landlords would be expected to handle
check-in procedures in cases where the tenants do not all arrive at
one time or arrive in the middle of the night.
Mark Finkelstein asked that the agenda be approved. He also
brought up an item for a future agenda, a discussion to
reconstitute the commission.
Carol Mallison asked that IRHC meeting notices include all of the
agenda items. She also expressed a concern about certain items not
getting on the agenda.
Ed Dormady asked that this evening's agenda be set and reminded the
Commssion that he had requested a memo from each member, asking
their input on future agendas.
A request was also made to get minutes to Theresa Alt within two
weeks of each meeting for copying and distribution.
The Commission paused briefly to read, correct and approve the Feb
minutes.
Mark asked Councilman Dan Hoffman about the Charter and Ordinance
Committee's meeting. Dan responded that they only discussed
reapportionment and did not have an opportunity to discuss our
proposal. However, he thought that the proposal could be on C&O's
Z
April agenda.
Ed brought up the memo from Ben Nichols which was received by the
Commission. The subject was the reorginization of the Building
Dept to incorporate some of the responsibilities of the proposed
rental housing officer. The Commission agreed to put this on next
month's agenda, along with the Building Dept's memo.
The Commission alo received a memo from members of Cornell's Legal
Aid, asking not to include any provision for treble damages
assessed against tenants.
John suggested one more round of discussion on the security deposit
proposal. He proposed to strike the findings and the sections
making specific reference to the rental housing officer.
Joan basically agreed with this amendment to the proposal .
Mark said that he did not have a problem with language calling for
penalties for those who abuse the practice of returning security
deposits but asked that the rest of the regulatory measures be
dropped.
Pam also wanted to strike the findings.
Ed mentioned that Chuck Gutman believed that Council would come up
with its own findings, but asked about the part about court cases.
Pam said that we really would have to get the correct number of
them.
Carol also wanted to strike the findings and proposed an amendment
that would establish a penalty for either party in case of abuse of
security deposit law as it already exists. She also wanted to
establish a definition for a reasonable amount of time for
returning deposits in case of damages and wanted the check-in
check-out procedure to be voluntary, not mandatory. Carol said
that a check-in list could be made available to both parties
through a brochure and that tenants could still fill one out even
if the landlord chose not to.
Ed also suggested that we strike the findings since there was
little likelihood of agreement.
Vote on motions:
On striking the findings-5 in favor, 1 opposed.
On "disagreements" language on page 1 sect 1 (after another short
discussion) The motion was to strike the last sentence. 4 in favor,
2 abstentions.
On omitting the reference to the rental housing officer in 1
(a) (2) , 5 in favor with 1 abstention.
(at this point, John asked Myra for her interpretation of
"unreasonably" in C on page 2 . as he felt that it should be clear
that the intent was for egregious actions.
Mark stated that he still objected to the check-in check-out
procedure. While he was happy that the commission was moving away
from additional taxes and fees that he felt that the proposal still
rpresented an attempt by the city to micromanage these procedures.
Mark wanted to simply send along a recommendation to Council that
they enact an ordinance that would impose penalties for abuses in
the return of security deposits.
Carol agreed with Mark, stating that this had all been done
backwards.
A round of discussion followed on Mark's proposed amendent. John
moved to call the question. The vote was 3 in favor and 3 opposed,
so the motion failed.
Carol moved to strike the refernce to the rental housing officer in
the footnotes. The motion passed unanimously.
Carol also wanted to establish what sort of rental relationship the
Commission was attempting to regulate. John said that the
commission's intent was clear that it referred to residential
housing. After some discussion, Carol proposed that the language
under 1. Sec Deposits read "residential/non- commercial. The motion
passed with 4 in favor and 2 opposed.
Carol also wanted to amend the proposal to make check-in voluntary
instead of mandatory and to limit the proposal to 1(a) 4 to return
the deposit in 30 days and 1 sect C to provide for penalties.
Carol stated that the Building Dept already had enough
responsibility.
Pam also believed that check-in should be m y. ✓0I (1f /
Mark asked Myra to comment on this. Myra said that she dihagreed
with Mark and Carol, saying that tenants are not always
sophisticated about these matters. She asked them why they were
both reluctant to include the check-in provision since they both
utilized them. Myra stated that she did not believe that the
procedure was either paternalistic or an example of
micromanagement.
After some more discussion, the question was called. The motion
failed, with 3 in favor and 3 opposed.
Ed stated that should the check-in procedure become mandatory,
there would still be opportunity for the commission to give advice
and information to Council on how it would be implemented.
Public comment:
Joel Said that he was glad to see Certified Properties get
pinched.
Jerry Maclntyre from Cornell Legal Aid, said that the law students
had wanted to be at the meeting and also voiced his opposition for
treble damages assessed against tenants. Jerry stated that the 30
days limit was desirable, since he has seen widepread abuse of
security deposit returns (though not necessarily in Ithaca) and
that most of these cases do not get pursued. Jerry also cautioned
the commission on trying to set a standard for requiring a finding
of abusive retention, since he did not know how such a finding
could be determined.
Upon Mark's request, the next meeting is tentatively set for the
4th Wednesday in April and will continue on the 4th Wed of each
month, pending the approval of the absent members.
The meeting adjourned at 7 : 30pm
3
To: Charter and Ordinance Committee of Common Council
From: Rental Housing Commission
Date: April 2, 1992
Subject: Security Deposits
The Rental Housing Commission proposes the following actions by City Council:
1. Security Deposits. The city should establish enhanced security deposit regulation for
residential,non-commercial properties,within the constraints of state enabling legislation.
Steps recommended by the Commission include:
a) The property landlord and tenant shall follow a written check-in and check-out procedure:
1) Prior to occupancy(transfer of keys),the landlord shall inform the tenant that the tenant
may inspect the dwelling unit and notify the landlord of any damages or defects which
existed before the beginning of occupancy. The landlord shall furnish a written
checklist on a standard form provided by the city,including an itemized description of
any damages or defects. There should also be a place for both landlord and tenant to
sign, indicating approval of the check-in information. A dated, signed copy shall be
retained by both parties for purposes of assisting in the resolution of the deposit
situation at the end of the lease.
2) Within 7 Days after the commencement of tenancy,either the landlord or tenant shall,
upon discovery of damages or defects not included in the original checklist noted in
Sec. 1 (a) (1), immediately notify the other party in writing with reference to the
original checklist.
3) At the end of tenancy, the landlord provides a check-out form comparable to check-in
forms,containing a clear place for the tenant's forwarding address,and for both to
sign.
4) The landlord who has accepted a security deposit must,after termination of tenancy,
provide to the tenant as soon as possible and within not more than 30 days,either in
person or by mail,either: (1) the full security deposit;or(2)an itemized statement
showing the reasons for withholding all or part of the deposit,receipts and estimates
available at that time,and forwarding any balance of the deposit. This will not preclude
the landlord from later proving additional damages which she or he was not reasonably
able to obtain in the 30 day period.
5) Disagreements between landlord and tenant pertaining to items covered in Sec. 1 may
be referred to mediation: parties are strongly encouraged to go through the mediation
process if requested.
b) The security deposit is the property of the tenant until proven otherwise. It is the landlord's
burden to prove compliance with the provisions of Sec. 1,or forfeit right to security
deposit.
1
c) In the event that the landlord has unreasonably failed to return all or part of the security
deposit, treble damages and reasonable attorneys'fees may be awarded. Failure of either
tenant or landlord to comply with procedures listed in Sec. 1 (a) may be a factor for the
court to consider. The failure of the tenant to comply with the check-in,check-out
procedure is a factor which the court may consider in assessing the credibility of the
tenant's claim for return of security deposit.
d) Past practices of the landlord regarding return of security deposits may be a factor in
awarding treble damages and attorneys' fees.
e) Repeated failure to comply with security deposit sections of ordinance may be cause for
court to impose punitive fines,.
f) Section (1) does not apply in the case of tenants who are not required to pay a security
deposit.
g) Section (1) (b...e) do not apply in the case of tenants who have failed to pay the full rent
required in the lease by the time of the end of tenancy.
cc: Rental Housing Commission
Mayor's Office
City Attorney
Common Council
to
2
address greeting
Legal Action of Wisconsin
31 South Mills Street
Madison WI 53715 Sir or Madam
Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy
16 North Carroll Street
Suite 400
Madison WI 53703 Advocates
"Louise Trubek,Director
Center for Public Representation
121 South Pinckney Street
Madison WI 53703" Ms. Trubek
Carolyn Hogg
City Attorney
City Hall
Madison WI 53701-0099 Ms. Hogg
National Housing Law Project
1950 Addison Street
Suite 200
Berkeley CA 94704 Housing Advocates
Brooklyn Legal Services
260 Broadway
Brooklyn NY 11211 Sir or Madam
Steve Brown
Greater Upstate Law Project
87 Clinton Avenue North
Rochester NY 14604 Mr. Brown
Bryan Pine
City Council
City Hall
Burlington VT 05401 Mr. Pine
Steve Norman
Vermont Legal Aid
PO Box 1357
12 North Street
Burlington VT 05402 Mr. Norman
John Davis
Director of Housing
979
Burlington VT 05401 Mr.Davis
ITHACA RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION
ADDRESSES, PHONE NUMBERS, TERM LENGTH, REPRESENTATION, WORKING
GROUP ASSIGNMENTS
5t4 /f9z
Joan Bailey, Xnd Ward; Info WG; Term Expires End .
607 North Tioga Street.
272-2173
Pierre Clavel, 3rd Ward; Policy WG; Term Expires End 1994.
109 Cornell Street.
273-7617
Edward Dormady, 4th Ward; No WG; Term Expires End 1993 .
638 Stewart Avenue, Apartment A.
Messages @ 274-6501
John Efroymson, Common Council Liason; Policy WG;
Term Expires End X994• (993
435 North Geneva Street.
272-1034
Mark Finkelstein, Private Landlord; Supply Side WG;
Term Expires End 1993 .
210 Lake Street.
272-4000
George Frantz, 1st Ward; Supply Side WG; Term Expires End 1992 .
604 Cliff Street.
277-1305
Carol Mallison, Non-Profit Housing; Supply Side WG;
Term Expires End 1992 .
137 Bank -Head, Newfield.
564-3396
and
Terry Pasco, h Ward; Supply Side WG; Term Expires End 1993 .
272-3290
Pamela Kinder, Non-Profit Housing; Info WG;
Term Expires End 1994.
909 North Cayuga Street.
273-5815
Pi]
Ratified Procedures -- IRHC April 28, 1992
1) Quorum - 5 members; Resolutions require simple majority of full
commission
2) Order of meeting :
A) Call to order,
B) Approve agenda, add any new business items for
consideration and set time limits for discussion,
C) Approve minutes,
D) Correspondence/ communications
E) Public Comment; one round of no more than two minutes per
person. During discussion itself, commission members may
use the privilege of the floor to respond to any comments by
the public. Also, the public is encouraged to send any
letters in advance and simply summarize their contents
during the public comment period. We should try to
facilitate additional public comment through some other
format,
F) Old business,
G) Working group reports,
H) New business,
I) Confirm next meeting.
3) Meeting Minutes - they should be read and corrected at every meeting.
We need to develop some standard for what should be included. There shall
be one person serving as the primary recorder. Minutes should also have
copies of any voted-upon measures attached to them. Minutes should be
turned in to the Mayor's secretary within two weeks of meeting . The Chair is
excluded from recording minutes.
4) Changes in Meeting Time - In case of an emergency, the Chair shall
have the right to change a meeting time, provided that all Commission members
and the Mayor's Office have been notified and that at least a quorum of the
commission can attend at the rescheduled time. The public shall also be
notified via a notice placed in the Ithaca Journal at least three days prior to the
meeting.
5) Information - We should make copies of information as set aside a certain
amount floor the public. If any member of the commission or public has
information they would like to see circulated, the IRHC will see to having it
copied if the information is received a week before the meeting.
6) Records - A Commission file should be kept in City Hall for agendas,
minutes, and other related information so that incoming commissioners will
have a source of reference materials. New members will be given an
orientation packet produced by the Chair.
7) The Vice-Chair runs meetings in the Chair's absence.
Ratified Procedures -- IRHC April 28, 1992
1) Quorum - 5 members; Resolutions require simple majority of full
commission
2) Order of meeting :
A) Call to order,
B) Approve agenda, add any new business items for
consideration and set time limits for discussion,
C) Approve minutes,
D) Correspondence/ communications
E) Public Comment; one round of no more than two minutes per
person. During discussion itself, commission members may
use the privilege of the floor to respond to any comments by
the public. Also, the public is encouraged to send any
letters in advance and simply summarize their contents
during the public comment period. We should try to
facilitate additional public comment through some other
format,
F) Old business,
G) Working group reports,
H) New business,
I) Confirm next meeting.
3) Meeting Minutes - they should be read and corrected at every meeting.
We need to develop some standard for what should be included. There shall
be one person serving as the primary recorder. Minutes should also have
copies of any voted-upon measures attached to them. Minutes should be
turned in to the Mayor's secretary within two weeks of meeting . The Chair is
excluded from recording minutes.
4) Changes in Meeting Time - In case of an emergency, the Chair shall
have the right to change a meeting time, provided that all Commission members
and the Mayor's Office have been notified and that at least a quorum of the
commission can attend at the rescheduled time. The public shall also be
notified via a notice placed in the Ithaca Journal at least three days prior to the
meeting.
5) Information - We sho_ uld make copies of information as set aside a certain
amount floor the public. If any member of the commission or public has
information they would like to see circulated, the IRHC will see to having it
copied if the information is received a week before the meeting.
6) Records - A Commission file should be kept in City Hall for agendas,
minutes, and other related information so that incoming commissioners will
have a source of reference materials. New members will be given an
orientation packet produced by the Chair.
7) The Vice-Chair runs meetings in the Chair's absence.
� YC1 N
1 if1f VL1rCV-
�(LS
SCI^rec'` c•✓s o.r
Rental Housing Commission Minutes 4/29/92 6021/93
RHC present: Bailey, Dormady, Efroymson , Finkelstein, Mallison , Pasco,
Zinder
Public : Larry Beck , Myra Malkin
Minutes
Passed with typos noted .
Correspondence
E.D. noted that he and J .E. had received letter from tenant of LL Joe Daley
re: heating problems. Apparently resolved at CDRC.
C.M. reported a LL who had found animal carcasses. LL spent 2 months
cleaning. Wanted to know how to protect against such abuse.
J .E. had two calls re: security deposits. One dealt with question of
interest from a unit of less than 6 apts. Second was T fear that LL would
withhold deposit for no reason since history of LL harassment.
J .B. had T report difficulty finding apt. with LL saying LL didn ' t want a
baby in apt. Commissioners noted that this is discriminatory. Human
Rights Commission should be notified by tenant.
E.D. reported alleged discrimination of T on basis of race. Personal
guarantee form was required by LL. Commissioners asked if this form was
required of others.
Public Comment
Larry Beck re: draft of RH officer. (draft was distributed to RHC)
Building Commissioner says staff isn ' t legally trained to do task (e) of
memo. Would need additional training . He also noted that 4 of 7 tasks
could be interpreted as tenant advocacy. How will this position be funded?
Regular Meeting Times of RHC
We will meet the last Wednesday of each month from 5-7 PM assuming that
this is not in conflict with G.F. and P.C. (E.D. will check on them. )
Commission Address Lists
Changes were noted and work phone numbers were added. This list will be
kept at mayor' s office.
