On the evening of Monday, August 9^th Larry Winn, Doug Price, and Sam Alpert met with O.P. city council members Mike Lally and Jack Halligan, who to date have been the most ardent supporters on the council of the need for rental unit regulation. Both remain convinced that an enforceable ownership registration is key to providing city codes officials with enough information to facilitate timely notification to a responsible party. Further, they perceive the need to enact an ordinance with enough "teeth" to effect the desired outcome. With this in mind, they indicated that they will pursue (at a minimum) a local registered agent requirement with the staff, and agreed with Larry Winn’s observation that any new regulation should be subject to a two-year performance review.

It is possible from Lally’s and Halligan’s perspective that any future performance review may indicate the need for a more stringent regulatory approach (i.e. the introduction of mandatory scheduled inspections and/or annual fees), if not to rescind an ineffective program of ownership registration.

It is clear from this and previous discussions with city council members that there is an abundance of concern over a relatively small number of properties in decline, and that the majority of these properties are single family residences. It is unknown as to the number of troubled properties that are rentals as opposed to owner occupied. The city staff has managed to convince the council that rental housing providers are by far the greatest code offenders, but no one has been able to clearly articulate the basis of this assertion. All that is really known is that some very specific problem properties have continued to test the city’s resolve with no permanent solution in sight.

Another misconception on the part of council members to whom we have spoken is that the "focus group" that city staff facilitated last spring succeeded in reaching some kind of consensus with respect to an acceptable means of dealing with "the problem". In reality, for those who participated, those sessions were little more than a gesture by which the staff could meet a council imposed requirement while controlling (through a city paid "facilitator") the tenor of the meetings with a bias toward the need for regulation. We have tried to convey our disappointment in this regard as the opportunity has presented itself. Meanwhile, we have restated our desire to assist where possible in achieving an acceptable, as well as an effective resolution.

In recent weeks the city of Independence, MO has indicated that it now believes there may be a need for rental unit registration, as well as periodic interior inspections. The HAA is monitoring the situation and has offered to participate in some of the discussions involving city officials, neighborhood representatives, and local landlords.

A modified Lead Poisoning Control Ordinance is likely to be introduced by the KCMO Health Department to the city council within the next few months. The modification is intended to clarify existing troublesome language which alludes to "retaliation" in the form of a rent increase from a landlord against a tenant who has reported the presence or suspected presence of lead based substances within a rental unit. The staff supported modified version language of the Second Committee Substitute for Ordinance No. 961281, which has been negotiated over nearly three (3) years of meetings of the Childhood Lead Poisoning Advisory Board (in which the HAA, BOMA, The Metropolitan Board of Realtors, and Landlords, Inc. have all played a prominent role) provides that "a landlord or its agent may pass reasonable associated remedial costs of lead control or lead poison hazard abatement activities performed on the dwelling or dwelling unit to tenants as an increase in rent …." This should address the concerns of property owners with respect to any implied prohibition of a rent increase where a tenant might allege the increase to be retaliatory.