Loading...
03-06-89 agenda~-~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 9 Agenda, March 6, 1989 Issue Statement: Discussion responsibilities and coordination of annual NOISE conference. Background• The annual•NOISE conference will be held in the metropolitan area July 12-15, 1989. Apparently the City of Richfield will have a role in this conference. Recommended Motion: The Council should discuss the city's role in this conference, including who will be responsible to coordinate Richfield's involvement. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Activities for the conference, and the conference program are presently in the planning stages. Alternative Recommendation: 1. None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the March 6, 1989 Study Session agenda for Council discussion. Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No.,,,$ Agenda March 6, 1989 Issue Statement: Discussion of City's Membership in NOISE. Background: The City Council has directed staff to analyze the cost and benefits associated with membership in NOISE. The Council has also asked for detailed conference attendance costs. This information is attached. NOISE is a national organization of airport impacted communities. The primary purpose of the organization is to share information and strategies related to reducing or eliminating the negative impact of airport noise. NOISE is based in Des Plaines, Illinois. Current membership includes approximately 40 communities. The regular activities of the organization include: -Monthly newsletters. -Annual conference. -Information sharing capabilities. Council members have regularly attended the annual conference since 1985. The NOISE bulletins are received and reviewed by staff and Council Members. City staff contacts NOISE staff on a regular basis, approximately once per month, to gain additional information related to noise issues in our community. Dues to NOISE have risen steadily from $750 in 1985 to $1,050 in 1988. A billing for 1989 NOISE dues has not yet been received.. Membership in NOISE has been helpful in numerous circumstances. Some recent examples include: -Information from NOISE regarding legislative analysis of FAA regulatory issues. -Update information regarding efforts of other metro areas to construct a new airport. -Assessment of technological changes. -Information regarding potential changes in federal regulations which permitted the city to lobby regarding those proposed changes. -Review of efforts by other governments to limit noise. impacts on residential property. K y~ Discussion/Decision Mode: At the request of the City Council, this item has been placed on the March 6, 1989 Study Session agenda. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP/ej a ~, ~.,~ NOISE EXPENDITURES 1985 Dues $ 750 Conference, July 1985 Sparks, Nevada, Sandahl 909 $1659 1986 Dues 750 Conference, July 1986 Warwick, RI Garcia 690 $1440 1987 Dues 900 Conference, May, 1987 Kenner, Louisiana, Priebe 437 $1337 1988 Dues 1050 Conference, July, 1987 Georgia Priebe 608 Sandahl 1036 Conference, Dec. 1988 Boston, Sandahl 748* $3442 *NOISE meeting was in conjunction with annual NLC Conference It is our understanding that the NOISE board of diretors usually meet at both the NLC Congressional Conference (March), and the NLC Annual Conference (December) each year. However, there is no registration fee or other costs associated with these meetings. ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 7 Agenda March 6, 1989 Issue Statement: Review of property maintenance ordinance. Background: The City Council has previously reviewed the feasibility of adopting a property maintenance ordinance. The ordinance would specifically require periodic inspections for rental housing and point of sale inspections for owner occupied properties. The ordinance was discussed at study sessions on April 6 and May 4, 1987, and presented for first reading consideration on June 8, 1987. The ordinance was tabled at the second reading held on July 13, 1987. The primary reasons for recommending adoption of the ordinance include the following: - Property maintenance ordinances have been successfully implemented in a number of communities as a method to improve the overall level of property maintenance in a community. - Richfield residents have expressed support for property maintenance ordinances. (See attached excerpt from community survey.) - The Housing and Redevelopment has recommended adoption of this ordinance. The concerns previously expressed by the City Council at the May 4, and April 6 Study Sessions, and at the Council Meeting of July 13, 1987 included the following: - There was a desire to decrease the cost of inspections. - Several multi-property owners indicated there was no need for the ordinance, since most multi-property was generally well kept. Existing property maintenance ordinances are sufficient to respond to concerns. - Less frequent inspections for rental units would be sufficient to achieve objectives. ~~ / A summary of the responses provided to these