Binghamton City planning committee fields questions on proposed proactive rental-inspection program

A town hall hosted by the Planning Committee of the Binghamton City Council focused on a draft proactive rental-housing inspection program that would require most landlords in Binghamton City to register properties, pay an annual fee and obtain a notice of compliance after inspection before continuing to rent.

City staff described the proposal as a system to “systematically identify hazardous conditions to protect the health and safety of occupants and prevent properties from deteriorating into condemnation,” and said the draft would require registration, an initial inspection and routine inspections every three years. The draft proposes a $100 per-unit annual program fee with a maximum cumulative fee of $2,500 per property, reduced annual rates for qualifying owners and a proposed phased rollout likely to take at least three years.

Proponents say the program would shift some responsibility for habitability away from tenants who fear retaliation for calling code, and would fund new inspectors; critics said it risks burdening small, local landlords and does not sufficiently address tenant-caused damage or implementation logistics.

City staff member: what the draft requires City staff summarized key elements of the draft. Registration would be annual and require the property address and parcel number, number of units and bedrooms, owner contact information and a local authorized representative with a Binghamton address. The registration must also list code violations cited against the owner in the previous three years.

Exemptions spelled out in the draft would include rental units in state-licensed hospitals, hospices, community care facilities or nursing homes; institutions occupied exclusively by members of a religious order; on-campus student housing; properties owned or funded and inspected by a federal, state or local government entity at least once every five years; owner-occupied properties with no more than two units; and properties constructed within the last three years.

If a property passes inspection, the owner would receive a notice of compliance that effectively functions as a license to operate for up to three years, so long as registration and fees remain current. Staff said the draft also contains several enforcement mechanisms not present in existing code: a prohibition on pursuing eviction in Binghamton City Court from a property that lacks a current notice of compliance (with a staff clarification that this restriction would not bar all summary proceedings related to discrete code violations), a reduced timeframe for payment of civil penalties (45 days) and an ability to levy unpaid program charges to a property tax bill after six months. The draft would also create a rent-escrow option tied specifically to compliance with the proactive program so tenants can withhold rent if a building lacks a notice of compliance.

Staff clarified procedures for access and consent: “If a tenant does not consent to entry for the inspections, the owner is not considered in violations,” staff said, adding an inspection warrant could be sought by an inspector if necessary. Staff also said the program is intended to supplement, not replace, existing complaint-based inspections, and that the logistics for rollout (including scheduling, public portal design and prioritization) are still being worked out.

Costs, staffing and timing Staff noted the first complete round of inspections and ongoing inspections would likely require hiring four additional code-enforcement inspectors; they estimated a multi-year, phased implementation. The draft sets a $100 per-unit annual fee with a maximum of $2,500 per property; staff said the $100/unit figure equates roughly to about $8 per month per unit and that other municipalities’ fee structures informed the proposal.

Concerns from landlords and residents Multiple landlords and residents questioned the fairness of a per-unit fee and the program’s impact on small, local landlords. Shannon Potts asked, “The plan is that the city of Binghamton is going to take money from some landlords in order to give some other landlords money to maintain and repair properties,” and raised a host of follow-up questions about diversion of funds, complaint response times, corruption safeguards and whether tenants could or would resist inspections.

Several landlords recounted difficulty evicting noncompliant tenants and large costs from tenant-caused damage. One speaker described a judgment for months of unpaid rent and tens of thousands of dollars in repairs after a difficult eviction; another, representing a commercial investor, asked why single-family homes that appear neglected on public streets are not being targeted similarly. Local landlords warned that immediate enforcement without a phased rollout or clear accommodations could push small holders to sell.

Support and public-health rationale Supporters and some housing advocates framed the draft as a public-health intervention. Tarek Abdelazum, identified in public comment as a former city director of planning, housing and community development and a national nonprofit housing practitioner, said the proposal addresses habitability problems including lead exposure, mold and lack of alarms; he said he would pay the equivalent of $8 a month to protect vulnerable residents. Housing advocate Miles Burnett argued the measure would place more resources into code enforcement, noting federal block-grant funding that now pays part of enforcement staff is uncertain; Burnett said the fee revenues could fund existing and new officers without raising property taxes.

Questions staff said they will address Staff acknowledged many details are unresolved and the draft is open to revision. They said the city wants input on implementation sequencing, whether and how to treat bedroom-by-bedroom student leases, the public availability of registration and violation data, and whether the per-building maximum fee should be capped. Staff also noted the Broome County Health Department recently received funds for lead mapping and that local partnerships could influence rollout timing.

Next steps The proposed ordinance remains a draft and no vote was taken at the town hall. Staff said a packet containing the draft legislation was available to attendees and that the committee will continue to accept feedback and consider implementation logistics before any formal action. The meeting closed after public comment and the committee called for further input during future council and budget discussions.

Votes at a glance: none recorded at this meeting.