Loading...
Legislative Correspondence_Residency Occupancy Bill Copyright 2014 City of Dubuque Consent Items # 9. ITEM TITLE: Legislative Correspondence SUMMARY: Communication to the Legislative Information Office expressing the City of Dubuque's opposition to the Residential Occupancy Bill as well as to the Governor's Justice Department Appropriations Bill. SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Communication Residential Occupancy Bill HSB25 Supporting Documentation ❑ Communication Justice Department Appropriations bill Supporting Documentation Dubuque City Manager's Office THE CITY OF City Hall DUB E ��ericacity 50 West 13th Street LH I ®/ Dubuque, IA 52001-4805 Masterpiece on the Mississippi 2007,2012,2013 Office (563) 589-4110 Fax (563) 589-4149 TTY (563) 690-6678 ctymgr@cityofdubuque.org www.cityofdubuque.org February 25, 2015 VIA E-mail Only «Email» «CompleteOFFICIALName Address» Dear «Title» «Last», The City of Dubuque is opposed to the Residential Occupancy Bill, HSB25, and we urge you to vote no on this legislation. This bill would eliminate the City's ability to regulate the occupancy of residencies based on family or non-family relationships of the occupants. Stated simply, the bill says, "A city shall not, after January 1, 2016, adopt or enforce any regulation or restriction related to the occupancy of residential rental property that is based upon the existence of familial or non-familial relationships between the occupants of such rental property." We believe that misuse of a residential unit could be as damaging as not regulating the construction of the foundation, heating system, electrical system and all the things that make the house safe, accommodating, and supportive of residential occupancy. The City of Dubuque identifies three standards that we believe constitute a healthy housing unit: first, that the structure is built according to safety and structural codes to ensure sustainability; second, that the structure is maintained; and third, that the structure properly accommodates the end-user to ensure safety, amenities and a healthy environment. The most common measure of overcrowding is "persons per room" in a unit. Occupied housing units with more than one person per room are considered crowded. Overcrowding may have an effect on housing quality, as well as the occupants' quality of life. Obtaining an accurate count of the number of rooms in a home can be «Title» «First» «Last» February 25, 2015 Page 2 challenging in some types of homes. The only way to measure overcrowding is to be able to monitor and limit how many people can live in the unit so that it is healthy and safe. The City of Dubuque's zoning code since 1985 has defined a family as: "Any number of people occupying a single dwelling unit living together as a single housekeeping unit, related by blood, marriage, or formal adoption, plus not more than three additional people not so related, except that foster children and persons with disabilities as defined by the City Code shall be considered a family." This definition of a family is similar to city zoning ordinances nationwide. It is necessary to define a family because many zoning ordinances regulate residential use by unit number and density and each unit can only be occupied by a single family. This limitation, along with other related housing, health, fire and building codes, generally limits the number of individuals that can occupy a single unit. In Dubuque's experience, regulations based on the definition of a family have served as an effective tool to limit overcrowding, while leaving room for families to grow or the family dynamic to change. Historically, families as a residential entity have been granted special status. Familial status is defined and governed by Federal and State laws. State laws may vary generally, but all must fall within the Federal framework. Familial status is typically determined by a person's household, legal and kinship relationships, such as blood relationships, marriage, adoption, disability and the presence of existing or prospective children. Federal law prohibits discrimination based on familial status. The intent of the special status afforded families is based on a number of factors. First, families have historically served as a de facto social safety net whereby related individuals can help support or house their adult children or elderly parents when other options are not preferable or available. Secondly, families tend to grow organically through birth, adoption and marriage, and to limit a single family to a specific number of individuals whereby they would no longer be able to occupy a single-family unit would be onerous and impractical. Thirdly, it is somewhat uncommon for families to grow beyond the capacity of their dwelling units and their neighborhood's ability to absorb them. However, the same cannot be said for non-families in general. A primary example of non-family social and physical problems is evidenced in those neighborhoods surrounding college campuses where rental housing is common. Without the ability to limit the number of non-family occupants per housing unit in college neighborhoods, there can be an increase in problems inherent to overcrowding such as excess trash and noise, and greater demand for limited parking. These