Status of Tenant-Landlord Resource Guide
Copies have been distributed to 30 agencies. All commissioners now have
copies. E.D. will research who else might be interested in copies, where
the money might come from to cover up front costs (about $5/copy) and who
might put it together for commission .
Info W.G. charged with strategy for regular updating of guide. C.M.
suggested that update include the date of publication .
Roll of Public Comment
C.M. : We are misleading the public . Why have comment at end of meeting?
J .B. /T.P. : Structure proposal attempts to address this issue.
T.P. : We' ve been more than open to comment to the point of disruption .
M.F. : Process seems to works. Let' s keep flexibility.
VOTE: There should be public comment at beoinnino of meeting only.
Yes: 4 No:2 Abstain:1
Structure of Meeting
E.D. will send amended memo to City Attorney to assure consistency with
city law.
1 ) Quorum will be 5 members except that 5 positive votes will be needed to
send a resolution to Common Council .
2) Order of Meeting
Add (d ) Correspondence to Commission
( i ) Confirmation of next meeting date
Omit miscellaneous and summary sections
3) Minutes
Omit back-up note-taker and tape recording .
Minutes shouldficlearly note all votes.
no
M.F. : This isha judicial body. There hasn ' t been a problem
reconstructing the record .
C.M. : Minutes should be precise enough to educate future members and
inform absent members of what happened.
Attendance of members should be noted .
Should be sent to Mayor' s secretary w/i 2 weeks of meeting .
Chair should not be taking minutes.
4) Changes in meeting times
Add at head " In case of emergency"
Omit last sentence of paragraph.
5) Information
Omit last parenthetical phrase.
6) Records
Substitute "Commission file" for "commissioner' s notebook . "
Add "in City Hall " after the word "kept" in first sentence.
Add section 7) : "Co-chair will run meeting in absence of chair. "
VOTE: Amended structure document: Passed unanimously.
Status of Security Deposit Ordinance
E.D. : C&O has received the document.
M.F. : Stated at C&O that he would support penalties clauses and if other
sections were removed he could get support from LL' s. Opposed check-in
check-out; it is not a business of the city. Also noted that Cornell Legal
Aid also opposed check-in/check-out since T' s could be coerced to sign
document.
RHC Composition
M.F. : Had asked for this agenda since Jan . Council charge doesn ' t even
require one LL.
J .E. : Common Council is appropriate body to discuss issue. They acted
clearly with intent to have a tenant orientation in RHC.
T.P. : Composition affects our working process.
E.D. : If one looked at proportion of T' s in city, there would be 7 T' s on
RHC and no LL' s.
P. Z . : We should have chance to air our views on subject.
C.M. : It' s our obligation to make a recommendation re: issue if it would
help our work .
We will allocate 20-30 minutes to this issue at the next meeting.
Submitted by John Efroymson
DRAFT FOR CIRCULATION APRIL 17, 1992
RENTAL HOUSING OFFICER PROPOSAL POLICY WORKING GROUP
RENTAL HOUSING OFFICER : The position should include:
a4 Provide for public outreach. Arrange meetings of the
Commission or other city officials within neighborhood
places , like the recent Renters' Speak-Out.
b) Provide current information on rental unit availability,
pricing and conditions , for purposes of periodic assess-
. ment by the Commission and other public bodies ; including
the performance of a rental housing census .
c) Encourage more widespread information to tenants and
landlords as to rights and responsibilities , and
availability of recourse in the case of disputes ,
including mediation services and other steps short of
legal action.
d) Liase with the Planning and Development Committee ,
Housing Providers Committee and other agencies .
e) Assist in monitoring and enforcing the provisions
of the Security Deposit Ordinance .
f) Update the Rental Housing Guide and serve as gen-
eral staff for the Commission.
g) The appropriate job qualifications for the position
dbuld include knowledge of rental property and leases ,
conflict management, tenant concerns and applicable law.
Proposal for IRHC Structure March 11 , 1992
Submitted by Terry Pasco and Joan Bailey
1) Quorum - 6 people
2) Order of meeting
- Call to order,
- approve agenda, add any new business items for consideration
and set time limits for discussion,
- approve minutes ,
- public comment, 1 round of no more than two minutes per
person. During discussion itself , commission members may use
the privilege of the floor to respond to any comments by
the public . Also, the public is encouraged to send any
letters in advance and simply summarize their contents
during the public comment period . We should try to
facilitate additional public comment through some other
format ,
- old business ,
- new business ,
- working group reports ,
- miscellaneous
- summary - read back any votes taken or amendments to any
working proposals .
3) Minutes - these should be read and corrected at every meeting .
We need to develop some standard for what should be included. There
shall be one person serving as the primary recorder for each
meeting, assisted by a back-up note taker . We should also try to
tape the meetings . Minutes should also have copies of any voted-
upon measures attached to them.
4) Changes in meeting time - The chair shall have the right to
change a meeting time, providing that all commission members and
the Mayor 's office has been notified and that at least a quorum of
the commission can attend at the rescheduled time . The public shall
also be notified via a notice placed in the Ithaca Journal at least
3 days prior to the meeting . The chair can also exercise the right
to cancel a meeting in case of an emergency.
5) Information - we should make copies of information and set aside
a certain amount for the public. If any member of the commission or
public has information they would like to see circulated, the IRHC
will see to having it copied if the information is received a week
before the meeting . (perhaps we could rotate this responsibility ,
if necessary)
6) Records - a commissioner ' s notebook should be kept for agendas ,
minutes , other related information so that incoming commissioners
will have a source of reference materials .
c l `1
ITHACA RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION
Wednesday May 27, 1992
No Quorum being present, an informal discussion about reconstitution of
the Commission took place among those present.
iv ED
MEMORANDUM 1992
To: Rental Housing Commissioners
From: Mark Finkelstein
Re: Proposal to reconstitute Rental Housing Commission
Date: May 27, 1992
Why Reconstitute?
1. To have a commission such as ours whose membership is heavily slanted
offends fundamental notions of fairness and openness, going to the essence of
our democracy, . Under the current rules, it would be possible to have an
RHC with no landlord representation.
2. Those who might oppose reconstitution should ask themselves: what
arguments as to fairness would they make if an RHC had been constituted
under rules that permitted a situation in which not a single tenant would be a
member? The same principles of fairness apply here.
3. The argument has been made that it is fair to have a disproportionately
small number of landlords because they represent a relatively small
percentage of the population. That ignores the fact that the RHC is specifically
established to deal with landlord/tenant issues, in which landlords have an
equal interest and involvement. Let us imagine that a Commission had been
established to improve race relations. Would anyone argue that of a 9-
member Commission, a maximum of one member of a racial minority
should be a member because they represent a small percentage of the local
population?
4. The RHC could simply do a better job if we had a more balanced
composition. To date, the RHC has operated in an atmosphere of mistrust
and mutual antagonism. As a result, relatively little has been accomplished.
To a significant extent, this can be attributed to the RHC's unbalanced
composition, which has led the landlord community to feel that the RHC,
and by extension city government in general, is stacked against it.
5. Within our community there are many landlords of good faith, with lots of
relevant experience, energy and good ideas. If we could include more of them
on the RHC, not only would we benefit from those qualities, we would I
believe also find that landlords as a group, feeling they were getting a fair
1
2
shake, would adopt a more positive and cooperative attitude. The bottom
line would be more results for tenants and landlords. For the RHC to work,
landlords must be made a part of the solution, not be scapegoated as the
cause of the problem.
6. The attitudes and proposals that have been expressed at the RHC, as well as
its composition, have once again given the city a black eye, not only in the
housing sector, but among the entire business community. Once again the
City of Ithaca distinguishes itself as the least business-friendly part of
Tompkins County. Yet if we want to have housing that is more plentiful and
affordable, we are going to need to attract more people into the city to create
that housing. Reconstituting the RHC along fairer lines would be an
excellent first step in sending the right message. •+
Does the RHC have the Right to Propose a Change in Composition to
Common Council?
At least one member of the RHC has suggested that it is beyond the power of
the RHC to propose to Common Council that the composition of the RHC be
changed. The argument made was that since Common Council created the
RHC, it is up to Common Council to change the RHC. But the fact is that
Common Council adopts all city ordinances, not just that creating the RHC.
It is precisely our task to recommend to Common Council which ordinances
should be adopted or changed to further the goals of our Commission.
This is borne out in at least three separate provisions of the charge to the RHC
contained in the ordinance which established it, namely:
"3. a. Advising Common Council on steps to be taken to improve the
accessibility, affordability, and quality of rental housing in the City of Ithaca.
3. b. Advising Common Council on steps to be taken to achieve the oals of
the City of Ithaca's housing policy; and G
C tAi
3. f. Studying further . . . such other issues and proposals as it may become
necessary to examine."
The very essence of the current proposal is that the entire rental housing
agenda would be advanced through the recomposition of a more effective
•
RHC. A proposal to that effect from the RHC to Common Council is thus
indisputably an appropriate fulfillment of our responsibilities.
How should the RHC be Reconstituted?
The current rules call for the RHC to be composed as follows:
9 members, all residents of the city, of whom at least 4 are tenants.
1 member from each ward.
2 members from staff or board of not-for-profit housing providers.
1 landlord, property manager or bay kind community member.
1 member from Common Council. �^
There are undoubtedly many possibilities for an improved composition of
the RHC, but certain principles would seem to apply.
First, the current imbalance between landlords and tenants must be
addressed. Under the current rules, there could be anywhere from 4 to 9
tenants and not a single landlord. A member of the banking community
should not necessarily be presumed to know or represent the interests of the
landlord community.
While the ward of residence of members might be taken into account as an
informal matter in making appointments, we should not restrict
membership along ward lines. We should and have been looking at matters
from a city-wide perspective.
The "not-for-profit" category should probably be expanded to include housing
advocates as well as providers, e.g. a member of Neighborhood Legal Services.
Adopting the foregoing principles, one possible proposal would be for an
RHC constituted as follows:
9 members, to include:
3 tenants
3 private sector landlords or property managers of city rental housing
property (not necessarily residents)
2 staff or board members of not-for-profit housing advocates or providers
1 member of Common Council
Apfoilcdedv +ed
,)e rt "
City of Ithaca Rental Housing Commission
Minutes of June 24, 1992 Meeting
Members Present: Ed Dormady, Chair, Joan Baily, Pierre Clavel, John
Efroymson, Mark Finkelstein, George Frantz, Carol Mallison, Terry Pasco
Public Present: Larry Beck, Myra Malkin, Mayor Ben Nichols
Chair Ed Dormady opened the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
1. Agenda. Agenda was approved as proposed.
2. Approval of Minutes. The minutes of the April and May meetings
were passed with minor corrections.
3. Correspondence/Communications. Since the last meeting the Chair
and other Commission members received two letters and six telephone calls
relating to rental housing issues from tenants or landlords. Issues were:
1. Pressure by landlord on tenant to sign lease extension;
2. A landlord threatened to charge tenant for costs of pest
extermination because tenant had a dog;
3. A person subletting an apartment had made rent payment to the
leaseholder, but leaseholder failed to forward payment to landlord,
who was now threatening to evict the person subletting the
apartment;
4. An inquiry from a tenant who complained of inadequate water
pressure;
5. A landlord was having problems with a tenant suffering
psychiatric problem, had to initiate eviction process;
6. A rental agent was being harassed by former tenant over security
deposit dispute;
7. A long term renter had question regarding lease with August to
August term, but with rent increase on January 1, and also clause that
allows landlord to raise rent to cover increased operating expenses;
8. A landlord has given all tenants notice to vacant premises after
one person in a four person apartment was late with rent.
Other correspondence and communications:
1. Chair Dormady read a letter in support of Security Deposit
legislation;
2. John Efroymson reported on a telephone call from Brenda Kuhn
on Finger Lakes Independent Center effort to compile roster of
handicapped accessible rental housing units in Ithaca.
4. Public Comment: Larry Beck spoke in support of reconstituting the
Rental Housing Commission to include a wider spectrum of people. He
compared his experience with the RHC to his experience as a member of the
Building Department Advisory Board. In his opinion the RHC was
"inexperienced" in terms of hands on knowledge of the rental housing
business by its members. (See Exhibit A)
5. Mayor Nichols: Mayor Nichols addressed the Commission regarding
the issue of reconstituting its membership. He referred to the July 1989
report of the Rental Housing Task Force (Exhibit B), and to the Common
Council resolution of May 5, 1990 which established the Rental Housing
Commission and its current membership composition.(Exhibit C)
Mayor Nichols noted that Common Council had intended for the
Commission to be more than a tenant/landlord relations forum, and that the
Commission has not made the progress on critical rental housing issues that
he had hoped it would have made by now. He was opposed to efforts to
reconstitute the membership of the Commission. In his opinion
reconstituting the Commission would result in further delays, and that the
Commission should get back to focusing on its charge. The Mayor further
stated that those members of the Commission who did not like its
membership makeup as adopted by Common Council should resign.
An extended discussion of the mission of the Rental Housing Commission and
whether or not its membership structure should be reconstituted followed.
The primary issues discussed were: 1) the mission of the Commission,
especially with regards to whether or not it should function as an advocate
for renters in the City of Ithaca, and ; 2) the idea of reconstituing the
Commission membership to ensure landlord representation on it, as
proposed by Mark Finkelstein in a memo dated May 27, 1992 (Exhibit D), and
the impact of such reconstitution on the charge to the Commission outlined
in the Common Council resolution of May 5, 1990.
The Commission membership continues to be divided on the issue of
whether or not its should function as an advocate for renters. Some
members favor a stronger focus toward advocacy for tenants and tenant
rights. Some favor an approach that would work with renters and landlords
to address the overall problem of rental housing in Ithaca, including
supply. Mayor Nichols expressed his opinion that the Commission should be
biased toward advocacy on behalf of renters.
On the issue of reconstitution, Commission members who favor the concept
of reconstituting the membership structure defended the idea. The proposal
is not intended to result in any change to the charge to the Commision by
Common Council. Rather the intent of the proposal to reconstitute the
membership is to have a Commission that would bring together all parties
involved in rental housing in Ithaca to work together to carry out that
charge. The mission and goals of the Commission would remain the same
after any change in membership structure.
After extended debate no consensus was reached on the issues of the
Commission's role as tenants' advocate, or the proposal to reconstitute its
membership. John Efroymson moved that the various working groups of
the Commision convene in the coming weeks to review missions, needs and
goals, and to come up with work programs to be discussed at the next
Commission meeting
Motion was seconded by Joan Bailey. A discussion followed.
AYES: Bailey, Dormady, Efroymson, Finkelstein, Frantz, Mallison, Pasco.
NAYS: None.
Abstain: Clavel.
6. Reconstitution: No further discussion on reconstituting the
Commission took place.
7. Rental Housing Officer: City Building Commissioner Rick Eckstrom is
investigating reorganization of the Building Department, and would like to
see some sort of Rental Housing Officer position within the Department.
They already receive a large number of inquiries from renters and
landlords regarding rental housing issues. His major problem with setting
up such a position, however, are budgetary restraints.
The Policy Group agrees that the Rental Housing Officer position should be
in the Building Department.
Terry Pasco pointed out that perhaps some of the duties that Mary Pat Dolan
performed at the County level to be done by a rental housing officer.
John Efroymson suggested that a list of potential responsibilities for the
position be drawn up.
