2013-02-19_HRA_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 19, 2013 Page 5 1 advised that the Association liked a tiered program that provided incentives for improvement 2 for rental property owners/managers, putting the pressure on bad operators. Ms. Peilen 3 4 fees, disliking a per building and per un 5 are not out-of-line, Ms. Peilen noted that their concern was that they would have to pay the 6 fees in addition to paying for their own inspections. Ms. Peilen noted, however, that few cities 7 did their own inspections due to staff constraints. Ms. Peilen advised that the City of Brooklyn 8 Center did not charge an additional amount for initial inspections; and while understanding 9 10 budget, Ms. Peilen advised that most cities pay for those inspections. 11 12 Ms. Kelsey advised that, to her knowledge at this time, the Cities of Little Canada, West St. 13 Paul, and South St. Paul perform inspections, with fees associated with licensing included in 14 the City fees. Ms. Peilen confirmed for Ms. Kelsey that those cities paying the inspection fees 15 do not have a tiered system similar to the Brooklyn Center model. Ms. Kelsey noted that 16 property owners with the better-managed properties would not pay an annual fee. 17 18 Ms. Peilen expressed appreciation for that provision, and noted that a three-year inspection 19 cycle further mitigated those inspections costs for property owners. On behalf of the 20 Association members, Ms. Peilen reiterated that the fees and inspection costs remained their 21 biggest concern; but expressed appreciation to staff and the HRA for their willingness to work 22 with property owners. 23 24 Ms. Kelsey advised that all attending the previous public hearing on rental licensing had been 25 26 them involved in the process. 27 28 Along with staff, Ms. Peilen noted with disappointment that no property owners were present 29 they were notified by her and Ms. Kelsey of the meeting; and 30 assured the HRA that she would report to them on this meeting. 31 32 By consensus, members concurred that Attachment A as drafted by staff was a good starting 33 point, highlighting the fee and constitutionality issues; and suggested staff use it for the joint 34 City Council/HRA meeting in March for discussion purposes. 35 36 Chair Maschka opined that this approach was a good one, specifically in incentivizing people 37 to cooperate and become partners, while allowing the City to remain as non-intrusive as 38 possible. 39 40 b. Housing Replacement Program (HRP) 41 Ms. Kelsey reviewed the previous program as adopted and revised in 1998 (Attachment A) for 42 the existing Housing Replacement Program (HRP) originally developed and managed by the 43 City Council, and subsequently transferred to HRA management; seeking input from Members 44 on whether or not to continue the program with the same or similar criteria. 45 46 Discussion included neighborhood context; criteria for a minimum 3bedroom, 2 full bath, 2 car 47 garage, and hard surfaced driveway all based on the City of Richfield model. 48 49 Ms. Kelsey noted that rationale for the Richfield model was to incent purchase of lots; 50 however, their typical lot was half the size of that in Roseville. Ms. Kelsey advised that they 51 also provided a $50,000 grant to demolish existing homes, and offered an additional $5,000 for 52 53 if the City of Roseville was confiden 54 ensure new homes constructed under the HRP were code compliant. 55