Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rental Inspections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff recommends continuing use of private inspectors for RentalReady; in‑house option would cost about $977,000 annually
Summary
City staff recommended on May 10 that the RentalReady housing inspections remain contracted to qualified private firms rather than moved in‑house because of expected staffing, scheduling and cost challenges; staff estimated an in‑house program would require eight inspectors and cost about $977,000 in the first year.
Tom Skinnell, the city’s community development director, told the City Council on May 10 that staff recommends continuing the existing program that uses pre‑qualified private housing inspectors to perform RentalReady inspections rather than bringing the work in‑house.
Skinnell said the city has roughly 10,608 rental units in census estimates; after excluding units that already receive annual HUD or similar inspections, staff estimates about 8,800 units would need RentalReady inspections in a given year. That workload equates to about 731 units per month. To perform that work in‑house, Skinnell said staff calculated the need for eight full‑time inspectors plus a supervisor and an administrative assistant; initial‑year costs (salaries, vehicles, phones, computers and benefits) were estimated at approximately $977,000.
Skinnell reviewed fee scenarios: current private‑inspector fees under the 2016 program are $50 for the initial inspection and $30 for reinspection; private inspectors have proposed raising those fees to $100 and $60 respectively. Skinnell said covering in‑house costs would require an inspection fee of about $125 per unit. He noted private firms typically inspect evenings and weekends to accommodate tenants, while city personnel generally work a Monday‑through‑Friday schedule and would be more constrained by holidays, overtime rules and collective bargaining agreements.
Staff noted that the city issued a new RFQ and received applications from four firms; the responses were from repeat providers. Skinnell proposed that, if council directs continued use of private inspectors, staff will certify participating firms under the revised ordinance, train them on the updated inspection checklist (which went into effect May 1) and institute city audits of inspection reports. He recommended waiting at least one year from May 1 to perform an audit of the contracted inspection program.
Several council members asked for clarity on audit timing, shared‑amenity inspections (common boilers/air handlers) and whether enough contractors responded to the RFQ; staff said they will review the four submissions for qualifications and may recruit additional firms if necessary. The council did not take a vote at the study session but several members expressed support for the staff recommendation to continue using qualified housing inspectors.