8. Other Business: Joan Bailey and John Efroymson reported on
accompanying City building inspectors on a number of inspections in
recent weeks. They found the inspections very interesting and educational.
9. Adjournment. The meeting Adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
George R. Fran z
Approved as revised August 26, 1992
ITHACA RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION
Wednesday, June 24, 1992
Second Floor Conference Room
Ithaca City Hall
5 - 7pm
AGENDA
Est. Time Item
5 min. Approval of Agenda
10 min. Approval of April Minutes (Please bring)
10 min. Correspondence/Communications
10 min. Public Comment
30 min. Mayor Nichols
30 min. Reconstitution
30 min. Rental Housing Officer
AGENDA is subject to approval or modification by the full Commission at the
June meeting. Questions or comments about the agenda may be directed to
the attention of Ed Dormady, Chair IRHC at 277-1659. •
PARALLELS AND CONTRASTS
BDAB AND RHC
Representation from numerous Polarized issues and constituents
constituents not all constituents recognized
Equally represented Inequitably representation
Clearly defined goals Self definition of goals
Experienced practiced Minority experienced and practiced
participants majority without practical experience
Acknowledgement of State Ignorance and avoidance of State and
and Local Codes Local Codes
SUGGESTIONS
Identify constituents and reconstitute Commission
Housing suppliers Housing users
owners tenants are:
managers working people
bankers students
planners DSS, CSS, 551
designers Section 8
builders single parents
developers elder
real tors emancipated minors
Constitute RHC equitabily between suppliers and users.
- -
•
•
FINAL REPORT
COMMON COUNCIL
FROM THE
CITY OF ITHACA•S
RENTAL HOUSING TASK FORCE
Presented to Common Council and the Mayor
•
July 5, 1989
Steve Jackson Sean Killeen
Chair Vice-Chair
Steven I. Jackson
142 Giles St.
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
(607) 273-2149
July 5, 1989
To the Mayor and Members of Common Council:
It is my pleasure to deliver to you this Final Report from the Rental
Housing Task Force of the City of Ithaca. In sixteen meetings, beginning on
December 19th, 1988 and concluding on June 26th, 1989, the Task Force has
worked vigorously to respond to your request for recommendations to address
the critical needs of the two-thirds of our community's households who rent.
The Task Force, surveying a wide range of issues and concerns of
renters, focussed much of its attention on the crisis of affordability.
Relying on research by the planning staff, by INHS, and by myself and Valerie
MacDougall, most Task Force members came to recognize that rents have risen
much more rapidly than incomes in recent years, and that the trend appears to
be continuing, in spite of current vacancies in the Collegetown market. Most
Task Force members concluded that even if current signs of softness in the
housing market continue, the market is unlikely to bring rents down
substantially, and almost certainly not sufficiently to address the concerns
of those who are increasingly being priced out of Ithaca's housing market.
The Task Force concluded that without City action rental housing would
continue to present intolerable difficulties to those who presently rent and
to those who might wish to in the future.
This Report focusses, as did the Task Force in the end, on six
recommendations, detailed in Section A. Those recommendations include: the
creation of a permanent Rental Housing Commission; the adoption of a set of
principles to guide the development of a coherent Housing Policy; the
establishment of, and dedication of certain sources of revenue, to a Housing
Trust Fund; the establishment of a community rental registry; further
examination of a rent stabilization system; and speedy action on three sets of
recommendations.
The Task Force unanimously recommended the creation of a permanent
Rental Housing Commission; the only dissent on the recommendation was that by
Neal Howard to the specification that a majority of the membership should be
composed of tenants. In spite of that difference, the Task Force was united
in the view that beyond the formal membership of the Commission, it should be
charged by Council with involving interested groups in the community,
including particularly Cornell graduate students and senior citizens, in their
deliberations as much as possible.
The Task Force discussed numerous possibilities for City action which
would require City funds, ranging from revolving loan funds for security
deposits, to expanded subsidies for those below, at, or near the poverty line,
to assistance to programs such as the Mutual Housing program of INHS. The
Task Force is convinced that these and other actions will be necessary;
however, we have made no specific recommendations on these matters. Instead,
we have tried to address the more vexing question of where the funds with
1
• which to attack the problems of renters should originate. In making these
recommendations we have been guided and greatly assisted by the report of Paul
Mazzarella and Kathe Evans, dated June 17, 1988, "Report on Housing Trust Fund
Revenue Sources. " The only dissent on revenue sources was that of Neal Howard
(with an abstention by Jean Rector) on the possibility of using the interest
from security deposits on rental units as a source for the Housing Trust Fund.
All other sources were unanimously recommended.
The most controversial question facing the Task Force was whether, in
the face of rents which seem to many to be escalating out of control , some
form of rent control would be desirable. As a result of our investigations
and discussion, the Task Force has recommended the establishment of a
community rental registry, as a mechanism for gathering systematic information
on rents in the City. In addition, the Task Force recommends further
examination of the options for a rent stabilization system in the City. To
both of these recommendations Neal Howard dissented, on the grounds that rent
stabilization has demonstrated negative effects, and that a rental registry is
a step in that dangerous direction. I also dissented from the recommendation
with respect to rent stabilization, believing that compelling evidence
demonstrates to the unbiased eye that rent stabilization would be desirable
for the City of Ithaca, that only the details of implementation remain to be
examined.
In spite of disagreements over rent stabilization, the Task Force did
agree unanimously that urgent action was required on three sets of
recommendations: the creation of the permanent Rental Housing Commission; the
adoption of the principles for guiding our Housing Policy; and the designation
of three sources of revenue for the Housing Trust Fund. In each case, tha
Task Force has recommended dates of completion for each of these tasks which u
are realistic but ambitious. The community will watch the progress of your
action on these recommendations and judge the capacity of the City of Ithaca
to respond effectively to the affordable housing crisis by your ability to
meet the challenge of the deadlines which we have offered.
In addition to the recommendations we have made to Council , the Task
Force also decided formally to communicate both with the County Board of
Representatives and with the Chairman of Cornell University's Board of
Trustees on timely issues of direct relevance to the Task Force's work.
Copies of these communications are included in Section B of the Report.
Section C includes specific suggestions developed by the Working Groups
of the Task Force for additional actions which ought to be pursued. These
suggestions are forwarded for the consideration of both Council and the
permanent Rental Housing Commission; formally, these proposals were not voted
upon by the Task Force, merely forwarded for further consideration. Section D
consists of a listing of areas of concern and possible action developed by the
Task Force which ought to be sent to the permanent Rental Housing Commission
as a basis for their further discussions.
2
•
• Finally, Section E of the Report includes Neal Howard's letter of
dissent from the recommendations of the Task Force, his dissenting letter to
the Chairman of the Board of Cornell's Trustees, and my own dissent from the
Task Force's recommer1ation on rent stabilization.
I am pleased to send to you for your consideration this product of so
much dedicated labor by those who volunteered to serve on this Task Force. I
am frustrated that we were able to accomplish so little, in the face of so
much need. Yet, I trust that if Council begins by quickly acting on these
recommendations that we will have a solid basis for continuing and expanding
our efforts to address the needs of Ithaca's renters -- now and in the future.
Sincerely,
Steve Jackson
Chair, Rental Housing Task Force
P.S. Complete documentation to accompany this Report, including minutes of
all meetings, analyses and reports relied upon by the Task Force, and an
archive of information compiled by the Task Force, will be ready and delivered
within a week to ten days.
3
SECTION A:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO
COMMON COUNCIL
FROM THE \-/
CITY OF ITHACA'S
RENTAL HOUSING TASK FORCE
4
•
I.
RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION
The Rental Housing Task Force recommends the creation of a permanent Rental
Housing Commission by the City of Ithaca.
The Commission's responsibilities should include:
**advising Common Council on steps to be taken to improve the
accessibility, the affordability, and the quality of rental
housing in the City;
**advising Common Council on steps to be taken to achieve the goals of
the City of Ithaca's housing policy;
**advising both the Planning and Development Board and the Board of
Zoning Appeals concerning zoning changes and appeals for variances
and any potential impacts those changes or appeals might have on
rental housing affordability and availability;
**advising both the Building Department and the Planning Department on
the allocation of staff time to, and the design of programs for,
the improvement of rental housing conditions, and calling upon the
Directors of those Departments (or their designees) to appear as
necessary at the meetings of the Commission;
**serving as Trustee of the Housing Trust Fund, such that money can only
be appropriated from that fund with the approval of both Common
Council and the Rental Housing Commission;
**readying for implementation those recommendations of the Rental
Housing Task Force which call for further elaboration before
implementation;
**studying further those issues and proposals left to the Commission by
the Rental Housing Task Force and such other issues and proposals
as it may become necessary to examine.
The Commission's membership should include seven members, appointed by the
Mayor, under the following conditions:
**the members of Common Council from each Ward shall nominate to the
Mayor two residents of their Wards, at least one of whom is a
tenant, who are willing to serve on the Commission, from which
nominees the Mayor shall choose five members of the Commission;
**one member of the Commission shall be a landlord or property manager,
to be confirmed by Common Council;
**one member of the Commission shall be a member of Common Council , to
serve as a voting member and liaison;
**a majority of the membership shall always be composed of tenants in
the City of Ithaca;
**the regular terms of appointment shall be for three years for all
members other than the Common Council liaison, and these
appointments shall be made initially for one, two, and three year
terms, such that every year two seats will become vacant;
**the Common Council liaison shall serve for two years;
**the Chair and Vice-Chair will be elected annually by the Commission.
The Commission will be provided support from a professional housing planner
and clerical staff.
5
II .
HOUSING POLICY
The Rental Housing Task Force recommends that the City of Ithaca develop
housing policies based on the following guiding principles:
**Respond to the diverse needs of all areas of the City;
**Serve the full range of income groups that cannot afford unsubsidized
housing, including the homeless, the working poor, those on public
assistance, those of low and moderate incomes, and those with
special needs;
**Utilize third parties, including not-for-profit organizations,
Federal , State, and County agencies, housing authorities, private
developers, labor unions, and financial institutions, in producing
affordable housing;
**Produce housing so that its design and size are appropriate for the
community;
**Foster racial and economic integration in City-assisted housing
development;
**Ensure that housing built to be affordable remains affordable;
**Emphasize one-time capital grants, wherever possible, instead of on-
going rental subsidies;
**Recognize that the preservation of the affordable housing stock is at
least as critical as new production;
**Promote home ownership;
**In the case of rental buildings, promote tenant participation.
III .
HOUSING TRUST FUND
In the furtherance of this policy and its commitment to the adequate provision
for affordable housing, the Rental Housing Task Force recommends the creation
of a Housing Trust Fund, with the following sources of revenue:
**Developer impact fees, based on the demonstrated impact of particular
kinds of development on rents and housing prices in the City of
Ithaca, and, if possible, implemented flexibly enough to allow for
non-financial contributions where appropriate;
**City-owned parcels of land, either sold with the receipts placed in
the Trust Fund, or directly contributed to projects which result
in affordable housing;
**Real estate transfer tax of between 1% and 3%, including the
possibility of a sliding scale to exempt and/or reduce the impact
on sales of modestly priced single family homes;
**Interest on security deposits for rental units held in escrow;
**Repayment of Eddygate Apartments HODAG and Henry St. John UDAG;
**Grants from the State's Housing Trust Fund;
**Contribution from an expanded County room tax.
6
IV.
ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMUNITY RENTAL REGISTRY
The Rental Housing Task Force recommends the establishment of a community
rental registry.
The Rental Housing Task Force further recommends that the permanent Rental
Housing Commission consult with Building Commissioner Datz, Neff Cassaburri ,
Assistant Dean of Students at Cornell , and other interested parties to
determine how this might best be accomplished.
The Rental Housing Task Force specifically does not take a position as to
whether this registry should be maintained as a municipal responsibility or as
a private activity.
V.
RENT STABILIZATION
The Rental Housing Task Force recommends further examination of a rent
stabilization system in the City of Ithaca, modelled on the systems in place
in more than 200 cities nationwide, including more than 60 municipalities in
New York State outside New York City. Such a system should include the
following features:
**providing a fair rate of return to landlords;
**conditioning rent increases to adequate maintenance;
**providing for recovery of costs of capital improvements through rent
increases;
**exempting new construction;
**exempting properties with few units (the exact number to be determined
by the Rental Housing Commission) ;
**allowing for vacancy de-control ;
**implemented in the least costly manner possible.
The Rental Housing Task Force recommends that the permanent Rental Housing
Commission give the highest priority to the investigation of the feasible
options for rent stabilization available to the City, through discussions
within the community and with other cities which have experience with rent
stabilization systems.
7
VI .
PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
The Rental Housing Task Force makes five sets of recommendations to Common
Council , four of which are recommendations for action and one of which is a
recommendation for further examination. In addition, the Task Force has
forwarded to Council a series of specific suggestions which are the result of
Task Force working groups and discussions, yet which are not formally
recommended by the Task Force at this time. Finally, the Task Force forwards
to Council a list of additional areas of concern or potential solutions with
which the Task Force has barely dealt.
Among these numerous recommendations, suggestions, and ideas, there are three
specific sets of actions which the Task Force calls upon Common Council to act
upon as quickly as possible, with the date of expected completion indicated
with the listing of each priority item. The three items which require the
immediate attention of and action by Common Council are:
1. The establishment of a Permanent Rental Housing Commission, accompanied
by the allocation of staff time to that commission -- to be
completed by October, 1989.
2. The adoption of a set of guiding principles for developing future
housing policies -- to be completed simultaneously with the
establishment of the permanent Rental Housing Commission by October,
1989.
3. The creation of a Housing Trust Fund, and the allocation to that fund of
those recommended revenue sources and properties which are within the
power of the City of Ithaca, without State authorization, to allocate:
a) developer impact fees --to be completed by December, 1989;
b) City-owned parcels of land -- to be completed by December,
1989;
c) repayments from Eddygate HODAG and Henry St. John UDAG -- to be
completed by September, 1989.
Priorities for the remaining actions will have to be determined in
consultation with the permanent Rental Housing Commission.
8
SECTION B:
LETTERS
FROM
THE RENTAL HOUSING TASK FORCE
•
TO
TOMPKINS COUNTY AND CORNELL UNIVERSITY
ON TIMELY ISSUES
OF DIRECT RELEVANCE
TO THE SUPPLY OF
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING
9
June 12, 1989
Representative James Mason
Chairman, Tompkins County Board of Representatives
320 N. Tioga St.
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Representative Mason:
On behalf of the City of Ithaca's Rental Housing Task Force,
we write to urge you and the County Board to give serious
consideration to the channeling of funds from the County room tax
into programs for the homeless and for affordable housing.
Our Task Force, meeting since last December, has gathered
quite clear evidence of a substantial crisis in affordable housing
within the City of Ithaca and beyond. Rents pricing a substantial
number of working people out of the housing market, rents rising
more rapidly than incomes, and the very scarce supply of SROs and
low cost apartments of all sizes, are indicative of a serious and
far-reaching problem. It is clear that the solution of this
crisis, which surely affects much of the County as much as it does
the City, will require concerted action by the private sector and
the public sector, operating at all levels, including City, County,
State, and Federal programs. While public funds will play but one
part in the solution to our housing problems, there will clearly
need to be an increased commitment of public funds to meet our
housing needs, including, for example, investments in programs: to
encourage mutual housing and community land trusts: to meet
emergency needs of the homeless: to expand the number of subsidized
units available in the short-term: and to assist renters in
overcoming the obstacles posed by large security deposits.
