Imagine If Every Tenant Received A Free Lawyer In Eviction Actions . . . It Could Become A Reality

If Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc, 274 lawyers, 7 judges and 2 court commissioners,have it their way, all indigent persons that are involved in civil lawsuits involving issues of "basic human needs" will be given a free lawyer.

According to a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article and ABA Journal article the Wisconsin Supreme Court has been petitioned and asked to require that all indigent persons involved in civil lawsuits that involve issues impacting an individual's basic human needs, such as sustenance, shelter, clothing, heat, medical care, safety, and child custody and placement, be provided a free lawyer to represent them in th elegal proceedings.

The proposed cost on taxpayers would be anywhere from $50 million to $80 million per year.

If this "civil Gideon rule" is passed you can expect that almost every tenant that wants one will be given a free lawyer to defend them in an eviction action. This will greatly affect landlords on many fronts. First, it will result in a delay in the overall process of removing a tenant from a rental unit thus allowing the tenant to remain in the rental unit longer and result in the landlord losing more rent. Second, it will increase a landlord's costs by (most likely) increasing the cost to file an eviction action, and then result in higher attorney's fees should the landlord opt to retain a lawyer; if the landlord handles the eviction himself/herself then s/he will lose more time and money by having to take off work. Third, assuming that the $50 million - $80 million estimated costs to pay for the "free lawyers" are not entirely covered by an increase in civil filing fees, landlords will most likely see an increase in taxes in some way, shape, or form.

Since the majority of the eviction cases that I encounter involve the tenant not paying rent and has no legal defense, I see this proposed rule as only causing additional court congestion and delay.

In a state such as Wisconsin, which already has very tenant-friendly laws and regulations to begin with, and has courts that often go out of their way to give tenant's additional time to vacate (in violation of state statutes), and even goes so far as to provide legal advice to tenants (which they should not be doing), this civil Gideon rule, if passed, will make it even more difficult for landlords to continue to survive in the rental industry.

Added October 19, 2010 --- Here is a recent blog post by David Ziemer of the Wisconsin Law Journal about the Civil Gideon rule.

New Law Limits Landlords From Pursuing A Deceased Tenant's Estate

Governor Doyle recently signed into law 2009 WI Act 323 which creates a new section to Chapter 704 of the Wisconsin Statutes regarding Landlord-Tenant Law.

The new section 704.165, Wis. Stats., is entitled "Termination of Tenancy at Death of Tenant"

Below is a summary of the new law:

1. If a residential tenant dies and had a term lease, his/her tenancy will be terminated 60 days after the landlord learns of the death or the expiration of the rental term, whichever occurs first.

2. If a residential tenant dies and was under a periodic tenancy (i.e. month to month) then the tenancy will terminate 60 days after the landlord becomes aware of the death. If the deceased tenant's estate provides proper notice to terminate the tenancy under sec. 704.19, Wis. Stats. then the tenancy may be terminated even earlier as outlined in 704.19, Wis. Stats.

3. Neither the deceased residential tenant nor his/her estate will be liable for any rent after the tenancy is terminated.

4. The landlord must still attempt to mitigate the deceased tenant's damages by making attempts to re-rent the unit before the tenancy terminates.

5. Nothing in this new section relieves another adult tenant who resides at the rental property (and who did not die) from their obligations under the rental agreement or otherwise.

6. A landlord may not contact or otherwise communicate with a member of the deceased tenant's family in an attempt to obtain rent for which the family member has no liability.

7. This new law first applies to tenancies and rental agreements that are entered into on or after May 12, 2010.

Latest EPA Proposed Changes to "Renovate Right" Rules -- Deadline to Provide Feedback July 6th

ALERT! The latest EPA proposal will require dust sampling and lab testing clearance on many small jobs. The EPA estimates $160 per room in testing cost. In WI testing can only be done by state certified risk assessors and the cost is about $240 per room. So a repair to a damaged door jamb could cost ten times as much as it does today, and many times more than that if you were a do it yourselfer.

From the Federal Register (Link Below) #2 and #4 are the "gotchas."

