Laserfiche WebLink
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes Tuesday, April 16, 2013 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />1 <br />At the request of Member Willmus, Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that there would be an appeal <br />2 <br />process built into the ordinance for the benefit of property owners, similar to that currently <br />3 <br />used in the NEP. <br />4 <br /> <br />5 <br />At the request of Member Willmus, Mr. Trudgeon anticipated some information, similar to that <br />6 <br />presented to the HRA tonight, to be available for discussion and initial feedback from the City <br />7 <br />Council in the near future; potential work on language by staff in May/June of 2013, then <br />8 <br />coming back to the HRA and City Council for additional feedback; followed by public <br />9 <br />hearings. <br />10 <br /> <br />11 <br />Ms. Kelsey advised that, staff hoped to begin inspections in the fall of 2013 to initially develop <br />12 <br />grades, and then set the fee schedule and inspection schedule up on an annual basis, but not at <br />13 <br />the same time as single-family rental registration annually in July, in order for staff to <br />14 <br />effectively manage their time. <br />15 <br />Public Comment <br />16 <br />Lisa Peilen, Director of Municipal Affairs with the Minnesota Multi-Family Housing <br />17 <br />Association <br />18 <br />Ms. Peilen noted her familiarity with the Brooklyn Center ordinance, having worked with them <br />19 <br />during its adoption. In principle, Ms. Peilen advised that the MMFHA liked the tiered system <br />20 <br />and philosophy behind it, with rewards for well-managed properties and putting the burden on <br />21 <br />the bad apples. Ms. Peilen advised that the MMFHA also had no problem with a lease <br />22 <br />addendum to incentivize crime-free and drug-free properties. <br />23 <br /> <br />24 <br />While not having an issue with the general body of the ordinance, Ms. Peilen noted where the <br />25 <br />City of Roseville parted company with the Brooklyn Center ordinance was in the area of fees. <br />26 <br /> <br />27 <br />While the Brooklyn Center fees covered the cost of inspections, which was also the case she <br />28 <br />found in almost every other city, Ms. Peilen noted that the fees proposed for Roseville created <br />29 <br />a huge philosophical issue for MMFHA members who would have to pay for their own <br />30 <br />inspection fees; and caused the question of what did they get out of it. Ms. Peilen noted that <br />31 <br />this became an operational cost for property owners/managers, with one of their members, <br />32 <br />Hyland Apartments/Lexington Apartments/Townhomes, whose representative was unable to <br />33 <br />result in a significant additional cost of doing <br />34 <br />business, and ultimately an increase in tenant lease amounts. Ms. Peilen asked that the fees be <br />35 <br />put in context with other costs of doing business (e.g. property taxes, mandated costs by other <br />36 <br />37 <br />large properties, the fee structure proposed by Roseville would add up, and used the Cities of <br />38 <br />West St. Paul and South St. Paul as examples of inspection fees, with those not well-received <br />39 <br />by property owners either. <br />40 <br /> <br />41 <br />Ms. Peilen asked that the HRA reconsider the fee schedule; and thanked the HRA for their <br />42 <br />outreach to their industry. <br />43 <br /> <br />44 <br />Brian Kelly, Vice President/CEO of 3,500 units in the Metropolitan area and St. Cloud <br />45 <br />Owners of Palisades Apartments in Roseville (Highway 36 and Dale Street); Member of <br />46 <br />MMFHA <br />47 <br />Mr. Kelly expre <br />48 <br />reviewed recent improvements made by his firm to Palisades Apartments in Roseville. <br />49 <br /> <br />50 <br />With the assistance of Ms. Kelsey, Mr. Kelly calculated the anticipated additional inspection <br />51 <br />fee of $10,000 that represented real money to their firm; and expressed his concern about the <br />52 <br />53 <br />projected that their properties would be classed high and not require subsequent inspections <br />54 <br />other than a percentage of units as proposed. Mr. Kelly also noted that, if the inspection <br />55 <br />program was to be implemented in the fall, annual budgets would already have been set for <br /> <br />