City of Milwaukee Looking to Expand Its Residential Rental Inspection Program (a.k.a Landlord Licensing)

The Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) of the city of Milwaukee is looking to expand its Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) program to additional parts of Milwaukee. Simply put the RRI program is "landlord licensing" at its heart and it may very well be coming to your neighborhood.

As background, the RRI program was created in December of 2009 as a so-called "pilot" program. It allowed the city to enter a landlord's rental unit (without a warrant and without requiring a tenant to make a complaint) and inspect it. If a rental unit did not pass muster it would not receive a certificate (license) from the city and could not be rented out. If the rental did pass inspection then the landlord was either issued a 4 year certificate or a 1 year certificate. Landlords were charged $85 per inspection. It was only implemented in the Lindsay Heights area and the eastside of Milwaukee near UWM.

DNS is now requesting that those two pilot areas become permanent. DNS is also requesting to expand the program. The proposed expansion would involve two phases. Phase One of the expansion would include the neighborhood around the Basilica of St. Josaphat. Phase Two of the expansion would include Washington Park, Metcalf Park, Amani, Triangle, and Clarke Square neighborhoods.

Back in 2009 the RRI program was downplayed by DNS as a short-term "pilot" program just to help those two areas. DNS also told us that the RRI program was only concerned with serious safety issues like attic bedrooms, decrepit 2nd floor porches, and extension cord wiring. Ask the owners of rental properties in Lindsay Heights and the UWM area how many building code orders they received for non-serious safety issues.

I hope that all Milwaukee landlords have now come to the realization that the plan all along has been for this to be a city wide program. Many landlords who didn't own properties in the two pilot areas chose to bury their heads in the sand because the program did not affect them. That is no longer the case, the RRI program will encompass the entire city of Milwaukee if landlords allow it.

If you would like to read more about the plan to expand the RRI program read the Commissioner of DNS' 9/24/14 memo to the Zoning and Development Committee and Milwaukee Common Council.

If you would like to learn more about the details of the RRI program please refer to my blog posts on this topic.

I urge all landlords in Milwaukee to contact their Alderman on this issue immediately. Also if you are not a member of the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin (AASEW) you should consider joining. For only $99 a year you will not only learn a lot about how to be a more effective and profitable landlord, but a portion of your dues will go to fight legislation like the RRI program.

ACT 76 - Wisconsin's New Landlord-Tenant Law - Part 2: Restrictions on Local Ordinances

As I mentioned in Part 1, the soon to be new law contains new provisions as well as some corrective provisions (which will correct unintended consequences from last year's new law Act 143). In this blog post I will talk about one of the new provisions of the law which will restrict a local municipality from creating and/or enforcing certain local ordinances.

The new law will creates sec. 66.0104(2)(c) and (d), Wis. Stats., which says that a municipality may not enact or enforce an ordinance that:

a. Limits a residential tenant’s responsibility, or a residential landlord’s right to recover for damage, waste or neglect of the premises, or for any other costs, expenses, fees payments or damages for which tenant is responsible under law or under the rental agreement.

b. Requires a landlord to communicate to a tenant any information that is not required to be communicated under federal or state law.

i.e. City of Madison’s ordinance that requires landlords to distribute voter registration information to new tenants will not be enforceable under this new law.

c. That requires a landlord to communicate to a municipality any information regarding the landlord or tenant unless:

(1) Information is required under federal or state law.

(2) Information is required of all residential real estate owners (not just landlords!)

(3) Information will enable a person to contact the owner, or agent of the owner.

Note: This subsection does not apply to an ordinance that has a reasonable and clearly defined objective of regulating the manufacture of illegal narcotics.

So what will the net effect of this new provision of the law curtailing local municipalities from enacting and enforcing certain ordinances? According to one tenant advocate SB 179 will eliminate over 20 Madison ordinances. SB 179 should also eliminate Milwaukee’s Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) pilot project in the UW-M and Lindsay Heights neighborhoods.

It should be noted however that the new law will not eliminate "rental recording" in various municipalities as earlier versions of SB 179 had. Under the final version of the law, landlords will still have to provide their ownership and contact information to the municiaplity since doing so would fall under the above exception since the information will enable a person to contact the owner or agent of the owner.

To learn more on the background and overview of Wisconsin's new Landlord-Tenant Law read my prior post.

D.N.S.' Update on Milwaukee's R.R.I. Program In U.W.-Milwaukee Area

The City of Milwaukee Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) recently spoke at a meeting on the east side of Milwaukee and provided an update of the Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) program which was instituted around UW-Milwaukee area and in the Lindsey Heights neighborhood. If you would like a refresher of what the RRI program is all about you should read my earlier blog posts on the issue.

Much of the information set forth below was taken from the notes of Pam Frautschi, President of the Eastside Milwaukee Community Council -- Thank You Pam.

David Krey, Enforcement Manager of DNS explained that the the RRI program applies to single-family, duplexes, triplexes and other rental unit properties in the UWM area between Hackett and the river and from Edgewood to Locust. Applicable rental properties were inspected inside and out in order to qualify for a rental certificate. If a rental proerty does not pass muster and obtain a rental certificate then the owner would not be allowed to rent the property to a tenant.

Inspections commenced on March 2010. A total of 622 properties have been inspected to date in the UWM area. Nearly 60% of the inspected properties received the 4 year rental certificate. The properties that were disqualified intially, but which later made the necessary repairs, received a 1 year rental certificate which commences this month.

Per DNS, the inspection fees covered the project program's espense. Since the majority of the inspections have been completed, DNS has reduced its RRI inspectors from 4 people down to 2 people.

Comparative numbers provided by Mr. Krey were as follows:

- 72 Orders to Correct were issued for 376 violations in the UWM RRI area in 2009

- 748 Orders to Correct were issued for 4654 code violation for the same area in 2010

So far in 2011, there are 95 "open" Orders to Correct, 56 of which are in litigation. 653 have been abated.

Since the RRI project started exterior complaints dropped 50% from 98 down to 41. Interior complaints dropped by 1/3 from 27 down to 19.

The primary zoning issue in the RRI area is "overcrowding" - which DNS feels is from too many occupants living in illegal rental units. Vacant properties in the area increased significantly. Graffitti complaints decreased. Garbage complaints increased from 129 to 193. Anonymous complaints or other complaints made through the alderman's office decreased by 50%.

DNS says that the RRI program increased property values and increased the quality of units rented.

During the Question and Answer portion of the meeting, Alderman Kovac, who represents the east side, stated that representatives from the Apartment Association that initially held strong opposition to RRI (that would be the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin or AASEW) gave it many compliments at last week's meeting of UWM landlords.

