Richmond officials, tenants and advocates press for proactive rental inspection program

Members of the public told the Richmond City Council Land Use, Housing and Transportation Standing Committee on April 22 that poor maintenance in rental housing is harming residents’ health and safety and urged the city to implement a proactive rental-inspection program.

The committee heard several personal accounts of unsafe living conditions and then a detailed staff presentation on how a city program would work. Kim Jevong, director of Planning and Development Review, told the committee the proposal is “explicitly and narrowly defined by Code of Virginia” and would let the city create one or more rental inspection districts where building officials, or their designees, could conduct proactive inspections of residential rental dwelling units.

The proposal would not replace complaint-driven inspections, Jevong said: “Just because we inspect and you pass does not negate the ability of the commissioner of buildings to respond to tenant or citizen complaints.” She outlined program mechanics that staff have drafted to mirror state law, including sample-based inspections for larger complexes and a limited exemption window for newly compliant units.

Public commenters described conditions they said motivated the request for a proactive program. Ken Turner, a member of Richmond Chapel of Virginia Organizing, said his family’s apartment had “holes in my ceilings, faulty electrical wiring,” and that poor repairs had worsened his wife’s COPD and his daughter’s asthma. Paul Fleisher, a retired Richmond Public Schools teacher and member of Virginia Organizing, urged narrowly defined inspection districts that target specific tax parcels or complexes rather than whole neighborhoods, citing Henrico County’s approach.

Emma White, a Richmond chapter member of Virginia Organizing, recounted visiting apartments where “ceilings [are] falling down on elderly residents or mold growing on every surface,” and said the city should “fully fund the Richmond rental inspection program immediately.” Another speaker, Jennifer Loper, described her 83-year-old mother losing heat and living with mold and failing windows.

Staff described how the program would operate if the council adopts it. Key points Jevong presented include: - Districts must be smaller than the entire municipality and would be created by council to reflect state criteria for blight or deterioration. - For complexes with 10 or more units, inspectors may inspect a 10% sample; a finding in the sample can trigger inspection of all units in that complex. - Newly built or newly compliant units would be exempt from periodic and transfer inspections for 48 months. - Staff recommends a two-step legislative approach: first adopt an ordinance establishing the program consistent with the Code of Virginia, then return with proposed districts and the data needed to define them and estimate costs.

Committee members pressed staff on tenant protections and unintended consequences. Councilwoman Robinson asked for detail on enforcement timelines and relocations, saying she wanted “a better understanding of what that requires” for landlords and for tenants who may need to be rehoused. Michelle Coward, deputy director for property maintenance code enforcement, said the department issues written notices with timeframes that vary by severity—30 days for routine maintenance and as short as immediate to 15 days for unsafe conditions—and that staff tries to work with owners to avoid displacing tenants. Coward also described practical enforcement limits when property owners are out of state, and said the city often must pursue local management companies when owners are difficult to reach.

Council members also raised the potential for inspections to increase displacement if units are deemed unfit. Jevong acknowledged the risk and recommended that council consider community resources for rehousing, and incorporate measures to support tenants, including education about legal aid and escrow options. Jevong said staff can return with data showing where past code violations are concentrated and recommended that council not set rigid numeric thresholds for district designation but use contextual criteria, tenant petitions, and violation history to guide decisions.

On funding, Jevong said there is no fiscal impact to adopting the ordinance alone; the cost depends on how many districts are created. Possible revenue or funding tools staff described include inspection fees or a rental registry, but no final funding decision has been proposed. She estimated a draft ordinance could be ready for introduction in the spring and recommended separating program establishment from district creation so fiscal needs can be scoped once council decides the geographic reach of inspections.

Why it matters: Richmond is a majority-renter city, and speakers and staff framed the proposal as a public-health and housing-stability intervention. Committee members asked for additional data and a draft ordinance before making final decisions; several called for clear tenant protections and a plan to limit displacement.

The committee did not take a final vote on the program. Staff said they will provide a draft ordinance and additional data on violations, tenancy demographics, and fiscal impacts for council to consider in a subsequent meeting.