2012-01-17_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – September 13, 2011 Page 3 1 504.b.108.5???? Member Pust noted another State Statute, Chapter addressing who could 2 define the nuisance and who could perform the inspections; with Chapter 504B (Attachment 3 A) only providing the enforcement rules. Member Pust suggested that the City may not want 4 to review the Statutes further to ensure the City has as much flexibility as possible. 5 6 Chair Maschka noted that the City could access interiors if requested through a tenant 7 complaint. 8 9 Member Pust concurred; however noted that that if not allowed in by a tenant, and a complaint 10 was initiated by the City or another citizen, city inspectors were limited to exterior inspections 11 only. 12 13 Chair Maschka questioned if this covered repeat police calls, or if that was covered elsewhere. 14 15 Mr. Trudgeon advised that this Statute was specific to housing concerns related to safety, 16 health and welfare. 17 18 Member Masche referenced the draft ordinance, Section 511.02 (Definition of Nuisance 19 Conduct) for the provisions covered. 20 21 Mr. Trudgeon noted that this ordinance would cover building code violations and police calls; 22 but the point was that tenant remedy actions could cover code issues or violations, but that 23 there would still be some limitations and it would not be a bulletproof tool. 24 25 Member Masche noted that this ordinance alluded to the next topic on tonight’s agenda, rental 26 housing licensing; and questioned whether that would also involve some type of code 27 enforcement of the City and/or State Building Code. 28 29 Mr. Trudgeon responded that it depended on which issue was addressed, nuisance violations or 30 code enforcement; reiterating that inspectors still could not access a rental unit, unless invited 31 by a tenant, for code enforcement issues. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed access opportunities and 32 options for interior inspections. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was recommending this 33 ordinance to provide another tool in cases where deemed appropriate when a problem landlord 34 refused to pay a fine or ignored the rules. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this course of action would 35 be more systematic to the entire rental complex and internal livability standards to address 36 “slum landlord” situations and to allow the City to be more comprehensive in seeing that 37 problems are corrected in a timely manner; or for those problematic landlords or repeat 38 offenders to “shape up or ship out,” and live up to the expectations of the City of Roseville and 39 its residents. 40 41 Discussion included reviewing the process used by the City for typical exterior code 42 violations; additional details remaining to be finessed; how this ordinance would tie into the 43 City’s current abatement process for exterior code violations; the City’s ability under State 44 Statute to take possession of a property under certain circumstances; staff’s rationale with this 45 Repeat Nuisance ordinance amendment to put problem landlords on notice; and the need to 46 research other communities (Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis) who have used this and their 47 experiences in doing so, successes or problems encountered, and the cost of such a process. 48 49 Housing Manager Kelsey advised that, technically there would be no cost to the City, with the 50 third party charging costs back to the landlord when the property reverts back to the landlord. 51 52 Member Pust noted that there would still be costs for attorney and staff time, court costs; and 53 clarified that in Roseville, this would only become applicable for larger, multi-family 54 complexes that continued to repeatedly evade cooperating with the City. Member Pust noted 55 that representatives of the City’s Police Department had reported to the HRA last year on the