objections included the following: - The estimate of cost to administer the program was based upon experience of other communities. The actual cost of the program in Richfield may actually be less. Staff did develop a conservative estimate approach so that a fee may be set that would less likely require an increase in the near future. Fee setting was developed on a conservative basis to avoid criticism that an unrealistically low fee was initially established in order to get the program implemented and then staff would plan to increase the fee thereafter. This approach can be re- evaluated. - The property maintenance ordinance generally enforces existing ordinances. However, it does permit the city to inspect inside of properties on a periodic basis. It also provides required periodic inspections. These inspections are more likely to uncover maintenance problems before they become serious. Periodic inspections also are more likely to generate better overall maintenance for rental property. Current inspections are limited to complaint response-and outside, and common areas for multi-family rental units. - The property maintenance ordinance would provide inspections of rental property once every one to two years. Providing less frequent inspection would not provide optimum effectiveness. A significant portion of the property maintenance inspection relates directly to general maintenance and housekeeping type of issues. Less frequent inspections may yield a situation where problems are more difficult to correct because they have not been addressed. Less frequent inspections also may yield a result where once every three or four years the property owner fixes and corrects problems and then lets general maintenance slide until the next inspection. - Most important, however, is the experience of other communities. That experience indicates that inspections about every two years yield the results of improved property appearance. - Designing a program that in some way rewards good rental property owners by not requiring as frequent inspections is quite problemsome. First, it should be noted that those property owners who do not maintain their property well are more likely to be inspected more frequently in any case. Second, ~~ designing a program that provides less frequent inspection for well maintained property may sound good in theory, but is difficult to implement in practice. Specifically, the continuum for property maintenance is likely to indicate that a certain percentage of rental property owners dp maintain their property very well, and a certain number are extremely lax. The most significant portion of rental property would fall in between these extremes. It is difficult to design standards that would be acceptable to those who fit into this intermediate category. Staff, and the Council, could become embroiled in frequent controversies regarding qualification to enter into this special category. At the HRA meeting of February 21, 1989, Commissioner Ludeman requested that an evaluation component be included in consideration of this ordinance. A memo from Bill Morris, Decision Resources, Ltd. regarding evaluation is attached as an exhibit to this letter. Staff Recommendation: The Council needs to discuss the following items: - Is this type of ordinance appropriate for the City of Richfield. - Does the ordinance as drafted accomplish the objectives of the city. - If the ordinance does not meet the objectives, what additional analysis or changes need to occur to make the .ordinance acceptable. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The City Council and staff have previously reviewed this item. A recent community survey indicates strong support for reconsideration of the position. If this matter is to be resolved, further direction from the Council is required. Alternative Recommendation: 1. None Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the March 6 study session. Respectf lly submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP/e j a Attachments: Excerpt from minutes July 13, 1987 Decision Resources Survey pages covering the property maintenance issues. The Council Letter without attachments of July 13, 1987 The Study Session Letter of April 6 without attachments The cost sheet The ordinance March 21, 1987 memo from Pat Coughlin April 17, 1987 memo from Pat Coughlin Letter from Bill Morris, Decision Resources re evaluation. Letter from Thomas Harms, HRA Chair _ _ ~.:y...a ~>._,.......~. .. ,_.: ~ ._ ~ ,:, . _ ._~__......,,.~..~~..