Erie officials propose bringing rental and mechanical inspections in‑house, raise fees and tighten enforcement

Erie administration briefed the council in a study session on a package of changes to the city’s building‑standards and safety work that would move rental and commercial mechanical inspections in‑house, change fee structures and strengthen enforcement.

Katherine Easterling, director of Neighborhood and Economic Development, said the Bureau of Building Standards and Safety is proposing to modernize the rental registration and inspection program to "improve housing quality, strengthen property maintenance and enhance cost recovery." She told council the city currently issues licenses for about 13,489 rental units and relies on a third‑party contractor (BIOU) to do most inspections.

Why it matters: Staff said the current outsourced model limits oversight, fragments data across systems and makes it difficult to prioritize complaint‑driven inspections. The administration argued that bringing inspections under city control would create "clear lines of accountability" and allow the city to better coordinate enforcement with property‑maintenance work and neighborhood stabilization goals.

What the proposal would do: Staff outlined three main elements: - Transition to an in‑house rental registration and inspection service and bring commercial mechanical inspections in‑house, rather than relying on the current contractor (BIOU). - Add staff: an assistant bureau chief, a total of four rental inspectors (three new hires), and three rental clerks (two new hires), plus one mechanical inspector; staff noted these hires may require labor‑management conversations with AFSCME. - Revise fees and enforcement: increase the per‑unit rental registration fee from $40 to $55 (base), eliminate some deficiency‑free extended inspection cycles, and raise reinspection/late‑cancel/no‑show fees to $150 per unit to discourage missed inspections and better cover administrative costs.

Service standards and enforcement: Staff proposed a baseline inspection cadence of every two years for standard properties, annual inspections for high‑risk properties, and inspections on change of ownership before issuing a license. For violations, the recommended enforcement timeline includes a 10‑day warning, 30 days to complete repairs, and the possibility of license revocation, posting a property as uninhabitable and filing citations with the district justice (which would become public record).

Costs and revenue: Staff said the city’s contract with BIOU cost about $233,270 in 2025 while rental program receipts in 2025 were roughly $485,465 (some of which reflected recaptured prior‑year revenues). Administration models showed a notional surplus if all costs were allocated to the program, but staff acknowledged the need to allocate management salaries, software and other overhead to demonstrate revenue neutrality; staff stated the program is currently running a deficit of about $132,000 under present allocations.

Other ordinance and fee changes: The presentation included proposed updates to rooming‑house tiers (a new $300 annual tier for 25–49 rooms) and a modernization of quality‑of‑life penalties, including a proposed increase for working without a permit or license from roughly $100 to $1,000. Staff said they would delay enforcement of some higher penalties until permit and licensing processes are modernized and the city completes public education so residents and small business owners are informed of new rules.

Implementation timeline and next steps: Staff requested council feedback and explained the practical steps: 90 days’ notice is required to terminate the BIOU contract; staff said, given council direction, they could spend the summer building processes and aim for an in‑house start as early as September. Staff also said they plan outreach to the apartment association and benchmark visits (Allentown and other peer cities) to refine ordinance language and operational details.

Council reaction: Council members broadly supported stronger enforcement and improved oversight but raised equity concerns about enforcement distribution across neighborhoods, asked for tenant and landlord education, and requested more detailed cost allocations (management salaries, technology/software, and ongoing operating costs) before approving fee increases. One council member described current conditions as reaching a "crisis" and urged urgency; others cautioned the city must avoid unintended housing displacement and suggested funding mechanisms (CDBG or rehabilitation funds) to help owners make repairs.

What’s next: Staff will return with proposed ordinance language, refined cost allocations and outreach results. Any change to fees or staffing will require council action; until then the presentation served as a study session to gather direction.