13 18-1483 Subject: RAP Fee Increase
From: Housing And Community Development Department
Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 13497 C.M.S. (The 2018-19 Master Fee Schedule) To Increase The Rent Adjustment Program Service Fee From $68.00 Per Unit To $101.00 Per Unit
I am a small property owner who opposes the current proposal for an increase in RAP funding. Rather than a permanent staffing increase, I recommend improved on-line services. However, should there be a fee increase it must include improved services for landlords. Current RAP focus and services seem decidedly weighted toward providing services to tenants. Small property owners operate on slim margins and would benefit from having access to unbiased legal information. While I appreciate funding for HERA, there is nothing at their website that suggests they have the capacity to provide counsel for small landlord issues. The unintended consequences of pricing out small operators is the eventual sale of those properties to corporate interests who can absorb the cost of tenant relocation and add to the unaffordability crises. City policies should support small property owners who face the same costs as large property owners but have no economy of scale.
The RAP program registered a surplus of $1.9 million last year, a result of a prior fee increase, and the report provides no justification for increasing the fee again. The argument presented by Dan Kalb and Michelle Byrd that LA pays higher taxes and so should Oakland makes no sense. The fee should directly be related to the cost per service, which the RAP program should be reporting to the council. Comparing fees across municipalities in order to drive efficiency is rational. Raising taxes in the name of gaining parity with another city's poorly run program is not.
I am a small property owner who opposes the current proposal for an increase in RAP funding. Rather than a permanent staffing increase, I recommend improved on-line services. However, should there be a fee increase it must include improved services for landlords. Current RAP focus and services seem decidedly weighted toward providing services to tenants. Small property owners operate on slim margins and would benefit from having access to unbiased legal information. While I appreciate funding for HERA, there is nothing at their website that suggests they have the capacity to provide counsel for small landlord issues. The unintended consequences of pricing out small operators is the eventual sale of those properties to corporate interests who can absorb the cost of tenant relocation and add to the unaffordability crises. City policies should support small property owners who face the same costs as large property owners but have no economy of scale.
The RAP program registered a surplus of $1.9 million last year, a result of a prior fee increase, and the report provides no justification for increasing the fee again. The argument presented by Dan Kalb and Michelle Byrd that LA pays higher taxes and so should Oakland makes no sense. The fee should directly be related to the cost per service, which the RAP program should be reporting to the council. Comparing fees across municipalities in order to drive efficiency is rational. Raising taxes in the name of gaining parity with another city's poorly run program is not.