March 24, 2025

RE: Dept. of Permit and Inspection Services’ 2025 PRI Implementation Report

Dear Buffalo Common Council,

Thank you for your continued commitment to the implementation of the City of Buffalo’s Proactive Rental Inspections (PRI) law. As you well know, the PRI law ensures the structural integrity and safety of our city’s rental properties. This is necessary for Buffalo tenants’ health, our housing stock, and the stability of our neighborhoods. The council’s decision to increase rental registry fees and allocate funds in the 2024-2025 budget for additional inspectors was critical for this program’s success. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Recently, the Commissioner of the Dept of Permits and Inspections Services (DPIS), Catherine Amdur, submitted a report about the PRI program’s progress to the council. We are very glad to see the number of inspections increasing from years past. That said, we do have a few questions regarding the content of the report.
 

1)    How many of the city’s 36,000 PRI-covered rental units have had an interior inspection under the PRI program?
 
In her report, the Commissioner notes that “the data from the first three years of the program includes… exterior-only inspections.” This old practice of data keeping is highly concerning. By law, PRI inspections are to include interior inspections. Without an interior inspection, we don’t know whether the unit is actually safe and functional for the tenant. Yet, the Commissioner admits that DPIS was counting exterior inspections as PRI inspections when they, in fact, weren’t PRI inspections.

This leaves us with an important question: How many of the city’s ~36,000 PRI-covered rental units have actually had interior inspections? It is impossible to know this number based on the Commissioner’s report because it includes inflated data. We ask that the council request this data from the Commissioner.  
 

2)    In 2024, How many units were found to have deteriorated paint?
 
Ch 264-13(B)(4) requires that the Commissioner report to the council “the number of units in which lead hazards are found.” It’s important that DPIS report on this number because identifying chipping and peeling paint is one of the priorities of the PRI legislation. All chipping and peeling paint is presumed to be a lead hazard in pre-1978 housing. Concerningly, Commissioner Amdur did not include this data in her recent report. We note that, interestingly, she did include it in her reports to the council in March 2024 and March 2023.
 
We appreciate that the Commissioner is partnering with the Erie County Department of Health by sharing addresses where potential lead hazards are found. However, under the PRI law, the Commissioner is still required to cite chipping and peeling paint. Is this still happening? Which entity will be following up with landlords to ensure the hazards are addressed? It would be helpful for the Commissioner to outline the process she’s using to make sure inspected homes are lead-safe.
 
We ask the council to request all data points required by law (Ch 264-13) for this report. We also request that the council ask the Commissioner why she excluded data on chipping and peeling paint in this report and what the process is for obtaining compliance on lead hazards.  
 
 
3)    In 2024, how much money was collected in inspections fees, and how much of that was put into the T&A account?
 
Ch 264-15(B) states “Every property owner shall pay a fee of $75, to be assessed against the property, for each inspection after the first inspection in which violations of a state or local building code are found…. Inspectors shall assess the fee after the status of the violation has not progressed or been satisfactorily completed.” In 2024 alone, the PRI team did repeat inspections on 1,882 units that needed it. While some of those property owners likely took care of necessary repairs in a timely manner, surely some did not. Is the department charging $75 per inspection in those cases? Especially in this time of budget crisis, the city should be collecting this legally required funding.
 
The PRI law says that funds collected in this manner shall be placed in a designated T&A account. The law reads, “Funds shall be used solely to support lead hazard education and outreach for at-risk residents as well as for tools, equipment, or services needed to evaluate and analyze the efficacy of the rental inspection program.” That is, revenue from the $75 fees should be allocated to supporting the PRI program. Given the difficulties that the department has had experienced implementing this program, this funding seems critical for its success.
 
The Commissioner is required by law to report how much funding has gone into and out of the T&A account each year (Ch 264-13(B)8-9).  The Commissioner did not include this information in her most recent report. Again, she included this data in prior years, but not this one. Why did the Commissioner remove this data? We ask that the council request this legally required data from the Commissioner. We’d also like the council to ask the Commissioner how many times the department has assessed the $75 fee for an inspection in 2024.

These are our primary concerns and questions. You might also consider asking these other questions of the Commissioner:

- What proportion of each PRI team members’ time is exclusively dedicated to PRI-specific work (versus other, less targeted efforts like clean sweeps)?
 
- Anecdotally, we’ve heard from some tenants who experienced PRI inspections that the inspector looked only for smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors. According to these tenants, the inspector didn’t go through the list of PRI inspection requirements. How is the Commissioner ensuring that all inspectors are conducting full PRI inspections at every unit?

We’d also like the council to note that the PRI amendments from 2020 still aren’t reflected in the city’s ecode. The ecode has been updated to include other Ch 264 amendments from recent years, but not the PRI amendments. For the sake of transparency and clarity, we ask that the ecode be updated to reflect the law.  

Thank you,
 
Sarah Wooton
Director of Community Research
Partnership for the Public Good