My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-08-15_Agenda
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Housing Redevelopment Authority
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2006
>
2006-08-15_Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/25/2011 8:05:06 AM
Creation date
3/24/2010 1:42:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Housing Redevelopment Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
8/15/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
Meeting date: June 19, 2006 p. 5 of 7 <br />Response: Yes. It is important to work with the colleges on developing an education program <br />for students. <br />Observation: Northwestern College would welc ome the opportunity to wo rk with the City in <br />developing educational strategies and t ools targeted to students and parents. <br />Observation: The building inspection program can be a positive thing, especially since most <br />people want to do things right and will comply. <br /> <br />To wrap-up this portion of the meeting, the advi sory group asked Don what he would like to see <br />happen. He responded by saying the licensing progr am is a good tool and a way for the City to <br />be proactive about the City’s aging housing stock a nd other issues it is conf ronting. It also will <br />free up time for staff to address proble ms with owner-occupied properties. <br /> <br />Survey of Other Cities <br />The group had limited discussion about the survey. One member noted that the survey indicates <br />that 6 cities conduct annual inspections and that this seemed high. Another member noted that <br />owners who fail to show for an inspection are fined. <br /> <br />Proposed Licensing Ordinance <br />The group had several questions about the ordi nance and it implementation and enforcement. <br />Don did his best to field questi on. (As before the questions and answers have been paraphrased <br />and grouped into by topic.) <br /> <br />Licensing Program Design, Implementation, and Enforcement <br />Q: What documentation would be required to pr ove a violation or that a property is rental? <br />A: Eyewitness testimony; evidence from research <br /> <br />Q: Would $30,000 to hire another person to help with enforcement be as effective as another <br />ordinance? <br />A: The City needs another ordinance to a ddress cars and overcrowding. Also, licensing <br />procedures would verify the responsible party. <br /> <br />Q: What are the carrots for the program, especially the small apartments? <br />A: One is to waive an inspection if the property has a clean record. <br />Observation: The program is a good enforcemen t tool, especially when the owner lives out-of- <br />state. <br /> <br />Q: The ordinance seems to have been written for problem properties. For example, page 2-lines <br />6 & 7, why collect the names of the tenant H ead of Household? This could be difficult <br />especially as renters move in and out. Simila rly, page 2-line 43, why no inspection if the owner <br />lives there? <br />A: If the renter calls in a co mplaint, there could be an insp ection. Also, during public hearing <br />process, on-site owners organized to have this provision changed. <br />Observation: This doesn’t seem fair. There could be dangerous conditions in the owner- <br />occupied apartment that would e ndanger others in the building. <br /> <br />Q: Can licenses be pro-rated for “snowbirds” who live in their homes when they are in the state?
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.