Program to Inspect All Apartment Buildings in the City Is Far Behind Schedule, Audit Finds
Staff shortages, poor planning and a lack of adequate equipment have made it impossible for the Los Angeles Housing Department to inspect all apartment buildings once every three years, as required by city law, according to an audit released Tuesday by the city controller’s office.
“Before the city initiates a service or program, we should very carefully determine what resources are needed to operate successfully,” City Controller Laura Chick wrote in the audit.
The audit estimates that it will take 350 inspectors, four times the current number, to inspect all multifamily rental units in a three-year period. That is the much-touted goal of the housing department’s Systematic Code Enforcement Program.
On the current pace, it will take six years, until 2004, to complete inspections on all rental properties in the city.
The primary findings of the audit are not surprising to city housing officials, who say they share concerns about staffing and equipment.
“We’re very much in line with what the audit says,” said Ken Simmons, assistant general manager in the housing department. “Staffing is the primary issue in getting the program up to a three-year cycle.”
The audit comes at a time when city officials are placing renewed emphasis on the issue of affordable housing.
Last week, the City Council received a report on possible funding sources for a $100-million affordable housing trust fund that would be used to build more housing for low- and moderate-income residents. And lending giant Fannie Mae announced plans to spend $50 billion in Los Angeles and Orange counties.
But inspections are particularly significant for tenants of in apartments on the low end of the market. The program is supposed to ensure that those units don’t deteriorate.
Before the initiation of the Systematic Code Enforcement Program in 1998, apartments were inspected by the Department of Building and Safety inspectors only after a complaint was received. That placed responsibility for reporting buildings on renters, who sometimes feared retaliation from landlords.
Under the program, 750,000 to a million multifamily rental properties were to be inspected every three years, with inspectors checking to ensure the properties meet city and state habitability codes.
“This is a very important program that says we have to maintain our housing stock,” Chick said in an interview. “We have to provide a certain standard of habitability, and the only way to do it is get out there and ensure necessary repairs are being done.”
Landlords are assessed a $12 fee per unit for the inspections.
The inspectors inherited a work backlog from building and safety when the program started. But because of woefully short staffing, inspectors spend far too much time on clerical work rather than checking buildings in the field, the audit found.
Incompatible databases both within and outside of the housing department also complicate the work of inspectors and increase time spent in the office. The program’s databases are incomplete and unreliable, the audit found.
“We don’t know of any source that is reliable for us to use and have full confidence in the number of units and property ownership,” Simmons said.
Although the report’s recommendations include reevaluating the program’s financing and increasing clerical staff, money is not the only solution, Chick said.
The program could operate more effectively by developing a consistent, citywide approach to inspections based on date of construction, rents, historical data or reviews of the exteriors of buildings.
“There needs to be better coordination,” Chick said. “There needs to be better written policy and criteria--which units will be inspected and in which order.”
In spite of the problems, the program has been effective, Simmons said.
Inspectors have found violations in an overwhelming majority of the properties inspected. About 80% of cited landlords comply by making repairs in a 60-day period.
“You’re talking about almost a million violations that have been corrected since the program started,” Simmons said.
About 20% of owners do not comply. Inspectors must spend more time on those buildings, completing reinspections and filing additional documents.
Simmons said housing officials warned the City Council of the problems in a report in August 2000.
The report said, “We could not meet three years, we could meet a five-year” inspection schedule, he said.
Rod Field, who sat on the committee that recommended the task force, said it was to be expected that the inspections would be off to a slow start.
“The city had never done anything like this before,” said Field, who is executive director of the Los Angeles Housing Law Project. “Compared to other cities, we have very few inspectors. We need to find some more funding for the program.”
Still, the audit’s findings are troubling for low-income renters, Chick said.
“With the affordable housing shortage we face now, the condition of every single existing unit becomes even more important,” Chick said. “To have the impact of this program denigrated and not working as intended is simply not acceptable.”