~,. .,~ . ~~ Council Meeting Minutes 9 July 13, 1987 City :danager Prosser reviewed the contacts that city staff had with the developer. Council Hember Garcia inquired if this apartment would become tax exempt property is sold to the church. City Attorney Ler^evere responded that it would not be likely to be tax exempt. M/Sandahl, S/Garcia to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. (Kirsch abstained) M/Ludeman, S/Sandahl that this constitute Second Reading of Transitory Ordinance 17.29 Bill No. 1987-17, that it be published in the official newspaper and that it be made Dart of these minutes. Motion carried 3-1. (Kirsch abstained, Garcia opposed) Item $10 PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF A HOUSING MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE REQUIRING ANNIIAL LICENSING OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND RENTED HOMES, AND REQUIRING CERTIFICATES OF HOUSING CODE COMPLIANCE FOR HOMES WHEN THEY ARE SOLD. C.L. 214. City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 214 regarding a proposed ordinance amendment requiring annual licensing of apartment buildings and rental homes, and requiring certificates of housing code-. c,~mpliance for homes when they are sold.. M/Sandahl, S/Rirsch to table this item for further study. Council Member Sandahl withdrew his motion and Council Member Kirsch withdrew the second to allow staff and the audience to speak on •tiZe issue. Assistant Fire Chief Coughlin reviewed contents of the proposed housing maintenance ordinance. Debra Olson, owner of 6901 Penn Avenue, stated her opposition to the proposed ordinance and stated that stricter enforcement of existing ordinances should be used to control potent al problems. She read into the record a letter from Leo M. Lehn, 6901 Penn Avenue (Clerk File C-288) in opposition to the housing maintenance ordinance. ~~=~ Council Meeting Minutes 10 July 13, 1987 Sid Sanford, 7000 Portland Avenue, took exception to several provisions of the proposed ordinance and stated his opposition to it. ° Ernie :~Tolfenson, Managing Partner of Century Court Apartments, stated that this ordinance would be punitive to the majority who maintain their buildings to a high standard. Dick Ziemer, 6227-29 Xerxes Avenue, stated that the ordinance was discriminatory against rental properties and the fee was a hidden tax. He urged the council to maintain current ordinance provisions and to concentrate on the maintenance of single family dwellings. ~ Don Erickson stated he owned two apartment buildings in Richfield and that it was unfair to penalize the good landlords because a few did not maintain. their properties. He stated he had not received notice of this proposal. City Manager Prosser reviewed the state statute provisions regarding legal notices for ordinances and also noted that the Sun Current Newspaper had run a front page article on the proposal. Trudy Myre stated that as an apartment owner she appreciated the city's effort to improve and maintain housing, however, she said the license fees were too high and the inspections too frequent. -Fred Habegger, owner'of 6740 Blaisdell Avenue stated his opposition to the proposal and his opinion that all those affected by the ordinance should have been notified. Paul Kaiser,.._7233 Sheridan..Avenue, reviewed the provisions of the tenant and landlords handbook regarding tenants rights. Terri Erickson, 6430 20th Avenue, spoke in favor of stricter enforcement of existing code provisions. City Manager Prosser stated that existing ordinances do not provide for systematic inspections. He stated that the proposed ordinance would not raise revenue beyond the cost of the program. Council Member Sandahl stated he was concerned that the inspection could be construed as a warranty of the property and requested further study and information prior to any decision on the issue. Council Member Ludeman stated his concern about the high personnel costs, the frequency of inspections, the affect on senior citizens, and his opposition to the proposed ordinance. ,. :-v~.,,.~~,. w~ ;~ Council Meeting Minutes __ ~~ 11 July 13,-1987 Council Member Garcia stated that this proposal was a response by staff to the council's concerns regarding housing maintenance and could be used as a starting point in exploring alternatives. Mayor Hamilton stated that deterioration of housing creates problems for the community and that is was important to maintain the city's housing stock. He stated that this proposal may not be totally appropriate but the need for maintenance of housing is a valid goal. M/Sandahl, S/Garcia to close the Aublic hearin . Motion carried 5-0. M/Sandahl, S/Kirsch to table consideration of the housin maintenance ordinance for further study and information. Motion carried 5-0. Item X11 PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND COUNCIL MEMBER SALARIES. C.L. 215. City .Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 215 regarding an ordinance a'iend.'nent to adjust council members salaries and a policy statement relating to pay schedules for the Mayor and Council Members. Lawrence Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, stated his opposition to the. policy whichti.Would have council salaries proposed on the basis of increases given to general services employees. Council Member Ludeman stated that this information would only be .used as a guideline for council consideration. Council Member Sandahl stated that.ro. member. was in this for money and that he supported the $235 increase. He also noted the council now meets three times a month. Council Member Garcia reviewed the salaries of similar communities and stated she did not support an increase because the money would be better used for services. She stated that using a formula would raise salaries too quickly. She suggested that if the council chooses to raise salaries,. if should raise the Mayor_~ salary an equal amount. Mayor Hamilton stated that the communities listed will most likely adjust their salaries and that policy statement does not mean that salaries will be increased every year. . ._ ~ __ . ~~ 'O 88. In general, from what you have APPROVE ...............59$ seen or heard, do you approve or DISAPPROVE............16$ disapprove of the zoning and land DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....25$ -~- use decisions made by the City? _J ~" 89. Do you feel that Richfield resi- ADEQUATE ..............62$ dents have an adequate opportunity INADEQUATE............17$ for input into the zoning and land DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....21$ use decision-making process? 90. Do you feel the City is too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing the City Code on such nuisances as animal control, garbage disposal, junk cars, and noise? TOO TOUGH ..............2$ ABOUT RIGHT...........67$ NOT TOUGH ENOUGH......28$ DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3$ IF "TOO TOUGH" OR "NOT TOUGH ENOUGH" IN QUESTION #90, ASK: 91. Why do you feel that way? LOOSE ANIMALS: 10$ JUNK CARS: 4$ NOISE: 4$ YARDS: 3$ GARBAGE: 1$ OTHER: 1$ COMBINATION: 8$ The inspection of housing in Richfield for code violations is a function of city goverpment and staff. I would like to read you a short list of proposals; for each one, please tell me whether you strongly support it, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose it. STR SMW SMW STR D.K. SUP SUP OPP OPP REF. 92 Regular inspections on the outside of all rental housing and enforcement of all code violations? 65$ 20$ 2$ 1$ 3$ 93 Regular inspections on the outside of all owner occupied housing? 32$ 47$ 13$ 6$ 2$ 94. Regular inspections on the inside of all rental housing and enforcement of all code violations? 52$ 35$ 5$ 4$ 3$ 95. Regular inspections on the ~ inside of all owner occupied , ~~iousing? 13$ 34$ 24$ 26$ 3$ An expanded housing inspection sys tem would increase costs to the city and might require a property tax increase to fund it. 10 ,.;.. ,.. ~.,.m ,~..,.. ~ ~ _. ~~ _ __ . _, r ._.; -.._ ... ., ,.. , , <, 96. How much would you be willing to pay in additional property taxes to fund an expanded housing inspection system? (START WITH RANDOMLY SELECTED CHOICE.) Let's say would you be willing to .pay $ per year? (MOVE TO NEXT CHOICE UP OR DOWN ...REPEAT PROCESS.) On another topic.... -~t~' / NOTHING ...............36$ $10 ...................13$ $15.. ...................7$ $20 ..:................11$ $25 ...................11$ $30 ....................9$ $35 ....................4$ $40 ....................5$ DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....6$ 97. How would you rate the strength EXCELLENT .............37$ of community identity and sense GOOD ..................46$ of neighborliness in Richfield ONLY FAIR .............14$ -- excellent, good, only fair, POOR ...................1$ or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2$ IF RATING GIVEN IN QUESTION #97, ASK: 98. Why do you feel that way? NO REASON: 8$ KNOW OUR NEIGHBORS: 49$ ROOTS-TIES: 9$ PEOPLE CARE: 13$ MIXED REVIEWS: 5$ NOT FRIENDLY: 9$ RESIDENTS DISCONNECTED: 4$ OTHER: 1$ 99. Would you. say your neighborhood FOR THE BETTER........16$ has changed for the better in FOR THE WORSE.........12$ recent years, changed for the NOT CHANGED MUCH......62$ worse, or has it not changed DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....10$ very much? IF "BETTER" OR "WORSE" IN QUESTION #99, ASK: 100. Why do you feel that way? STABLE: 4$ LOOKS IMPROVED: 6$ PRIDE IN CITY: 2$ YOUNGER: 6$ RUNDOWN: 5$ APARTMENTS: 3$ OTHER: 3$ 101. Do you feel that Richfield has TOO MANY ..............21$ too many, about right, or too ABOUT RIGHT...........66$ few apartment and condominium TOO FEW ................6$ buildings? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....7$ IF ANSWER GIVEN IN QUESTION #101, ASK: 102. Why do you feel that way? NO ROOM FOR MORE: 31$ MIX OK-APARTMENTS NEEDED: 18$ '~~~ BY OBSERVATION: 9$ TYPE OF PEOPLE: 7$ KEEP AS IS: 7$ TOO MANY VACANCIES: 5$ DON'T KNOW: 16$ 11 _- .,_ . _..,~_a_.._._._..__.___._..~ ~.s ~.~..,,~..... ~,, ~~-l~i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 214 July 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Adoption of a housing maintenance ordinance requiring annual licensing of apartment buildings and rented homes, and requiring certificates of housing code compliance for homes when they are sold. Background: The objectives of the proposed ordinance are to maintain a safe housing environment for residents and keep Richfield's housing stock from deteriorating. The Public Safety Department has studied the present ordinances and enforcement methods, and determined that: 1. The current housing code requirements do not need to be changed. 