Overview
While the other policy categories highlighted in this Hub are designed to address a broad range of health and safety problems that arise in housing units, this category focuses squarely on preventing lead poisoning, particularly amongst children. Lead-based paint, though banned in 1978, still poses considerable health risk to children and other vulnerable populations living in homes built before that date.
Many policies and programs are focused on responding to home hazards identified as the source of a child’s elevated blood lead level via routine screening or as a result of symptoms; in other words, a child is found to have been poisoned by lead and then lead hazard control activities begin. In contrast, Lead Poisoning Prevention seeks to mitigate or get ahead of those hazards based on local data about housing stock and demographic characteristics. Key indicators such as the age of housing and the presence of young children are used to prioritize units for lead-based paint remediation.
The mechanisms for lead poisoning prevention can be similar to other policy categories, such as rental registration and inspection. The examples uplifted in this section highlight the remediation and control activities that spur prevention.
Focus on Prevention & Solutions
Ordinance 1: Cleveland, OH
Population Size: 362,656
Rationale for Inclusion
- This ordinance establishes a Lead Safe Advisory Board, with representatives from the community-based coalition, realtors, a Councilmember, a property owner, and the Lead Safe Auditor.
- It outlines clearly defined roles and expectations, with a special call out for the Director and Lead Safe Auditor.
- This example provides for a time frame for initial evaluation of the effectiveness of the ordinance conducted by a third party, specifying a local agent in charge in the evaluation plan; further, the ordinance devotes an entire section to the concern for unintended consequences.
Important Considerations
- Cleveland separates the registration from the inspection (i.e., having a certificate of registration does not mean the unit is safe).
- Cleveland’s overall model is a great example of a public-private partnership, as the City coordinates efforts with the Lead Safe Cleveland Coalition and several other stakeholders, including a prominent health system in the Cleveland Clinic; however, the provisions in the ordinance can be broadly adapted to cities that don’t have similar structures.
Lead Safe Housing Registry
Ordinance 2: Louisville, KY
Population Size: 622,981
Rationale for Inclusion
- Though not the most recent version of Louisville’s ordinance, this is a good example of a Lead Safe Housing Registry to consider. The language was amended due to state preemption concerns and provides an example of how cities are adapting to their unique local contexts.
- Similar to other cities mentioned, this ordinance also takes Rental Registration a step further; in addition to registering rentals, units must also be inspected and comply with health and safety requirements.
- The results of this inspection will be publicly available for prospective tenants to view and make informed decisions.
- The ordinance clearly outlines responsibilities for specific departments.
- The phased approach of implementation focuses on older homes first (with the highest likelihood of lead-based paint).
- This example provides for prioritized evaluation for children with elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs) (within 60 days regardless of age of the home), as well as more specific provisions regarding the timeliness of reinspection for various use cases.
Important Considerations
- The law defines a fee structure identified to support the implementation, and anything left over contributes to a tenant relief fund.
- Cross-sector Collaboration: The ordinance requires code enforcement officers to get state certified and to notify the health department of suspected violations.
💡Pro Tip: What are reasonable registration or licensing fees?
Generally, the fee should cover the cost of the initial inspection, one follow-up (if needed), and the administrative costs of the rental regulation program. Typical fees run between $50 and $150 per year for a single-family property and more for multifamily buildings. In many states, the use of rental registration or licensing fees to raise additional money for the municipal general fund is barred by law.
Compliance Pathways to Reduce Lead Poisoning
Ordinance 3: Grand Rapids
Population Size: 196,608
Rationale for Inclusion
- This ordinance also has some elements of other policy categories described in this Hub, such as requiring both rental registration and a certification of compliance; those certificates are issued for 2, 4, or 6 years, with specific requirements to meet each time frame (as in performance-based rental licensing). Chapter 12 of the amended ordinance details lead hazard violations, inspections and reporting, and the standards by which any violations can be remedied, citing state and federal regulations. This example codifies the Renovation, Repair and Painting Program (RRP program) into local law, which is considered best practice by the field. The ordinance provides for interagency cooperation across jurisdictions (Sec. 1210).
Important Considerations
- As with other examples, this ordinance references applicable state laws; municipalities considering adapting this ordinance should consult local legal experts for help in identifying their own applicable state and local laws. The City provides compliance opportunities through cross-training and aligning with EPA requirements in support of the requirements in the ordinance.
- Grand Rapids also created a Lead Hazard Control Fund, offering eligible property owners up to $20,000 for lead hazard control activities.
Implementation Tools & Resources
Need More Help?
Feel free to contact us!