Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 02-18 HCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 18, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission was called to order by Chairman Nicholas Eoloff at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Nicholas Eoloff, Commissioners Ernie Erickson, Pamela Frantum, Barbara Jensen, John Kalligher, Neal Nelson, Jon Perkins and Robert Torres. Also present were Council Liaison Phil Cohen, City Building Official Clay Larson and Assistant EDA Coordinator Tom Bublitz. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Housing Commission approved the agenda as submitted with no additions or changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1992 There was a motion by Commissioner Jensen and seconded by Commissioner Perkins to approve the January 21, 1992 minutes as submitted. The motion passed. DISCUSSION OF HOUSING MAINTENANCE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND PRESENTATION BY CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL CLAY LARSON Mr. Larson began his presentation to the Commission by explaining the position of housing inspector for the City of Brooklyn Center has been a job classification in Brooklyn Center for only two years. He explained most building inspectors come from a building construction background, while housing inspectors come from an entirely different background since their job duties are distinct from that of a building inspector. The priorities for housing inspectors in Brooklyn Center are rental housin g inspection ection and Section 8 inspections. Mr. Larson pointed out the housing inspector spends more time in the field than do the building inspectors. There is also o 1 g e i p more direct interaction between housing inspectors and residents than between building inspectors and residents. Additionally, housing inspectors are gaining more professional recognition and, in fact, a professional organization for housing inspectors has been formed. Mr. Larson then reviewed the housing inspection report form used for housing inspections for single family through multi family buildings. A report form contains sections on environmental /site conditions, building /structural conditions, 02 -18 -92 -1- I I building /heating /cooking facilities, electrical facilities and a category for miscellaneous which includes pest extermination, smoke detectors and storage of vehicles and parts. Essentially, as described by Mr. Larson, the inspection process consists of four (4) arts that are pertinent to the inspection artment. de p P p The first procedure is to perform the inspection and attempt to make direct contact with the resident to gain compliance. The second step in the process is the issuance of a written compliance order if the compliance cannot be achieved verbally. A third step in the process involves a second and possibly third issuance of a written compliance order. A maximum of three (3) notices are sent to achieve compliance, except in certain situations such as lack of smoke detectors, leaking water, etc., or other emergency conditions that must be handled immediately. The fourth step in the process is, after the third notice is issued and no compliance is achieved, a citation is issued and the process is then out of the hands of the building inspector and into the hands of the prosecuting attorney's office. Mr. Larson reviewed the inspection form used for Section 8 housing inspections. He pointed out that if one item on the form is listed as faulty, the unit does not pass the inspection. If the unit does not pass the inspection, the tenant is not required to pay rent on that unit and that unit cannot be rented if it becomes vacant. Mr. Larson reviewed the damage assessment process used in Section 8 housing and explained the City sends the damage assessment to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HUD can pay up to two and one -half times (2 1/2) the damage deposit to repair the damage. HUD then attempts to recover the cost from the tenants. Also, the owner of the property can fix the damage, such as a broken window, and charge the tenant out of the damage deposit. If the tenant refuses to pay, he or she can be evicted if the damage is serious enough. Mr. Larson continued his description of the housing inspector position and explained the housing inspector responds to complaints for all kinds of housing related items, including disputes over fences, housing maintenance and outside storage complaints, and rodent and pest infestations. Mr. Larson commented on the formation of a property managers' group in the City of Brooklyn Center. He explained the City has spearheaded this move to organize property managers who meet on a regular basis and hear informational speakers on various topics, such as Section 8, property management, police and fire issues, etc. Councilmember Cohen arrived at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Larson pointed out that one of the issues that will be 02 -18 -92 -2- addressed to the property managers' group is the issue of tenant screening. He explained that often the problem in a particular building is with the �:enants more than the upkeep of the building. He explained the Cite ordinances can enforce maintenance items, but the screening of tenants is completely within the domain of the property owner and manager. Housing Commission m mbers began a discussion of various options for maintaining and improving the housing stock through ordinance regulation and Commissioner Perkins asked Mr. Larson his assessment of the Point Of Sale ordinance used in some cities. Mr. Larson said he did not favor the Point Of Sale ordinance approach, and pointer out he would rather see a Truth In Housing type ordinance be used rather than a Point Of Sale. He commented that the Truth In Housing approach is a disclosure on the part of the seller and the disclosure is developed by a private inspector. The Truth In Housing approach, as used by