Skip to main content
File #: 25-698    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Business Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 7/16/2025 In control: City Council/Public Finance and Economic Development Authority/Parking Authority
On agenda: 7/21/2025 Final action:
Title: SUBJECT: Anti-Slumlord Ordinance Discussion REPORT IN BRIEF City Council previously expressed interest in exploring a potential "Anti-Slumlord Ordinance" as an alternative to the previously proposed Rental Housing Maintenance and Inspection Program, which was not adopted. The Council requested that staff review a model adopted in another jurisdiction-specifically, the City of Fresno-as a potential framework. RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to staff on next steps.
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.

Report prepared by Craig J. Cornwell, City Attorney

 

Title

SUBJECT: Anti-Slumlord Ordinance Discussion

 

REPORT IN BRIEF

City Council previously expressed interest in exploring a potential “Anti-Slumlord Ordinance” as an alternative to the previously proposed Rental Housing Maintenance and Inspection Program, which was not adopted. The Council requested that staff review a model adopted in another jurisdiction-specifically, the City of Fresno-as a potential framework.

 

RECOMMENDATION

Provide direction to staff on next steps.

 

Body

DISCUSSION

The City Attorney’s Office reviewed Fresno’s Rental Housing Improvement Act, which is structured around a two-part strategy:

A reactive enforcement component-the Anti-Slum Enforcement Team (ASET)-comprised of Code Enforcement officers and City Attorneys who investigate health and safety violations based on complaints, public safety referrals, and inspections. If violations are confirmed and not corrected, the team pursues legal action against the property owner.

A proactive inspection program-the Rental Housing Improvement Act, adopted in 2017-which requires all residential rental units and rental properties to register with the City and be subject to periodic inspections. Properties with multiple violations are referred to ASET for further action.

The proactive strategy includes self-certification for properties that pass inspection, random city inspections for 10% of certified properties annually, and exemptions for properties less than 10 years old or already subject to agency oversight.

 

Comparison to Merced’s Former Proposal

 

Fresno’s Rental Housing Improvement Act closely resembles Merced’s formerly proposed Rental Housing Maintenance and Inspection Program, with each program creating an inspection registry to ensure that rental housing conditions are sufficient to protect public health and safety. While the basic frameworks are the same, there are several mechanical differences:

- Fresno’s program is bifurcated (reactive + proactive), while Merced’s proposal was proactive only.
- Fresno requires registration of all properties but inspects randomly; Merced would have inspected all units within a year.
- Fresno requires annual inspections of 10% of self-certified units; Merced’s approach was discretionary.
- Merced proposed broader exemptions (e.g., smaller owner-occupied units); Fresno exempted only newer or already-regulated units.
- Fresno charges only an inspection fee; Merced proposed registration + inspection fees.

Despite minor variations, the core structure of both programs is substantially similar.

 

Recommended Framework: Anti-Slumlord Ordinance Focused on Chronic Offenders

 

Rather than adopting a citywide inspection registry or replicating another jurisdiction’s ordinance, staff recommends developing a tailored Anti-Slumlord Ordinance focused on chronic offenders-rental property owners who demonstrate a pattern of neglect, unresolved violations, or unsafe conditions.

This targeted approach emphasizes strategic enforcement, procedural fairness, and efficient use of City resources. The ordinance would include the following four integrated components:

 

Identification and Tracking of Chronic Offender Properties

 

Establishes a formal process to designate properties as “chronic offenders” based on a documented pattern of serious or repeated housing code violations, complaints, or confirmed habitability issues. Once designated, these properties become subject to elevated enforcement tools under this ordinance.

Due Process / Resources: Requires interdepartmental coordination (Code, Police, Fire) to track qualifying violations. Staff would issue written notices and provide appeal or correction procedures before designation takes effect.

 

Tenant Disclosure and Eviction Safeguards for Chronic Offender Properties

 

Requires landlords of designated chronic offender properties to disclose unresolved violations to current and prospective tenants. Prohibits eviction of tenants while serious violations remain uncorrected, helping to prevent displacement or retaliation.

Due Process / Resources: Would require adoption of a local tenant protection ordinance with defined disclosure requirements and enforcement mechanisms. Implementation can be supported with a standardized City disclosure form. Legal review will ensure alignment with state Civil Code protections.

 

Risk-Based Rental Licensing for Chronic Offender Properties

 

Authorizes the City to require a rental license-or suspend existing rental privileges-for properties designated as chronic offenders. Unlike the general business license already required in Merced, this targeted license would be a regulatory compliance tool tied to property conditions, not just business registration.

Due Process / Resources: Landlords would receive formal notice, time to cure violations, and an opportunity for hearing or appeal. Licensing decisions would be coordinated among Code Enforcement, Legal, and business licensing staff.

 

Enhanced Penalties for Chronic Offenders

 

Establishes escalating administrative fines, civil penalties, or liens for chronic offenders who fail to comply with corrective orders. These penalties would be higher than standard code citations and reflect the cost of repeated enforcement actions by the City.

Due Process/Resources: Penalty schedules and procedures would be adopted by ordinance. Staff would track compliance timelines and issue fines only after required notices and cure periods have lapsed. Revenue from penalties may be reinvested into housing enforcement programs.

 

Next Steps

 

The City Attorney’s Office is available to provide further legal research and policy development to support a draft ordinance that reflects these concepts and ensures the final product is legally defensible, enforceable, and consistent with Council direction.

Should the Council wish to proceed, staff can return with:
- Clarified criteria for chronic offender designation,
- Legal considerations regarding due process, and
- Draft language or policy options for discussion and refinement.

ATTACHMENTS

None.