The County Board of Representatives and the Chamber of
Commerce have done this community a service by introducing an
innovative and wholly appropriate mechanism for raising revenue
from those who visit our community and who rightly should shoulder
some of the financial burden of those programs in our community
which will restore and maintain the public health and well-being
of the permanent residents of this community. Programs for the
homeless and for affordable housing would seem a perfect fit for
an elaboration of the original room tax, to
u
10
provide "shelter to shelter" assistance, as those visiting our
hotels and motels would help provide aid to those who live in our
apartments and homes.
We understand that the Board is currently discussing the
nature of the request to be made to the State Legislature for
renewed authorization for the room tax. We urge the Board to seek
a higher rate than the present 2%, and to commit a substantial
portion of those new funds to programs for reinvestment in much
needed housing in our community.
Funds allocated from the tax might be directed to the Housing
Trust Fund of the City of Ithaca which we will be urging the City
to establish in our Final Report at the end of June. In our
Report, we will be recommending a range of sources for that fund
and would very much like to include possible allocations from the
room tax in our recommendations.
Our Task Force would be very happy to discuss these ideas
further with you and your associates as well as any other ideas
for potential collaboration between the City and the County in
tackling the pressing need for more affordable housing in our
community.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steven Jackson, Chair
Sean Killeen, Vice-Chair
cc: Board of Representatives EOC
Mayor Gutenberger Red Cross
Common Council Better Housing of T.C.
INHS Tompkins County Focus
Board of Realtors Human Services Coalition
IHA Mutual Housing Assoc.
Southside Community Center
11
Rental Housing Task Force
June 26, 1989
Mr. Stephen Weiss, Chairman
Cornell University Board of Trustees
Office of the Trustees
Day Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
Dear Mr. Weiss:
The City of Ithaca's Rental Housing Task Force, appointed six months ago
by the Mayor, has been studying the rental housing situation in the Ithaca
community. Our report will soon be presented to Common Council and we expect
that a permanent Rental Housing Commission will be established to address the
urgency of the local situation and to act upon our recommendations.
A working committee of the current task force has met with officials
from both Cornell University and Ithaca College to discuss the impact of the
student and staff populations on the rental market in greater Ithaca. It is
clear to us that there is a serious shortage of affordable housing in our
city. It is also quite clear that the campus population does play a
significant part in the overall vacancy rate and in rental rates. Some say
that the presence of students in our housing markets drives the setting of
rates, as landlords look at what Cornell charges in its residence halls and
uses that to figure what students will be willing to pay for rental units
within our community. Studies conducted by members of our Task Force indicate
that rents in downtown Ithaca have increased by more than 100% in the past
decade, and by more than 10% in the past year.
We were encouraged to hear reports of your interest in establishing more
on-campus housing for Cornell students, and would be pleased to discuss these
plans further with you. However, we have grave concerns over the influence
that even on-campus costs have on the housing market in Ithaca. We urge you
to proceed to find ways to have Cornell provide more housing for its students
while, at the same time, keeping the costs for this housing at reasonable
rates.
12
Best wishes in your position as Chairman of the Board of Trustees. We
would hope to begin discussions with you in the near future as you set your
agenda and turn to the topic of housing as a priority concern for Cornell and •
the City.
Sincerely,
Steve Jackson, Chair
Sean Killeen, Vice-Chair
cc: Mayor Gutenberger
Common Council
Members of Cornell University's Board of Trustees
John Burness, Cornell University
William Gurowitz, Cornell University
13
SECTION C:
SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS
DEVELOPED BY
THE WORKING GROUPS
OF THE
RENTAL HOUSING TASK FORCE
TO BE
PURSUED FURTHER
BY THE
PERMANENT RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION
14
I .
•
Zoning Changes to Encourage Affordable
Housing While Protecting Neighborhoods
(submitted by Sean Killeen and Laura Lewis)
**Press for deliberation on new zoning categories, such as R2C, which
would allow greater flexibility in the development of affordable
housing while respecting existing neighborhood structures. At the
same time, press for revision of R3a and R3b to also permit
greater flexibility.
**Urge that land currently designated P (public) be differentiated by
subcategories as with other zoning designations (P1, P2, P3) in
order to promote more efficient public use and benefit.
**Evaluate land within the City and outlying communities currently
holding tax exempt status within the framework of new or revised
zoning categories.
II.
Tenants' Rights. Model Leases, and
Mutual Responsibilities
(submitted by Valerie MacDougall and Sean Killeen)
**Urge Cooperative Extension's "Rent Smart" model lease be used locally
under spirit of consumer law insuring mutual fair play and
informed transaction.
**Make clearly evident that security deposit agreement is subsection of
lease.
**Produce a one page (modelled on the City's Recycling rules handout)
"Rules of Renting" which highlights:
privacy and limited rights of landlord access;
lease in force if property sold;
limits on security deposits;
emphasis on local laws, including Fair Housing, Recycling,
Smoking.
**Urge continuous monitoring and revision of booklets describing
tenants' rights by private interest groups like CPIRG or Community
Dispute Resolution Center.
**Provide guide to tenants on extensive prohibitions (pets, tuba-
playing, waterbeds, etc. ) and penalties for infractions; include
discussion of prohibitions which have legal basis and which are
merely whimsical?
**Require certificate of occupancy and emergency phone number to be
posted in main entrance hall of rental complex.
**Credit voucher for past positive behavior as tenant could be developed
as waiver mechanism for security deposit (modelled on concept
already used by utility companies) .
**ACC Cable, NY Telephone, and NYSEG security deposits could be used to
capitalize revolving security fund for utilities.
15
III .
Security Deposits
(submitted by Jean Rector and Sean Killeen)
**Equal treatment of all renters regarding security deposits on all
types of living units (rooms, apartments, etc. ) is objective often
determining minimal legal requirements; simplify and clarify range
of types of security deposits (space, key, trash can deposits,
etc. ) and range of options (1st month, last month, etc. ) .
**Uniform practice on security deposit interest.
**Portion of basic security deposit to be placed in revolving fund to
enable those of limited means to borrow from this start-up fund.
**Return of deposit within "reasonable time" to be locally defined as no
more than 30 days.
**Statement of repairs made must be provided to tenant by landlord if
security deposit charges are applied. Efforts at time of lease
signing, perhaps through video recording, should be made to
mutually agree on standards for judging condition in which unit
should be left.
IV.
Recommendations for Ithaca College
and Cornell University
(submitted by Neal Howard and Laura Lewis)
**The Office of Residence Life at Ithaca College should make it a
priority to deal with off-campus student life for the
approximately 2000 I .C. students who will live in the Ithaca
community each year. We recommend that the Office of Residence
Life clearly identify a staff member whose responsibility it will
be to develop programs which facilitate positive interaction
between community members and the off-campus student population.
A more organized student advisory board should be coordinated by
this person and together they could address student questions and
responsibilities concerning renting. Town meetings may also serve
to clear the air on issues of concern for area residents.
**Both Ithaca College and Cornell University can contribute resources to
improve the condition of affordable housing in the Ithaca
community whether it is through donations of land for housing
development or the encouragement of faculty research and
information sharing on topics such as funding sources for
affordable housing, identifying communities which have developed
low cost housing, increased involvement in existing programs such
as INHS.
16
**To provide more low and middle income housing in Ithaca, Ithaca
College and Cornell ought to be urged to donate a parcel of land
for new construction. Without the cost of the land, a developer
could build cheaper units with affordable rents. Since this land
was previously tax exempt, tax money would now be generated. The
City of Ithaca could use this new money for promoting affordable
housing either through: 1) direct subsidies to landlords and/or
tenants or 2) further development of affordable housing units.
[submitted solely by Neal Howard]
V.
Sweat Equity
(submitted by Paula Weiss)
**Work out procedures and regulations necessary to institute sweat
equity programs for housing.
**Building Code Regulations: interpret state and local law to allow
occupancy before house is complete, by drawing distinctions
between life safety and aesthetic issues.
**Financing: encourage loan programs that allow financing of sweat
equity construction.
**Guidelines: develop uniform guidelines for instituting a program that
developers or agencies who want to produce this housing option can
follow.
VI .
Transportation
(submitted by Paula Weiss)
**Recommend that the City (and County) adopt a policy of trying to
locate higher density affordable housing near the public
transportation lines and where infrastructure (water and sewer)
are or could become available.
17
VII .
Housing for Seniors
(submitted by Jean Rector)
**Encourage development of more apartments for seniors, most of which
should be subsidized (i.e. like McGraw and Titus) .
**Encourage development of more residential care facilities, such as
Ithacare.
**Change zoning (if necessary) to permit adult day care in private homes
and shared living residences (6 to 8 adults living together as
family) .
**City should require Cornell to inspect student apartments.
**City should inspect all living units more often than every three
years.
**Establish some type of transportation service for evening hours -- to
go to concerts, etc.
18
SECTION D:
AREAS OF CONCERN
AND POSSIBLE ACTION
DEVELOPED BY
THE RENTAL HOUSING TASK FORCE
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
BY THE
PERMANENT RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION
19
At its meeting of March 27, 1989 [as recorded in the minutes of that
meeting] the Task Force undertook the task of putting proposals for action on
the table. After discussion, and contributions from all Task Force members,
the following not necessarily independent topics, ideas, and proposals had
been raised:
*relationship of Cornell and Ithaca College to housing
*funds for and creation of Housing Trust Fund
*enforcement
*need for a permanent board and staff
*developer impact fees
*rent control and/or rent registry
*recycling of housing
*loan programs for security deposits
*inter-municipal planning
*interest on security deposits returned to all renters
*posting of certificates of occupancy in lobby of apartments
*model leases and tenants' bill of rights
*expanding public assistance for subsidized housing
*mutual housing and/or community land trusts
*regulatory relief to encourage private developers to provide affordable
housing
*zoning changes which would provide neighborhood protection while
encouraging more housing
*providing more housing opportunities for those with disabilities
*need for more information about the costs and benefits of being a
landlord
*define affordable housing
*formation of a tenants association
*increase housing supply, building housing not shelter
*additional housing on the Cornell campus
*involving BOCES in efforts to build affordable housing
*innovative sources of funds, including diverting part of the tourism
room tax to housing, a rental housing tax assessment, a tax on
off-campus students by the university
*increasing the decentralization of landlords
*increasing public transportation to outlying areas where more
affordable housing is or could be located
*encouraging construction of diverse housing types
*encouraging sweat equity
*possible zoning changes to accommodate needs of elderly
*encourage volunteer built housing
*encouraging businesses to do something about affordable housing
After this discussion, various members raised the difficulty of having so many
issues to look into and so little time. It was proposed by the Chair that it
might be appropriate to approve at this time a motion indicating the Task
Force's conclusion that a permanent board of the City would be required. at a
minimum. to continue discussion and investigation of these topics raised by
the Task Force where the Task Force will not have the time to look into them.
On the motion of the Chair. it was unanimously agreed (Lytel absent) that a
vermanent board would be recommended to Council to deal with issues of
affordable housing and rental housing. [Underlining added]
20
SECTION E:
DISSENTING VIEWS
OF
MEMBERS OF
THE
RENTAL HOUSING TASK FORCE
WITH RESPECT TO
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE
AND THE LETTERS SENT BY THE TASK FORCE
21
June 23 , 1989
City of Ithaca
Common Council . L/
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed please find my report on Rent Control and Rent
Stabilization as presented to my fellow Rental Housing Task Force
members. I think it is important that you read the substantial
evidence on the negative impact of any rent regulations on a
municipality. I am opposed to a rental registry for the City
because I see it as a "foot in the door" for future control.
As a manager of over 600 apartment units, I can assure you that
any plan for the City to control security deposits will result in
chaos. Also note that security deposits are now regulated by New
York State General Obligations Law (see enclosed) .
My recommendation for the membership of a permanent Rental
Housing Commission is a more varied committee: one Senior
Citizen, one tenant, one landlord, one common council person,
etc. I do not agree that the majority must always consist of
tenants. If a commission's purpose is to study the issues , more
involvement from community business people is essential.
I would be happy to answer any of your questions -- please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Neal Howard
NH:rd
Encl.
22
June 23 , 1989
Stephen Weiss, President
Cornell University Board of Trustees
Ithaca, New York 14853
Dear Mr. Weiss:
As a member of the Rental Housing Task Force for the City of
Ithaca, I personally oppose the recommendations to you from our
committee that were voted on June 19, 1989 for the following
reasons.
First, I don't believe the vacancy rate in the City of Ithaca is
less than 2% -- my experience this year with managing over 100
apartments for various landlords shows the vacancy rate to be
closer to 5%, and that is the rate local banks use when
processing a commercial loan.
Secondly, I disagree with my fellow rental housing members that
rents have risen 13% over the past sixteen months. I have
enclosed my report to the committee, and on pages four and five I
discount the "study" that was made of apartments from the Ithaca
Journal.
And thirdly, I do not agree that Cornell should be urged to build
more units for its students. As I have cited in my report, there
is currently a glut of apartments on East Hill due to private
development.
My recommendation is University-owned land be donated to private
developers to build low and moderate income housing within the
city.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Neal Howard
427 N. Cayuga Street
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
273-1669
23
Steven I. Jackson
142 Giles St.
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
(607) 273-2149
•
June 26, 1989
To the Mayor and Members of Common Council:
I write to dissent in a small , but significant, way from the
recommendation of the Rental Housing Task Force urging further examination of
a system of rent stabilization. I believe that it is time to acknowledge the
desirability of such a system as one part of a solution to our crisis of
affordable housing. I believe that it is time to mandate that the permanent
Rental Housing Commission find the most appropriate manner in which such a
system should be implemented in the City of Ithaca.
Ithaca's rents have climbed out of control , increasing by more than 100%
between 1978 and 1988. During this same period, incomes rose a little less
than 70% and price inflation rose a little more than 70%. The result has been
an increasing transfer of income from renters to landlords. In the past year,
rents have continued to rise, increasing by more than 10%, while inflation and
income growth have been much lower. With rents pricing larger and larger
segments of the population out of our market, a wide-ranging attack on the
problem of affordability is called for. It seems difficult to me to justify
City expenditures or contributions from others until we have moved towards
assuring ourselves that landlords and developers are not reaping super-
profits. Guaranteeing a reasonable rate of return to landlords, while
eliminating the possibility of outrageous rents at the expense of local u
renters, is the sole object of a rental stabilization system.
Over 200 communities in the United States, and more than 60 in New York
State (outside New York City) , have adopted systems of rental regulation which
keep rents from escalating out of control . The main outlines of such a system
are clear: set a baseline based on existing rents; allow increases tied to
increases in the inflation rate; do not allow increases at all unless adequate
maintenance is certified; allow rent increases to capture the costs of capital
improvements; and allow for partial or complete decontrol of rents upon
vacancy. This basic system has been used and evaluated in so many different
settings that it is clear to me that its basic road-worthiness should not be
at issue. Details of its implementation should be.
24
It is important to recognize that rent stabilization will not solve the
crisis of affordability; however, it will help us to keep it from getting
worse. It will also assure all of us that landlords are part of the solution
to our housing problems not part of the problem. If major landlords had not
opted for maximizing their rental income, rather than calculating their rents
based on their costs, rental regulation would not be necessary. But
speculation in rental housing has become pervasive, and rental regulation is
unavoidable as one small , but essential , piece of an attack on shelter poverty
which is both just and effective.
