CC_Minutes_2015_0406 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,April 6,2015 Page 16 In terms of the process used for this first round of inspections, Chair Roe stated that it was his understanding that it was for ranking buildings for licensing purposes, and no payment or inspection fee would be assigned, and taken care of during subsequent in- spections. Mr. Munson responded that this was not accurate, and even though the first round of in- spections was intended to be educational, fees would be required to cover the cost of the program. At the request of Chair Roe as to whether the appellant had paid their fee, Mr. Munson responded that they had done so and had paid it promptly. Chair Roe asked if, on the next renewal inspection round based on those inspection re- sults, the appellant could improve the grade of their building(s) and therefore reduce the rental licensing fee as well as frequency of subsequent inspections. Mr. Munson responded that the first round of inspections had been conducted in 2014 and rental licensing fees were payable by January 1, 2015. If a property was designated as a "D" category property, Mr. Munson advised that at the time of the renewal inspec- tion in six months and second fee due, at that time if fewer violations were found, as staff anticipated to occur, the property would be deemed as improved and not require as fre- quent of inspections and payments would be based on the new grade. Board Member McGehee addressed the door locks, specifically the one mentioned as an access point for tenants; and questioned if staff evaluated unit locks as well as exterior building locks. Mr. Munson responded that any locks installed on a building were inspected and intended to be functional, whether on doors or windows. Board Member McGehee questioned how a determination was made on locks intended to allow access by children going in and out of their units as standard operating practice by tenants. Mr. Munson responded that this was not considered a violation on individual unit doors, only in common areas. Chair Roe asked, for the benefit of the public and refresher for the Board, that staff re- view how their determination was made, the number of units inspected and type and range of violations that could place a property in the"D" category. Mr. Englund used the 175 building as an example, noting twenty violations noted, with a description of each violation and their specific location shown on the back. Mr. Englund reiterated that even when multiple occasions were found (e.g. non-approved drain con-