Blogger's comment: I am not going to comment on any of the above statements or data presented by Mr. Grey as I do not have access to any statistics to either agree or disagree with the alleged success of the RRI program in the UWM area.

However, with regard to Alderman Kovac's comments that representatives of the AASEW complimented the RRI program, I do have some thoughts. Being a member of the Board of Directors for the AASEW for the last 3 years and its current President, no board member of the AASEW has spoken to Alderman Kovac about the RRI program since before it was instituted. I received numerous telephone calls from Members of the AASEW that own property in the UWM RRI area and not one of the comments were in favor of the RRI program. In fact, most of the property owners that I spoke to indicated that -- just as was suspected from the outset -- DNS wrote up Orders to Correct for minor "ticky tack" violations rather then the major safety issues which DNS argued was the impetus for starting up the program.

I would be curious to know how many of the Orders to Correct that were issued pertained to major safety issues such as illegal attic bedrooms, faulty electrical wiring, dilapidated second-story porches etc etc.

I am also curious to learn which "representative of the Apartment Association" Alderman Kovac spoke to?

City of West Allis Passes Landlord Licensing Ordinance

The City of West Allis recently passed a new ordinance that requires all property owners to register their rental properties with the City.

The new law is contained in 3 separate ordinances. The first ordinances was passed back in August 6, 2010, followed by a repeal and revision to the original ordinance on September 24, 2010, followed by an ordinance creating a sub-section of the ordinance on October 7, 2010.

You can read all 3 ordinances here.

According to the new law, West Allis feels that landlord registration is necessary in order to properly enforce the city's building, zoning, fire, and health codes and to safeguard persons (read "tenants"), property, and the general welfare. The city says that only by having a list of current rental property owners and their contact information can the city expeditiously process building code enforcement issues (read: "issue fines and forfeitures").

A summary of the provisions of this new "Landlord Licensing" ordinance includes the following:

- This new ordinance applies to all residential or commercial property owners (except owners of owner-occupied one and two family properties where ownership is recorded with the Milwaukee County Register of Deeds), condominium owners (except owners of owner-occupied condos where ownership is recorded with the Register of Deeds of Milwaukee County and a Condo Declaration is established and there is an appointed agent for the association). Government-owned properties are also excluded from the ordinance's requirements. So essentially this ordinance applies only to rental property owners.

- The owner must live within the 7 county area ( Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Kenosha, Racine, Walworth Washington and Waukesha counties) or else the owner must appoint a "local operator" who lives in the 7 County area and has the authority to accept notice of violations for enforcement of city codes.

NOTE: The 1st version of the ordinance required the owner to live in the City of West Allis or that the "local operator" live in the "near area" of West Allis -- whatever that means. A bit restrictive don't you think -- obviously the city agreed hence the amendment.

- A separate registration form (and fee) must be filed for each separate tax-key numbered parcel.

- The registration form must include the owner's names, address of residence, and phone number if the owner is a person or persons. A post office box is not allowed. If a "local operator" is appointed by the owner then the registration must include the same information for the operator. The tax-key number and address of the property must also be provided on the registration form.

- The intial registration fee for the 1st year is $30 per property and $10 per property for each year thereafter. If you file online the fee is only $20 for the first year. A reduced registration fee may be offerred to those owners that attend a city-sponsored landlord training program or equivalent.

- The form and fee must be filed by November 15th each year. If filed later than Nov. 15th the fee will be increased to $100.

- Failure to file the registration form, fee, or change of information form is a violation and will result in a Notice being sent by the City. If the owner fails to comply with the Notice then the city may file a court action against the owner.

- If the West Allis Municipal Court believes that the city has proven its case against the owner with regard to failing to comply with this new ordinance, the city may impose a forfeiture of not less than $100 nor more than $500, plus the costs of the prosecution.

Unfortunately, West Allis has opted to follow in the footsteps of Milwaukee -- something many of us were afraid would happen -- with regard to the landlord registration/licensing. Let's see what community is next to follow.

Business Journal Article Addresses Fallout of the City's RRI Ordinance To Date

I was recently interviewed by Business Journal reporter Sean Ryan regarding the fallout of the dismissal of three landlords' lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee regarding the unconstitutionality of its Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) program. My most recent post on the subject can be read here.

On October 1, 2010, The Business Journal published its article entitled "Judge Upholds Milwaukee Home Inspection Program. Reporter Sean Ryan spoke with the primary plaintiff, Joseph Peters, Alderman Nik Kovac (sponsor of the ordinance), Todd Weiler (of the Department of Neighborhood Services) and myself for the article.

I found Mr. Weiler's comments to be very noteworthy. He was quoted as saying that to date DNS has inspected over 800 properties in the two target areas (Lindsey Heights on the north side and the UWM-area on the east) and that during those inspections 8,550 violations were found. Apparently 1/2 of the the properties inspected -- or 400 -- had no violations at all.

I wonder if all 8,550 of the violations that were found -- and which the landlords were cited for -- pertained to life-safety issues? If you will recall, life safety issues were the "alleged" original impetus behind the ordinance being introduced.

In speaking with several landlords that I know who own proeprties in the target areas, I was informed that the violations that they were cited for involved very minor issues -- such as peeling paint on the outside of a building, torn screens, and failure to paint some wood that had been properly sealed but not painted. The lead plaintiff, Jospeh Peters, was quoted in the article as saying that the Orders To Correct that he received on his 10 buildings also involved very minor repairs - such as torn screens.

Just how many of the 8,550 violations dealt with life safety issues? How many illegal attic bedrooms were found? How many poorly maintained second story porches that could collapse at any minute were identified? Don't forget the overloading of circuits by the improper use of extension cords - how many of those were found?

If you will recall the testimony that was offerred by both Alderman Nik Kovac, who sponsored the ordinance, and Art Dahlberg, Commissioner of the Department of Neighborhood Services, at the public hearing before the ZND Committee way back when, the focus of this program was to make these affected properties safe and prevent unnecessary deaths.

I'm not sure how many lives have been saved as a result of the RRI ordinance to date, but at least we wont have to worry about any of those deadly torn screens, inherently dangerous unpainted wood, and the lethal peeling paint on the outside of a duplex.

Not sure about you but I feel a lot safer already.

This ordinance is now being shown for what it really is -- not an attempt to save lives and improve properties -- but rather an way for the city to get inside one's private property without the need to obtain a warrant or even receive a tenant complaint, a way to make additional money (through the required filing fees and reinspection fees), and a way to further harass landlords that are having a difficult enough time making ends meet.

Sometimes I just wish that all of the landlords in the city of Milwaukee had the ability to just walk away from their rental properties. I wonder if the city would then realize, once all the landlords are gone and there is no one to own or operate rental housing, that we provide a much needed service and that most of us do a good job of providing that service. Would they try to work with us then . . . . ?

