2013-04-16_HRA_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes Tuesday, April 16, 2013 Page 9 1 same bind, and questioned how to best address the problems. Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the 2 process continue moving forward as a work in progress; noting that the ordinance itself would 3 not set fees, but that they would become part of the annual fee schedule adopted by the City 4 Council. In defining the nuts and bolts of the program, Mr. Trudgeon opined that it would be 5 worthwhile to keep it moving, and allowing further discussion at the City Council, HRA and 6 public hearing levels while other options may come forward. Mr. Trudgeon expressed his 7 interest in finding s fair balance that may prove difficult but possible in the end. 8 9 Further discussion ensued on the status of the ordinance, yet to be drafted, previous anticipated 10 implementation in 2013, but delayed to 2014; how the process would proceed or drafting and 11 vetting the ordinance followed by adoption and then implementation; and timing 12 considerations for property owners and City staff. 13 14 Ms. Kelsey reiterated the requested action tonight to provide this feedback for staff and 15 authorize staff to bring this proposed outline to the City Council for their input, which had last 16 been provided in preliminary form to them in November of 2012, and then followed by 17 working with and communicating with property owners, with over 5,000 noticed sent out to 18 rental property owners and members of the MMHFA, and only thirty (30) people attending the 19 20 bringing it up to the public throughout the process. 21 22 Member Masche noted that the discussion about rental housing registration and licensing had 23 been ongoing for years in the City of Roseville. 24 25 Member Majerus concurred, noting that the frustrations with certain rental properties in 26 Roseville had also been ongoing for many years. 27 28 At the request of Chair Maschka, Ms. Kelsey summarized the CURA report and metropolitan 29 communities included (e.g. Hopkins, Rochester, Duluth, New Hope, and Brooklyn Center) and 30 noted the rationale in choosing the Brooklyn Center model based on the tiered process. Ms. 31 Kelsey offered to provide the HRA with costs and fee structures based on that report (last 32 33 scheduled intended to establish criteria for classifications for an A, B, C, or D property and to 34 make that fair upfront by having 100% initial inspection fees to establish a benchmark upfront 35 for each property and moving forward. Ms. Kelsey noted that staff was open to 36 recommendations of the HRA in how to move forward fairly. 37 38 At the request of Chair Maschka, Ms. Kelsey confirmed that staff had available an inventory of 39 buildings and the number of units per building for a total cost upfront, which they could 40 provide, as well as comparisons with other communities currently doing annual inspections 41 and their annual fees. Ms. Kelsey noted that it represented more of a cost burden, but when 42 compared with Little Canada for third-party annual inspections and fees, their cost was triple 43 that for established properties in Roseville, and over a three-year term became much more 44 financially manageable for good properties. 45 46 Chair Maschka expressed interest in getting more information on that. 47 48 Member Willmus questioned why a different fee structure based on license type would not be 49 possible, providing a huge incentive. 50 51 Ms. Kelsey questioned how the cost of inspections would be covered; and whether the City 52 wanted to subsidize that cost or a portion of the cost to incentivize the program. 53 54 Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting that the more the fees were lowered, the more dollars that 55 would be required from the City and HRA tax levies.