My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-05-21_HRA_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Housing Redevelopment Authority
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2013
>
2013-05-21_HRA_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2013 10:26:35 AM
Creation date
6/19/2013 10:26:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Housing Redevelopment Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/21/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes Tuesday, April 16, 2013 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />1 <br />same bind, and questioned how to best address the problems. Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the <br />2 <br />process continue moving forward as a work in progress; noting that the ordinance itself would <br />3 <br />not set fees, but that they would become part of the annual fee schedule adopted by the City <br />4 <br />Council. In defining the nuts and bolts of the program, Mr. Trudgeon opined that it would be <br />5 <br />worthwhile to keep it moving, and allowing further discussion at the City Council, HRA and <br />6 <br />public hearing levels while other options may come forward. Mr. Trudgeon expressed his <br />7 <br />interest in finding s fair balance that may prove difficult but possible in the end. <br />8 <br /> <br />9 <br />Further discussion ensued on the status of the ordinance, yet to be drafted, previous anticipated <br />10 <br />implementation in 2013, but delayed to 2014; how the process would proceed or drafting and <br />11 <br />vetting the ordinance followed by adoption and then implementation; and timing <br />12 <br />considerations for property owners and City staff. <br />13 <br /> <br />14 <br />Ms. Kelsey reiterated the requested action tonight to provide this feedback for staff and <br />15 <br />authorize staff to bring this proposed outline to the City Council for their input, which had last <br />16 <br />been provided in preliminary form to them in November of 2012, and then followed by <br />17 <br />working with and communicating with property owners, with over 5,000 noticed sent out to <br />18 <br />rental property owners and members of the MMHFA, and only thirty (30) people attending the <br />19 <br />20 <br />bringing it up to the public throughout the process. <br />21 <br /> <br />22 <br />Member Masche noted that the discussion about rental housing registration and licensing had <br />23 <br />been ongoing for years in the City of Roseville. <br />24 <br /> <br />25 <br />Member Majerus concurred, noting that the frustrations with certain rental properties in <br />26 <br />Roseville had also been ongoing for many years. <br />27 <br /> <br />28 <br />At the request of Chair Maschka, Ms. Kelsey summarized the CURA report and metropolitan <br />29 <br />communities included (e.g. Hopkins, Rochester, Duluth, New Hope, and Brooklyn Center) and <br />30 <br />noted the rationale in choosing the Brooklyn Center model based on the tiered process. Ms. <br />31 <br />Kelsey offered to provide the HRA with costs and fee structures based on that report (last <br />32 <br />33 <br />scheduled intended to establish criteria for classifications for an A, B, C, or D property and to <br />34 <br />make that fair upfront by having 100% initial inspection fees to establish a benchmark upfront <br />35 <br />for each property and moving forward. Ms. Kelsey noted that staff was open to <br />36 <br />recommendations of the HRA in how to move forward fairly. <br />37 <br /> <br />38 <br />At the request of Chair Maschka, Ms. Kelsey confirmed that staff had available an inventory of <br />39 <br />buildings and the number of units per building for a total cost upfront, which they could <br />40 <br />provide, as well as comparisons with other communities currently doing annual inspections <br />41 <br />and their annual fees. Ms. Kelsey noted that it represented more of a cost burden, but when <br />42 <br />compared with Little Canada for third-party annual inspections and fees, their cost was triple <br />43 <br />that for established properties in Roseville, and over a three-year term became much more <br />44 <br />financially manageable for good properties. <br />45 <br /> <br />46 <br />Chair Maschka expressed interest in getting more information on that. <br />47 <br /> <br />48 <br />Member Willmus questioned why a different fee structure based on license type would not be <br />49 <br />possible, providing a huge incentive. <br />50 <br /> <br />51 <br />Ms. Kelsey questioned how the cost of inspections would be covered; and whether the City <br />52 <br />wanted to subsidize that cost or a portion of the cost to incentivize the program. <br />53 <br /> <br />54 <br />Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting that the more the fees were lowered, the more dollars that <br />55 <br />would be required from the City and HRA tax levies. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.