CC_Minutes_2013_0520 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 20, 2013 Page 27 cused on the few poorly-managed properties. However, Ms. Peilen advised that few cities seek property owners to pay the inspection. Ms. Kelsey advised that the projected licensing fee for property owners would be $100/property and $10/unit, with the intent that the fee would go directly to the City of Roseville for additional resources to administer the program by designated staff. Ms. Peilen noted that only three other cities had an additional inspection fee above and beyond the license fee, with other cities providing the initial inspection and one follow-up inspection as part of the licensing fee itself. At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Kelsey advised that following that practice, the City's initial license fee would be higher compared with other communities, but once the property owner was classified at the high end (Type A), their subsequent fees would then be less than those other communities, and they would only pay inspection fees once every three years, with many communities requiring payment annually. Ms. Kelsey noted that this proposed tiered system was the only one staff was aware of, and based on a sample 230-unit property, as indicated. If the City brought everything in-house as other communities do, the cost would be much higher. As an example, the City of Coon Rapids passes on 100% of the cost of the program for in-house inspection staff and administering the program. The proposed eventual inspection schedule of once every three years provided a rea- sonable cost for property owners. Ms. Peilen advised that it was atypical for a property owner to pay both a licens- ing fee and pay for your own third-party inspections, especially if you were cate- gorized as a Type B or C property, and increased frequency for inspections. Ms. Peilen advised that the typical license fee covered one inspection and one follow- up inspection. Ms. Kelsey clarified that the City fee covered one follow-up, and only charged if a second follow-up was required. Mayor Roe suggested the possibility of not spelling out the inspections as part of the license fee to be more in line with other communities. Ms. Kelsey clarified provided the rationale in separating out the cost based on ac- tual costs for hiring a third-party inspector differentiating that cost and the associ- ated fees, for the benefit of the property owner and the City in administering the program. As noted by Ms. Peilen, there were three cities already doing it that way, with 100% of the cost absorbed by the property owner and absorbing the li- censing fees. Ms. Kelsey noted that other communities had internal staff to cover inspections, ultimately with the same costs after the initial inspection of 100% of