Landlords Lose Lawsuit

On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, Judge Timothy Witkowiak denied three landlords' motion for summary judgment against the City of Milwaukee and granted the City's cross motion for summary judgment against the landlords, with regard to constitutionality of the city's new RRI ordinance. This ruling effectively ended the lawsuit.

The lawsuit dealt with the City's new Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) program/ordinance that went into effect on January 1, 2010. The RRI ordinance requires all landlords in two areas of Milwaukee (the UWM-area on the east side and Lindsay Heights on the north side) to register any and all rental units, pay a fee to the city, allow for the Department of Neighborhood Services to conduct an interior inspection of the rental units, pass the inspection and obtain a rental certificate, in order to continue to be able to rent the rental unit to a tenant. Any rental unit that does not pass the inspection would be denied a rental certificate and as such the lanldord would no longer be allowed to rent out the unit until such time as a rental certificate could be obtained.

If you are unfamiliar with the RRI program and/or the lawsuit you should review my past blog posts on the subject to get up to speed.

The plaintiff landlords had four main arguments. I will summarize the arguments and then summarize the court's ruling on each.

1. The Ordinance Is Too Vague

Landlords' Argument:

The plaintiffs' argued that the ordinance contains terms and phrases that are so vague that they do not properly notify landlords who own rental properties in the two designated areas as to what specific conditions will result in a denial of a residential rental certificate or the revocation of a certificate. The ordinance gives the DNS Commissioner and his inspectors the subjective power to determine whether the conditions in a rental unit constitute a denial or revocation of the certificate. This subjective power will result in a non-uniform application of the ordinance.

The plaintiffs cited 7 examples within the ordinance where a landlord does not have sufficient notice as to what specific conditions or number of conditions will trigger a denial or revocation of a rental certificate by the city.

Court's Ruling:

The court ruled that the plaintiff landlords did not meet the burden that was required of them in order to prove that the ordinance was so vague that it was unconstitutional. The burden that the plaintiffs were required to meet was quite high.

Under Wisconsin law, a ordinance is presumed to be constituional. In order to prove an ordinance unconstitutional the attacker must establish its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the plaintiffs had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ordianance posessed no rational basis to any legitimate objective. In other words, the landlords had to show that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague in all aspects and incapable of any valid application.

The typical burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is "a reasonable certainty by the greater weight of the credible evidence" which essentially means that if you tip the scale (of justice) slightly in your favor then you have met your burden. The burden of proof in criminal matters is "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is a much higher and more difficult burden to meet. In order to meet this higher standard you essentially have to tilt the scale (of justice) all of the way in your favor.

In order to show that an ordinance is unconstitutional on its face the plaintiffs had to meet the higher (criminal-type) burden. The court ruled that the ordinance as written was not unconstitutionally vague because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the ordinance was impermissibly vague in all situations. The court added further that just because certain words and phrases in the ordinance were never defined that that alone does not make them vague because if a word or phrse is not defined then one should resort to the common meaning of the word.

The court held that some valid application of the ordinance can be found so as a result there can be no finding that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague.

The court added that the burden of proof is lower in an "as applied" challenge, or post-enforcement attack, on the validity of the constitutionality of an ordinance and that the court's ruling under such circumstances could be different. Essentially, this means that if a landlord was injured (i.e. denied a rental certificate and was forced to evict his/her tenant and lose rental income) by the application of the RRI ordinance, that landord would have a lower burden of proof, in that context, in proving that the ordinance was unconstitutional.

2. The ordinance contains fatal defects

Plaintiffs' Argument:

This argument was that the ordinance as written contained terms which were unclear, had no definitions, and failed to set forth clear standards for when a rental certificate would be granted. As a result the application of the ordinance by the city would be fatally flawed. Additionally it was argued that the ordinance gives the DNS Commissioner and his inspectors the arbitrary power to grant, deny, or revoke a rental certificate without providing specific standards as to how that discretion should be used.

The plaintiffs provided nine examples within the ordinance where significant terms were not defined or were unclear. It was argued that the standard as to what will cause the issuance of a rental certificate is a subjective standard contained only in the minds of the Commissioner and his inspectors and such standard will most likely vary from one inspector to the next.

This argument also focused on the fact that the ordinance allows for the DNS Commissioner to draft rules or regulations which have not been made a part of the ordinance. This means that the Commissioner could change the rules at any time and without providing owners prior notice of the changes. The rules and regulations are not required to be made publicly available since they are not contained in the ordinance itself.

Court's Ruling:

Disclaimer: I was unable to attend the entire ruling of the court on this issue as I needed to get across town to give a seminar at the AASEW Tradeshow. However, I was present for the first part of the court's ruling on this issue and I spoke with people in attendence at the hearing later in the day with regard to the remainder of the court's ruling.

The court felt that the plaintiffs' 1st argument (vagueness) and its 2nd argument (fatal flaws) were very similar and contained much overlap. As such, the court applied the same analysis as it did on the vagueness claim and ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof.

The court also addressed the plaintiffs' argument that the ordinance does not provide landlords with sufficient notice becasue it refers to standards that are not incorporated into the ordinance itself, which allows DNS to add these standards at a later date and/or change them over time etc. The court ruled that regulations can legally be added to an ordinance at a later date and are not required to be included in the wording of the ordinance itself. The court pointed out that it is often the case that administrative rules are created to interpret statutes and ordinances at the federal, state and local levels, and therefore this subset of the plaintiffs' argument is moot.

3. Failure to provide impartial review

Plaintiffs' Argument:

Under the ordinance as written if a landlord does not agree with the decision rendered by the city inspector, the landlord can appeal that decision to the Commissioner of DNS -- the employer of the inspector that made the initial decision. The plaintiffs argued that any ordinance that allows a boss to review the decision of his employee (to deny a landlord a rental certificate) cannot be impartial. The plaintiffs argued that Wisconsin Statutes Sec. 68.11(2) requires that all municipalities provide an "impartial decision-maker . . . who did not participate in making or reviewing the initial determination" to preside over any review. While the RRI ordinance does eventaully allow an impartial review by the Standards and Appeals Board at a later point in the procees, the plaintiffs argued that the requirement that the initial decision first be reviewed by the commissioner, will delay a review by an impartial body by almost a month at a minimum.

Court's Ruling:

The court stated that the ordinance did provide for an impartial review of the building inspector's decision by the Standards and Appeals Board and that the requirement that the Commissioner be allowed to review the initial decision, before it could be appealed to Standards and Appeal Board, added no appreciable delay.

