2012-01-17_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – September 13, 2011 Page 7 1 licensure and inspections. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this conversation has been ongoing for a 2 number of years, with many opinions and considerations to be addressed and evaluated; and 3 now perhaps needed more serious consideration. Mr. Trudgeon suggested future meetings 4 include this wide-ranging discussion to determine the best fit and solution for Roseville, 5 including researching current models now available. 6 7 Mr. Trudgeon thanked HRA members for tonight’s insightful dialogue; and noting some new 8 members on the HRA, suggested another look at information provided several years ago. 9 10 HRS members concurred. 11 12 Additional discussion included any cities who have had to resort to displacing tenants and 13 unintended consequences for tenants in tackling a problem landlord issue; recognizing that the 14 majority of landlords did the right thing, with only minority creating the problems; costs for a 15 licensing program in the current economy; costs for licensing ultimately passing on to tenants, 16 creating additional unintended consequences for those tenants if not in income-restricted 17 buildings; recognizing the bottom line to protect the City’s residents from living in squalid 18 conditions; and defining the public role versus the private market in finding a solution. 19 20 10.Information Reports and Other Business (Verbal Reports by Staff and Board Members) 21 22 a.Foreclosure Map 23 Staff provided an updated foreclosure map with trends and comparisons from 2008 – 2011 to- 24 date. 25 26 Since the HRA now had data for approximately five (5) years, Chair Maschka asked that they 27 perform a sample review of five (5) of those homes for each of the five (5) years to find out 28 their current status (e.g. whether new families have purchased the homes, whether they’ve 29 been rehabilitated, and positive/negative impacts of the foreclosure). Chair Maschka opined 30 that this would provide the HRA with a sense of the impacts of foreclosures; and while 31 recognizing the tragedy of foreclosure for individual families and negative circumstances for 32 those families, the HRA could determine whether those homes remained tentative as they were 33 before foreclosure, or if they were now in stable ownership. 34 35 Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff could perform that review, since they had the addresses, could 36 research current market values, whether the properties had been returned to the tax rolls, 37 review Building Permit records, and inspect exteriors. 38 39 b.NEP Update 40 Mr. Trudgeon advised that Code Enforcement Officer Don Munson would make a report to the 41 HRA in January of 2012; with the last section in the two-year cycle just completed for all 42 residential single-family and duplex properties. Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff was finding a 43 clustering effect for code violations; but that the NEP process had been significantly 44 streamlined and efficient as it aged, with an overall decrease in violations, attributed by staff to 45 the letters sent to those areas prior to inspections. Mr. Trudgeon advised that initially 46 approximately 8% of those properties were cited; with that number down to approximately 47 3.9% in 2011. Mr. Trudgeon noted this was due to the positive communication and 48 approaches of inspectors interacting with residents; and the residents embracing the program, 49 creating a total role reversal in code enforcement. 50 51 c.Update on CURA Research 52 Ms. Kelsey updated the HRA on the work of the student intern provided through a CURA 53 Research grant to study intergenerational housing and social welfare issues in community. Ms. 54 Kelsey reviewed some of the preliminary statistical information, advising that the formal 55 report was still in process and would be presented at a later date.