Dust wipe testing must be performed after all renovations involving:

- Use of a heat gun at temperatures below 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit

- Removal or replacement of window or door frames

- Scraping 60 ft [2] or more of painted surfaces

- Removing more than 40 ft [2] of trim, molding, cabinets, or other fixtures.

Link to the proposed rule in the Federal Register

The 60 day comment period ends July 6th, 2010

Read the comments submitted by the Apartment Association of Southeastern WI and links to the EPA comment page at:

http://www.renovatorrules.com/

Make sure you post some feedback. This is one of the biggest changes to affect our industry and these changes are huge and will put many contractors (and landlords) out of business. Fines for violating these new laws can be as much as $32,500 per each violation.

Proposed Bill To Require Landlords To Disclose If Their Rental Property Was A "Meth Lab"

On March 26, 2010, Senators Lena Taylor and Spencer Coggs along with Senator Lehman sponsored 2009 Senate Bill 650. SB 650 will affect both landlords and sellers of real estate in which the drug methamphetamine has been manufactured.

The bill requires both owners wishing to sell and landlords wishing to rent property that was used as a "meth lab" in the past to disclose in writing this fact to potential renters and purchasors.

If methamphetamine was manufactured on the property the seller of the property must disclose this in the real estate condition report. If a landlord is renting a property that was previously used as a "meth lab" then the landlord must disclose this in writing to any potential renters.

The production of "crystal meth" has become an increasing problem, one that does not just affect city properties. In fact more and more meth labs are being discovered in rural areas where the illegal activity is far less likely to be noticed.

Studies have shown that the hazardous chemicals that are used to make meth and the chemicals which are a produced during the manufacture of the drug can seep into floors, ceilings, walls, duct work etc. and can remain for years. I believe that this discovery is the prime impetus for the creation of this bill.

While I think this is a good bill, it goes without saying that any landlord or seller of real estate in which meth has been manufactured will have a very difficult time renting or selling this property if the bill is passed. As a result it is more important than ever for landlords to visit and inspect their rental properties. To be a good landlord you need to know what is going on in your units. Wisconsin law allows landlords to make periodic inspections of their rental property with at least 12 hours notice (ATCP 134.09 (2). Landlords should take advantage of this opportunity to inspect their rental units ---- especially if they suspect illegal activity.

Finally, Some Legislation That Actually Assists Landlords - Senate Bill 607

Senators Plale, Hansen, and Lasee introduced Senante Bill (SB) 607 yesterday. What a breath of fresh air it is to read this bill. Rather then making landlords jump through more and more hoops to protect our tenants and rental property, this bill actually assists us in doing our jobs. I am so used to blogging about proposed legislation that hurts (or at the very least hinders) landlords that this is a nice change.

If passed, this bill will allow a landlord to terminate a tenant's tenancy, regardless if they are a month-to-month tenant, tenant under a lease for 1 year or less, or a tenant with a lease for more than 1 year, if the tenant or the tenant's guest, commits certain crimes, in property or near the property.

Currently if you have a tenant under a lease for one year or less or more than one year (as opposed to a periodic tenancy like a month-to-month) and if that tenant commits a crime you are legally prevented for terminating that tenant's tenancy and evicting them. The current law states that if a tenant under a lease commits a breach (including criminal activity) that they landlord MUST serve them with a 5 day notice that allows the tenant the opportunity to cure the breach.

Currently the only two exceptions to the above, are the very limited situations in which the tenant has created a gang or drug nuisance at the property AND the landlord has received a written notice of drug or gang nuisance from a law enforecement agency. Only in these two limited circumstances can a landlord serve a 5 day notice on the tenant that does not afford the tenant the right to cure the breach.

To better illustrate the current status of the law, here is an example:

Tenant A gets drunk and runs around the apartment complex brandishing a gun and threatening to shoot anyone that he passes. Assuming that Tenant A is not arrested and hauled off to jail, Tenant A's landlord is not legally allowed to terminate Tenant A's tenancy and file an eviction action as a result of this criminal behavior if Tenant A is under a lease for one year or less or a lease for more than one year. The only legal recourse that the landlord has is to serve Tenant A with a 5 day notice which affords Tenant A with the opportunity to cure the breach (the criminal activity) or vacate. How does Tenant A cure the breach? By not running around the apartment complex within the next 5 days brandishing a gun and threatening to shoot people. Ridiculous I know, but that is all Tenant A must do to cure his breach and if he does that, the landlord is legally required to keep him as a tenant as long as the tenant is under a lease.