4. Interference with a landlord's constitutional right to contract with a tenant

Plaintiffs' Argument:

The plaintiffs argued the denial of a rental certificate would interfere with the landlords rental agreement with his/her tenant. According to the ordinance, if a landlord does not obtain a rental certificate then s/he cannot continue to rent out the unit -- thus implying that the tenant must vacate or if the tenant refuses to do so, be evicted. First, the plaintiffs argued that the city does not have the authority to remove a tenant from a rental unit which is denied a rental certificate. The city does not own the property and therefore is not legally allowed to bring an eviction action against the tenant. Second, the plaintiffs argued that while a landlord has the right to bring an eviction action against his/her tenant generally, said eviction must be predicated upon a breach of the rental agreement by the tenant (unless it is a month to month tenancy). It was argued that, under a scenario where a rental unit that is inhabited by a tenant is denied a rental certificate, and the tenant has done nothing wrong, a landlord has no legal basis to evict the tenant, and to require a landlord to evict his tenant under such circumstances is an interference with the landlord and tenant's contractual agreement.

Court's Ruling:

The city argued, and the court seemed to tacitly agree, that if a rental certificate is not issued for a specific unit, that the landlord has in effect breached the rental agreement because the landlord is in violation of a city ordinance. Such a violation of a city ordinance, and brach of the lease, renders the rental agreement void and could thus be the basis for an eviction.

NOTE: I will have to devote another post to my analysis of this aspect of the ruling because I promise you this will be a huge problem in eviction court should this ever get pushed that far.

Hearing on Landlords Lawsuit vs. City To Be Held This Wednesday, September 22nd

The hearing on both the Landlords' and the City's cross motions for Summary Judgment will be held this Wednesday, September 22nd, at 10 am. The hearing will take place before Judge Timothy Witkowiak at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.

This hearing could be the final hearing on this lawsuit (barring any appeals) which involves three Landlords suing the City and asking the Court to declare the Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) program unconstitutional as currently written.

Both parties have completed their briefing on the issues. I have reviewed all of the briefs (hundreds of pages, trust me : ) and am looking forward to attending the hearing at which the judge could issue an oral decision.

If you are interested in attending and want to get up to speed here is a link to all of the posts that I have written on this subject.

CITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS LANDLORDS' LAWSUIT DENIED BY THE COURT - LAWSUIT CONTINUES

On May 21, 2010, Judge Timothy Wotkowiak, denied the City of Milwaukee's motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by three Milwaukee landlords who sued the city as a result of its newly enacted ordinance requiring mandatory rental inspections of rental housing in two areas of the city.

For background information on the ordinance that went into effect on January 1, 2010, please read my November 24, 2009 post. For background information on the lawsuit that was filed against the city you can refer to my December 31, 2009 post. And for information about the city's motion to dismiss and arguments both for and against the motion I would direct you to my May 4, 2010 post.

As stated in my earlier post, the plaintiff landlords made three key arguments as to why it was not necessary for them to serve the city with a formal Notice of Claim prior to initiating the lawsuit. Judge Witkowiak agreed with the arguments offerred by the landlords on all three issues.

Issue #1:

The court indicated that it was not practical to require the landlords to serve the city with a formal Notice of Claim -- which would have allowed the city 120 to respond -- in part because of the basis of the lawsuit. The landlords' lawsuit included the filing of a temporary restraining order to stop an immediate harm (the carrying out of the ordinance) and to make the plaintiffs wait for 120 days before they could even file suit would not be practical or just as the city would have been able to implement what is argued to be an unconstitutional program for at least 120 days before a court could review the issues and concerns with the ordinance.

Issue #2:

The court found that the city did have actual notice of the claim even though a formal notice was not served upon it. Judge Witkowiak spent considerable time pointing out all of various contacts made by landlords, the Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin (AASEW) , and others which provided the city with actual notice of the concerns with the ordinance. The court made reference to the letter that the AASEW's lawyers (who also happen to represent the three plaintiff landlords)sent to City Attorney Grant Langley outlining the many problems with the proposed ordinance. The court also referred to the letter that I wrote as President of the AASEW to Common Council President Willie Hines and the city's other alderman, expressing the association's many concerns with the ordinance. The aformentioned letters, along with a DVD of the public hearing held before the ZND committee of the Commom Council, were all attached to the plaintiff landlords' brief in opposition to the city's motion to dismiss, and appeared to carry great weight with the Court.

Issue #3:

Judge Witkowiak also stated that the city sufferred no prejudice by not having been served with a formal Notice of Claim by the plaintiffs. The city appeared to argue that it was prejudiced because it had to prepare its legal defense to the lawsuit and that somehow that was to be considered sufficient prejudice to grant the city's motion. I have heard a lot of "out there" arguments during my 15 years of law practice, but that was a new one, for me. The court properly determined that that was not the type of "prejudice" that the city needed to demonstrate in order to prevail on its motion.

As such a result of this decision, the plaintiff landlords' lawsuit will now move forward and address the actual problems with the ordinance.

A Scheduling Conference has been set for June 15, 2010. On this date, the court will provide deadlines for the parties to complete various matters that will assist in moving the case forward, such as deadlines to complete discovery (the fact gathering process), deadlines to file dispositive motions (motions that could end the case without the need for a fact-finding trial), and other matters.

Based on the comments of the attorney's for both the city and the plaintiff landlords it appears that both sides may very well be contemplating the filing of a dispositive motion -- such as a summary judgment motion -- which would allow the court to decide the lawsuit as a matter of law, without the need for a fact finding trial, because there are no material facts that are in dispute.

I will keep you up to date on the status of the lawsuit as I learn more.

Update On Landlords' Lawsuit Against City of Milwaukee and Its Rental Inspection Ordinance

There has not been a lot of media reporting on the lawsuit brought by three landlords against the City of Milwaukee and its rental inspection ordinance so I thought I would take the time to update you on its status.

If you are unfamiliar with the basics of the lawsuit you should refer to my earlier post on the topic.

The City of Milwaukee has filed a Motion To Dismiss the Landlords' lawsuit. Essentially the City is arguing that the lawsuit against it should be dimissed because the City was not provided the proper notice of the landlords' claims prior to the lawsuit being filed. In Wisconsin, if a person wants to sue a government entity - which would include the City of Milwaukee -- the law states that prior to the lawsuit, the government entity must be served with a Notice of Claim. The City then has 120 days to review that Notice and either attempt to settle the claim or deny the claim. If the City does not deny the claim within the 120 days it will be deemed denied anyway. After the 120 days have passed, a person then has 6 months in which to file the lawsuit. If more than 6 months passes then the person would be precluded from filing the lawsuit.

