2013-08-13_HRA_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 13, 2013 Page 8 1 2 3 Section 908.03 Licensing Requirements, D. Occupancy Register 4 r the list of 5 complaints and repairs, and responses to those items. Ms. Peilen advised that work orders 6 were typically filed by individual unit, and if required to be chronological, it would prove 7 cumbersome for rental property owners. 8 9 From his personal perspective, Chair Maschka opined that if the individual unit files were open 10 for access by the inspector at any given time, it made sense to remove that requirement. 11 12 Ms. Kelsey suggested that the HRA received recommendations and/or comments at this time, 13 and then after consultation with the City Attorney, staff would recommend revisions to the 14 HRA for future action as applicable and as indicated. 15 16 Section 908.07 Licensing Suspensions, Revocation, Denial and Nonrenewal, C. Grounds for 17 License Action, e. 18 Ms. Peilen advised that the Association had provided staff with proposed language revising 19 this section. 20 or suspend a registration certificate, or to fine a licensee or applicant, if it appears the licensee 21 Ms. Peilen 22 aken 23 appropriate measures to correct the violation. Ms. Peilen advised that this could be addressed 24 through the crime- 25 on that addendum providing a quicker and less formal solution for eviction rather than the 26 proposed language and potential license suspension, revocation, denial or non-renewal for 27 property owners when they were successful in removing a tenant in another manner. Ms. 28 Peilen further noted that this provided incentive for remove the tenant without formal filing by 29 the property owner against them. Ms. Peilen opined that she hated to see a multi-family 30 property owner lose their rental license if they had taken other steps to remove a tenant. 31 32 Member Willmus opined that using the rental addendum for undesirable tenant removal was a 33 very effective strategy, one that he had personally utilized in his property rental business. 34 35 Douglas Jones, 4025 Stinson Blvd. (Owner of a 40-unit townhome building on Old 36 Highway 8 since 1988) 37 Mr. Jones advised that he was also concerned about those items mentioned by Ms. Peilen; 38 stating that his firm owned multiple buildings throughout the metropolitan area. Mr. Jones 39 noted that their maintenance requests were done centrally, not by building or unit, with a 40 maintenance crew handling all of their property complaints/maintenance requests on a priority 41 level. Mr. Jones opined that a chronological list would be cumbersome for their firm, and 42 questioned why an inspector would need that information or how it would be relevant after the 43 44 45 such a requirement. 46 47 With concurrence by Chair Maschka Ms. Kelsey responded that the rationale was for 48 producing evidence for accountability purposes in ensuring that complaints were being 49 followed-up. 50 51 Mr. Jones advised that his firm would have to create an entirely separate record specific for the 52 City of Roseville property since all of their properties were centrally filed, with a team of six 53 (6) full-time maintenance staff to respond to all of their properties depending on the priority of 54 the complaint or maintenance issue. 55