The law as written puts a landlord in a very difficult position as it requires the landlord to give the tenant a second chance even though the landlord has notice that the tenant has violent tendencies or is doing things that could jeopardize the safety of other tenants. I have always been concerned about the possibility that Tenant A, after committing the 1st breach (crime) and then curing the breach, then proceed to commit another crime and in so doing causes harm to another tenant. If that was to occur another innocent tenant is injured (or at the very least scared out of their socks) and there is always the possibility that the injured tenant might contemplate suing the landlord for failing to protect them from danger since the landlord had knowledge of Tenant A's criminal tendencies. This would be a catch-22 sitaution for the landlord if I ever heard of one.

Section 8, site-based, subsidized housing prevents the above situation from occurring by allowing landlords to terminate the tenancy and evict a tenant (or family member or guest) that has committed certain criminal activity on or near the subsudized rental property, even if the tenant is under a lease for term. I call this the "One Strike" law. Market rate (non-subsidized) housing does not have a "one strike" law ---- but with this proposed legislation, we may have one in the future.

SB 607, if passed, will allow a landlord of market-rate housing to terminate the tenancy of and evict a tenant, even if they are under a lease, if the tenant or the tenant's guest commits certain crimes at the property or near the property, by issuing a 5 day notice with no right to cure.

The crimes that would allow a landlord to terminate a tenant's tenancy include:

1. Battery (or related crimes),

2. Endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon (or related crimes),

3. Criminal gang activity,

4. Criminal damage to property (or related crimes),

5. Prostitution (or related crimes),

6. Harassment (or related crimes),

7. Any other breach of the rental agreement that jeopardizes the health, safety, or welfare of the owner, his/her agent, or another tenant.

SB 607 also allows a landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant under a periodic tenancy (month to month) that has committed one of the aforementioned crimes, by serving them with a 5 day notice with no right to cure. This proposed modification of the law, while helpful, is not as important as the above mentioned changes involving tenants under leases for term, as a landlord with a month-to-month tenant has always had the right to serve the tenant with a 14 day notice to vacate (without a right to cure the breach) or a 28 day notice (for any reason at all). Nonetheless, SB 607 will allow a landlord of a month-to-month tenant to remove a dangerous tenant more quickly then before.

The bill will requires that the landlord give the tenant a written 5 day notice that states the basis of the breach and informs the tenant of his/her right to contest the termination if an eviction action is filed. If the tenant contests the eviction action, the landlord must still prove that the tenant or his/her guest committed the crime.

This bill has been referred to the committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance and Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing.

Please take the time to contact your state representatives and tell them that they should fully support this proposed bill.

Also take the time to thank Brian Fleming - President of Milwaukee RING - for taking the time and effort to bring this major "hole in the law" to Senator Plale's attention. Without Brian's work on this there would be no SB 607.

Landlords Will Be Required To Install Carbon Monoxide Detectors In Single Family and Duplex Rentals

A new bill was recently passed by the Wisconsin Senate that will require landlords that rent out single-family homes and duplexes to install carbon monoxide detectors on all floors of these dwellings by Febraury 1, 2011.

Senate Bill 415 was passed 69-27 via voice vote after the Assembly previously passed the bill by a 2/3's margin. You can read the entire history of the bill here. It is anticipated that the Governor will sign the bill.

SB 415 requires the owner of most buildings that contain one or two dwelling units to install a carbon monoxide detector in the basement and on each floor of the dwelling unit except for the attic.

Additionally, the bill requires that if the tenant notifies the owner in writing that a detector is not working properly, that the owner must perform the necessary maintenance to repair the detector or replace it within 5 days after receipt of the notice by the tenant.

The bill also exempts an owner for any liability for any false alarms or from the failure of the detector to work properly if its failure was due to tampering, as long as the owner reasonably maintained the detector.

Existing 1 and 2 unit dwellings will be allowed to use battery operated carbon monoxide detectors.