The reasoning behind what is called the "Notice of Claim" statute (Sec. 893.80, Wis. Stats.) is allegedly to allow the government an opportunity to settle a claim in order to avoid expensive litigation. A secondary reason for the requirement is to provide the government with enough information so that it can budget accordingly for settlement or litigation.

As a quick aside: I have sued a government entity on behalf of a client in the past so I am familiar with the Notice of Cliam statute. In my opinion the government does very little during the 120 days after it is served notice. The typical reaction is to ignore the claim and not even take the time to deny it but rather to allow the 120 days to pass after which the claim will be automatically denied. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that based on my experience that the government typically ignores the Notice of Claim that is served upon it just to see if the aggrieved person will actually file a lawsuit. It costs very little to file a Notice of Claim (which often is done without the assistance of an attorney) but it is expensive to file a lawsuit. The government has little to no interest to pay money to someone unless it knows the individual who filed the claim is serious. Essentially the Notice of Claim statute is a "legal hoop" that the government makes you jump through to see how high you will jump. There may little to no reason for you to jump, but nontheless, jump you must.

So the City of Milwaukee is arguing that the plaintiff landlords' didn't file the Notice prior to filing the lawsuit and therefore their lawsuit should be dismissed.

In its response brief, the plaintiffs argue that a formal notice of claim need not always be served as there are exceptions to this requirement. The plaintiff landlords rely on a recent Court of Appeals decision, Kuehne v. Burdette, which held that the Notice of Claim statute does not always require a formal notice of claim to be served nor is it always required for a plaintiff to wait 120 days before filing a lawsuit against the government.

The plaintiff landlords make three key arguements in their brief in opposition to the City's motion to dismiss:

1. Because the City's Rental Inspection Ordinance became law on January 1, 2010 -- just 22 days after it was passed by the Common Council -- and because the nature of the lawsuit is to determine whether or not the ordinance is constitutional, the plaintiffs were unable to comply with the notice of claim statute.

2. The City had actual notice of the claim even if a formal notice of claim was not served on it.

3. The City sufferred no prejudice as a result of the plaintiffs filing the lawsuit without first filing a formal notice of claim.

The plaintiffs' first argument is very similar to the one made in the Kuehne case. In Kuehne, five residents of a town filed an injunction against the Town of Ledgeview in order to prevent it from holding a referendum on whether or not the town should incorporate. The court in Kuehne stated that the notice of claim statute probably did not apply in the context of the lawsuit because it is illogical that a town can use lack of notice as a defense when the Town by its own actions made compliance with the notice of claim statute impossible.

The plaintiff landlords argue that the exact same situation in Kuehne is at play in the lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee. The City adopted the new ordinance and Mayor Barrett signed it into law 22 days later. If the plaintiffs had been required to file a notice of claim the City would have been under no legal obligation to respond to the notice until approximately May 1, 2010. By that time the rental inspection ordinance would have been in effect for a minimum of 4 months without a court being allowed to examine the constitutionality of the ordinance. The City can't use the notice of claim defense in order to allow it to move forward with its unconstitutional ordinance.

The plaintiffs' second argument is that they City had actual notice of the claim because the plaintiffs, through the actions of the AASEW, advised the City of its concerns and objections to the proposed ordinance as eary as October 29, 2009. On October 29th yours truly sent a letter to the Common Council pointing out the various constitutional problems with the ordinance. Additionally, the AASEW's attorney (who is also the attorneyfor the plaintiff landlords) also sent a letter to the City Attorney on the same date setting forth the myriad of problems with the proposed ordinance. Additionally there were numerous communications between the AASEW, its attorneys, and the alderman that sponsored the ordinance (Nic Kovac) and the DNS Commisioner. So the City had actual notice of the plaintiffs' claims approximately two months prior to the filing of the lawsuit. By contrast, in the Kuehne case the plaintiff gave notice to the Town on the same day as the lawsuit was filed and the Court of Appeals found that notice to have been sufficient.

Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the City was not prejudiced by the lack of a formal notice of claim. If the purpose of the notice requirement is to allow a government entity time to potentially resolve a claim, the fact that the AASEW 9of which the plaintiffs are members) notified the City of the problems with the ordinance and even met to discuss the potential problems, demonstrates that the City had the opportunity to resolve the issue if it wanted to. In essence the City is arguing that the plaintiff should be required to jump through the legal hoop for the sake of jumping rather than because the jumping serves an actual purpose.

The City was allowed the opportunity to have the last word so it did file a reply brief to the plaintiffs' brief in oppostion to the motion to dismiss.

I would point out that even if the City should prevail on its motion to dismiss, all that this will do is cause delay. A notice of claim has already been filed and served on the City (just in case) and another lawsuit will be filed if needed. So essentially the City's motion, if successful, will just delay things rather then address the underlying issue -- whether or not the rental inspection ordinance is constitutional as written.

A hearing on the City's motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard before Judge Timothy Witkowiak on May 21, 2010 at 9:30 am in room 412 of the Milwaukee County Courthouse. The hearing, as most legal proceedings are, is open to the public. For those of you unable to attend, I will provide you with an update hopefully during the week of June 1st after I have returned from my upcoming wedding and honeymoon.

DNS Has Started To Implement The New Residential Rental Certificate Program

As many of you know the City of Milwaukee's new Residential Rental Certificate Program ordinance went into effect January 1, 2010.

It is my understanding that the letter notices, along with a date for the inspection of your rental unit/s, the application, were all mailed out to affected landlords during the week of Dec. 28th -- so those of you in the two designated areas should have received your mailing by now - Merry Christmas.

In anticipation of the many questions about the Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) Program the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) has added a new FAQ page to its website regarding the program. The web page also contains a link to a map of the two affected areas, a link to the RRI Application form and a link to the Pre-Inspection Checklist.

Landlords Sue City of Milwaukee To Stop Residential Rental Certificate Ordinance

On December 29, 2009, three landlords filed a lawsuit against the city of Milwaukee in an attempt to stop the new Residential Rental Certificate Ordinance that was recently passed.

The lawsuit includes a complaint, motion for temporary injunction, ex parte motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) and supporting affidavits. Essentially, the plaintiffs are arguing that the ordinance as written is (1) unconstitutionally vague, (2) contains fatal defects, (3) fails to provide for an impartial review and (4)interferes with their constitutional right to contract with their tenants.

I would suggest that you read the entire lawsuit but I will attempt to summarize the plaintiffs' main arguments.

1. 1st claim: The ordinance is unconstitutionally vague

The plaintiffs' argue that the ordinance contains terms and phrases that are so vague that they do not properly notify landlords owning rental properties in the two designated areas as to what specific conditions will result in a denial of a residential rental certificate or the revocation of a certificate. The ordinance gives the DNS Commissioner and his inspectors the subjective power to determine whether the conditions in a rental unit constitute a denial or revocation of the certificate. This subjective power will result in a non-uniform application of the ordinance.

