2013-04-16_HRA_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes Tuesday, April 16, 2013 Page 4 1 crime-free properties, with the housing program providing for more interaction with landlords, 2 property managers, and their staff, as well as potentially tenants that would eliminate potential 3 problems and issues. 4 5 Mr. Trudgeon reviewed projected fees, providing examples, based on the building and number 6 of units; and subsequent classification of buildings based on the results of the initial inspection. 7 Mr. Trudgeon provided comparisons with communities having similar programs (e.g. 8 Brooklyn Center and Little Canada) and how inspection fee costs would ultimately be borne by 9 problem properties as opposed to those properties in compliance. 10 11 Staff sought further direction from the HRA Board and authorization to make recommendation 12 to start drafting an ordinance to bring back before the HRA Board, then the City Council for 13 their input, a public hearing and other public vetting opportunities. 14 15 At the request of Member Willmus, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the purpose of using the 16 Brooklyn Center model on which to draft that for the City of Roseville was due to their 17 similarity after the initial classification, with 100% of units inspected initially. However, Mr. 18 Trudgeon noted that the Brooklyn Center model provided for that inspection to continue, 19 whether the property was classified A, B, C, or D; even though approximately 80% of their 20 properties were found as A and B classed properties. Mr. Trudgeon noted that their inspection 21 schedule had been in existence over the last three (3) years, with some evolution during that 22 time. 23 24 At the request of Chair Maschka, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff continued to discuss at 25 which point a property moved up in classification, noting that at the point of relicensing would 26 seem to provide a natural opportunity. However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that discussions were 27 still ongoing about how and when a follow-up inspection was done to ensure initial 28 deficiencies had been addressed, with the intent being to encourage those improvements at 29 their earliest possibility. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this would need to be determined for 30 inclusion in ordinance language; with the ultimate goal being compliance, and recognition 31 deserved by those making improvements. 32 33 At the request of Member Quam, discussion ensued regarding the initial inspection fee and 34 renewal fees depending on classification of a property, depending on the number of units, 35 purpose of the fee to pay for inspection services, probably by city-approved third party 36 inspectors, since the City would only have a minimal overhead costs for data retention and 37 monitoring properties; what those interior insp 38 and standard expectations (e.g. plumbing, mechanicals, electrical, carpeting, walls); and 39 whether or not those inspections would be above and beyond code compliance issues in 40 Section 906, with Mr. Trudgeon clarifying that portion of the code would need to be amended, 41 as it was quite antiquated. 42 43 Member Quam expressed her preference to amend Section 906 of City Code before 44 implementing the rental housing licensing and inspections. 45 46 Ms. Kelsey advised that the amendment would be done in conjunction with the licensing 47 ordinance, as it needed to be clear and concise for property owners and inspectors to have clear 48 guidance of what met or did not meet those standards, what was considered hazardous, and 49 what needed immediate follow-up. 50 51 Member Quam advised that she wanted to make sure the standards were one and the same and 52 all available on the website so owners could be aware ahead of time of those expectations. 53