2. With the current enforcement procedures, the city is not aware of property maintenance problems until a tenant or neighbor makes a complaint. The recently hired animal control/code enforcement officer is initiating complaints on outside problems which can be seen from the street, but the city does not become aware o.f violations in rear yards and inside a structure until a complaint is received. 3. The department has found that housing code and property ( maintenance violations can exist for a long period, and become very serious, before citizens initiate a complaint. The department has developed the proposed ordinances in order to change the enforcement method to a proactive approach instead of the current reactive method. It will also enable inspectors to routinely check all areas of the property, both inside-and outside, for violations. The department has emphasized that no new or more stringent requirements are in the proposed ordinance. The currently used housing and property maintenance requirements would not be changed. A key feature of the proposed ordinance is that the license fees are designed to fund sufficient personnel to regularly inspect apartment units and rented homes. Experience from communities with similar ordinances shows that the regular inspections will allow the inspectors to find violations before they become serious. When such violations are discovered before they become serious, the problems are less expensive to resolve. Also, better relations between neighbors and tenant/landlord relations-can be maintained when they can depend upon the city staff to point out and resolve housing safety and property maintenance violations. The Public Safety Department has noted that current staffing levels in the Fire and Inspection Divisions are not sufficient to handle the increased inspection activity which would be generated by the new ordinance. = ~~~ The number and type of personnel recommended to operate the program were selected to provide an extremely cost-effective housing code enforcement operation,, while also increasing the efficiency of current programs in both divisions. Several Richfield apartment building owners are members of the Minnesota Multi-housing Owners Association. Representatives of the association met with Fire Division Commander Coughlin on July 1, 1987 to express the following•concerns regarding the ordinance. A summary of the discussion is attached. The city council held first reading of this ordinance on June 22, 1987 and scheduled the public hearing and second reading for the July 13, 1987 council meeting. Recommended Motion: 1. Adopt the housing maintenance ordinance requiring annual licensing. of apartment buildings and rented homes, and requiring certificates of housing code compliance for homes when they are sold. 2. The effective date of the ordinance shall be October 1, 1987. 3. Adopt a resolution establishing housing maintenance fees. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The new ordinance will improve our enforcement process, which in our present method of operation does not begin until a property maintenance problem has become quite serious. This will ensure that our residents have a safer environment, that Richfield's housing stook will not deteriorate, and will help maintain better relations between tenants, landlords and their neighbors. 2. Other communities (see exhibit) who have adopted similiar ordinances indicated a positive result. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council could reject the proposed ordinance and accept the present enforcement program. This would let the present conditions continue, which originally created concern from council members about housing and property maintenance conditions. 2. The council could direct staff to increase inspection-activity without a license fee. This would require an increase in the operating budget for the additional personnel. Also, the present ordinances do not allow inspectors to routinely enter apartment units and rented homes, and thus we still could not resolve violations in those units until a tenant or neighbor files a complaint. ' 3. ThefCouncil could limit the-scope of the ordinance by omitting rental homes or apartment buildings or sold homes from the ordinance, and direct staff to adjust the license fees and personnel requirements accordingly. The Public Safety Department analysis of the problem has indicated that all three categories need to be included in the ordinance if the housing ordinances are to be effectively enforced. :~y-~~,~,~- 4. The frequency of inspections for rental property could be changed from approximately one year to-once every two years: ~_, Given our current schedule we will actually inspect about once every 14-18 months. Doubling the inspection frequency to 28- 3& months would significantly reduce the. effectiveness of the Ordinance.' Additionally, given the. fixed cost of the 'program, fees would not be