2006-09-16_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Recommendation #6 —Allocate RHRA resources to cr eate a comprehensive education program associated with rental property and c ity codes. The program would address such topics as the Property Maintenance Code, landl ord and tenant rights and responsibilities, rental occupancy limits, and resources availabl e to both property owners and renters etc. The program and materials would be modified to address a range of audiences including realtors, colleges and college students, citi zens, all property owners, etc. The program should also include development of an official City pamphlet on the Rental Registration Program, pertinent codes and regulations, and la ndlords and tenants re sponsibilities. An investigation should be made in to the feasibility of adding to real estate sale closing document checkbox indicating that the buyer has received and read the City information regarding existing maintenance c odes and rental registration. Recommendation #7 — The RHRA should create a line item in its budget for a revolving abatement fund that could be used by the City to make emergency repairs that would be billed to the property owner or certified on the property taxes. Recommendation #8 — The Planning Commission or another appropriate body should take up issues related to parking becaus e these are largely zoning matters and are complex and citywide in nature and outside the scope of this Committee. Discussion Item: The RHRA should consider cost-sharing the expense of computer software and data entry so data about parking complaints could be rolled into the review of the proposed rental registration program in two years. Recommendation #9 —The HRA and Committee expect clear and accurate performance data at the end of the 2-year period. To do so, the Community Development Department might need resources and/or internal administ rative policies that improve data collection and analysis across departmental lines. Conclusion: Members of the Citizen Advisory Group have expressed their support for the recommendations. The members are thankful for the respect of each member of the group throughout the process and appreciate a ll the city staff and citizens who offered comment and support to the Committee during its work. Many members felt that the process was very positive and had changed original positions and attitudes that they held at the firs t meeting. The CAG appreciated that multiple perspectives were engaged in genuine a nd respectful dialogue and that by working together they had been able to come to a place of understand and compromise that met everyone’s needs. Everyone agreed it had been a respectful and rewa rding experience and made them proud of the City and how the process had been designed and carried out.