I therefore urge you to recommend that the permanent Rental Housing
Commission move expeditiously to recommend steps to Council for the seeking of
State authorization and local implementation of a system of rent stabilization
modelled on the State's Emergency Tenant Protection Act, but modified to meet
the needs of our local market.
Sincerely,
Steve Jackson
Chair, Rental Housing Task Force
25
•
L►,b,t-
RESOLUTIONS
to Council . )
2. Term of Appointments .
a. All members of the Commission shall be appointed for three
year terms, except that the initial appointments shall be
made for three members each at one, two, and three year
terms such that every year three seats will become vacant.
3. Responsibilities of the Commission.
a. Advising Common Council on steps to be taken to improve the
accessibility, affordability, and quality of rental housing
in the City of Ithaca.
b. Advising Common Council on steps to be taken to achieve the
goals of the City of Ithaca' s housing policy.
c. Advising both the Board of Planning and Development and the
Board of Zoning Appeals concerning zoning changes and
appeals for variances and any potential impacts those
changes or appeals might have on rental housing affor-
dability and availability.
d. Advising both the Building Department and the Planning
Department on the allocation of staff time to, and the
design of programs for, the improvement of rental housing
conditions, and calling upon the Directors of those depart-
ments or their designees to appear as necessary at the
meetings of the Commission.
e. Readying for implementation those recommendations of the
Rental Housing Task Force which call for further elabora-
tion before implementation.
f . Studying further those issues and proposals left to the
Commission by the Rental Housing Task Force and such other
issues and proposals as it may become necessary to examine.
g. Implementing programs or activities related to rental
housing, as hereafter directed by the Common Council .
h. The preparing of requests for funding from Common Council
for rental housing activities.
Supp. #15, 5/2/90 R-106
State St.Qssocs, @6/22/92 21:@0 P.@2
Yklib,t
MEMORANDUM
To: Rental Housing Commissioners
From: Mark Finkelstein
Re: Proposal to reconstitute Rental Housing Commission
Date: May 27, 1992
Why Reconstitute?
1. To have a commission such as ours whose membership is heavily slanted
offends fundamental notions of fairness and openness, going to the essence of
our democracy, . Under the current rules, it would be possible to have an
RHC with no landlord representation.
2. Those who might oppose reconstitution should ask themselves: what
arguments as to fairness would they make if an RI-3C had been constituted
under rules that permitted a situation in which not a single tenant would be a
member? The same principles of fairness apply here.
3. The argument has been made that it is fair to have a disproportionately
small number of landlords because they represent a relatively small
percentage of the population. That ignores the tact that the RHC is specifically
estahlished to deal with landlord/tenant issues, in which landlords have an
equal interest and involvement. Let us imagine that a Commission had been
established to improve race relations. Would anyone argue that of a 9-
member Commission, a maximum of one member of a racial minority
should be a member because they represent a small percentage of the local
population?
4. The RHC could simply do a better job if we had a more balanced
composition. To date, the RHC has operated in an atmosphere of mistrust
and mutual antagonism. As a result, relatively little has been accomplished.
To a significant extent, this can be attributed to the RHC's unbalanced
composition, which has led the landlord community to feel that the RHC,
and by extension city government in general, is stacked against it.
5. Within our community there are many landlords of good faith, with lots of
relevant experience, energy and good ideas. If we could include more of them
on the RHC, not only would we benefit from those qualities, we would I
believe also find that landlords as a group, feeling they were getting a fair
•
State St. Assocs. 06/22/92 21:01 P.03
2
shake, would adopt a more positive and cooperative attitude. The bottom
line would be more results for tenants and landlords. For the RHC to work,
landlords must be ruude u purt of the solution, not he scapegoatect as the
cause of the problem.
6. The attitudes and proposals that have been expressed at the RHC, as well as
its composition, have once again given the city a black eye, not only in the
housing sector, but among the entire business community. Once again the
City of Ithaca distinguishes itself as the least business-friendly part of
Tompkins County. Yet if we want to have housing that is more plentiful and
affordable, we are going to need to attract more people into the city to create
that housing. Reconstituting the RI-IC along fairer lines would be an
excellent first step in sending the right message.
Does the RHC: have the Right to Propose a Change in Composition to
Common Council?
At least one member of the RHC has suggested that it is beyond the power of
the RHC to propose to Common Council that the composition of the RHC be
changed. The argument made was that since Common Council created the
RHC, it is up to Common Council to change the RHC. But the fact is that
Common Council adopts all city ordinances, not just that creating the RI IC.
It is precisely our task to recommend to Common Council which ordinances
should be adopted or changed to further the goals of our Commission.
This is borne out in at least three separate provisions of the charge to the RHC
contained in the ordinance which established it, namely:
"3. a. Advising Common Council on steps to be taken to improve the
accessibility, affordability, and quality of rental housing in the City of Ithaca.
3. b. Advising Common Council on steps to be taken to achieve the goals of
the City of Ithaca's housing policy; and
3. f. Studying further . , . such other issues and proposals as it may become
necessary to examine."
The very essence of the current proposal is that the entire rental housing
agenda would be advanced through the recomposition of a more effective
State St.Fissocs, 06/22/92 21:02 P,04
3
A proposal to that effect from the RHC to Common Council is thus
indisputably an appropriate fulfillment of our responsibilities.
How should the RHC be Reconstituted?
The current rules call for the RIIC to be composed as follows:
9 members, all residents of the city, of whom at least 4 are tenants.
Y
memhor from each ward.
2 members from staff or board of not-for-profit housing providers.
1 landlord, property manager or banking community member.
1 member from Common Council.
There are undoubtedly many possibilities for an improved composition of
the RUC, but certain principles would seem to apply.
First, the current imbalance between landlords and tenants must be
addressed. Under the current rules, there could be anywhere from 4 to 9
tenants and not a single landlord. A member of the banking community
should not necessarily be presumed to know or represent the interests of the
landlord community.
While the ward of residence of members might be taken into account as an
informal matter in making appointments, we should not restrict
membership along ward lines. We should and have been looking at matters
from a city-wide perspective.
The "not-for-profit" category should prohahly he expanded to include housing
advocates as well as providers, e.g. a member of Neighborhood Legal Services.
Adopting the foregoing principles, one possible proposal would be for an
RHC constituted as follows:
9 members, to includei
3 tenants
3 private sector landlords or property managers of city rental housing
property (not necessarily residents)
2 staff or board members of not-for-profit housing advocates or providers
1 member of Common Council
o� `
;4./.• sri1v •\rt
•''COR •`��,
PoRA7e0
CITY OF ITHACA
1013 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 141350
OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: (607)274-6504
CITY ATTORNEY FAX: (607)272-7348
MEM0I22kMTMIM
TO: VMaY or Ben Nichols
Pat Kennedy, Assistant City Attorney
Rick Eckstrom, Building Commissioner
Cookie Paolangeli, City Clerk
Members, Rental Housing Commission
Members, C & 0
FROM: Chuck Guttman, City Attorney
DATE: July 7, 1992
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY DRAFT - SECURITY DEPOSIT ORDINANCE
Enclosed please find a very preliminary draft of a proposed
ordinance regarding security deposits and some policy questions
which I expect Council will consider. I would appreciate any
preliminary comments or concerns you have regarding this matter.
This may be discussed at the Charter and Ordinance Committee
meeting to be held on Thursday, July 9 . I realize that you are
getting this just prior to that meeting. Please feel free to get
me any comments either before, during or after the C & 0 meeting.
Enclosure
•
•M Equal Opportvney Empioyx'OM an AXrmahve Acton Program' Recycled Paper
OUTLINE OF SECURITY DEPOSIT ORDINANCE
I. Statement of Findings of Fact and Statement of Purpose
A. The City of Ithaca has , a significant tenant
population
B. Equitable landlord-tenant relations are a matter of
public- welfare
C. Prompt reasonable return of security deposits is an
important factor in tenants being able to obtain
subsequent housing
D. The issue of return of security deposits is a source
of potential conflict between landlords and tenants
which may result in a burdensome affect on the
Ithaca City Court.
II. Definitions 1
A. Landlord: Person who has the right to exclusive
possession of certain premises and who, for
consideration under a rental agreement, agrees to
• relinquish that right to another temporarily,
retaining a right of reversion of the premises upon
termination of such agreement.
B. Normal Wear-and-Tear: The deterioration which
occurs, based on the use for which the rental unit
is intended, without negligence, carelessness ,
accident or abuse of the premises or equipment or
chattels by the tenant or members of his/her
household or their invitees or guests. The term
"normal wear-and-tear" does not include sums or
labor extended by the landlord in removing from the
rental unit articles abandoned by the tenant such
as trash. If a rental unit was leased to a tenant
in a habitable condition or if it was put in a
habitable condition by the landlord during the term
of the tenancy, "normal wear-and-tear" does not
include sums required to be expended by the landlord
to return the rental unit to a habitable condition, .
unless expenditure of these sums was necessitated
by actions of the landlord, events beyond the
control of the tenant, or actions of someone other
than the tenant or members of his/her household or
their invitees or guests.
C. Rental Agreement: A written or oral agreement
embodying and fixing the terms and conditions for
the transfer of possession and the use and occupancy
1
of premises whether or not for a definite period of
time.
D. Residential Unit: Any premises which are used for
residential purposes under the terms of a rental
agreement.
E. Security Deposit: The total of all payments and
deposits given by a tenant to the landlord as
security for the performance of the tenant' s
obligations.
F. Tenant: A person entitled to exclusive possession
and occupancy of a residential rental unit and the
right of use of the appropriate appurtenances as
provided in a rental agreement including any other
person eighteen ( 18) years of age or over who shares
such a unit with the knowledge and consent of the
landlord.
III . Notification to tenant of information regarding security
deposits including written receipt, statement of where
the deposit is being kept, statement that the deposit is
not the property of the landlord and a statement as to
whether or not the deposit is earning interest.
IV. Obligation of tenant to clean premises - the tenant shall
place the rental unit in as overall clean condition as
when the tenancy commenced, excepting normal wear-and-
tear.
V. Return of security deposit by landlord to tenant. Within
thirty ( 30) days after the termination of the tenancy or
the surrender of the premises, whichever occurs later,•
the landlord shall return to the tenant the full security
deposit deposited with the landlord by the tenant, or,
if there is actual cause for retaining the security
deposit or any portion of it, a written statement
itemizing the reasons for the retention. The written
statement itemizing the reasons for the retention of any
portion of the security deposit shall be accompanied by
a full payment of the difference between the security
deposit and the amount retained. Nothing in this section
may preclude the landlord from retaining the security
deposit to cover the costs of storing and disposing of
unclaimed property, for non-payment of rent and non-
payment of utility charges which the tenant was required
to pay directly to the landlord.
VI . Wrongful retention of the security deposit by the
landlord. In the event that the landlord unreasonably
fails to return all or a portion of the security deposit
2
,r
f a court may award to the tenant triple the amount of that
portion of the security deposit wrongfully withheld from
the tenant, together with reasonable attorney fees and
Court costs. In determining whether to award such treble
damages and/or attorney' s fees the Court may consider the
past practices of the landlord regarding return of other
security deposits. Should the landlord, within the
aforesaid thirty (30) day period, fail to return the
entire security deposit or fail to provide the aforesaid
written statement itemizing the reasons for retention of
the security deposit accompanied by full payment of the
difference between the security deposit and the amount
retained, it shall be presumed that the landlord is
willfully and wrongfully retaining the security deposit.
VII. Trust Provisions and Burden of Proof. The security
deposit given to the landlord as part of a residential
agreement shall continue to be considered the money of
the tenant and shall be held in trust by the landlord.
It shall not be treated as an asset to be commingled with
the other assets of the landlord. In any court action
brought by a tenant for the return of the security
deposit, the landlord shall bear the burden of proving
that the withholding of the security deposit, or any
portion of it, was not wrongful.
VIII . Waiver of provisions void. Any attempted waiver of the
terms of this ordinance by a landlord or tenant by
contract or otherwise is void and unenforceable.
IX. Effective Date.
X. Severability.
•
3
List of Policy Issues to be Scheduled by Council.
1. Should there be, by ordinance, a limit on the amount of
security deposit which a landlord may collect. This
issue was discussed in the Rental Housing Commission.
- Nothing was stated in the recommendation of April 2,
1992. Please note both Madison, Wisconsin and
Burlington, Vermont have limits of one months rent as a
maximum security deposit that may be collected. The
State of Maine has a two-month limit.
2. This ordinance will obviously not apply to any landlord
who does not charge a security deposit. Madison,
Wisconsin also exempts landlords who charge fifty percent
( 50a) or less of one month' s rent as a security deposit.
Does the City of Ithaca wish to have some analogous
provision exempting landlords who charge a comparatively
small security, either from the effect of the entire
ordinance or certain portions of it.
3 . Should a written check-in/check-out procedure be
required.
a. If such a procedure is required, what is the effect
of non-compliance by a landlord? What is the effect
of non-compliance by the tenant?
b. If not required, per se, can either a landlord or
tenant require that the other party follow a written
check-in/check-out procedure, and, if so, what is
the effect of the other party' s failure to comply.
c. Must a landlord offer to the tenant the right to
have a written check-in/check-out procedure. See
Section 32. 07 ( 6) of the Madison Code.
d. If a written check-in/check-out procedure is to be
required or at least offered is there a specific
type of form that must be used.
4. What is the appropriate period of time within which the
landlord must return the security deposit or give an
itemized statement of deductions.
5. The attached outline provides that a tenant may bring an
action against landlords for wrongful retention of
security deposits and the Court may, in the appropriate
circumstances, award treble damages and attorney' s fees.
The recommendation for the Rental Housing Commission also
• provided in Section (e) that "repeated failure to comply
with security deposit sections of Ordinance may be cause
for the Court to impose punitive fines." Is it the
1
•
intent of Council that we establish this as a penal
violation which could be prosecuted? If so, which
department would be responsible for the prosecution of
this ordinance.
6 . Can treble damages and/or attorney' s fees be assessed
against a tenant, and, if so, for what cause - i.e.
intentional/willful damages by the tenant in excess of
the security deposit which are not repaired by the tenant
prior to the thirty day period - possibly after notice
to the tenant by the landlord.
7 . Must the landlord notify the tenant of the deductions
from prior security deposits or alternatively file such
information with the Building Department.
8 . Should all tenants receive interest on security deposits
or only when required by State law - see Madison, Section
32. 07 (3) . Should the ordinance require that in all
written leases certain other provisions of law be
specifically set forth such as occupancy limits or
certain sections of New York law which establish
landlord/tenant rights/obligations which may not be
commonly known such as how security deposits are handled
when the property is transferred by a landlord to a
subsequent landlord; mutuality of attorney fee
provisions; etc.
2
Mark Finkelstein
210 Lake Street #3G
Ithaca, New York 14850
607-272-4000 fax 272-4038
July 14, 1992
Ms. Teresa Alt
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Teresa:
Could you kindly arrange for the enclosed memo and legislation to be
photocopied and distributed to all Rental Housing Commissioners with the
materials for the July 22nd meeting. Full copies should also go to all
Common Council members, the Mayor and the Planning Department.
With many thanks for your help, and best regards.
Yours truly,
Mark Finkelstein
MEMORANDUM
To: Rental Housing Commissioners
From: Mark Finkelstein
Date: July 13, 1992
Re: "Step Up to Affordable Housing": A Proposal for Incentive Zoning in the
City of Ithaca
More affordable housing. Less suburban sprawl. More properties on the tax
roll. All with no expense to the taxpayer!