the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, allows the buyer to negotiate with the seller with regard to the items contained in the disclosure statement. He added that the Point Of Sale ordinance's effectiveness is only as good as the inspector doing the inspection. Commissioner Kalligher arrived at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Larson also pointed out the Point Of Sale ordinance will not disclose such things as rotted soffit and fascia boards that you cannot see during an inspection, and will also not tell you that you may have to replace the furnace because it is fifteen to twenty (15 -20) years old, but at the time of inspection is still functioning so it is not an item that needs to be replaced. Com missioner Perkins then asked the Building Official whether he believed there was any merit in additional hours spent on inspections. Mr. Larson responded by explaining that he believes the inspections staff is able to keep up with the inspections now, and does not believe additional staff is necessary at the present time. He explained that, in addition to regularly scheduled rental inspections, the s problems i inspections staff deals with P P P n both owner occupied and rental property on a complaint basis. P However, if the syst�{m is changed or if duties are added to the department, such as Point Of Sale ordinance, then additional staff would be needed. Commission members continued their discussion of housing maintenance and neighborhood upkeep. Commissioner Jensen asked Mr. Larson if he would change anything in terms of producing the desired effect of g o d home maintenance. Mr. Larson explained that he believed cc unity education on such items as exterior maintenance, landscap.ng, etc., and a positive community reception to that education would be the thing he would like to see achieved. He added he believes the existing ordinance is adequate I 02 -18 92 3 I in terms of approaching the problem on an enforcement level. Councilmember Cohen asked Mr. Larson whether or not people have to bring their entire house up to code if they remodel a portion of it. Mr. Larson explained residents need only to bring the area they are remodeling up to code. For example, if an individual is remodeling a bathroom, the bathroom must meet the state plumbing code requirements, but the remainder of the house does not have to be brought up to any specific code. Councilmember Cohen then asked whether Mr. Larson believed that homes that have not received maintenance for many years and have deteriorated can be brought back. Mr. Larson explained that homes can be brought back, and also with lower maintenance items, such as aluminum siding, vinyl windows, etc. He pointed out this is one of the goals of the City's home rehabilitation grant program. He also added that one of the key factors he believes important is that presently people have less time to spend on home p y p p p maintenance in past years. For example, two wage earner families with children or single parent families faced with other more urgent` responsibilities do not have the time to spend on household maintenance that perhaps their parents did in the past. Commissioner Kalligher inquired whether enforcement efforts have increased in the City. The Building Official responded that enforcement efforts have increased over the last year, particularly with the addition of the housing inspector position. Staff is able to spend more time on these types of problems. Commissioner Kalligher commented on the enforcement, efforts on smaller maintenance items to prevent them from becoming larger problems. He particularly pointed out that he recalled the housing plan called for stricter enforcement, especially on these types of smaller items. Councilmember Cohen commented that he believes a great deal needs to be done with regard to home maintenance and that the City cannot hope to detect all the small items of deferred maintenance occurring in the City. He added the staff has to spend time on areas where they can be most effective. He pointed out that the City has added a housing inspector to deal with what is an ongoing problem. Because of budget constraints, the staff has to prioritize on how to spend their time to achieve the most effective enforcement overall. Commissioner Kalligher suggested that by dealing with the smaller problems, such as painting and deteriorating gutters, soffit, fascia, etc., the larger problems may be prevented later on. The Building Official suggested that perhaps the City could look at using CDBG funds to accomplish some of the smaller maintenance items, such as painting. Commissioner Jensen added that she thought a portion of the CDBG funds could be devoted to this type of maintenance and upkeep. The Commission continued its discussion on housing maintenance and code enforcement, and Councilmember Cohen inquired of Commissioner 02 -18 -92 -4- Perkins the extent of FHA inspections, based on his experience as a realtor. Commissioner Perkins pointed out that the FHA inspector is actually an appraiser, and is not a true inspector. The FHA representative looks at things they think might look old and in need of repair, such as roofs, old fuse boxes, etc., however, they do not Look at other things, such as wet basements, which are also serious problems. He emphasized that the FHA is an appraisal, and does riot look at things unless they appear to be hazardous. As a result, the appraisal is essentially an assurance to the mortgagee that the home is adequate to grant the mortgage. The Commission concluded its discussion with the City Building Official and thanked him for taking the time to meet with the Commission this evening. Chairman Eoloff indicated that due to the lateness of the hour he would like to defer the remainder of the agenda items to the meeting next month. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Jensen and seconded by Commissioner Erickson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Chairperson 02 -18 -92 -5-