The plaintiffs cite 7 examples within the ordinance where the landlord does not have sufficient notice as to what specific conditions or number of conditions will trigger a denial or revocation of a rental certificate by the city.

2. 2nd claim: The ordinance contains fatal defects

Basically this argument states that the ordinance as written contains terms which are unclear, have no definition, and fail to set forth clear standards for which a rental certificate will be granted. Additionally it is argued that the ordinance gives the DNS Commissioner and his inspectors the arbitrary power to grant, deny or revoke a rental certificate without providing specific standards as to how that discretion should be used.

The plaintiffs provide 9 examples within the ordinance where significant terms are not defined or are unclear. Essentially their argument is that the standard as to what will casue the issuance of a rental certificate is a subjective standard contained only in the minds of the Commissioner and his inspectors (and essentailly that the subjective standard will most likely vary from one inspector to the next). This argument also focuses on the fact that the ordinance allows for the DNS Commissioenr to draft rules or regulations which have not been made a part of the ordinance. This means that the Commissioner could change the rules at any time and without providing owners prior notice of the changes. The rules and regulations are not required to be made publicly available since they are not contained in the ordinance itself.

3. 3rd claim: Failure to provide impartial review

Under the ordinance as written if a landlord does not agree with the decision rendered by the city inspector, the landlord can appeal that decision to the Commissioner of DNS -- the employer of the inspector that made the intial decision. The plaintiffs argue that as written the ordinance allows the individual and agency that made the unwritten rules for inspection and then subjectively applied those rules, to also act as the decision-maker for the review of any contested determination. Wisconsin Statutes Sec. 68.11(2) require that all municipalities provide an "imparital decision-maker . . . who did not participate in making or reviewing the initial determination" to preside over any review.

4. 4th claim: Interference with the constitutional right to contract

According to the ordinance, all rental units within the two designated areas will be required to have a rental certificate in place (if there is a tenant residing in the unit) as of January 1st, 2010 --- Friday. If no certificate is in place by 1/1/10 then the owner of the rental will be in violation of the ordinance as written. The argument made by the plaintiffs is that since the ordinance does not provide for the rental certificates to be issued until after an inspection takes place (which will be at least 30 days after 1/1/10) that landlords will be forced to terminate the tenancies of their tenants or else be in violation of the ordinance. By being forced to issue a termination notice to their tenants, the plaintiffs argue that the city isinterfering with the landlords and tenants rental agreement - and by doing so they are interfering with a landlords right to enter into a contract with his/her tenant.

The plaintiffs are asking that the court to temporarily enjoin the city from enforcing the residentail rental certificate ordinance. They are also asking the court to issue an order declaring that the ordinance is invalid. Finally the plaintiffs are asking the court to permanatly enjoin the city from enforcing the ordinance.

This lawsuit has been tabbed to Judge Timothy Witkowiak.

A hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order was held earlier today before Judge Timothy Dugan. Judge Dugan denied the landlords' motion for a TRO without reaching the underlying problems with the ordinance. One of the requirements in order to be granted a TRO is that some "irreperable harm" must be demonstrated. Judge Dugan felt that becasue no landlord has been issued a citation by the city and because the city has not tried to remove any tenant from the plaintiff's' rental units, as of yet, that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any irreperable harm."

Mayor Signs Milwaukee's Residential Rental Certificate Program Ordinance

About 1 hour before the close of business yesterday, December 10, 2009, Mayor Tom Barrett signed the city of Milwaukee's Residential Rental Certificate Program ordinance into law. Mayor Barrett left everyone waiting and wondering if he would sign it as the deadline to do so was the close of business yesterday.

The ordinance can be read in its entirety here.

The Preinspection Checklist can be found here. The checklist gives a detailed overview of all items that DNS will be inspecting when they come knocking in 2010. The landlords in the two designated areas will probably get pretty familiar with that checklist during the next 5 years of the "pilot program."

The ordinance will go into effect as of January 1, 2010.

AASEW Continues To Fight Against The City of Milwaukee's Residential Rental Certificate Program

The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc. (AASEW) continues its attempt to defeat the recently passed ordinance creating a Residential Rental Certificate Program in two areas of the city. On December 7, 2009, the AASEW issued a Press Release urging the mayor to veto the legislation in order to avoid expensive litigation.

Additonally, President of the AASEW Tristan Pettit wrote a letter to Mayor Tom Barrett pointing out many of the legal problems with the ordinance. A similar letter was sent to the members of the Common Council prior to their vote last week - which went ignored. The letter specifically delineates 6 of the many structural and legal problems with the ordinance and encourages the mayor to veto the legislation in order to spare the city the time and expense of defending the poorly drafted legislation in court.

The Mayor has until the close of business on Thursday, December 10, 2009 to sign the legislation or else it would go back to the Common Council for reconsideration. If the Mayor vetoes the ordinance then the Common Council would have to garner 10 votes (from the 15 members) in order to override the veto.

MILWAUKEE'S RESIDENTIAL RENTAL CERTIFICATE ORDINANCE PASSES

Earlier today by a vote of 9-5 the city of Milwaukee's Residential Rental Certificate Program ordinance was passed by the Common Council.

Voting in favor of the new ordinance were Aldermen Ashanti Hamilton (1st district), Nic Kovac (3rd district), Robert Bauman (4th district), Milele Coggs (6th district), Willie Wade (7th district), Robert Puente (9th district), Michael Murphy (10th district), Terry Witkowski (13 district), and Willie Hines, Jr. (15th district).

Voting against the ordinance were Aldermen James Bohl, Jr. (5th district), Robert Donovan (8th district), Joe Dudzik (11th district), James Witkowiak (12th district), and Tony Zielinski (14th district).

Alderman Joe Davis, Sr. was not present and did not vote.

There was very little discussion on the proposed ordinance prior to its vote. Alderman Kovac (the primary sponsor of the ordinance) spoke in favor of the revised ordinance and gave a summary of the revisions that were made. Alderman Robert Donovan then spoke out against the ordinance and summarized some of the criticism that citizens had with the proposal as expressed at the public hearing earlier. Alderman Murphy then spoke in favor of the ordinance and emphasized that it is a pilot program that will be reviewed each year.

If you are interested in viewing the video recording of the vote and other related information just click here.

This new ordinance will make it mandatory for all landlords who own rental property in two designated areas of the city (the UWM area on the city's east side and the Lindsay Heights neighborhood on the city's north side) to apply for a rental certificate in order to continue renting out their rental properties. When applying for the certificate the owner will need to pay a $85 per unit fee and allow an inspector from the city's Department of Neighborhood Services to inspect the interior of the unit.