That is the goal of the proposal described in this memo.
It sets forth for your consideration a plan for the creation in Ithaca of
incentive zoning for affordable housing, which I have dubbed "Step Up to
Affordable Housing."
Just two weeks ago, there took effect in New York State an act of the state
legislature which authorizes cities to provide for a system of zoning
incentives or bonuses to be granted to people in return for benefits that will
accrue to the city. Such benefits are specifically defined to include "housing
for persons of low or moderate income." The act (a copy of which is attached
hereto) was co-sponsored by our State Senator Jim Seward and State
Assemblyman Marty Luster.
Zoning incentives or bonuses are defined as adjustments to the permissible
population density, area, height, open space, use, or other provisions of the
zoning ordinance. In other words, in return for creating affordable housing,
the requirements in a given zone would be relaxed to permit the creation of
more units. The idea is that by getting more units per acre and relaxing other
restrictions, the cost per unit of construction is reduced, so that it becomes
attractive to include the affordable housing element in the overall plan.
The specifics of the system of zoning incentives, and the requirements to
obtain it, would of course be the subject of considerable research and debate.
In order to qualify for the incentives, how much affordable housing would
have to be included, at what maximum rent or purchase price, for what
period of time, etc? In return, how much of a bonus would be granted?
While the possible permutations are unlimited, one possibility that I would
2
put forward, to get the ball rolling, would be a plan I call "Step Up to
Affordable Housing."
The idea would be that in return for meeting the requirements for creating
affordable housing, the bonus granted would be to "step up" the zone in
which the housing was being created from the current zone to the next denser
zone. For example, assume the proposal is to build in an R-1 zone, where
normally only single family homes, with a maximum lot coverage of 20%,
are permitted. A qualifying applicant would be allowed to build as if
construction were occurring in an R-2 zone. Thus a two-family home, with
25% lot coverage, would be permitted.
Similarly, R-2 would be stepped up to R-3 (going from a maximum three-
story, two-family dwelling to a 4-story, multi-family dwelling), and R-3 would
step up to B-2.
I would stress that this is only offered as one possible approach. There may
well be other, better ways to achieve the goal, and I would encourage all
members of the Rental Housing Commission to offer their alternatives or
amendments.
As to the requirements for qualifying for the bonus, again we would need to
think and discuss the issues in detail. Presumably requirements would be
expressed in terms of some percentage of the units to be affordable, for some
minimum period of time (e.g. 15-20 years). The standards established by
various HUD programs would be a starting reference point.
We can anticipate that there may rightly be concerns expressed by residents
about the potential for construction out of scale with the character and density
of the neighborhood. The act does require however that before the system is
implemented in a given zone, Common Council would have to make a
determination that: 1. there will be no significant environmentally damaging
consequences and that the bonuses would be compatible with the
development otherwise permitted in the zone; and 2. that the zone has
adequate resources, environmental quality, transportation, water supply,
waste disposal and fire protection to handle the increased activity.
Moreover, my proposal assumes that the city's site plan review ordinance
would remain in effect, providing additional protection for the neighborhood
3
regarding potential impacts.
I would respectfully submit to you that current proposal offers the following
major advantages:
1. in these times of severe budget restraints, it permits the city to use the
zoning law to "subsidize" the creation of affordable housing without
spending one penny of taxpayer money;
2. it is fair and egalitarian in its approach. Rather than concentrating the
creation of affordable housing in any one zone, it spreads both the
opportunities and the potential impacts of affordable housing to every
residential zone in the city;
3. the Step Up system is relatively simple. It permits us to "piggy back" off all
the work that has been done in establishing the many requirements that go
into defining each of the existing zones, rather than reinventing the wheel by
creating one or more new zones. This will save both time and the expense
required in having the Planning Department and/or outside consultants
perform such work; and
4. the proposal is environmentally sound. By encouraging more housing
construction within the city, we help to reduce suburban sprawl and preserve
green space in Tompkins County.
I look forward to working with you to refine this proposal, to send it along to
Common Council and to seeing it implemented. I believe it has the potential
to become the most significant contribution to the creation of affordable
housing coming out of our Commission.
cc: Members of Common Council
Mayor Nichols
Planning Department
STATE OF NEW YORK
• S. 7173--A A. 9802--A
•
SENATE - ASSEMBLY
• March 3, 1992
IN SENATE -- Introduced by Sens. COOK, McHUGH, SEWARD, NOLAN, QUATTROCI-
OCCHI -- (at request of the Commission on Rural Resources) -- read
twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the
• Committee on Cities -- committee discharged, bill amended, ordered re-
printed
as amended and recommitted to said committee
IN ASSEMBLY -- Introduced by M. of A. LUSTER, BENNETT, MAGEE, TONKO,
COOMBE,•O'NEIL -- read once and referred to the Committee on Cities --
committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and
recommitted to said committee
AN ACT to amend the general city law and the village law, in relation to
incentive. zoning.
The People •of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-
bly, do enact as follows:
1 Section 1. The general• city law is amended by adding a new section 81-
2..b to read as follows;
3 5 81-b. Incentive zoning; definitions, purposes, conditions,
4 procedures. 1. Definitions. As used in this section:
5 (a) "Incentives or bonuses" shall mean adjustments to the permissible
6 population density, area, height, open space, use, or other provisions
7 of a zoning ordinance, local law, or, regulation for a specific purpose
8 authorized by the legislative body of •a city.
9 (b) "Community benefits or amenities" shall mean open space, housing
10 for persons of low or moderate income, parks, elder care, day care, or
11 other specific physical', social, or cultural amenities, or cash in lieu
12 thereof, of benefit to the residents of the community authorized by the
13 legislative body of a city.
14 (c) "Incentive zoning" shall mean the system by which specific incen-
15 tives or bonuses are granted, pursuant to this section, on condition
16 that specific physical, social, or cultural benefits or amenities would
17 inure .to the community. ,
EXPLANATION--Matter in.'italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
( :) is old law to be omitted.
LBD12598-04-2
CPNNTE0 ON RECYCLE)MIN
•
S. 7173--A 2 . A. 9802--A
1 2. Authority and purposes. In addition to existing powers and authori-
2 ties to regulate by planning or zoning, including authorization to
3 provide for the granting_of incentives, or bonuses pursuant to other en-
4 abling law, a legislative body of a city is hereby empowered, as part of
5 a zoning ordinance, local law or regulation, to provide for a system of
6 zoning incentives, or bonuses, as the legislative body deems necessary
7 and appropriate, consistent with the purposes and conditions set forth
8 in this section. The purpose of the system of incentive or bonus zoning
9 shall be to advance the city's specific physical, cultural and social
10 policies in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan and in coordi-
11 nation with other community planning mechanisms or land use techniques.
12 The system of zoning incentives or bonuses shall be in accordance with a
13 locally-adopted comprehensive plan.
14 3. Implementation. A system of zoning incentives or bonuses may be
15 provided subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth. (a) The
16 legislative body of a city shall provide for the system of zoning incen-
17 tives or bonuses pursuant to this section as part of the zoning ordi-
18 nance, local law, or regulations. In providing for such system, the
19 legislative body shall follow the procedure for adopting and amending
20 its zoning ordinance, local law, or regulations, including all provi-
21 sions for notice and public hearing applicable for changes or amendments
22 to such ordinances, laws, or regulations.
23 (b) Each zoning district in which incentives or bonuses may be awarded
24 under this section shall be designated in the city zoning ordinance,
25 local law or regulations, or amendment thereto.
26 (c) Each zoning district in which incentives or bonuses may be
27 authorized shall have been found by the legislative body of a city, af-
28 ter evaluating the effects of any potential incentives which are possi-
29 ble by virtue of the provision of community amenities, to contain ade-
30 quate resources, environmental quality and public facilities, including
31 adequate transportation, water supply, waste disposal and fire
32 protection. Further, the legislative body of a city shall, in designat-
33 ing such districts, determine that there will be no significant environ-
34 mentally damaging consequences and that such incentives or bonuses are
35 compatible with the dev4lopment otherwise permitted.
36 (d) A generic environmental impact statement pursuant to the provi-
37 sions of 6 NYCRR 617.15 shall be prepared by the legislative body of a
38 city for any zoning district in which the granting of incentives or
39 bonuses have a significant effect on the environment before any such
40 district is designated, and such statement shall be supplemented from
41 time to time by the legislative body of a city if there are material
42 changes in circumstances that may result in significant adverse impacts.
43 Any zoning ordinance, local law, or regulation enacted pursuant to this
44 section shall provide that any applicant for incentives or bonuses shall
45 pay a proportionate share of the cost of preparing such environmental
46 impact statement, and that such charge shall be added to any site-
• 47 specific charge made pursuant to the provisions of section 8-0109 of the
48 environmental conservation law.
49 (e) The legislative body of a city shall set forth the procedure by
50 which incentives may be provided to specific lands. Such procedure shall
51 describe:
52 (i) the incentives, or bonuses, which may be granted by the city to
53 the applicant;
54 (ii) the community benefits or amenities which may be accepted from
55 the applicant by the city;
*•IRMO ON RECYCLED PAM
t s
-L
•
S. 7173--A 3 A. 9802--A
•1 (iii) criteria for approval, including methods required for determin-
2 ing the adequacy of community amenities to be accepted from the appli-
3 cant in exchange for the particular bonus or incentive to be granted to
4 the applicant by the city; .
5 (iv) the procedure for obtaining bonuses, including applications and
6 the review process; and
7 (v) provision for a public hearing, if such public hearing is required
8 as part of a zoning ordinance, local law, or regulation adopted pursuant
9 to this section, and give public notice thereof by the publication in
10 the official newspaper of such hearing at least five days prior to the
11 date thereof.
12 (f) All other requirements of article eight of the environmental con-
13 servation law shall be complied with by project sponsors for actions in
14 areas for which a generic environmental impact statement has been pre-
15 pared, including preparation of an environmental assessment form and a
16 supplemental environmental impact statement, if necessary.
17 (g) Prior to the adoption or amendment of the zoning ordinance, local
18 law, or,regulation, pursuant to this section to establish a system of
19 zoning incentives or bonuses, the legislative body of a city shall eval-
20 nate the impact of the provision of such system of zoning incentives or
21 bonuses upon the potential development of affordable housing gained by
22 the provision of any such incentive or bonus afforded to an applicant or
23 lost in the provision by an applicant of any community amenity to the
24 city. Further, the legislative body of a city shall determine that there
25 is approximate equivalence between potential affordable housing lost or
26 gained or that the city has or will take reasonable action to compensate
27 for any negative impact upon the availability or potential development
28 of affordable housing caused by the provisions of this section.
29 (h) If the legislative body of a city determines that a suitable com-
30 munity benefit or amenity is not immediately feasible, or otherwise not
31 practical, the legislative body may require, in lieu thereof, a payment
32 to the city of a sum determined by the legislative body. If cash is ac-
33 cepted in lieu of other community benefit or amenity, provision shall be
34 made for such sum to be deposited in a trust fund to be used by the
35 legislative body of the city exclusively for specific community benefits
36 authorized by such legislative body.
37 4. Invalidations. Nothing in this section shall be construed to in-
38 validate any provision for incentives or bonuses heretofore adopted by
39 any city legislative body.
40 S 2. Paragraph a of subdivision 3 of section 7-703 of the village law,
.41 as added by chapter 629 of the laws of 1991, is amended to read as
42 follows:
43 a. The village board of trustees shall provide for the system of zon- .
44 ing incentives or bonuses pursuant to this section as part of the zoning
45 local . law. In providing for such system the board shall follow the
46 procedure for adopting and amending its zoning local law, including all
47 provisions for notice and public hearing applicable for changes or
48 amendments to a zoning (ordinance) local law.
49 S 3. This act shall take, effect on the first day of July next succeed-
50 ing the date on which it shall have become a law.
•
•
*•rw mo on munuo w1I
''RECEIVED jut. 1992
Office of the City Attorney
•
City of Eunice Gibson, City Attorney Assistant City Attorneys
Madison • William A. Jansen
Larry W. O'Brien
City-County Building, Room 401 Robert E.Olsen
210 Martin Luther Kin Jr. Boulevard James M. Voss
9. John E. Rothschild
Madison,Wisconsin 53710 James L. Martin
608 266 4511 Rick Petri
FAX 608 267 8715 Carolyn S. Hogg
Sally P. Probasco
./� Anne P. Zellhoefer
July 22 , 1992 Leila C. Pine
Litigation Assistant
Patricia J. Sammataro
Ms . Joan Bailey
Office of the Mayor
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Security Deposit Procedures
Dear Ms . Bailey:
I have briefly reviewed the proposed security deposit
regulations which your City is considering enacting . Based on
my experience with security deposit issues in the City of
Madison, I have the following comments and suggestions :
1 . Under our ordinance, the landlord is required to
provide check-in and check-out forms and give the
tenant at least seven days after the beginning of the
• tenancy to inspect the dwelling and notify the
landlord of existing damages and defects . There is no
requirement that the tenant fill out the form or to
sign the form indicating approval of the check-in
information. We see the use of the form by the tenant
as an opportunity for the tenant to ensure that he or
she will not be held responsible for pre-existing
conditions . We have not seen the need to amend our
ordinance to require that the tenant either fill out
the form or buy into the landlord' s description of the
condition of defects and damages ; neither have we seen
the need to provide a consequence for the failure by
the tenant to do so . Our Common Council has left use
of the form by the tenant voluntary and the
consequence of the failure to use it one to be decided
by a judge in the event of a civil dispute under the
facts and circumstances of each individual case .
Given the concerns expressed by tenants regarding use
of the form, your city may wish to begin by requiring
the landlord to provide the form with the listed
defects and make use of the form by the tenant
voluntary. Your consequence in 1(c) of your proposal
seems sufficient incentive to a tenant . In any case,
I think it is unrealistic to imagine a tenant prior to
occupancy of the unit to be willing to sign a check-in
form indicating approval of the check-in information
-- even if this tenant is given seven days to correct
that form.
2 . I understand your landlords have objected to the
procedure, finding it bureaucratic and difficult to
administer . In fact, our landlords have been using
this process successfully for some fifteen years .
They view it as part of good business procedure to
detail the existing defects and damages to a premises
prior to a new tenant moving in and to provide an
outgoing tenant with a specific list of reasons for
withholding the deposit. Indeed such information is
very useful to a landlord in the event of a dispute or
civil litigation on the issue .
3 . Our city does not have a mediation process for
disputes of this nature. Compliance with our security
deposit process is achieved in several ways :
(a) A failure by the landlord to offer either the
check-in or check-out form forfeits the
landlord' s right to withhold any amount from a
security deposit for cleaning costs or damages;
however, this does not prohibit a landlord from
commencing a court action for the damages
actually incurred. It merely ensures that the
security deposit will be returned to the tenant
pending ultimate determination of the landlord' s
claim by the court;
(b) If a landlord fails to provide the security
deposit or the written statement of reasons
required for the withholding thereof, the tenant
may recover the money due together with damages
in an amount up to twice the amount wrongfully
withheld and reasonable attorneys fees . Under
our state law, this amount is a mandatory double
damages rather than a discretionary triple as our
ordinance provides;
(c) In addition, a failure to comply with the
security deposit procedures is a violation of our
ordinances upon conviction for which a landlord
may be required to forfeit not less than $25 nor
more than $500 .
