County staff: running mobile-home inspection program would lose money unless fees rise; board pauses action

Jeff (staff member) presented an Excel-based cost estimate for establishing and operating a county-run inspection program for manufactured-home communities. His presentation showed large one-time startup costs in year one — training, program development, inspection setup, and a health-data system — and recurring annual costs thereafter. The analysis factored in the state reimbursement to the county for license work (Department of Safety and Professional Services, DSPS) set at 37 percent.

Jeff’s examples included two fee scenarios: keeping fees aligned with DSPS charges and doubling DSPS-equivalent fees. Under the DSPS-equivalent fees, the first year example produced an approximate $11,000 deficit; in routine years afterward the program still showed about a $5,000 shortfall. Under the doubled-fee scenario the first year deficit narrowed but the program would still take a few years to break even. Jeff said neighboring counties charge higher fees and that hiring a limited-term employee (three to five years) would likely be required to implement the program.

Board discussion centered on policy goals and unintended consequences. Doctor Hall questioned whether taking on inspections would advance the county’s goal of ensuring safe housing, noting that closing parks for violations could remove affordable units and worsen housing shortages. Supervisor Steen expressed the view that the county could end up incurring enforcement costs and public-relations consequences and said the program did not appear financially viable at this time.

Several speakers raised operational concerns: locating unlicensed parks could require staff time because some owners are out-of-state, and raising fees might result in owners either passing costs to residents or refusing to pay, which would create enforcement costs (including potential court action). Jeff agreed the park owners would likely pass costs to residents and that an increased complaints volume could follow if the county assumed enforcement responsibility.

Decision and next steps: The board opted not to adopt a county-run mobile-home inspection program at this time. Staff were directed to continue enforcing the county’s existing human health hazard ordinance (responding to complaints about potable water, sewer, heat, and electricity) and to compile data on complaints received so the board can assess scope and geographical distribution. Doctor Hall asked staff to gather complaint data and return with an electronic record within approximately six months so the board could better understand the problem’s scale.

This article reports discussion, analysis and the board’s direction to collect more information; no ordinance or program was adopted at the Aug. 21 meeting.