A carbon monoxide detector is not required to be installed if the unit does not have an attached garage, has no fireplace, and has no fuel-burning appliances.

Finally, the bill authorizes a building inspector to inspect new dwellings, and if requested to do so by the owner or tenant, to inspect the interior of an existing rental unit to ensure that the owner has complied with the requirements set forth in this bill.

This new law will become effective as of February 1, 2011 and will be contained in Section 101.647 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

Please remember that the carbon monoxide law that affects rentals that include 3 units or greater goes into effect April 1, 2010. This law can be found in Sec. 101.149, of the Wisconsin Statutes. ADDED 3/1/10: These regulations were issued as emergency rules by the Department of Commerce, Safety and Building Division, as required 2007 Wisconsin Act 205 (in April 2008). The Wisconsin Department of Commerce's brochure on this law is very informative.

-----------------------------------

Thanks to Atty. Heiner Giese for forwarding this information to me.

Landlords Should Attend EPA Lead Renovation Meeting On Feb. 15th

The Bad News: Those of you who have been following along on this list have heard about the new EPA Law, beginning April 22, 2010, that regulates any renovation work that disturbs 6 sq. ft. or more of paint per room, 20 sq. ft. or more of exterior paint, or involves windows. This law specifically includes rental property owners, management companies and their employees. Your workers and company will need certification as well as changing your work practices.

This law will increase the cost of doing work as well as subject violators to fines of up to $32,500 per day/violation.. You really don't want to make a mistake here.

The Good News: Steve Antholt of the Wisconsin Department of Health (The people who will enforce this law in WI) has agreed to be at the AASEW's Monday general meeting to talk about the new EPA Law and the state companion rule Wisconsin Lead-Safe Renovation Rule, DHS 163. He will explain why it is important, and what steps Rental Property Owners and Managers need to take to comply.

The Better News: Steve has agreed to answer any and all questions that we may have on how to comply and keep our butts out of trouble.

The Alternative: If all this makes you want to be rid of your properties... this Monday's meeting will be the first to feature the new Traders' Corner! Beginning February every month prior to our General Membership meetings our Traders' Corner will meet to give members the opportunity to talk about their real estate needs.

Join us Monday, February 15th 6:30 p.m if you wish to participate in the Trader's Corner and 7:00 p.m. for the general meeting featuring Steve Anholt of DHFS

Where: Best Western, 1005 South Moorland Road, Brookfield, WI 53005.

HT to Tim Ballering

CCAP Bill Amended to Allow Landlords Full Access; Possibly Going to Assembly for Vote

As many of you know who have been following my updates on the ever evolving attempts by Marlin Schneider to restrict access to CCAP - Mr. Schneider has again amended his proposed bill. The bill is now called Assembly Bill 663 but it is practically the same as the amended AB 340. Why the change in the bill number I have not a clue.

AB 663 was voted on by the State Affairs and Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, February 3, 2010.

Prior to voting on the bill, several amendments were made. The major amendment was to was to include real estate brokers and salespeople, bankers and other financial agents, landlords, and those working in the title industry, to the list of the "select few" who would be able to access CCAP in its entirety. Everyone else would still be limited to the restricted version of CCAP which would exclude information on pending cases and cases in which the defendant was acquitted or the lawsuit was dismissed.

Even with this major changes, AB 663 barely made it out of committee. The committee was deadlocked at 3 to 3. Voting for the bill was Rep Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee), Rep. Leon Black (D-Milwaukee) and Rep. Kelda Helen Roys (D-Madison). Voting against the proposed bill was Rep. Spencer Black (D-Madison), Rep. Joel Kleefisch (R-Oconomnowac) and Rep. Danield Knodl (R-Germantown). Two members of the committee were on vacation and therefore did not participate in the vote. The Chairperson of the committe, and bill c0-sponsor, Fred Kessler advanced the bill, without reccomendation, to the Assembly leaders who will now determine whether or not the Assembly as a whole will vote on it.

While it is great that landlords have now been added to the"chosen few" who are deemed worthy to have access to all open records in Wisconsin - this bill should still fail. Current President of the Wisconsin Apartment Association, John H. Fischer (also known as Dr. Rent, gave his personal opinion on the AASEWAdvisors list serv, earlier.

