CC_Minutes_2011_0711 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Monday,July 11th,3:14 p.m.: Return call place to Mr. Munson. Homeowner states to Mr. Munson that the correction is being completed. Since this is ongoing,it is asked of Mr. Munson if he still intends to contract with private companies, and to charge it to the homeowner. Response: "Yes. We'll include payment due in next years taxes." Homeowner: "Even if the work is completed by the homeowner?" Munson: "Yes." Homeowner states that he will drive in to pick up volunteer assistance information in person, since none was received from Mr. Munson as agreed 2/14. Mr. Munson agrees to leave the requested information at the desk. Monday,July 11th, approximately 3:30pm: Homeowner arrives at City Hall. Mr. Munson has not left info as agreed. Homeowner is referred to Mr. Talbot. Mr. Talbot claims to be privy to the correction,but repeatedly misidentifies Homeowner, even after introductions. Mr. Talbot apologizes for not being able to assist. Provides Homeowner with brochure for home loans from $15,000 to$35,000,clearly outside the scope of this case. Homeowner is referred to Ms. Kelsey. A phone call to Ms. Kelsey is not immediately returned. SUMMARY OF FACT: From DAY ONE,there has been ZERO complaints lodged for this case: The overwhelming majority of the items in question are either completely out of plain sight from street level (i.e., rear garage service door, shed),or are difficult to observe due to the unique positioning of the lot and home. The Homeowner has on multiple occasions accepted sole responsibility for completion of the corrections, however continues to be under financial duress that delays completion of the correction. Yet,the work is being systematically completed as funds,supplies, and manpower are available. The Homeowner has only received one returned phone call from Mr. Munson in nearly five months, and has not received any information from him regarding volunteer assistance. CONCLUSION: It is somewhat unclear as to whether or not Mr. Munson has failed to act in good faith,but he has demonstrated, against his own word, a reluctance to synergize with Homeowner in the spirit of cooperation. His adversarial approach does not lend itself to successful completion of the correction, nor does it paint a favorable picture of his intent. Side-stepping timely and purposeful communication with homeowners with the end goal of charging repairs to their taxes,particularly in light of extraneous financial circumstances, is shameful at best. His actions,both directly and indirectly,have caused undue emotional stress for the Homeowner and his family, especially in the middle of other far more pressing concerns. Citizens of the City of Roseville deserve better. GOING FORWARD, WITH THE BLESSING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, IT IS THE INTENT OF THE HOMEOWNER TO LIASE WITH HOUSING PROGRAM MANAGER MS. JEANNE KELSEY IN AN EFFORT TO COOPERATIVELY ASSESS AND OBTAIN THE NECESSARY MATERIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES NEEDED TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THE CORRECTIONS IN THE CASE. IT IS REQUESTED THAT NO TIMETABLE BE ESTABLISHED FOR SAID COMPLETION UNTIL AFTER A PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION WITH MS. KELSEY CAN OCCUR.