2012-01-17_LDCMinutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Page 6 1 2 Mr. Munson opined that the current standards were not set up for long-term maintenance 3 issues, and were more simplistic and cosmetic in nature. Mr. Munson further opined that 4 standards needed to be in place to address long-term maintenance issues more specifically, and 5 encourage landlords to refurbish units between vacancies. 6 7 Chief Mathwig reiterated that a vast majority of the complexes in Roseville were great, with 8 only a few being problematic. Chief Mathwig opined that most of the problems could be 9 resolved by providing some people with a “moral adjustment” to do the right thing. Chief 10 Mathwig suggesting avoiding civil court with apartment owners to avoid extensive costs to the 11 City, and noted the success found in the Repeat Call Ordinance recently adopted in providing 12 significant return on investment through civil penalty provisions. 13 14 Member Pust cautioned that the HRA remained mindful of who was being punished, and 15 potential unintended consequences for landlords and/or property managers who were in 16 compliance, as well as negative impacts in displacing tenants in those buildings being poorly 17 managed. Member Pust asked for assurances that the need for living space was respected for 18 tenants, while addressing the human need to provide a quality place to live. Member Pust 19 reiterated the comments of Chief Mathwig that this discussion is not relevant to every 20 apartment complex in Roseville, and the need to segregate those problem properties first. 21 Member Pust expressed appreciation to members of the panel who recognized the huge cost 22 involved in enacting an inspection ordinance; and cautioned the inefficiencies of such an 23 ordinance if all properties couldn’t be inspected. Member Pust suggested finding a creative 24 solution to the problem. 25 26 Chair Mathwig concurred, noting that the vast majority of ordinances were necessitated by 27 only 2% of the population; and his preference to find a recourse to deal with that minority of 28 multi-unit building owners. 29 30 Member Pust expressed her interest in the receivership option, and asked Ms. Peilen to provide 31 more detailed information to the HRA on those types of programs, specifically what triggered 32 it, whether through non-compliance over a certain period of time, the types of code violations 33 and who initiated the receivership, and how a receiver could access a private business without 34 documented and significant issues. 35 36 Mr. Trudgeon advised that case information related to receivers had been included in the 37 HRA’s November of 2011 meeting packets for their initial review. Mr. Trudgeon noted that 38 there was also a case in St. Paul that went into receivership; and addressed concerns when 39 tenants were caught in the middle of the landlord and the enforcement action; however, he 40 opined that for certain types of development, receivers may be a perfect tool to use for 41 enforcement. 42 43 Chair Maschka expressed his personal appreciation, as well as that of the HRA Board, on the 44 work of Mr. Munson and staff on code enforcement in the community. Chair Maschka 45 questioned the process followed if a code violation was reported to the City. 46 47 Mr. Munson advised that the property maintenance code was working well from an 48 enforcement perspective, and reviewed the process for complaints received. Mr. Munson 49 further addressed violations at multi-housing buildings, and staff’s ability to address exterior 50 maintenance issues for tenants (e.g. roof leaks) and the process available to staff. Mr. Munson 51 noted that often, tenants were uncomfortable talking directly to their landlord or property 52 manager due to the fear of reprisals. Mr. Munson advised that tenants usually didn’t call staff 53 directly to report bug or rodent infestation, but rather those calls came to staff from social 54 workers who had observed a problem in a unit. However, Mr. Munson noted that the tenant