He stated, in part:

It is nice that the bill on CCAP was amended to include people like landlords and employers… but to be completely honest, now it has just gotten silly. He [Rep. MArlin Schneider] wanted this bill so landlords and employers didn’t use the CCAP records in a method that was illegal, but then he modifies the bill to include us…. So what exactly will it accomplish now? It has been watered down so far to have no real impact, so why even have it at all. In addition, how are they going to determine who is a landlord, who is an employer? Are we going to have to register? (Gee a statewide registration system for landlords, won't that make licensing something easy to do in the future).

In my personal opinion, the stance of the WAA should be similar to that of the Newspapers. Even though they were allowed full access under the original proposal, they still objected to it because there is something inherently wrong with making public records difficult for the public to have access to.

. . .

I think we still need to be opposed because once limitations are put in place, what is stopping from them from expanding those limitations in a future session. They can take away all of our rights at one time, or they can chip away piece by piece until they are all gone. Either way, the end game is the same.

My two cents….

I agree with John 100%.

This bill is barely holding on. It is on life support -- we need to put it out of its misery. Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel in his recent article on the topic indicates that Kessler himself, one of the bill's sponsors, said that it has a "slim" chance of passing. I would like to change that to NO chance of passing.

This is a very critical time. We must all contact our representatives in the state legislature and let them know that this bill should be defeated.

If you do not know the contact information for your representatives you can find that information here.

Oh yeah, and here is an article stating that Rep. Schneider is lying in an attempt to push his legislation limiting CCAP through the system. Good thing the AP caught him.

Milwaukee's New Vacant Building Registration Ordinance Is Here

I need to apologize. I have spent much of my time these last several months following and providing information about the city of Milwaukee's new Residential Rental Inspection ordinance and as such I have inadvertantly failed to let everyone know about another of Milwaukee's new ordinances that will affect rental property owners.

I was talking with a client of mine last week prior to the 1:30 pm eviction return calandar in small claims court and he mentioned that the city recently served him with notice that he is in violation of the city's new Vacant Building Registration ordinance. He was told that his rental property was vacant and that he didn't register the property with the city as required and that he must now open his property up for an interior inspection by the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS). Interesting twist is that my client's rental property is not vacant nor has it ever been vacant. The unit is occupied by a tenant under a valid written rental agreement.

On January 1, 2010, Milwaukee's new Vacant Building Registration ordinance went into effect. Essentially the ordinance states that the owner of any building that is vacant for more than 30 days must register the property with DNS and submit to a mandatory - warrantless - interior inspection of the rental property. The ordinance also requires the owner to secure the building, maintanin the lot, exterior of the property, and interior of the property during the time that it is vacant.

Upon first glance this seems like a reasonable ordinance. A valiant attempt by the city to insure that vacant buildings do not become dilapidated and attract criminal activity, injure individuals, or further depress Milwaukee's neighborhoods. I have no problem with that. Upon closer review of the ordinance however you will note the many requirements -- similar to the city's Residential Rental Certificate ordinance -- that are open to multiple interpretations and therfore open to abuse, which in the end, can and most likely will, be used to the detriment of rental property owners.

I will not attempt to explain or detail the entire Vacant Building Registration ordinance as it is over 6 pages long. I would like to touch on some key parts of the ordinance and note some concerns.

This new ordinance applies to all residential and commercial properties that have been vacant for more than 30 days. There are some exceptions. It does not apply to single family homes or owner-occupied duplexes (as long as the owner has resided in the duplex at least 3 of the last 9 months and the owner intends to continue living in the duplex). Also excluded from the ordinance are condominiums and rental units as long as their vacancy rate does not exceed 95%. Also excluded is property that is currently in the foreclosure process and property that is actively being renovated.

This ordinance will apply to your rental whether or not you are actively showing the property to prospective renters and regardless of the condition of the property. So within 30 days of the property becoming vacant you must fill out a city application and file it with DNS. Additionally you must allow DNS to conduct an interior inspection. If the city finds any violations you will be cited.

