Correspondence - #21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orozco, Norma From: Tim Johnson <tjohnson@jlkrllp.com> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 5:39 PM To: Garcia, Michael (CDA); Brown, Judson Cc: RSO; eComment; Ridge, Kristine; Mendoza, Steven; Carvalho, Sonia R. Subject: RE: Rent Registry- SFR Hi Director Garcia and Judson (cc the others from the below...)... Please read the below to catch up. I am struggling immensely with the rent registry letters sent out to folks. Do you know how many letters were mailed to those that the city rec'd data from the county on those that are single family residences with no homeowner's exemption on them? Can you confirm that Mills Act homes are by default void of the homeowner's exemption on the county property tax roles by default. This is not the real crux of this email btw, so don't get bogged down in those questions before addressing the real issue below (i.e.... the below is way more important than the costs and resources above). To catch everyone up ... I had a nice yet frustrating conversation with Bella and Cindy from the RSO office... both great on the phone and would be glad to say that they are representing the city well from a customer service point of view. Unfortunately, my call got cut off with Cindy, however I think we were somewhat wrapping up because we were going in circles. The issue though we are having is immense and I would be glad to go over this on the phone if someone wants to call me (cell: texting OK, call anytime, I work late!). I feel that the city is expecting all the homeowners to respond and essentially exempt themselves out of the registry when 95% to 100% are exempt by statute. I am still not sure of the case where a single family home would be subject to registration and the rent ordinance OR the exemption process. Specifically, when I started to explain to Cindy that I did not believe there was a section in the rent registry website for situations where the house is essentially just someone's home, that is where we got disconnected. Specifically, I refer you to the below 2 screenshots from my portal. The top are my exemption options... none of them apply to someone who is an ordinary person living in their house and not renting it. The "residential real property...." one is not applicable either btw. I can explain why if need be. Further even if that one was correct, I would have to upload documents including a tenant notification AND sign something that is false under penalties of perjury. There is something really wrong here. I don't think the city should be fixing this one property at a time but instead correcting this at the macro level. I still do not understand why someone who is a homeowner would need to register and provide private documents to the city. PLEASE, let's fix this. I am hoping that Director Garcia or Judson can get back to me. I have specific questions that should be addressed. I totally understand that this is a new program and will have quirks ... the real test is how we respond to those quirks. The city should not put this burden on regular homeowners. I feel like I am a smart person in this area and I am wholly confused ... I know that others are also. Again, I can be reached at Clerk of the Council ... you can feel free to include this in the agenda item for #21 tomorrow. Thanks!