Laserfiche WebLink
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes Tuesday, April 16, 2013 <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />2 <br />Chair Maschka opined that it may be a discussion worth having. <br />3 <br /> <br />4 <br />Member Willmus concurred; opining that the City had properties in higher standing, which <br />5 <br />were a benefit to the overall community in reducing blight, and such a discussion would be <br />6 <br />prudent. <br />7 <br /> <br />8 <br />Member Quam opined that fees could be reduced by not inspecting at 100% of the units <br />9 <br />initially. <br />10 <br /> <br />11 <br />Mr. Trudgeon questioned how to address equal housing issues if that were attempted, and how <br />12 <br />to protect the City from discrimination litigation. Mr. Trudgeon opined that the only other way <br />13 <br />from his perspective was to inspect 25% of every building. However, Mr. Trudgeon <br />14 <br />questioned if good results would be obtained; and opined that in order to understand the <br />15 <br />problems of the 10% properties, staff was intending to correct problems through initial <br />16 <br />inspection of 100% of the units. <br />17 <br /> <br />18 <br />Ms. Kelsey anticipated the cost would be approximately $100,000; and offered to share the <br />19 <br />numbers in more detail with the HRA, City Council and public as part of ongoing discussions. <br />20 <br /> <br />21 <br />Chair Maschka asked that those detailed numbers be brought forward in the near future to the <br />22 <br />HRA. <br />23 <br /> <br />24 <br />At the request of Member Elkins, Ms. Kelsey addressed the complaints fielded by staff from <br />25 <br />Roseville tenants in multi-family rental units. Ms. Kelsey advised that many of the problems <br />26 <br />were identified by social works, school districts and based on building condition rather than <br />27 <br />28 <br />challenges in enforcing issues, since a third-party complaint could not be recognized or a unit <br />29 <br />inspected, thus the rationale in the proposed ordinance. <br />30 <br /> <br />31 <br />At the request of Member Elkins, Ms. Kelsey advised hat staff does not currently maintain a <br />32 <br />database on file of problem properties or conditions of individual units. Ms. Kelsey further <br />33 <br />34 <br />only provided am address for police calls, and their information had to be filtered out and <br />35 <br />seldom shared due to privacy issues. Ms. Kelsey advised that staff in both departments were <br />36 <br />currently trying to filter the system to cross-correlate between departments for repeat nuisance, <br />37 <br />while maintaining privacy; with constraints of the Community <br />38 <br />nuisance-based code violations based on exterior inspections, and no way to get into properties <br />39 <br />without a complaint being filed. Ms. Kelsey noted that this was further complicated by the <br />40 <br />41 <br />more challenges for the City, the Police Department, and School District. <br />42 <br /> <br />43 <br />Motion: Member Masche moved, seconded by Member Lee to direct staff to initiate <br />44 <br />drafting a draft ordinance to bring back to the HRA. <br />45 <br /> <br />46 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />47 <br />Nays: 0 <br />48 <br /> Motion carried. <br />49 <br /> <br />50 <br />Member Majerus asked that staff keep reminding the HRA of other suburbs going down the <br />51 <br />same path to keep comparisons and contrasts in mind. <br />52 <br /> <br />53 <br />Member Masche expressed his support of the tier system. <br />54 <br /> <br />55 <br />Chair Maschka concurred, suggesting that Roseville take that good idea and make it better. <br /> <br />