Laserfiche WebLink
9. Information, Reports and Other Business <br />a.Update on 2006 Preliminary Levy Certification by Council (HF31) <br />Executive Director Bennett reported that the City Council set the HRA preliminary levy at the <br />requested amount of $288,985 on a 4-1 vote with the majority of the Council supporting the <br />establishment of a single family rental licensing program in 2006. <br />b.Review of Proposed Rental Licensing Options (HF36) <br />HRA staff provided a summary of a proposed ordinance that has been reviewed over the past <br />several years by the City Attorney and the codes staff. The summary provides the HRA will an <br />introduction of the process for rental licensing of rental homes up to 4 units which would include <br />single family detached, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in Roseville. The draft ordinance and <br />process and procedure for a program was prepared after review of several area city’s ordinance <br />such as Shoreview, New Brighton, Mounds View, Coon Rapids, Red Wing and St. Louis Park. <br />The City Council is required to adopt an ordinance and designate the HRA as the administrator of <br />the program. As proposed, this would include the HRA serving as the Appeals Board, providing <br />a recommendation to the City Council on all appeals. Any changes to the ordinance would need <br />final approval from the City Council with a recommendation by the HRA. <br />Executive Director noted that they are still working with the HRC on a contract proposal through <br />the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC). Since this would be a new service for <br />them, they are required to gain board support which is scheduled for this month’s review. <br />Member Scheunemann suggested that compliance requirements that included a building, <br />electrical or plumbing permit may not need a re-inspection if the contractor certifies that the work <br />have been completed and a final permit is issued. He also noted that there should be a stiff <br />penalty if the work is not completed within the time frame provided. This will serve as an <br />incentive to the owner to get the work completed in a timely manner. He also explained that the <br />age of the homes in Roseville is an issue and that in some other communities they require that the <br />owner or management company to be posted at the front door for emergency issues such as police <br />or fire. <br />Member Kelsey asked how many other cities have the HRA administer the program. Bennett <br />noted that there are many structures of HRA’s within Cities and that no direct comparison is <br />possible. She noted that the City of Morris does administer the ordinance though a contract with <br />the City. Member Kelsey suggested that the HRA attorney review the ordinance for liability and <br />to protect the interest related specifically to the HRA. Member Kelsey asked what the incentive <br />was for them to administer the program. Bennett noted that the HRA have more tools to help <br />complete improvements and being part of the process will help keep the HRA informed of the <br />housing issues within Roseville’s neighborhoods for future program planning. <br />Member Bean felt that this was a good joint project for the HRA and the City working together <br />on housing issues. <br />Member Millasovich asked if the fees are expected to cover the cost of the program. (No – maybe <br />½ of the program costs would be covered with the fees.) <br />Member Kelsey explained that the fees, especially for re-inspection and non-compliance, should <br />be high enough so that there is a reason to “think twice” about not making the improvements. <br />3 <br /> <br />