Tarnished reputations? Landlords say city’s scoring system is unfair, poorly managed

The City of Rochester rolled out a new digital system last year to interact with property managers and owners on processes like permitting and code enforcement. The change came with an online tool that scores rental properties, property owners and property managers based on their compliance with city building codes.

Most renters seem so far unaware of the system.

Rochester landlords and property managers are very familiar with the site. They say the new process unfairly rates their properties, particularly ones they’re fixing up. Its potential for transparency is shrouded by miscommunication, they say, with the city and code inspectors.

The scoring system, made in partnership with data platform Tolemi and available to the public on the city-run BuildingBlocks site, assigns registered properties and landlords ratings out of 100.

Factors that go into calculating scores include active violations per unit, days since the property’s Certificate of Occupancy expired, and days since the oldest violation was cited. The lower a property or landlord’s score, the greater the number of open violations they have accumulated.

The scoring program was “well-intentioned,” said Kayla Thorp, a property manager and owner who runs Rochester Property Solutions with her husband, Jake. Together, they manage 175 units and own about 65, primarily in Beechwood and the 19th Ward.

“The intention was to create a little bit more accountability and also incentive for landlords to do the right thing and to operate within the city's guidelines and programs,” Thorp said.

The city website suggests the scoring system could be used by city staff to “target enforcement” and equip tenants with data to help them make decisions on who to rent from.

Where are the incentives in landlord scoring program in Rochester?

At a landlord summit last year, city administrators told attendees that at some point in the rollout, the ratings would be a way to reward higher-scoring landlords with benefits like fee waivers and longer timelines for certificate of occupancy renewals.

No such incentives have been piloted yet, and the program in its current state has created an administrative burden on landlords, said Rebecca Zuber, who manages about 200 units in the city. Zuber helps landlords fix up and manage their homes, which includes getting the properties through code inspections and obtaining certificates of occupancy.

Waiting to have violations expunged from her online property manager profile after an inspector has confirmed they’ve been resolved has been frustrating for Zuber. After getting positive results on a lead swipe at a Beechwood home she manages, Zuber emailed the city three times to get the property’s certificate of occupancy issued, but she hasn’t heard back.

“My biggest issue right now is I'm completing certificates of occupancy, so getting all the violations cured —  everything is done 100%, and they're not updating their system,” Zuber said.

Accurate information on Rochester code violation site?

Beyond code violations, the site has displayed wrong information about who owns and manages properties, Thorp said. The administrative burden, including tracking the accuracy of their scores and checking in with the city to fix outdated information, falls on landlords, she said.

“We don't have the time or the capability to be following up on that kind of stuff constantly, so what ends up happening is we just have a bunch of properties that are still associated with our account that we do not manage,” she said.

The scoring system lists properties that owners have recently bought, which became a frustration for Jay Molis, who owns 34 units in Rochester. Molis buys houses that need repairs — sometimes tens of thousands of dollars worth — and renovates them before applying for certificates of occupancy and renting them out.

The “fixer-uppers” under his name often have a number of violations, pulling his score down.

“Basically, they're scoring your reputation,” said Molis, who’s concerned about the impression a lower-than-desired score may leave on prospective tenants and investors. “A low score means now you're a bad landlord for the city … even though it may be because we just bought a property that needs some work, or we have a property and the tenant trashed it.”

Rental with a lower score: 'It's making me look bad'

Ben Hart, a Rochester realtor and property owner, ran into a similar issue.

Of the six rental properties he owns and manages, five got top marks, but one scores lower because of a missing certificate of occupancy. As he’s been working on painting and bringing his South Wedge property up to code, his score has suffered, even though he submitted a workplan to the city and asked for violations to be postponed over a six-month grace period.

“It's making me look bad. I don't like that,” Hart said. “I work with the city, getting that done, and I'm actually getting some grant funding [for repairs].”

As it currently stands, Hart said the system can discourage property managers from purchasing properties in poor condition with plans to renovate.

“Who's gonna want to invest if it tarnishes their reputation?” Hart said. “Then the worst properties are just going to get worse.”

— Christina Chkarboul is a summer intern at the Democrat and Chronicle and a student journalist at USC, where she focuses on Earth science, global studies and journalism. Contact her at [email protected] with story tips related to code enforcement.

This article originally appeared on Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: Landlords say city’s scoring system is unfair, poorly managed