reduced proportionally. Decision/Discussion Diode: The revised housing maintenance ordinance has been submitted for second reading at the July 13, 1987 council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City anager JDP/eja ./~ ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~_ Study Session Letter No. 11 Study Session April 6, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of an ordinance to license rental units including apartments, duplexes, and rented single family homes and point. of sale inspections for owner occupied homes for the purpose of assuring compliance with the housing maintenance ordinance. Background• In response to growing concerns from citizens and the city council about the health and safety and compliance with the current housing maintenance ordinance, the Inspection Division has reviewed an ordinance relating to property maintenance. The city has previously adopted a property. maintenance code which provides general guidelines for assuring compliance with good maintenance standards. The ordinance is not an "aesthetics" ordinance. That is, it does not require or dictate specific types of decorating to make sure property is maintained to an aesthetically pleasing state, but rather assures that the houses are generally in safe, sound and sanitary condition. Copies of the property maintenance code are attached for council review. Attached to this letter is a memorandum from the Fire Division to the City Manager providing a general discussion of the housing maintenance issues-for Richfield. One existing problem identified is the need for regular inspections of rental property and also periodic inspections of single family owner/occupied property. Based on experiences of other communities, rental property appears to be more problemsome in terms of assuring proper maintenance and compliance with the basic property maintenance code, it is recommended that the city license rental properties for the purpose of allowing periodic inspections of those properties. If the inspection reveals a need for revisions to bring the property into compliance, property owners will be provided an adequate opportunity to correct those deficiencies which are not an immediate safety or health concern. It should be noted that this procedure reduces the potential for serious conflict at the same time it does permit the city to take swift action in those cases where there are life threatening situations uncovered. The ordinance would also require point of sale inspections of owner/occupied homes. Again, the purpose is to provide an inspection at one point in time of single family owner/occupied homes to assure compliance with the basic property maintenance code. Since single owner/occupied homes are less of a problem, but still can be problemsome regarding compliance with the basic property maintenance code there is a need to periodically inspect -"-/~ C- these residences. Again, the same criteria for enforcement of the code would be applied. Those items which are~not immediate health and safety violations would be noted for correction either by the current owner or by agreement with the new owner. A significant portion (but not all) of the homes within the community are already inspected under more stringent VA and FHA inspections. However, the city does not take part in those inspections, and it would be advisable for us to assure that our codes are being met since we cannot directly, or indirectly, observe the results of the VA or FHA inspections, and the VA/FHA inspection may use criteria different from the city. Recommendation: Authorize the drafting of a final ordinance, which would allow licensing of rental property and require point of sale inspections of single family property. Basis for Recommendation: 1. To develop a basis to assure continued quality of good housing stock within the City of Richfield. 2. To identify and eliminate any safety or health violations within the community. 3. To provide a firm basis for maintaining a strong housing stock within the City of Richfield. 4. To maintain confidence within the community that housing will be maintained. at a safe, sanitary and sound condition. Alternative Recommendation: 1. A number of communities. across the country have adopted ordinances similar to the one proposed in Richfield. In the Minneapolis area, St. Louis Park has a similar ordinance. Additionally, the City Manager has had previous experience with such an ordinance in the community of Hazel Crest, Illinois. A number of communities in the Chicago area have adopted similar ordinances. While the results of these ordinances have all been positive, a number of changes to the ordinance do occur prior to its adoption.. These criticisms include: A. The enactment of the ordinance will increase the cost of housing within the community. This has not been found to be the case in the communities that have adopted the ordinance. For the most part, the types of improvements that may be noted under the property maintenance inspection, are those types of improvements that should be made in any case. In a few cases, serious safety violations have been .uncovered. In other situations, costly deficiencies have been identified by the inspection. If these deficiencies were not identified by the inspection, the new property owner may have ended up taking possession of the property and .not ~J having sufficient funds to live safely within the property. That has a negative impact upon the community as well as the residents of that particular house. %.