Laserfiche WebLink
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes Tuesday, April 16, 2013 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />1 <br />Mr. Trudgeon assured members that this would be accomplished, including examples of how <br />2 <br />inspections should and should not be conducted, for the benefit of property owners and <br />3 <br />inspectors. <br />4 <br /> <br />5 <br />Member Majerus sought additional research and background information by staff from <br />6 <br />Brooklyn Center staff on the sho <br />7 <br />and during the years it had been in use. <br />8 <br /> <br />9 <br />Ms. Kelsey responded that staff had asked that question after their three (3) years into the <br />10 <br />program; with the Brooklyn Center staff responding that they <br />11 <br />anything, that they were happy with the outcome and that they were achieving their goals. <br />12 <br /> <br />13 <br />Member Masche questioned if the Brooklyn Center program was revenue-neutral or if it <br />14 <br />required additional annual revenues from the HRA or City. <br />15 <br /> <br />16 <br />Ms. Kelsey advised, during the CURA research, all communities researched advised that they <br />17 <br />did supplement the program, that it was not revenue-neutral. However, Ms. Kelsey advised <br />18 <br />-neutral based on the proposed fee <br />19 <br />schedule, with other costs for administration and more hands-on than done in the past. At the <br />20 <br />request of Mr. Trudgeon, Ms. Kelsey advised that in Brooklyn Center, the first re-inspection <br />21 <br />by a third-party inspector was fee, then all inspections after that were billed. However, Ms. <br />22 <br />Kelsey reiterated that their fees do not cover the overall costs, with only one City of which she <br />23 <br />was aware of (City of Coon Rapids) who had done research and scientifically done full <br />24 <br />calculations for 100% fee covered inspections. <br />25 <br /> <br />26 <br />At the request of Member Masche, Ms. Kelsey advised that, to her knowledge, the only first or <br />27 <br />second ring suburbs not having rental registration or regulation were the Cities of Arden Hills <br />28 <br />and Maplewood. <br />29 <br /> <br />30 <br />Member Majerus suggested, as a friendly consideration as rules and an ordinance came <br />31 <br />forward, that staff get feedback from landowners/managers in multi-family units classed as A, <br />32 <br />B, or C in Brooklyn Center for their interpretation of whether or not the program is working, <br />33 <br />and not just one-sided analysis from the staff of that city. <br />34 <br /> <br />35 <br />Minnesota Multi- <br />36 <br />Family Housing Association throughout the process to provide a voice for their members <br />37 <br />involved in this licensing issue. <br />38 <br /> <br />39 <br />Member Majerus expressed his personal preference that staff still finds a way to communicate <br />40 <br />more efficiently with individual landlords. <br />41 <br /> <br />42 <br />43 <br />hired additional staff to do initial inspections; and reiterated that the major goal of Roseville <br />44 <br />staff was to take the incentivizing program of Brooklyn Center, since the City of Roseville and <br />45 <br />roblem properties, <br />46 <br />while retaining fair and consistent criteria. Therefore, Ms. Kelsey noted the minor tweaks <br />47 <br />developed from that model to inspect a percentage of units according to tiers, rather than <br />48 <br />continuing to inspect 100% of all units as done by Brooklyn Center. <br />49 <br /> <br />50 <br />At the request of Member Majerus, Ms. Kelsey addressed how guidelines and checklists were <br />51 <br />standardized across the board to prove the classification, and to document, upon re-inspection, <br />52 <br />those improvements made that would move you up a tier. <br />53 <br /> <br /> <br />