For more detailed information on this ordinance please refer to my prior post.

The AASEW was opposed to this ordinance and had hired legal counsel to point out the various legal problems with the ordinance and its drafting to the ordinance's sponsor, Alderman Nic Kovac. On a positive note, the original ordinance that was proposed was revised to address some of the issues and concerns that were brought to light by the AASEW. A copy of the newly enacted ordinance (Proposed Substitute C) can be read in its entirety here.

The Department of Neighborhood Services also put together a Residential Rental Inspection Program Preinspection Checklist which it is assumed will be sent to the owners of rental property in the two designated areas prior to the inspection. This checklist sets forth the specific types of violations that DNS will be looking for during its inspection. While the checklist is still pretty extensive it is still better then just having the subjective term "disqualifying violation" in the ordinance as was the case with the prior version.

This ordinance will become effective January 1, 2010.

As this ordinance is phased in please let me know your thoughts as to how it is being implemented. This is a pilot program and it will be reviewed annually so any and all input from affected landlords is vital.

CITY OF MILWAUKEE'S REVISED RENTAL CERTIFICATE PROGRAM ORDINANCE RELEASED

As I mentioned in a prior post, the City of Milwaukee's Common Council agreed to hold off on voting on the city's proposed mandatory rental inspection ordinance (Residential Rental Certificate Program) for 1 month. The reason for the postponement was to allow the drafters of the proposed ordinance time to go back and make some revisions and clarifications.

The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc. (AASEW) retained the services of a law firm who met with the drafters and sponsors of the proposed ordinance and offerred suggested changes. During that 2 hour meeting the AASEW attorneys also pointed out the myriad of legal problems with the proposed program and how it was drafted. It appears as if the revised ordinance was completed this past Friday, however I first received a copy of the ordinance today, only after our attorneys called one of the sponsors to check on the status.

You can read the proposed ordinance with its revisions here.

While the city appears to have included some of our suggested changes for the most part they ignored our comments.

One concern that the AASEW has that was ignored was the fact that the ordinance still does not contain an objective definition of a "disqualifying violation." The AASEW has been told that a rental certificate will only be withheld if the current conditions in the unit are so bad that there are safety concerns for the tenant. To me that would mean such things as an improperly secured porch, a bedroom in the attic, or something similar. Our attorneys were even presented with a list of such qualifying conditions at the meeting after they pressed this issue. However, those listed conditions still have not been included in the definition of a "disqualifying violation." Why not?

The ordinance as written reads as follows - A disqualifying violation "means . . . or other conditions that violates the provision of the building code . . . " So in essence, a rental unit could be denied a rental certificate for any building code violation -- such as not having the address number posted on the garage in the alley. This does not seem to me to qualify as safety issue that would warrant the denial of a certificate. Nontheless, the city could argue that the lack of an address number on the garage of a rental unit is a safety issue becasue if there is a fire or similar hazard the paramedics or fire department's response might be delayed if they drive through the alley and can't determine which property to go to. Maybe that is a safety issues - I don't know - but my point is why don't we put all of the cards on the table so that everyone is clear. Do I think it is the city's intent to deny a certificate for something like missing address numbers in the alley? I certainly hope not --- but I don't know, nor do you, nor does the inspector that is going to inspect the unit. What I do know however is that as the ordinance is currently written a landlord could be denied a rental certificate becasue of missing address numbers on a garage.

I don't want this ordinance to become a tool for an inspector who wants to make life miserable for a landlord that he doesn't particular care for. If the city truly only means to withold a rental certifcate in certain situations which place the tenant safety at issue then why don't we specifically include what those conditions are so that everyone -- including the inspectors themselves -- have clear direction.

This proposed program is to be voted on by the Common Council on Tuesday, December 1st. Have you told your alderperson how you should think they should vote. If not, please do.

MILWAUKEE'S RESIDENTIAL RENTAL CERTIFICATE PROGRAM VOTE PUSHED BACK 1 CYCLE

The Common Council did not vote on the passing of the city's proposed Residential Rental Certificate Program earlier today as was planned. Instead the Comon Council voted 9-5 to hold the proposed ordinance for 1 cycle (1 month) for further review.

The proposed ordinance, which would require all rental property owners in the UWM-area and Lindsay Heights neighborhood on the north side of Milwaukee to pay an $85 fee per unit fee and submit to an internal inspection of in order to be able to rent out their property, passed out of the ZND committee last week by a vote of 3-2. The proposed ordinance was to be voted on by the Common Council earlier today.

In response to the setback of having the proposed ordinance pass out of committee the AASEW, who represents approximately 680 landlords in Milwaukee and the surrounding areas, retained legal counsel to review the ordinance for procedural and drafting errors. Errors were found and were communicated to the City Attorney. The AASEW wrote to the President of the Commom Council and the various council members and pointed out its many concerns with the ordinance as written.

Prior to a vote being taken as to whether or not the ordinance should be passed, a motion was made by Alderman Donovan to hold the ordinance for one cycle (1 month) to further review any problems and concerns. This motion passed by a vote of 9-5. It is assumed that the ordinance will be revised and then referred back to the ZND committee for an additional public hearing.

I will keep you advised as to what happens next.

For additional information on the proposed Residential Rental Certificate Program please refer to my earlier post.

Read Tom Daykin, of the Journal Sentinel, blog post about this change of events here.

Milwaukee's Residential Rental Certificate Program Is On It's Way To The Common Council

On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, Milwaukee's ZND (Zoning, Neighborhood and Development) committee voted 3-2 to send the proposed ordinance to the Common Council for a final vote. The proposed ordinance, referred to as the Residential Rental Certificate Program, would require all rental property owners in 2 targeted areas of the city to apply for a certificate in order to continue renting out their property. The cost would be $85 per unit and would require the landlord to allow a warrantless interior search/inspection of his/her property in order to obtain the certificate. To read more about the proposed ordinance you should read my prior post on the topic.

A 2 plus hour hearing was held at which time the Department of Neighborhood Services Commissioner Art Dahlberg explained his reasoning for initiating the program and outlined the basic tenets of the ordinance. Sponsors of the ordinance including Aldermen Kovac, Wade, and Davis, spoke in favor of the program and offered their reasons for supporting the ordinance.

A large crowd turned out for the hearing and as a result an overflow room with a live feed had to be opened to accomodate all of the people in attendence. The public was allowed to provide comments, concerns, and criticisms of the proposed program and approximately 20 individuals spoke out.

