Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 02-18 HCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL AND THE BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS BROOKLYN CENTER CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The joint meeting of the Brooklyn Center City Council and Brooklyn Center Housing Commission was called to order by Chairperson Robert Torres at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Chairperson Robert Torres, Vice Chairperson Ernie Erickson, Commissioners Lloyd Deuel, Henry Yang, Jonathan Carter and Mark Yelich. Also present were Council Liaison Kay Lasman, Mayor Myrna Kragness, and Councilmember Kathleen Carmody. Also in attendance were City Manager Michael McCauley, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, and Community Development Specialist Tom Bublitz. Additionally, Mr. Bill Gerst, representing the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, was in attendance at the meeting. Commissioner Todd Cannon was absent and excused from the meeting. Also absent was Commissioner Michael desParois. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There was a motion by Commissioner Deuel and seconded by Commissioner Yelich to approve the agenda, as submitted. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1997 There was a motion by Commissioner Deuel and seconded by Commissioner Carter to approve the January 21, 1997, Housing Commission minutes, as submitted. The motion passed. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT TIME OF SALE ORDINANCE AND HOUSING COMMISSION REVIEW OF ORDINANCE FROM JANUARY 21, 1997, HOUSING COMMISSION MEETING At the request of Chairperson Torres, Commissioner Erickson reviewed the Housing Commission's past considerations of the Time of Sale ordinance. He explained approximately five years ago, the issue came before the Housing Commission and was researched quite thoroughly and debated by the commission. Commissioner Erickson continued to explain that after substantial research and debate, the Housing Commission voted against pursuing a Time of Sale ordinance. Approximately two years after the commission's first rejection of a Time of Sale ordinance, the membership of the commission turned over and new commissioners 2 -18 -97 -1- requested the issue be brought before the Housing Commission again. He explained the commission again reviewed various types of ordinances, including Truth in Housing and Time of Sale ordinances and the commission again voted on pursuing an ordinance, with the vote resulting in a tie with half the commissioners voting for a Truth in Housing-type a ordinance and g the other half voting for a Time of Sale -type ordinance. At the joint Housing Commission and City Council meeting of February 1996, the Housing Commission and City Council again discussed the Time of Sale ordinance, and it was agreed that the Housing Commission would draft a Time of Sale ordinance for City Council consideration. After the February meeting, the Housing Commission researched various Time of Sale ordinances and heard from a private housing inspector who explained in detail the ordinances currently used in the cities of Bloomington and South St. Paul. Commissioner Erickson pointed out that both cities' ordinances were Time of Sale -type ordinances with a requirement that specific items defined as hazardous be corrected prior to the conveyance of the property. Commissioner Erickson also pointed out that the commission believed it was more expedient to use private inspectors in implementing the Time of Sale ordinance as opposed to using City staff inspectors. The Community Development Specialist briefly reviewed the draft Time of Sale ordinance developed by the Housing Commission. He explained the draft ordinance has not been revised since the Housing Commission's initial review in January, but that several issues were raised at that time and he would try to address the questions from the Housing Commission's January meeting as the meeting progressed. Briefly, he reviewed the highlights of the ordinance, pointing out that the ordinance is based on the City of South St. Paul's ordinance, which in turn was based on the City of Bloomington's ordinance. Beginning with the definition section, the Community Development Specialist pointed out that a number of the definitions would have to be updated and clarified, such as the definition for mobile home, which would be replaced by the State Building Code definition of manufactured home. He noted that there are numerous minor updates needed to bring the ordinance language more in line with current practices with regard to the building code. Essentially, he pointed out, the ordinance requires an inspection and evaluation report of a home prior to conveyance of the property. The evaluation report is to be provided to the buyer prior to the execution of a purchase agreement on the property. He pointed out the ordinance proposes that evaluations will be done by evaluators licensed by the City and that evaluators must pass a certification of competency test conducted in the City of Minneapolis, St. Paul or Bloomington. He pointed out that the duties of the evaluators are to maintain a current license, conduct the evaluation within the program's guidelines, and meet required continuing education requirements established by the City. Additionally, the evaluator must complete the evaluation report as per the requirements of the ordinance and submit the report to the seller of the property with a duplicate filed with the City. The Community Development Specialist pointed out that the core of the ordinance is the 2 -18 -97 -2- requirement for correction of items defined as "immediate hazards He briefly reviewed these items and noted that the items listed in the draft ordinance are the identical hazards defined by the ordinances used in the cities of Bloomington and South St. Paul. He pointed out that owners correcting the required hazardous items must obtain aL necessary permits form the City and that these permitted items would be inspected by a City inspector under the normal building permit procedure. He noted that in discussing the ordinance with the City inspections staff, they believe that most of the items included in the list of hazardous items would require a permit to complete. In conclusion of his review of the ordinance, the Community Development Specialist pointed out that failure to comply with the ordinance would be a misdemeanor, and there would be an appeal process set up in the ordinance for any person feeling that a decision or procedure in the ordinance was unfair. Commissioner Erickson pointed out it was suggested by the Housing Commission that the City have some type of public relations campaign to provide information