Your intial application will be good for a period of 6 months and will cost you nothing (assuming the city does not cite you for any violations). If your property remains vacant for more than 6 months then you must reapply and pay a $250 fee. If DNS determines, at the time of renewal, that your property is not compliant then the fee will increase to $500. If your property continues to be in violation at the time of any subsequent renewals then you may be charged a fee (in increasing increments of $250) up to a maximum of $1,000. If you don't pay the fees they will be assessed against the real estate as a "special charge."

During the inspection, DNS will see if your property meets their minimum requirements. You can read a summary of those requirements at DNS' webpage dedicated to this new program.

Just as with the Residential Rental Certificate ordianance, DNS has the unfettered ability to draft and apply rules and regulations which are not required to be incorporated into the ordinance. These rules and regulations can change at any time and do not have to be published.

Let me just provide you with two situations that clearly fall under the purview of this new ordinance but which I feel should not require any city involvement whatsoever. By no means are these the only two problematice examples that I foresee -- there are many.

First, assume that you own a duplex and you currently have a tenant in the lower unit but because the upper tenant just broke the lease you upper unit is empty. The upper unit is in pretty good shape but requires repainting and some minor repairs to get the unit into move-in condition for the next tenant. Also assume that you were just assigned a new project at work that is taking up most of your time - you are working late and on weekends. While you would like to repaint the unit, make the minor repairs, start advertising the vacancy, and showing it to prospective renters, you just do not have the time. You remain very busy at work for more than 30 days. Under the new ordinance you now have a "vacant building" and you must register the property and allow it to be inspected.

My second example has actually happened to me on several occassions. I was in the process of trying to locate a new tenant for the lower portion of my duplex. Just as the city suggests, I have written screening criteria which any applicant must meet in order to become my tenant. My screening criteria is quite stringent. I follow the adage that it is better to have a vacant unit then to accept any "warm body" as a tenant. Because I also work a full-time job, I am not free to show the property to interested renters every day. As a result of both my stringent criteria and my schedule, my lower duplex remains vacant for over 30 days. Under Milwaukee's new ordinance I would need to register my duplex with the city and take time out of my day to allow an inspector to inspect my property.

NOTE: I have spoken with DNS Commissioner Art Dahlberg and confirmed that my above examples (which I have crossed out) are inaccurate. If you have a duplex and only 1 unit is vacant then you do not fall under the purview of the new ordinance. You would only fall under the purview of the new ordinance if both units of the duplex were vacant for 30 days -- as you would now have more than a 95% vacant property. So I have had to revise my examples.

First, assume that you own a single family home that you operate as a rental property and your tenant just broke his/her lease and as such the property is now vacant. The property will need a little bit of work (minor repairs and some painting) before you can turn it over. Also assume that you were just assigned a new project at work that is taking up most of your time - you are working late and on weekends. While you would like to repaint the unit, make the minor repairs, start advertising the vacancy, and showing it to prospective renters, you just do not have the time. You remain very busy at work for more than 30 days. Under the new ordinance you now have a "vacant building" and you must register the property and allow it to be inspected.

My second example happens to many of my clients that have stringent screening criteria that applicants must meet before they can become tenants. They are in the process of renting out a single family rental unit or both units of a duplex. Just as the city reccomends they use a written screening criteria which any applicant must meet in order to become a tenant. Following the adage that I often teach at my seminars, that it is better to have a vacant unit then to accept any "warm body" as a tenant, my clients often have periods in which their rental units are vacant. Sometimes becasue my clients work a full-time job outside of being a landlord, they not free to show the property to interested renters every day. As a result of both their stringent screening criteria and their busy schedules, their single famuly rental or both units of their duplex remain vacant for over 30 days. Under Milwaukee's new ordinance they would need to register their rentals with the city and take time out of my day to allow an inspector to inspect their property.

I suppose things could be worse. You could be standing in my client's shoes - the guy I mentioned earlier -- and have just been served with a notice from the city that you are in violation of its Vacant Building Recording ordinance. My client is now placed in the difficult position of having to decide whether to ignore the city's notice and risk the possibility of a fine and the future wrath of DNS or capitulating to the city and allowing it to inspect his unit despite the fact that it is occupied by a tenant and the city has no legal right to set foot in his rental property. What would you do?