problems, in general, are not as common with families. On balance, the practice of defining families for purposes of regulating occupancy, and the exemption of families from being limited to a set number of individuals, tends to promote more stable and less densely developed neighborhoods. While not perfect, Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork i Title» <<First» <<Last» r February 25, 2015 Page 3 this practice tends to limit the occupancy of units without impinging on the ability of families to grow or change. This method of regulation has been a positive limiting factor and helped maintain the health, safety and quality of life in all housing units in all neighborhoods. At the end of the day we believe that HSB 25 would allow overcrowding which will result in several unintended consequences. Please consider the following points: • This bill will allow landlords and renters to break the rule of reasonable engagement. This means that generally speaking each individual unit is designed to handle a certain number of persons living there with regard to bathroom accessibility and environmental issues such as breathing in close proximity. The closer proximity of more persons increases health issues with regard to simple things such as catching cold or sharing flu symptoms. • This bill will have a disparaging impact on minority residents who are more likely to be low-income (60%) by giving them poor options on the number of people that should live in a safe and healthy rental unit. Very similar to check-cashing, it l does give them options that are not available in the normal banking system but it comes with a high price. The high price in this case would be allowing people to live in overcrowded and sometimes unhealthy housing units. • This bill will reduce the demand for affordable rental units and affordable workforce units, as it will allow more people to live together in space that is designed for fewer. It also goes against reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities and in need of assistance with amenities such as ramps, bathroom aids and doors to accommodate wheelchairs. Persons with disabilities cannot be accommodated in rental units that will not allow for the extra space needed for their assistance. • This bill goes against the objective of equity among renters. The bill decreases the number of safe and healthy units and allows landlords to put more people into the same space with fewer amenities and charge fees that should be i applied to an upgrade in the quality of living rather than an overcrowded downgrade unit with no amenities. • This bill will have a disparaging impact on lower-income renters and affordable rental units because these are units that are more likely to have a �h disproportionate number of people living in them beyond what would be considered reasonable numbers. Traditionally, the problems of overcrowding mostly occur among low-income renters; this bill would further separate the equity between low-income renters and market-rate renters with regard to occupancy. Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork «Title» «First» «Last» February 25, 2015 Page 4 • This bill will negatively impact the City's nuisance ordinance, which is designed to prevent people from disturbing others so all can live peacefully. The more persons living in the unit increases noise, increases extracurricular activity and it makes the regulation of nuisance properties much more difficult. • Neighborhoods that were not designed or zoned for high-density occupation could face strained infrastructure issues such as parking, sewer and other maintenance concerns. Occupant density, defined as the number of people living in a single unit, not only affects the health and well-being of a unit's occupants, but also spills over into the neighborhood -- impacting factors such as sanitation, demand on parking, law enforcement and the need for recreational area. These regulations are especially important in older, established, densely developed neighborhoods, where there is typically not an abundance of on- and off-street parking, area to sequester trash, and available green space or recreational area. • The property rights of owners who purchased a single-family home should also be taken into consideration. When the home was purchased, the home owner would not be able to foresee the results of this bill and anticipate the impact on the character of their neighborhood. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that in housing, reasonable accommodation is defined by having enough space to address a need. This bill will create a need to further address unintended consequences. There is a reason that an elevator is limited to the number of persons that can safely ride the elevator. There is a reason that restaurants and meeting rooms have limitations on the number of people who can safely occupy them. It has been determined that there is a relationship between space and activity, especially with regard to persons participating in a safe environment. Allowing more people to live together because they are family does not overrule reasonable accommodation, health issues, amenities, and especially overcrowding. The wrong number of people living in an area is detrimental to equity and reasonable accommodation. It