Landlords and tenants in opposition to the ordinance pointed out several issues including: (1) a "disqualifying violation" was not clearly defined and as such could easily lend itself to arbitrary and capricious decisions by an inspector, (2) an owner of a large multi-unit rental property could be required to pay several thousands of dollars in fees, (3) the fact that the concerns for which the ordinance was allegedly created could be addressed by enforcing existing laws, and (4) issues of additional costs to landlords in an already horrible economy.

Alderman Michael Murphy requested that Commisioner Dahlberg investigate the issue of a sliding fee scale for larger multi-unit facilities and indicated that if that issue was addressed he would vote in favor of the ordinance next week. Also in favor of the ordinance was Alderman Wade and Alderman Bauman. The chair of the committee, Alderman Witkowiak voted against the ordinance arguing that the timing of the ordinance was poor and that it should not be instituted during this difficult economy. Alderman Witkowiak also felt that without a clearer definition of a "disqualifying violation" and the issue of sliding fee scale for multi-unit properties not addressed in the ordinance that this program should not pass to the Council for a vote. Alderman Zielinski also voted against the ordianance but failed to speak during the entire hearing.

There will be no further public hearings prior to the Common Council's vote next week which makes communicating with your aldermen even more crucial at this juncture. As I mentioned previously, this ordinance has been "fast-tracked" through the legislative process and if passed should be up and running by the new year.

You can read Journal-Sentinal columnist Tom Daykin's blog on the hearing here.

Hearing On Milwaukee's Residential Rental Certificate Program to be Held on October 27th at 10 am

A hearing on Milwaukee's proposed Residential Rental Certificate Program will be held before the Zoning and Development Committee on October 27, 2009 at 10 AM in room 301 of Milwaukee's CIty Hall.

It is at this hearing that people may speak in favor or against the proposed ordinance. The ZND committee will then decide whether or not the proposed ordinance should be referred to the common council for a vote by the alderpersons.

If you would like to read more about the proposed ordinance that will affect landlords in the UWM area and Lindsay Heights area on the north side of Milwaukee you should refer to my earlier post on the subject.

If you want to be heard. You need to be present at this hearing.

To determine your alderman and contact information go here.

City of Milwaukee's "Residential Rental Certificate Program" Is Unveiled

Well I have finally been able to get my hands on a preliminary copy of the city of Milwaukee's proposed mandatory rental inspection ordinance. The ordinance is sponsored by Alderman Kovac, Wade, Davis and Hines. The ordinance refers to the proposed program as a "Residential Rental Certificate" program. The program is really just a variation on "landlord licensing" and mandatorty rental inspection programs. I would encourage you to read the enitre proposed ordinance, but I have also set forth the key points below:

- This will be a 5 year pilot program.

- The targeted area includes the UWM area on the city's east side and the Lindsay Heights neighborhood on the city's north side. These areas were selected because the city believes the areas need to be monitored to prevent deterioration. Allegedly these two areas include older housing stock, have a high density of rental properties, have a higher percentage of complaints, and have high tenant turnover. The city feels that frequent inspections of the rental properties in these two areas are needed to maintain safe, decent, and sanitary living conditions.

- Every rental unit in the selected areas must apply for and receive a rental certificate before the owner is allowed to rent out the unit.

- The ordinance includes duplexes and larger multi-unit rental properties. Owner-occupied duplexes are excluded.

- The owner must also complete, sign and submit an application to the city that will include the owner's legal name, the address of the rental property, the owner's phone number, and the owner's date of birth.

- A fee of $85 must accompany each rental unit application.

- Prior to the city issuing a rental certificate the unit will be subject to an internal and external inspection by the Department of Neighborhood Services (D.N.S.).

- DNS will conduct the inspection within 60 days of receipt of the application.

- The owner must notify the tenant at least 2 days in advance of the inspection.

- A fee of $50 will be imposed if DNS is unable to gain access to the unit for inspection.

- If during the inspection DNS finds a "disqualifying violation" (defined as a condition that affects safe, decent and sanitary living conditions or other conditions that violate the city building code, building maintenance code or zoning code) the unit will be issued a 1 year certificate.

- Any violation identified during the inspection must be abated within a reasonable amount of time (to be determiend by DNS).

- If conditions are found that are determined to constitute an imminent danger to health and safety, DNS shall order the condition to be remedied and may limit or prohibit occupancy where approporiate.

- DNS shall reinspect the unit as necessary to determine if any "disqualifying violations" have been remedied. A reinspection fee may be charged.

- If no disqualifying violations are found the unit will be given a 4 year certificate.

- A temporary certificate can be given for up to 30 days if the disqualifying violations do not constitute a hazard to the occupants of the rental and if a plan to correct the violations is submitted and approved by DNS.

- After the certificate expires the owner will be required to renew the certificate and submit to another inspection and pay another $85 fee per unit.

- If after the issuance of a 4 year certificate, DNS determines learns that there is a building or zoning code violation, the 4 year certificate can be revoked and the city can choose to replace the 4 year certificate with a 1 year certificate.

- If at any time after the issuance of a 4 year certificate or a 1 year certificate, DNS determines that there are building or zoning code violations that are critical and constitute an unsafe or unfit condition, the city can revoke the certificate.

- Any violation identified after a certificate has been issued must be abated within a reasonable amount of time (to be determiend by DNS).

- Any person who purchases a rental unit in the targeted areas must apply for a rental certificate and pay the accompanying fee within 30 days of the purchase.

- Any person that sells a rental unit in the targeted areas must notify the purchasor of the property that a residential rental certificate is required by the city.

- An owner that fails to apply for a residential rental certificate will be fined $100 for the first infraction. If the owner fails to respond to a subsequent notices by the city the fine will increase to $150.

- Residential rental inspection fees will be charged against the owner's real estate and will be considered a "special charge."

If you would like to contact your alderman you can find contact information here.

UPDATE ON MILWAUKEE'S PROPOSED MANDATORY RENTAL UNIT INSPECTION PROGRAM

A friend of mine was at a meeting this morning with the City of Milwaukee's Budget Director and learned some more information on the City's proposed mandatory rental unit inspection program.

First, the proposed ordinance is in the final stages of drafting and will be released in the near future.

Second, it will be a 5 year pilot program in the UWM area only.

Third, there will be a fee of $40 per landlord and a $35 per unit inspection fee.

Fourth, the pilot program must be approved by the city's common council each and every year in order for it to continue.

Fifth, if a rental unit passes its 1st inspection then the unit will receive a 4 year compliance certificate and will not need to be reinspected until the 4 years expires.

NOTE: MUCH OF THIS INFORMATION IN THIS POST IS NO LONGER ACCURATE - TO FIND OUT WHAT THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE STATES GO TO MY NEW POST ON THE SUBJECT.