2012-08-21_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 4 1 Ms. French advised that, while she had no recommendation for a specific program, the report 2 was very well done, and she intended to use some of its ideas and information in her efforts 3 along the same line. Ms. French noted that there were many opportunities available to 4 implement various program initiatives 5 6 7 forward; as well as whether they thought the report should be forwarded to the City Council 8 for similar review and discussion. Ms. Kelsey clarified that staff intended the City Council 9 discussion to be a presentation for open discussion on potential program ideas based on 10 recommendations of the report before staff put any programming together. Ms. Kelsey noted 11 that this would involve revising current or adopting new ordinances. Depending on the 12 recommendations of the City Council, Ms. Kelsey advised that those programming 13 recommendations may or may not need to come back to the HRA; and recommended that 14 updates and discussions be addressed at the proposed quarterly meetings of the City Council 15 and HRA Board. 16 17 Chair Maschka noted another concept previously discussed included using a Trust to take 18 chronic multi-family problem properties; and opined that it would be important to include that 19 as a recommended option as well. 20 21 Ms. Kelsey noted that this would be through the Tenant Remediation Act, following multiple 22 and/or continuous violations, but would be an action at the City Council level for their 23 recognition and adoption of findings of fact to support such a taking. 24 25 In response to Member Willmus, Ms. Kelsey advised that the three (3) cities referenced in the 26 report currently having targeted license options (page 18) included Brooklyn Center (with their 27 program in existence since 1975); Coon Rapids (in existence since 2009); and Hopkins (in 28 existence since 2008). 29 30 While the core of it remained in place, Ms. French noted that many components of the program 31 referenced above had been challenged and amended throughout the years through the court 32 system (e.g. three strike system if the police department was called three times and potential in 33 those circumstances for the owner to lose their rental license, creating a hardship for them 34 l the behavior of their tenants or the number of calls). 35 36 At the request of Chair Maschka, Ms. French advised that the lease addendum, developed by 37 the Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Program, considered any criminal activity, not 38 necessarily only a conviction of such an activity or having gone through the court system 39 process as grounds for eviction. Ms. French noted that this could include a police department 40 finding drug paraphernalia in a unit, fighting in the hallway, or similar activities that would be 41 considered enough as a function of the crime-free program; and allowing the Crime Free 42 Program through the lease addendum agreement signed by tenants to have a police officer 43 testify on their behalf or partner with them to explain the rationale for eviction to a judge. Ms. 44 45 to evict a tenant. 46 47 At the request of Chair Maschka, Ms. French explained the program in more detail, targeted at 48 those landlords not managing their properties well, but not directed at those responsible 49 landlords. Ms. French commended staff and the intern for the report, opining that it contained 50 great data and was very accurate. Ms. French noted that one of the push backs or objections is 51 the cost of inspections becoming burdensome for property owners doing business; however, 52 53 first one, or reducing 54 the cost for them due to longer periods between inspections. 55