4 . The City of Madison ' s requirement that the money be
returned or accounted for within twenty-one days is
absolute. I think placing the burden on the tenant of
proving that the landlord has "unreasonably failed" to
-2-
return the security deposit or provide reasons for
withholding same would be difficult . It builds in an
ambiguity that could compromise the administration of
the ordinance. We have found in Madison that
twenty-one days is not an unreasonable time period
within which the final accounting must be made. A
recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision upholding
the state law stated that the purpose of placing
absolute liability on the landlord for wrongfully
withholding the deposit was to discourage the
retention of security deposits in all but the clearest
of cases .
5 . Again, it may be difficult for the tenant to ascertain
the past practices of a landlord regarding return of
security deposits in order to satisfy the requirements
of your ordinance and be eligible to obtain treble
damages and attorneys fees . If your tenants are
represented by tenant advocates , perhaps this will not
present a great difficulty for them.
6 . Under the City of Madison ordinances, the mere fact
that a tenant has failed to pay the full rent required
in the lease by the end of the tenancy does not
relieve the landlord of his or her obligation to
follow the security deposit refund procedures . In
order to retain the security deposit because past rent
remains unpaid, all the landlord has to do is provide
a written accounting within twenty-one days ,
specifying that the reason the security deposit has
been withheld is due to the failure to pay rent . It
has been the opinion of our Common Council that in all
cases the tenant has the right to understand why his
or her security deposit is being retained and to
receive timely notice of the reasons .
You ask if I am aware of any other municipalities that have
check-in/check-out procedures or security deposit ordinances .
I am sure there are many with security deposit ordinances . As
I recall, the State of New Jersey has a state law on security
deposits which requires the deposit to be held in a separate
escrow account rather than being commingled with the landlord' s
operating budget . It is my recollection that Baltimore also
has a comprehensive landlord tenant ordinance which may include
matters you are interested in. Since our ordinance is somewhat
comprehensive, I have not really had occasion to do a survey of
other municipalities on these issues .
I hope this is of help to you .
Very truly •urs ,
C of
' 12/7
n
o
Assistan i y Attorney
CSH: sob
-3-
Center for
Public
Representation, Inc.
121 South Pinckney Street Madison. WI 53703-3338 608/251-4008 FAX 608/251-1263
July 23 , 1992
Joan Bailey
City of Ithaca
Mayor's Office
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Ms. Bailey:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Madison ordinance on security
deposits and a sample check-in/check-out form taken from the Tenant
Resource Center handbook.
You will notice that the Madison ordinance differs from the
proposed Ithaca housing ordinance in a number of ways:
1. Like the Ithaca proposal, Madison Ordinance 32 . 07 (6) also
requires that the landlord provide a list of damages. However, the
list consists only of those damages for which deductions were made
from the previous tenant's security deposit. The check-in form
itself is blank, and the tenant has seven days for inspection and
notification. Under Ithaca's proposed ordinance, there does appear
to be a higher risk of coercion with the landlord filling out a
form and having the tenant sign it, despite the seven-day option
for either party to discover and notify the other party in writing.
Unlike the Ithaca proposal, wherein tenant's failure to comply with
check-in/check-out procedure is a factor which the court may
consider in assessing the credibility of tenant's claim, under
32 . 07 (7) of the Madison Ordinance, failure by the landlord to
provide a check-in or check-out form forfeits the landlord' s right
to withhold any amount from the security deposit. This does not
preclude the landlord from subsequently suing the tenant for any
damage to the apartment; s/he simply may not deduct it from the
security deposit. From that standpoint, the Madison Ordinance
seems more tenant oriented than the Ithaca proposal.
2 . Madison, as well as the State of Wisconsin, allows only 21 days
for either full return of the deposit or an itemized statement
showing reasons for withholding. When the Wisconsin Dept. of Ag. ,
Trade and Consumer Protection regulations were drafted, the hearing
draft had provided for a 30-day period. However, it was decided
that a 30-day period would provide a disincentive for prompt
assessment by the landlord and would make it difficult to
- more -
limmommwmm
Holthusen Hall Room 408 1324 West Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53233 414/288-3707
- 2 -
distinguish between prior and subsequent tenant damage. Moreover,
since the Real Estate Board had approved a widely used form lease
that provided for return of the deposit within 10 days, the 21 day
period seemed a reasonable compromise.
3 . Based on the concept that the security deposit is the property
of the tenant until proven otherwise (1 (b) of the Ithaca proposal) ,
Madison tenants are entitled to 5% simple interest of the full
security deposit per year, if the deposit was greater than one half
of one month's rent. However, no rent credit is given for any
month or months the rent was paid after the date agreed upon in the
rental agreement. (32 . 07 (3) ) . To avoid administrative burdens on
landlords, the tenant may deduct this amount from the twelfth
month's rent.
According to your letter, the Ithaca landlords are concerned about
bureaucratic and administrative difficulties associated with the
security deposit proposal. While check-in/check-out forms may be
burdensome, they are still the best protection for both tenants and
landlords vis a vis security deposits.
Madison has been fairly successful in striking a balance between
tenant and landlord rights. The Town of Fitchburg (Wisconsin) has
incorporated a similar ordinance. Chicago also has a progressive
landlord/tenant ordinance. For more information on the Chicago
ordinance, you may want to contact Ed Sacks, author of the Chicago
Tenants ' Handbook, at Box 57-8803 , Graceland Station, Chicago, IL
60657-8803 , (ph. 312-871-4700) .
Another resource person to contact is Michelle Olson. She is the
Executive Director at the Tenant Resource Center and is very
familiar with the Madison ordinance, its background, and how it
compares to other ordinances around the state. She can be reached
at 14 W. Mifflin Street, Suite 4 , Madison, WI 53703 (ph. 608-257-
0143) .
We hope we have been of help to you.
Sin rely,
' //
Roberta Diller
Tina Yacker
Sample Forms &Letters Page 103
CHECK-IN FORM
- MOVING IN: Tenants should complete this form, have it signed by the landlord or manager if
possible, keep one copy, and return it to the landlordlmanager within 7 days. A witness is advisable.
t..
TENANTS:
LANDLORD:
• ADDRESS: APT: DATE:
.!-
-
" KITCHEN BATHROOM (1)
Range Medicine Cab.
' Hood Fan Toilet/Seat
_ Dishwasher Tile/Caulk
}` Disposal Towel Rack
Refrigerator Sink/Faucets
Sink/Faucet Tub/Shower
•
.1 I ' Cabinets Walls/Ceiling
Floor Floor
F. Hardware
Walls/Ceiling BEDROOM (2)
Light Fixtures Floor/Carpet
s Furniture
Walls/Ceiling
Windows
DINING ROOM Drapes/Rods
Floor/Carpet Light Fixtures
Walls/Ceiling Furniture
Light Fixtures
Windows BEDROOM (3)
, Drapes/Rods Floor/Carpet
Furniture Walls/Ceiling
Windows
Drapes/Rods
Light Fixtures
Furniture
OTHER ITEMS:
yir
e�f
TENANTS'SIGNATURES: LANDLORD/MANAGER'S SIGNATURE: WITNESS:
yN'
4� y
'
Rl„
:.- -
CITY OF ITHACA Lls
RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION cc
�i �
Ct �0 v
MINUTES dk'4P6 ��,et, 9�
July 22, 1992 Nv•t s I`6 I
Commission members present: Joan Bailey, Pierre Clavel, Ed Dormady,
John Efroymson, Mark Finkelstein, George Frantz, Carol Mallison, Terry
Pasco, Pam Zinder.
Public: Larry Beck, James W. Carroll, Tommy Clavel, Jan deRoos,
Geoff Dunn.
The agenda was revised with additions.
Minutes for June were not available.
Landlord/Tenant communication with Commissioners was reported by
E. Dormady and J. Efroymson. M. Finkelstein commented on a letter to the
editor in today's Ithaca Journal, written by J. Bailey, saying he did not
oppose legislation to return Security Deposits within thirty days, though he
did object to the imposition of a mandatory check-in/check-out procedure.
No public comment was given.
E. Dormady reported that a Summer Youth Employment Service worker for
the Mayor could be used to print more Landlord/Tenant information guides.
It was agreed that ten more guides will be printed and provided, free of
charge, to non-profits who do not have one already. E. Dormady made a
motion, seconded by J. Efroymson, to charge the Information Working
Group with the task of creating a plan to update the guide, printing
additional copies, and recommending a reasonable fee to charge for future
issues. Motion carried unanimously and their proposal will be put on next
month's agenda.
C. Mallison commented on Chuck Gutman's written outline of the Security
Deposit Ordinance, specifically the questions at the end identified as "List of
Policy Issues to be Scheduled by Council." The first question asks if Security
Deposits should be limited to one month's rent and does not include the
Commission's previous conclusion that this would be harmful to affordable
housing, not helpful. There was confusion about whether this is the most
recent version of the outline and about which policy issues Charter and
Ordinance is still considering. It was decided that E. Dormady will invite
Chuck and Dan Hoffman to our meeting next month to respond to questions
about the proposed ordinance.
M. Finkelstein presented a revised proposal for reconstitution of the
Commission, dated 7/20/92. A motion was made by Mark to send the
7/20/92 proposal on to Common Council, seconded by T. Pasco. Briefly, the
proposal resolves to "advise and recommend to Common Council that it
reconstitute the membership of the RHC to provide fair, balanced and
guaranteed representation on the RHC of tenants, landlords and other
interested parties; and that various members of the RHC may present to
Common Council for their consideration specific proposals to accomplish
(this goal)." (See proposal for complete details.) The 7/20/92 proposal was
discussed by all members of the Commission. The motion was carried by a
vote of five in favor and four opposed.
Immediately following the passage of the reconstitution proposal,
E. Dormady announced his resignation as Chair and from the Commission.
Commission members encouraged him to reconsider and by the end of the
meeting, Ed said he would probably stay.
J. Efroymson reported from the Policy Working Group regarding the Rental
Housing Officer, making a motion that the Commission ask the Mayor to
establish a position within City government to "provide information to
tenants and landlords as to rights and responsibilities, and availability of
recourse in case of disputes." Motion seconded by G. Frantz and, following
discussion, carried by a vote of six in favor, two opposed, and one abstention.
M. Finkelstein reported from the Supply Side Working Group. Acting on an
amendment from the State Assembly dated 3/3/92, Mark has presented a
proposal for Incentive Zoning, dated 7/13/92. Very briefly, the proposal
suggests one idea for accomplishing incentive zoning by allowing developers
who would include affordable housing in their project to "step up" the
zoning where the project is located, to the next denser zoning level (see
proposal for complete details). The Supply Side will be considering Mark's
proposal further. G. Frantz will collect information regarding the
implementation of incentive zoning. J. Efroymson reported that the Human
Services Council is also considering a plan for incentive zoning with regards
to the provision of day care, and which would include permanent incentives
rather than those that revert back at a later date. Mark will check with the
HSC regarding their plan.
No report from the Information Working Group.
The NEXT COMMISSION MEETING will be held on Wednesday, August 26
at 5:00PM; minutes to be taken by T. Pasco.
Respectfully submitted by:
Carol Mattison
0
(e'C
City of Ithaca Rental Housing Commission
Minutes of meeting of August 26, 1992
In attendance: Joan Bailey, Pierre Clavel, Ed Dormady
(Chair) , John Efroymson, Mark Finkelstein, George Frantz,
Terry Pasco, Pam Zinder.
Minutes of the June and July meetings were approved as
amended.
In response to an inquiry from Mark F. , John E. confirmed
that at the time that she moved out of the city in May 1991
Carol Mallison had notified him as RHC Chair of that fact and
asked whether she could remain as a member, that John hAd_
Jehia=had spoken with City Attorney Chuck Guttman about RHC members status
on the Commission and though he could not recall in what detail, at the
next month's meeting John had informed the RHC that all sitting members
could stay on as Commissioners.
Ed D. quoted from various city laws indicating that because
of her move out of the city Carol Mallison was not entitled
to remain on the RHC.
By unanimous vote on motion by Mark F. , the RHC commended
Carol M. for her outstanding service as member of RHC.
Two members of public described problems they had with
security deposits involving overcharging for damage. It was
also stated that possible discrimination was suspected in the
treatment of one of the tenants. Various RHC members made
suggestions as to addressing the problems, including dispute
resolution, Small Claims Court, and the Human Rights
Commission regarding the possible discrimination.
Upon a report from Pam Z. and Joan B. , it was agreed that
more copies of the Landlord Tenant Guide should be prepared.
Mark F. made a presentation regarding his Step Up to
Affordable Housing incentive zoning proposal, and it was •
•
et 1
w
2
,,f.
( solved that the Planning & Development Committee should be
,,,.
asked to put the question of incentive zoning on its next
"* agenda. ' Joan and Pierre voted against the resolution because
it did nottcontain language to the effect that any housing
"' created `pursuant to an incentive zoning program should be
A ° made permanently affordable .
yl Mark F. , prefacing his remarks by stating that he had
1.-:', ,^ absolute confidence in her complete integrity, raised the
', t.. question of whether the hiring of Joan B. by the Mayor in
,e'-1 June to perform research on the creation of a rental housing
,6 � . officer position at a time when such matter was before the
RHC could raise a possible question under the city's code of
{4} .. ethics . It was agreed without dissent that Ed D. would ask
the Mayor to prepare a written response explaining the
/-- ° situation.
�t..- Next meeting September 30th.
Submitted by Terry Pasco
*` September 29, 1992
4Ye
q
E ''
A q�
b�
.f
4.,ar1 x- ,:.-:w 's-w`:,
RESOLUTION ON RECONSTITUTION
ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF ITHACA RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION
JULY 22, 1992
WHEREAS the responsibilities of the Rental Housing Commission
(RHC) as set forth in the city ordinance pursuant to which it
was created ("the RHC ordinance") include: "1 . advising
Common Council on steps to be taken to improve the
accessibility, affordability and quality of rental housing;
and 2 . advising Common Council on steps to be taken to
achieve the goals of the City of Ithaca housing policy; " and
WHEREAS the RHC ordinance provides that of the nine members
of the RHC a minimum of four shall be tenants, but that no
minimum number of landlords is required, so that it would be
possible to have an RHC with no landlord representation; and
WHEREAS it is the opinion of the RHC that the accessibility,
affordability and quality of rental housing in Ithaca could
be better promoted and the goals of the City of Ithaca
housing policy better achieved by an RHC with a more balanced
membership;
NOW, THEREFORE the RHC resolves :
1 . that it does hereby advise and recommend to Common Council
that it reconstitute the membership of the RHC to provide
fair, balanced and guaranteed representation on the RHC of
tenants, landlords, and other interested parties; and
2 . that the various members of the RHC may present to Common
Council for their consideration specific proposals to
accomplish the goals set forth in the preceding paragraph.
RECEIVED AUG
6 161,92
To: Mayor Ben Nichols and Common Council _ .4
From: Rental Commissioners
Ed Dormady, Chair
John Efroymson, Council Liaison
Joan Bailey, 5th Ward
Pierre Clavel, 3rd Ward
Subj . : Rental Housing Commission Reconstitution
Date: August 5, 1992
In recognition of the problems within the Rental Housing Commission
(RHC) , which culminated in the 5-4 vote to reconstitute the
Commission, we request that Council rewrite the RHC charge.