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."

Rep. Marlin Schneider Amends AB-340 (CCAP Bill)

On December 2, 2009, Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids) made an amendment to AB-340. Referred to as Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to 2009 AB 340, this revised bill essentially would create two versions of the CCAP database. Schneider's amendment appears to be -- based on its timing at least -- a partial response to the Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin's critical response to a memo that Schneider sent to other members of the Wisconsin legislature and staff on November 20, 2009. The problem with Rep. Schneider's amendment, if it is indeed a response to the AASEW's criticisms, is that it ignores everything that the AASEW attempted to explain to him.

The original AB 340 can be read in its entirety at www.DefeatAB340.org. This site also contains background information on the sponsors of AB 340, responses from across Wisconsin to Schneider's bill, and Schneider's earlier attempts to restrict CCAP and prevent landlords from legally screening rental applicants.

Version #1

Under the amended AB 340, the first version of CCAP would remain exactly as we now know it. It would continue to provide data on pending cases and completed cases that were resolved by stipulated dismissal, acquittal, or motion. It would also continue to provide information as to all original criminal charges filed even if those charges were later reduced or dismissed.

However, this fully transparent version of CCAP would be restricted to only a "chosen few," namely:

1. Justices, judges, magistrates, court commissioners, and other employees of state, federal, or municipal courts and agencies who require access to court documents and records during the course of their employement.

2. Law enforcement officers.

3. Attorneys and their employees.

4. Members of the Wisconsin Newspaper Assoc., the Wisconsin Broadcaster's Assoc., and any other Wisconsin media organization designated by the director of state courts.

5. A debt collector licensed under Sec. 218.04, Wis. Stats.

Version #2

The second version of CCAP would be a redacted version (just as was set forth in the original AB 340) and would exclude any and all information about any civil or criminal case that had not yet been resolved by: (1) a finding of guilt, (2) a finding of liability, (3) an order of eviction, or (4) the issuance of a restraining order or injunction.

Under the revised AB 340, a person would still be able to request that the director of state courts remove all CCAP information relating to that individual's case if it did not result in a finding of guilt, liability, eviction judgment, or TRO/Injunction, or if it was reopened, vacated, set aside or overturned on appeal. Thus, even the "chosen few" detailed above would still not have access to this information if an affected individual made a request to remove it from CCAP.

The revised AB 340 appears to have eliminated the requirement that all users must register with the Director of State Courts and pay a $10 fee. However, still intact in the amended bill is the requirement that a person who has been denied employment, housing, or a public accomodation, be informed that said decision was made after reviewing information contained on CCAP. The intentional failure to comply with this section could result in a $1,000 fine.

The revised AB 340 is not an improvement over its predecessor. Yes, I guess it does allow a select few to access most of the information currently contained on CCAP but what about those individuals who are not included? Landlords, employers, moms and dads, and everyone else excluded from accessing the info on the "real CCAP" are still being prevented from using CCAP to obtain information that falls under Wisconsn's open records law.

I wonder just how much time Rep. Schneider and his staff spent drafting the revised AB 340? Since the revised version still ignores Wisconsin's open records law and still hinders a landlord's ability to properly - and legally - screen a prospective renter, I hope that they didn't spend too much time on it because I still don't think it will pass.

What are your thoughts about this revised version of AB 340? Let me know your thoughts by sending a "comment."

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.

More (and More) Legislation Introduced That Will Affect Landlords

I'm not sure if it is just me but it seems like more and more legislation is popping up that affects landlords. Maybe it is just because I am paying more attention to the rental industry then I used to -- kind of like buying a new jacket, bike, or car and then noticing from that point forward how many other people also are wearing that same jacket, riding that same bike, or driving that same car. Who knows?

Set forth below are 3 new pieces of legislation that will affect landlords and the rental housing industry in general:

1. 2009 Assembly Bill 543

This bill would bar any landlord from requiring certain payments and from making certain claims against a deceased tenant's estate. If passed this bill would prevent a landlord from making a claim against his/her deceased tenant's estate for any rent owed under the lease that becomes due after the deceased tenant's personal belongings have been removed and the keys have been returned to the landlord. Additionally the proposed bill precludes a landlord from requiring payment from a tenant or including a contrary provision in his/her lease in an attempt to circumvent the above.