on the Time of Sale ordinance when it is enacted. He noted that a member of the real estate community has been attending Housing Commission meetings and monitoring the Housing Commission's work on the Time of Sale ordinance over the past several months. He also noted that the commission had discussed the fact that Brooklyn Center is a predominantly starter home community and that first -time buyers are typically the buyers of many of the homes in the city. Mayor Kragness inquired as to the cost to the homeowner and whether the cost of an inspection is based on an hourly or fined rate. Commissioner Erickson responded, noting it was his recollection that the cost of an inspection under a program such as the one proposed by the Housing Commission would be between $120 -150 per inspection. Councilmember Carmody inquired as to whether or not the Housing Commission discussed whether the intent of the ordinance fees would be to cover all the costs of the program. The Community Development Specialist noted he had spoken with a staff person at the City of South St. Paul and their fees include a $10 filing fee and $50 license fee for evaluators. These fees, he pointed out, were not intended to cover the staff costs associated with the program. He did point out the private inspection fee paid by the homeowner directly to the private inspector would address the major cost of the program, which is the inspection and inspection report. At the request of Chairperson Torres, the Community Development Specialist reviewed information he had researched as follow -up from the Housing Commission's review of the Time of Sale ordinance at their January 21, 1997, meeting. The following is a summary of the Community Development Specialist's report on follow -up from issues and questions raised by the Housing Commission at their January 21, 1997, meeting. The State Building Code does not require CO monitors in homes, and, as a result, CO monitors could not be required as part of the Time of Sale ordinance. 2 -18 -97 -3- In. response to a Housing Commission question regarding fees, the $10 filing fee and $50 license fee for evaluators used in South St. Paul are not intended to cover City expenses for the program. In response to the commission's inquiry regarding the purchase of homes without realtors involved, including family transfers, etc., the City of South St. Paul has noted their experience is that a sale to family members with an unrecorded contract for deed does not provide any mechanism to allow the City to know about the sale. South St. Paul indicated that, to their knowledge, this is not a widespread practice. With regard to monitoring the behavior of evaluators, the City of South St. Paul has indicated that in their program an owner may contact the City if they feel they were treated unfairly by an evaluator. To date, the City has addressed this problem with a letter sent to the evaluator regarding the homeowner's complaint. The staff person administering the South St. Paul program has indicated there has been no real problem with evaluator behavior in their program to date. With regard to foreclosure or "HUD" homes, the City of South St. Paul indicated that the listing agent on these properties is supposed to have a copy of the inspection report for potential buyers. She explained HUD will sometimes call regarding the program and sometimes potential buyers will call the City with regard to the required report on the home they may be interested in. To date, she noted there has been no real problem with the sale of HUD homes in their city. In response to the Housing Commission's question regarding completion of correction of hazardous items in a hardship situation (page 6, paragraph d, item 2), the City of South St. Paul explained they consider six months to be a reasonable time to complete repairs in a hardship situation. With regard to the commission's inquiry as to whether or not a window air conditioning unit would be classified as a permanent appliance, as per the ordinance, the State Building Code does not define window air conditioning units or washers and dryers as permanent appliances. In response to the Commissioner's request to elaborate on the definition of hardship in the ordinance, the City of South St. Paul describes hardship as a situation where the current owner cannot or does not want to make the repairs, in which case the seller may allow the buyer to make the repairs. In South St. Paul, the buyer must submit a letter to the City specifying how long it will take to complete the repairs and the six month period is used in this instance. Upon conclusion of the Community Development Specialist's report on follow -up from the January 21 Housing Commission meeting, the Housing Commission continued its discussion of 2 -18.97 -4- i the Time of Sale ordinance. In response to a question from the Housing Commission regarding the term "mandamus the City Manager replied that mandamus refers to the process of seeking a court order to require someone to do a specific thing. As an example, he pointed out that in elections, certificate of elections are issued and if the issuing authority does not agree to grant a certificate of election, an individual can seek a "writ of mandamus" to obtain the certificate. Commissioner Yelich noted that at the last Housing Commission meeting, the commission heard about buyer inspection progams for homes, and he indicated he did not want the Council to assume the inspection in the Time of Sale ordinance is as thorough as a buyer inspection program, which tends to be much more detailed than a Time of Sale inspection. In addition to inspections for the benefit of buyers, the Community Development Specialist noted Realtors have a continuing amount of tools to obtain disclosure on properties, including the use of mediation for defects in a newly purchased home within 18 months after the purchase. He asked Mr. Bill Gerst, representing the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, to comment on the available tools for Realtors with regard to disclosure. Mr. Gerst replied that there are more and more disclosures, including a seller's statement of condition of the property which is widely used, and, while not mandated by law, the seller's statement is used on many real estate transactions. He pointed out that the Time of Sale ordinance used in communities is another layer of disclosure. Additionally, he pointed out there are also lender inspections of properties and also buyer inspections of properties. He pointed out the City of Minneapolis is currently going through a review of their entire approach to housing inspection and trying to determine whether or not the Truth in Housing ordinance employed by the City of Minneapolis is actually serving a