Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press for faster notices and clearer criteria as council delays housing‑code violator rule
Summary
After months of community meetings, councilmembers and tenants urged clearer timelines and Health & Safety‑code‑based criteria for a proposed 'repeat housing code violators' program. Council continued the item and impaneled an ad‑hoc subcommittee to redraft the resolution.
The Merced City Council on April 20 delayed final action on its proposed multi‑unit substandard building inspection policy—often described in public comment as the “repeat housing code violators” program—after tenants and advocates said the draft lacks firm timelines and statutory habitability criteria.
City Attorney Cornwell explained a narrow revision staff had prepared: a clause limiting certain staff deadlines “not to exceed 30 days.” Several speakers and tenant‑advocacy groups urged a broader rewrite. Ashley (public commenter) and others asked the council to tie the policy’s criteria to State Health & Safety Code standards (citing sections such as 17920.3 and 17920.10), require written notice to tenants and owners within a specific short window (suggested 3–10 business days for non‑emergencies; immediate notice for emergency violations), and set a defined reinspection schedule.
Councilmembers Jeang, Harris and Smith agreed to form an ad‑hoc subcommittee with City Attorney Cornwell to draft a revised resolution that provides: clearer definitions of substandard conditions, explicit timelines for notice and corrections, and an inspection/reinspection schedule. The council continued the item to the first meeting in July; the currently adopted policy remains in effect until the revised version returns.
A number of tenants and community groups warned that vague timelines leave tenants at risk of prolonged habitability problems and asked the city to strengthen enforcement mechanisms including reporting frequency, increased penalties, and tenant relocation assistance enforcement. City staff and the attorney’s office said they will try to balance statutory constraints, code‑enforcement workflows and police/public‑safety coordination while the ad‑hoc group prepares a redraft.
What’s next: the three‑member subcommittee will draft amendments and return to council for public review, with the goal of specifying timelines, listing concrete habitability triggers, and clarifying reinspection and notice practices.