does not make sense to allow six people to live in a space that was designed for and reasonably accommodates three persons. It may be okay as an exception, but it will take its toll on neighborhoods, code enforcement, and property values and create health issues, if it becomes a rule. Perhaps a more reasonable bill would allow landlords to present a plan to the local municipality to increase the number of persons living in the unit. The plan would offer a physical accommodation of the unit to satisfy the increase in persons so as to protect the integrity of code enforcement and neighborhood development. Again, we are not in favor of passing this bill; however, we do believe that there should be more review and Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork «Title» «First» «Last» February 25, 2015 Page 5 study into the unintended consequences and subsequent negative impact. A review of other options could result in better community solutions to address the problem. I Sincerely, �JC�� Gtih Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:jh is 'I f ;I i Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork Li The Honorable Pam Jochum The Honorable Tod Bowman President of the Senate Iowa State Senator Iowa State Senator 812 Grant Street 2368 Jackson Maquoketa, IA 52060 Dubuque, IA 52001 The Honorable Abby Finkenauer The Honorable Chuck Isenhart Iowa State Representative Iowa State Representative 1040 Rush Street P.O. Box 3353 Dubuque, IA 52003 Dubuque, IA 52004-3353 The Honorable Brian Moore The Honorable Nancy Dunkel Iowa State Representative Iowa State Representative 36630 River Point Court 11764 Hickory Lane Bellevue, IA 52301 Dyersville, IA 52040 i I Dubuque City Manager's Office THE CITY OF City Hall DUB E 50 West 13th Street I ' Dubuque, IA 52001-4805 iece on the Mississippi Office (563) 589-4110 Masterpiece pp 2007.2°12.2019 Fax (563) 589-4149 TTY (563) 690-6678 ctymgr@cityofdubuque.org www.cityofdubuque.org February 25, 2015 VIA E-mail Only Email» «CompleteOFFICIALName Address» Dear <Title» <<Last», Governor Branstad has presented his Justice Department Appropriations bill which includes language "scooping" $22 million statewide from local E911 surcharge accounts and redirecting these funds to the Department of Public Safety, Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation. The purpose of Governor's proposed action is to use these funds to build a platform for state-wide interoperable, mobile, land-based communications system. While the Governor's proposal has merit we believe it should not be paid for and implemented at the expense of local governments. The State has many opportunities to identify and collect funds from other sources without taking from the local E911 surcharge funds. In addition, even with the Governor's proposed emergency communications platform in place, local governments would be required to pay to connect and maintain these systems. Dubuque City and County have enjoyed an 800 Mhz trunked system for many years. This system will be reaching its "end of life" in the next 24 months and the City and County will be required to replace it with a federally mandated, national standard P25 compliant system at a cost of between $3.7 million if we partner to lease the system or $7 million if we purchase the entire system. These costs not include operating and maintenance expenses and all costs are paid for by local taxpayers. In addition to replacement costs for these mandated systems, cities and counties experience ongoing maintenance and operations challenges to their emergency <Title» «First» <<Last» February 25, 2015 Page 2 communications systems. These challenges include: dead spots, interoperability, FCC regulations on narrow banding reducing coverage, text messaging, next generation upgrades and daily operational maintenance costs for communications equipment. We ask that you oppose the Governor's Justice Department Appropriations proposed budget language amending IOWA SEC.19 Section 34A.7a, subsection 2, Code 2015 and scooping local funds. In addition, we support HF 199 and SSB 1131 with language that allows expending funds for the receipt and disposition of the 911 calls as determined by the CountyE911 service board. Recent legislation resulting in property tax rollbacks will handcuff local government's abilities to fund many things including emergency communications systems and equipment. The Governor's proposal would take even more funds from local governments. We strongly urge you to oppose the Governor's Justice Department Appropriations language allowing the State to scoop local funds and to support HF199 and SSB1131. Sincerely, Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:jh Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork The Honorable Pam Jochum The Honorable Tod Bowman President of the Senate Iowa State Senator Iowa State Senator 812 Grant Street 2368 Jackson Maquoketa, IA 52060 Dubuque, IA 52001 The Honorable Abby Finkenauer The Honorable Chuck Isenhart Iowa State Representative Iowa State Representative 1040 Rush Street P.O. Box 3353 Dubuque, IA 52003 Dubuque, IA 52004-3353 The Honorable Brian Moore The Honorable Nancy Dunkel Iowa State Representative Iowa State Representative 36630 River Point Court 11764 Hickory Lane Bellevue, IA 52301 Dyersville, IA 52040