The current charge to the Commission has allowed differences in
interpretation to undermine the focus on renters' issues. The
majority of city residents are tenants and as such, do not receive
attention from and representation in government that is
commensurate with their number and their needs.
The current charge to the RHC does not adequately reflect the
sentiment of the 1989 Rental Housing Task Force (RHTF) report. The
RHTF' s report clearly recommends that the RHC investigate a variety
of tenant issues for the city government. The report recommends
that a majority of RHC members be tenants. The July 1992,
reconstitution resolution seeks to diminish this number even
further than the current four out of nine. The RHTF report
recommended further examination of a housing trust fund, a
community rental registry and other initiatives to promote
affordable housing for Ithaca' s tenants. The RHTF report looked to
the Rental Housing Commission as a vehicle for identification of
and action on such tenant issues.
The current RHC composition has led to a political gridlock. There
is no basic agreement within the Commission on what problems and
issues face the renting population of Ithaca. The five month long,
fractious debate over security deposit legislation in the face of
overwhelming evidence that deposits are abused is one example of
the absence of consensus on tenant problems.
Despite these difficulties the RHC has been able to make positive
contributions to the community by publishing a landlord/tenant
resource guide, organizing a renter's speak-out, helping with
referrals and advice for individual tenants and proposing a
security deposit ordinance. But there are many more concerns that
a Commission could and should address.
We therefore urge the Council to dissolve the RHC, to write a more
clearly defined charge, to reconsider the membership criteria and
to appoint members who accept the mandate determined by Council and
who will work vigorously in carrying out their responsibilities.
August 13, 1992
The Honorable Benjamin Nichols
Mayor of the City of Ithaca
The Common Council of the City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Resolution on reconstitution of the Rental Housing Commission
Dear Mayor Nichols and Common Council Members:
We, a majority of the membership of the Rental Housing Commission
("RHC"), address ourselves to you to set the record straight and to express
our views regarding recent events.
We are the RHC members who supported the Resolution on Reconstitution
which was duly adopted at our meeting of July 22, 1992 ("the Resolution").
Our views are as follows:
1. At the July 22 meeting of the RHC, a resolution introduced by
Commissioner Mark Finkelstein calling for the reconstitution of the RHC
was discussed, voted on and adopted by a 5-4 vote. Immediately prior to the
vote, Chair Dormady stated that if the resolution were adopted he would
resign from the RHC. When the resolution passed, he did indeed announce
his resignation effective immediately. But at the urging of a number of
RHC members, including signers of this letter, he withdrew his
resignation during the course of the meeting. At the end of the meeting,
Chair Dormady indicated that he would duly transmit the Resolution to
Common Council.
2. At the Common Council meeting of August 5, Chair Dormady failed to
provide Common Council with the Resolution. Making only passing
2
reference to the Resolution, he instead circulated to Common Council a
personal statement from four members of the RHC, dated August 5, 1992.
That statement had never been introduced, discussed or voted on by the
RHC. It goes without saying that it is a minority opinion which does not
represent a recommendation to Common Council from the RHC.
In light of Ed Dormady's failure to provide Common Council with the
Resolution as adopted by the RHC, we take this opportunity to do so by
attaching it to this memorandum.
3. In response to Ed Dormady's statement, Mayor Nichols and certain
members of Common Council indicated that "both items" would be placed
onto the agenda of the appropriate committee of Common Council for
consideration. It should be understood by Common Council that only one
resolution, that which is attached hereto, has been adopted by the RHC.
4. The purpose of the Resolution was to suggest to Common Council that
reconstituting the RHC with a fairer and more balanced membership
would help it more effectively achieve its goals of promoting the
affordability, accessibility and quality of rental housing in the city. The
Dormady memo asserts that the Resolution "seeks to diminish" the number
of tenants on the RHC. Reference to the Resolution will reveal that no such
proposal is made.
Moreover, Dormady's statement calls for the RHC's charge to be rewritten.
It asserts that "differences in interpretation" as to the RHC's charge
"undermine" the RHC's work.
In fact, we are aware of no differences in interpretation as to the clear
language of the current RHC charge. What has occurred is the normal
give and take and differences in views as to the best way to fulfill that
charge.
But rather than working within the context of the RHC, the Dormady memo
proposes the wholesale dissolution of the RHC and the appointment of new
members. We trust that you will reject this suggestion, as it is wholly
inconsistent with your oft-stated goal of having a broad cross section of
people and views represented on city commissions and committees.
3
We would like to close by reiterating our commitment to carrying out the
clearly defined charge to the RHC as adopted by Common Council on May 2,
1990. We call on Mayor Nichols, Common Council and all members of the
RHC to work together toward those goals in a mutually respectful
atmosphere.
Yours truly,
•
Carol Mallison, Vice Chair
Mark Finkelstein
George Frantz
Terry Pasco
Pam Zinder
Attachment: Rental Housing Commission Resolution on Reconstitution,
adopted July 22, 1992
cc: All Rental Housing Commission members
RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION
9/30/92
PRESENT: Joan Bailey, Pierre Clavel, Ed Dormandy, John Efroymson, Mark
Finkelstein, George Franz, Terry Pasco, Pam Zinder
PUBLIC: Myra Malkin
Agenda: Mark's proposal regarding the Commission members living outside
of the City was added to the agenda. Other additions included George's
report on the rental housing inventory. John added future plans for the
Commission.
August 26 Minutes: Changes were as follows: John requested that the
first paragraph of the minutes be changed to say as follows: . . . that
John had spoken with City Attorney Chuck Guttman about RHC members status
on the Commission and though he could not recall in what detail, at the
next month's meeting John had informed the RHC that all sitting members
could stay on as Commissioners.
After this change the minutes were approved.
Communications: Included landlady feeling like she was taken advantage
by tenants (they were not paying their rent) , prospective builder
inquired about rent control, parent concerned about landlord (wanted a
class action suit) .
No public comment.
Old Business: Discussed code of ethics regarding Commissioners being
hired by the Mayor this summer to do research. According to Chuck
Guttman, the code and ethics does apply but does not violate intent. Ed
will get this clarified since the Mayor might have spoken to Pat Kennedy
about this issue. He will report back to the Commission at next meeting.
Rent Inventory: George has taken upon himself to do an inventory of
rental units in Ithaca to develop ownership patterns, types and sizes.
He has so far dedicated about 5 hours of work and has looked at 15% of
the taxroll. Out of 380 properties, there are 360 landlords.
Mark's Resolution: After some discussion and changes Mark's resolution
regarding Commissioner's who represented the non-profit housing slot
could live outside the city as long as their principal business was
inside the city. This was approved, 7 for and 1 abstention (Pierre) .
Security Deposit Ordinance: It was scheduled to be voted on by Common
Council at the October 7 meeting. Per Chuck Guttman, it would go into
effect for any leases signed or renewed after November 1, 1992 .
Incentive Zoning: Ed spoke to John Schroeder at the last P & D meeting.
Incentive zoning will be taken under advisement under the work program
next year.
Reconstitution: Ed felt there was not much else to be discussed on this
issue. Mark spoke about statements that have been submitted to Common
Council by Commissioner members but not shared with the whole RHC.
Members should share info, it is a breach of common courtesy.
Working Groups: Information group reported. Discussed how more copies
of the Resource Guide would be reproduced. Terry suggested that groups
be contacted regarding volunteers. The Youth Employment Service was
recommended. The Commission moved that Pam and Joan have full backing of
the RHC to duplicate the Guide in any way possible. Passed all in favor.
Supply side group. Will continue working on George's proposal.
By the next meeting, all working groups are required to meet. At next
meeting, Terry will discuss the garbage tax.
Meeting Adjourned at 7 p.m.
Next meeting: October 28, 1992 at 5 p.m.
',, RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION
i; 9/30/92
.
4r PRESENT: Joan Bailey, Pi rre Clavel, Ed Dormay(dy, John Efroymson, Mark
; Finkelstein, George Fra Z�'
g r'�' , Terry Pasco, Pam ender
'i PUBLIC: Myra Malkin
a
Agenda: Mark's proposal regarding the Commission members living outside
of the City was added to the agenda. Other additions included George's
report on the rental housing inventory. John added future plans for the
n*
Commission.
lz
I August 26 Minutes: Changes were as follows: John requested that the
I first paragraph of the minutes be changed to say as follows: . . . that
John had spoken with City Attorney Chuck Guttman about RHC members status
on the Commission and though he could not recall in what detail, at the
next month's meeting John had informed the RHC that all sitting members
could stay on as Commissioners.
After this change the minutes were approved.
Communications: Included landlady feeling like she was taken advantage
x by tenants (they were not paying their rent) , prospective builder
inquired about rent control, parent concerned about landlord (wanted a
class action suit) .
0 No public comment.
1 Old Business: Discussed code of ethics regarding Commissioners being
hired by the Mayor this summer to do research. According to Chuck
Guttman, the code and ethics does apply but does not violate intent. Ed
will get this clarified since the Mayor might have spoken to Pat Kennedy
about this issue. He will report back to the Commission at next meeting.
Rent Inventory: George has taken upon himself to do an inventory of
rental units in Ithaca to develop ownership patterns, types and sizes.
He has so far dedicated about 5 hours of work and has looked at 15% of
the taxroll. Out of 380 properties, there are 360 landlords.
Mark's Resolution: After some discussion and changes Mark's resolution
regarding Commissioner's who represented the non-profit housing slot
could live outside the city as long as their principal business was
inside the city.A This was approved, 7 for and 1 abstention (Pierre) .
Security Deposit Ordinance: It was scheduled to be voted on by Common
Council at the October 7 meeting. Per Chuck Guttman, it would go into
effect for any leases signed or renewed after November 1, 1992.
Incentive Zoning: John Schroeder aiWymIstriSgrrpmrieekediff".Incentive zoning will be taken under advisement under the work program
next year.
Reconstitution: Ed felt there was not much else to be discussed on this
issue. Mark spoke about statements that have been submitted to Common
Council by Commissioner members but not shared with the whole RHC.
Members should share info, it is a breach of common courtesy.
Working Groups: Information group reported. Discussed how more copies
of the Resource Guide would be reproduced. Terry suggested that groups
be contacted regarding volunteers. The Youth Employment Service was
recommended. The Commission moved that Pam and Joan have full backing of
the RHC to duplicate the Guide in any way possible. Passed all in favor.
Supply side group. Will continue working on George's proposal.
By the next meeting, all working groups are required to meet. At next
meeting, Terry will discuss the garbage tax.
Meeting Adjourned at 7 p.m.
Next meeting: October 28, 1992 at 5 p.m.
f
Minutes - Ithaca Rental Housing Commission - 10/27/92
Present: Joan Bailey, Pierre Clavel, Ed Dormady, John Efroymson,
Mark Finkelstein, Pam Zinder
Public: Myra Malkin, Scott Raynor
September minutes - were read and approved with the following
corrections:
"after some discussion of Mark's resolution, the IRHC unanimously
amended the resolution to strike out any reference to Carol
Mallison. "
a landlord issue was brought up by Ed not John, some of John's
communications had not been included in minutes.
Communications-
John brought up a problem with tenant questioning the legality of
the landlord asking a set fee for cleaning charges. Another tenant
had only $78 returned from a $300 security deposit from Certified
Properties. Other problems -a tenant had been waiting since May 30
for the return of the security deposit.
Another tenant who had requested interest payment on security
deposit had said security deposit raised by amount of interest.
John also had a lengthy letter regarding an unreturned deposit.
Also Trish Norton from the Planning Department had sent a letter
regarding proposals for IURA projects. This may be an item for the
supply side committee to work on.
Mark raised issue of Carol Mallison's performance on IRHC as a
result of a communication sent to an unidentified friend of Carol's
from Mayor Nichols. Mark asked that our previous resolution
commending Carol on her work be forwarded to Mayor Nichols.
Ed said he had received a complaint about a lack of heat and also
a security deposit problem. There was some discussion about city's
code regarding heat, John volunteered to check on accurate
ordinance.
Pam stated that new security deposit law would only affect leases
signed or renewed after Nov 1, 1992 . There was also some
discussion of triple damages. Mark believed that an attorney for
a plaintiff would likely specify them, but that in any case the
judge could independently award damages. Pam also had a question
about travel costs for a plaintiff, but the law does not appear to
apply to those costs.
Public Comment
Scott Raynor commended efforts by IRHC in coming up with improved
final proposal for security deposit. He attributed the
improvements to a balanced commission and urged the IRHC to
continue to work as a group with mixed participation and to put
aside any partisan feelings. John responded that C+O had also had
positive input into the ordinance, Mark however, felt that
continued work by IRHC had improved the measure. Pierre also made
some comments about group process and whether or not two separate
groups might be worth considering. He also mentioned that there
are undoubtedly landlord problems out there that are not being
addressed by IRHC.
There was some additional discussion on the commission and on
reconstitution. John stated that P+D would have it on the Nov 16th
agenda and that some type of proposal would likely be before
Council at the December meeting.
Old Business
Guidebook - Pam and Joan reported on updating work. The Public
library has requested three copies since the guide is used
extensively there. The materials for a new book would cost
approximately $3 . 40 and IRHC should be able to get help from RSVP
volunteers to assemble the books. Pierre noted that the book
should include the new security deposit language. Work still needs
to be done on an abbreviated version of the guide.
Ethics - Ed described the correspondence he had received from City
Attorney Chuck Guttman, which was sent to Joan and Mark as well.
In the letter, Chuck had stated that he believed that the municipal
code that Mark had raised before the IRHC applied to
administrative, not advisory bodies. Mark read a letter he had
sent in reply to Chuck, and re-iterated his belief that at some
point that the City should address ethics code more clearly. Joan
pointed out that she believed that the matter Mark kept referring
to (Joan's paid internship for the Rental Housing Officer job
description) was not really a matter that was before the IRHC,
since Mayor Nichols had decided in March to go ahead with setting
up this position and that roughly half of Common Council knew she
was performing this work.
Zoning - John stated that in 1993 Planning and Development would be
working on zoning.
New Business
Trash Tags - Terry suggested that we have Barbara Eckstrom or one
of her staff people from the County's Solid Waste Division meet
with members of IRHC to discuss impact that increasing costs have
upon landlord/tenant problems. John felt that an ad hoc working
group meeting would be beneficial.
Correspondence - John brought up issue of Mark's fax to press,
which completely misrepresented vote to have the not-for-profit
housing representative to IRHC not be subject to residency
requirement. At the Sept meeting, John had asked that the issue be
de-politicized and that any references to any individual be
removed. John felt that Mark had clearly violated this intent by
specifically linking Carol Mallison's name to the proposal in
communication to the press and to Common Council. John had sent a
letter to Mark, requesting copies of IRHC communications to the
press. Mark's response, (which was also sent in a letter to the
IRHC) was that his actions were constitutionally protected. A
fairly heated discussion followed with John and Joan both adamantly
maintaining that Mark's actions were clearly counter to the intent
of the IRHC and that such actions bode ill for any future work or
proposals by Mark to the IRHC. Pierre also voiced his objections,
calling Mark's actions disruptive.
Supply side working group - Terry said there was not anything new.
Policy working group - John asked if it would be a good idea to
have a central complaint file for landlords and tenants. A
discussion followed with some concerns being raised about abuse of
such a data base and also how to maintain it and handle queries.
The next two meetings were set for Wed, Nov 18th and Wed, Dec 16.
Minutes recorded and submitted by Joan Bailey