useful purpose. Mr. Gerst inquired whether a hazardous item, if it is discovered by an inspection during the Time of Sale process, and the house does not sell, must be corrected. The City Manager replied that the ordinance, as it is drafted now, would require correction of the hazardous item whether or not the house sells. The City Manager pointed out the inspection, under the Time of Sale ordinance, is intended for a public purpose and not for the benefit of the specific parties. He explained the inspection is undertaken as a general inspection; not for the benefit of specific individuals. Councilmember Carmody inquired as to how the ordinance would be refined before it goes to the City Council for consideration. The Community Development Specialist explained that the purpose of this evening's meeting is to determine if the City Council approves the basic philosophy of the ordinance and that the text of the ordinance would be fine -tuned prior to being presented to the City Council. Councilmember Lasman stated she does not oppose the Time of Sale ordinance, but inquired as to whether or not the ordinance would address the problems we are not addressing now under existing ordinances. She also inquired as to how many cities have these types of ordinances. 2 -18 -97 -5- Mayor Kragness commented the ordinance may give a sense to prospective buyers in the city that it provides a sense of reassurance of buying homes in the city. Councilmember Lasman questioned how the ordinance would improve the city's housing stock overall and help alleviate the further decline of the housing stock. In response to Councilmember Lasman's inquiry, Councilmember Carmody stated she believes the ordinance will not solve all the problems with regard to housing, but it is a minimal requirement to be met with regard to correcting at least items considered hazardous. The City Manager commented that many lenders are beginning to be more open to loaning mortgage dollars on the end value of a house after it is repaired. For example, with purchase rehab loans, a $40,000 house could be purchased with an additional $10,000 for rehabilitation with a new value in excess of the initial $40,000. The Housing Commisiion continued its discussion of the Time of Sale ordinance, and the issue of additional staff commitment for administering the ordinance was addressed. The City Manager stated the concerns from staff are that it will involve additional demands and resources from existing staff, but it does not appear to require an additional inspector to implement a Time of Sale ordinance. Mayor Kragness inquired whether the ordinance would need only minor fine- tuning or major revisions. The Community Development Specialist responded that the ordinance itself should be relatively easy to fine -tune, but in addition to the ordinance evaluation guidelines, forms, etc., will be needed, and these will take a considerable amount of staff time to prepare. Councilmember Carmody requested that when the ordinance is presented to the City Council, staff should include a memorandum indicating what the ordinance is intended to accomplish. The City Manager addressed the issue of timing for implementation of a Time of Sale ordinance, noting he would target January 1, 1998, to have an ordinance finalized. Given the current staff workload, this time line would allow staff to develop the ordinance and the required administrative items to implement the ordinance. Additionally, he suggested it would not be advisable to implement a new ordinance at the busiest time of year for home sales, and typically the winter months from December through January are the slowest time of year for home sales. There was a general consensus among Housing Commission members and City Councilmembers present that staff would prepare a final version of the Time of Sale ordinance, along with other administrative documents required such as evaluator guidelines, inspection forms, etc., and present this to the City Council in January of next year. DISCUSSION OF CITY'S HOUSING REHABILITATION DEFERRED LOAN PROGRAM Councilmember Carmody stated that she wanted to address this item with the Housing Commission, noting that when she was on the Housing Commission she thought the deferred 2 -18 -97 -6- loan program was a good safety net for homeowners in need of repair to their homes. She noted that when she was elected to the City Council, she did not think the deferred loan program was accomplishing what it was intended to do, and she does not think the loan program will prevent a home that is in decline from continuing on an eventual downward slide. Councilmember Carmody stated she does not think the housing rehabilitation deferred loan program is achieving what we want to achieve. She inquired as to how many homes the City has done in the last two to three years where you can actually see an improvement. The Community Development Specialist replied that it is difficult to give a definite number, but that at least between one quarter to one -third of the homes done would show a substantial improvement on the exterior, which generally indicates that new siding and windows would be installed. Mayor Kragness stated the review of the deferred loan program may be a good issue to have the commisiion look at. Commissioner Erickson suggested that with the new members on the commission, it may be advisable to provide information to the commission members to bring them up -to -date on the status of the housing rehabilitation deferred loan program at the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Deuel requested that information regarding the City's planned efforts for code enforcement be reviewed with the Housing Commission. Councilmember Carmody pointed out that during this next year of code enforcement, the City will focus on housing- related issues, as opposed to the items that were targeted this past year, such as junk vehicles.. The City Manager noted that this coming year's enforcement efforts will target enforcement items and try to get the entire city in compliance in a "gross fashion" in May. He explained the plan would be to zero in on the worst offenses first, but that the effort will also address housing issues on a particular site and not just focusing on areas where an accumulation of junk vehicles and other items have accumulated. He pointed out further that in June the plan is to start block by -block and focus on more housing related enforcement items. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Erickson and seconded by Commissioner Deuel to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed. The joint meeting of the Brooklyn Center City Council and Brooklyn Center Housing Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Chairperson 2 -18 -97 -7- J