Under current law, a landlord is able to file a claim against a deceased tenant's estate for rent due under the lease if the landlord was unable to re-rent the unit. I have to admit that after reading this bill for the first time I couldn't believe that this issue was worthy of having a new statute created addressing it, but I then remembered that over the last 6 months or so I have received at least 5 telephone calls from landlords that have had tenant's pass away during their lease and who had questions about what they could and could not do with respect to the rent owed under the lease - so it must be more common then I first thought.

2. 2009 Senate Bill 352

This proposed bill would require any plaintiff wishing to file a small claims lawsuit that has filed more than 20 small claims lawsuits in the prior year to pay an increased filing fee and would also limit the amount that that plaintiff can sue for to $5,000o or less, but at the same time the bill would also allow any plaintiff that has filed less than 20 small claims lawsuits in the prior year to pay a reduced filing fee and sue for up to $10,000.

Essentially, under this bill, if a plaintiff bringing a small claims action has filed 20 or fewer small claims actions (money judgment, attachment, garnishment, or to enforce a lien) within the prior 365 days, then the amount claimed may not exceed $10,000 and the plaintiff must pay a filing fee equal to 150% of the regular fee (or $33). If the plaintiff filing a small claims lawsuit has commenced more than 20 small claims lawsuits (money judgment, attachment, garnishment, or to enforce a lien) in the previous 365 days, then the bill would limit the amount that can be sued for to no more than $5,000 and requires the plaintiff to pay a filing fee equal to 200% of the regular filing fee (or $44).

The plaintiff must also include in their complaint a statement specifying how many small claims actions they have filed in the previous year. Additionally, the plaintiff will also have to file an Affidavit with the Clerk of Courts indicating how many lawsuits they have filed in the prior year. If a person misrepresents this information the court is required to award the opposing side $250 in damages and reasonable attorney's fees.

I'm not sure who came up with this idea or how they think it is fair to penalize a person for legally using the court system in the past, but the concept of equal access to the courts seems to have fallen by the wayside under this bill. Many large landlords and management companies that are attempting to collect debts from ex-tenants will be greatly affected by this bill. This proposed bill DOES NOT apply to eviction actions but it DOES apply to any small claims lawsuit that is not an eviction, such as money judgments, attachments, garnishments or lien enforcements.

3. 2009 Senate Bill 274

This bill would require a landlord to change the locks to a tenant's unit, or allow the tenant to do so, within 48 hours after being requested to do so by the tenant, in situations where the tenant can demonstrate that the are facing an imminent threat of physical harm from another individual. Under current law, a tenant is legally allowed to terminate their tenancy and vacate a rental unit (even if they are under a lease for a specific term that has not expired), if the tenant or their child can prove that they face imminent threat of serious physical harm from another. This new bill appears to allow the tenant the option of staying in the property if they wish and having their locks changed rather than leaving.

Specifically, the bill would require a landlord to change a tenant's locks, or give the tenant permission to do so, if the tenant requests the lock change and provides the landlord with a certified copy of one of the following documents: (1) an injunction order protecting the tenant or child from a person, (2) a condition of release ordering a person not to contact the tenant, (3) a criminal complaint alleging that a person sexually assualted or stalked the tenant or her child, or (4) a criminal complaint filed against a person as a result of an arrest for committing a domestic abuse offense against the tenant.

The only exception in which the landlord would not be required to change the locks (or allow the tenant to change the locks) would be if the individual that poses a serious risk of physical harm to the tenant is also a tenant in that same unit. If that is the case, then the landlord would not have to change the locks to the unit unless the tenant requesting the lock change can provide a certified copy of either (1) an injunction directing the other tenant to avoid the residence of the tenant who is requesting that the locks be changed, or (2) a condition of release ordering that the other tenant not contact the tenant requesting that the locks be changed.

If a tenant requests to have her locks changed and meets the other requirements of this proposed bill then the landlord will have 48 hours in which to change the locks. The tenant shall be resonsible for the cost of the lock change.

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.