My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-06-15_packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Housing Redevelopment Authority
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2010
>
2010-06-15_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2011 10:42:26 AM
Creation date
2/22/2011 10:42:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Housing Redevelopment Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/15/2010
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes – Tuesday, May 18, 2010 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Acting Roseville Police Chief Captain Rick Mathwig and Police/Community Liaison Sarah <br /> <br /> <br />Mahmud concurred with Mr. Trudgeon’s analysis and spoke in support of the need to keep <br /> <br />renters and property owners accountable. Acting Chief Mathwig stated that in some multiple- <br /> <br />unit rental properties in Roseville, their owners have not been good stewards of City services, <br /> <br />often through violation of multiple ordinances at a single property, and provided specific <br /> <br />examples of some of those situations. <br /> <br /> <br />Discussion among Commissioners and staff included other communities having passed similar <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ordinances and the status or results achieved in those communities, among whom were the <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Robbinsdale, Faribault, and Golden Valley; modeling of the <br /> <br /> <br />draft ordinance as presented based on the existing ordinances in those communities; additional <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />staff time required initially to track nuisance violation data and send out notice letters to <br /> <br /> <br />violators versus current resources required in dealing with problem properties; potential <br /> <br /> <br />stumbling blocks for fee determination equated with staff time, squad response time and cost, <br /> <br /> <br />and the number of officers on call at the time of the nuisance call, with a cost-benefit analysis <br /> <br /> <br />required to determine that value; consideration of a blanket fee similar to the aggregate fee for <br /> <br /> <br />false burglary alarms and incremental increases, while needing to consider extraordinary <br /> <br /> <br />situations to accommodate full compensation; and the need to mesh and incorporate the fees <br /> <br /> <br />with the remainder of the City’s existing fee schedule. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Further discussion included how to verify actual and valid calls versus neighbor disputes on a <br /> <br /> <br />case by case basis, with a potential to waive fees based on the specific situation; current officer <br /> <br />calls for invalid nuisance issues on a daily basis; and other portions of City Code defining <br /> <br />“nuisance;” with an entire chapter of Code dedicated to defining “nuisances,” but this one <br /> <br />focused specifically on the Police Department rather than Code Enforcement issues (i.e., tall <br /> <br />grass, or junk in a yard); and the office of the Police Chief determining if and when fees should <br /> <br />be waived through working with property owners/management to determine whether eviction <br /> <br />processes are indicated or if the management plan sufficiently provides for mediation, with the <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />appeal process to the City Manager’s Office consistent with other appeal processes. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Motion: Member Majerus moved, seconded by Member Pust to recommend to the City <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Council enactment of an ordinance to impose and collect fees from the owner(s), <br /> <br /> <br />occupant(s), or both at properties requiring repeat response by City staff to nuisance <br /> <br /> <br />complaints. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Ayes: 7 <br /> <br /> <br />Nays: 0 <br /> <br /> <br />Abstentions: 0 <br /> <br /> <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Trudgeon reviewed a specific multi-family rental property in Roseville that provided a <br /> <br /> <br />positive resolution through cooperation and partnership between the City’s Police Department <br /> <br />through the efforts of Ms. Mahmud and development of a Security Plan; and expressed his <br /> <br />appreciation to the Police Department in achieving these positive results. <br /> <br /> <br />Chair Maschka noted that this provided for a great example of a good community policing <br /> <br />model. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />d.Living Smarter Marketing Campaign <br /> <br /> <br />Housing Coordinator Jeanne Kelsey reviewed the three (3) responses received to the City’s <br /> <br />Request for Proposals (RFP) for a marketing campaign, as detailed in the Request for HRA <br /> <br /> <br />Action dated May 18, 2010; with one party not responding directly as part of the RFP criteria; <br /> <br />and the remaining two (2) parties interviewed last week by staff and Member Masche. Ms. <br /> <br />Kelsey advised that staff was recommending the hiring of Mr. George Hornik, based on his <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.