~' However, in most cases it~is found that the improvements the inspection indicate few or minor violations which cost the resident little money. In the event costly improvements are required, the city will assist the owner in identifying potential financial aid. B. Residents fear that they will be required to bring their house into compliance with the most updated version of the city code. Again, this is not-the case. The code that would be enforced by the City of Richfield is the basic property maintenance code that has been on the books of the City of Richfield for a number of years. The property maintenance code does not require compliance of the most current construction code. Rather, it requires compliance with general safety, health and welfare types of requirements. If the house-was built under code, and maintained under code during the period of its life, it is unlikely that any violations will be uncovered. However, if the house was not built to code initially, which is unlikely, or if illegal additions or modifications were made to home that would indicate serious safety or health violations, corrections would be noted for improvement. C. Enforcement of this ordinance would add greatly to the C cost of living within the community. Again, this has not been found to be the case in communities that have developed this ordinance. D. The ordinance will entail delays in the sale of homes. A thorough education program with realtors and residents of the community will avoid any delays in the sale of homes. Additionally, the ordinance provides flexibility to allow occupancy with agreement to correct deficiencies at a later date.- Again, the experience of communities adopting this type of ordinance indicates that after its implementation, and some initial resistance, realtors and other property professionals indicate positive results rather than negative results from adoption of the property maintenance, point of sale and rental inspections. ,E. The city may be exposed to excessive liability in the event inspections do not uncover an existing hazardous or costly violation. Minnesota state law reasonably protects the city from any such liability. Certainly there will be "political" liability from purchasers who believe city employees should have uncovered a particular problem. This cannot be fully avoided. Both types of potential liability must be weighed against the benefit of the inspection program. ~!~ ~. (' In the final analysis it is clear that adoption of this ordinance is a serious policy decision of the city council.' It is a policy ~~ decision that reflects upon the philosophy of the city in regard to the need to address in a constructive and pro-active fashion the assurance of proper property maintenance within the community. Implementation of this ordinance will require significant modifications to the existing inspection procedures. It is anticipated that an additional two and one-half people will be required to administer the ordinance. The funds for the additional two and one-half personnel will be derived from the cost of inspections. Cost of inspections have been reasonably set and are believed to be competitive with other cost of inspections provided by other communities. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for discussion at the April 6, 1987 City Council Study Session. Respe fully submitted, Ja s Prosser Ci y Manager ( JDP/eja ~, Inspection Fee Schedule for Rental Licensing and Point of Sale Ordinance Type Number Fee Revenue Apartment Buildings 200 550.00 S 4,000.00* (the building itself, laundry, storage, furnace rooms, cor- ridors, stairs) Apartment Units ~ 4575 7.50 34,312.00. Duplexes 374 50.00 18,700.00 1-Family' 500 50..00 25,000.00 1-Family 500 50.00- 25,000.00 (Point of sale) TOTAL 5107,012.00 *The first four .apartment units would be included in this fee, so that amount is deducted here and included in the ~, next figure. 4 sly/_ ~! 0 C BILL N0. 1987 - ' AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART III OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part III of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Housing - Health and Sanitation Regulation"is hereby amended in the following respect: I. .Section 3.22 of the City Code entitled "Board of Health" is renumbered as Section 3.24. II. The City Code is amended by adding new section, Section 3.22, to read: 3.22. INSPECTION AND LICENSING OF APARTMENT HOUSES AND RENTAL HOMES. Subdivision 1. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Section the terms defined herein have the following meanings: (I) "Apartment house" means a building containing .three or more dwelling units. (2) "Apartment", "apartment unit" or "dwelling unit" means a room or group of rooms located within a building and forming a single habitable unit with facilities which are used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking and eating. (3) "Rental Home" means a one or two-family dwelling which is occupied by persons other than the owner. (4) "Family" means one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group , occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or sorority house. The term "family" does not include a group of .individuals, exceeding three in number, not related by blood, marriage or adoption. The term "family" includes necessary employees. (5) "Housing Code" means section 3.21 of this code together with the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by section 3.02 of this code. =~ (6) All other definitions contained in section 3.21, subdivision 1, are incorporated in this section by reference and made a part hereof. ~,` C Subd. 2. LICENSE ~tEQUIRED. It is unlawful or any person who is an owner of an apartment house or an owner of a rental home to operate such apartment house or rental home without first having obtained a license under the provisions of this section. Subd. 3. LICENSING PROCEDURE. (1) Within 90 days after the owner of an apartment house or owner of a rental home shall apply to the building official for the license required by subdivision 2 of this section. Application shall be made on forms provided by the city and accompanied by the initial fee required by subdivision 7 of this section. The owner of an apartment house or rental home constructed after the date specified herein shall submit a license application prior to actual occupancy of any apartment unit or rental home. (2) Application: Contents and Inspection. The application shall contain such information as the building official may require to assess compliance with the housing code of this C section. After receiving an application and prior to granting a license the building official is authorized to require such inspections as are necessary to assure compliance with the housing code and this section. (3) Issuance of Licenses. If the building official finds that an apartment house or rental home complies with requirements of the housing code and this section, the building official shall issue the license. If an apartment house or rental home is not in compliance with the housing code and this section the building official shall deny the license, specifying in writing the. defects, and shall notify tie applicant. The appli- cant shall have a 60 day period .from receipt of such notice to correct the defects speci- fied, but only if the defects do not create an imminent hazard. The building official may, in his discretion, authorize additional time for compliance. If the license is - denied, no occupancy of dwelling units then vacant, or which become vacant, is permitted until a license has been issued. Apartment units within an unlicensed apartment house for which a license application has been made and which units are in compliance with the housing code may be occupied provided that non-complying units within the .apartment house do not create. an imminent hazard to the health and safety of persons in occupied units. Such occupancy may continue until final action on the granting or denial of the license is taken by the building official. In any instance where the building official has denied an application for a license the applicant may appeal his decision to the director of public safety. Subd. 4. LICENSE: RENEWAL: TRANSFER. The term of •a license granted under this section is one .year, expiring on ,June 30. The license must be renewed annually thereafter. The license is transferable upon application to the building official, and payment of the license transfer. fee by the prospective owner, provided that the apartment. house or rental home is in compliance with the. housing code. The license shall terminate if renewal or application for transfer is not made within 30 days after transfer of ownership of the apartment house. Subd. 5. LICENSES: SUSPENSION: REVOCATION. A license issued or renewed under this section may be suspended upon a finding of noncompliance with this section by the building official, and written notice to the licensee. Upon failure of the licensee to comply with the notice of violation, the license may be revoked or suspended in the manner provided by section 5.14 of this code. Reinstatement of a suspended license shall be accompanied by an amount equal 50$ of the license fee. Issuance of a new license after .suspension or revocation shall be made in the manner provided for obtaining an initial license. Subd. 6. LICENSES: DISPLAY. Licenses issued under this section shall be displayed on the premises of the apartment house or rental home, wherever feasible and produced upon •demand of a prospective tenant, the building official or his authorized repre- sentative. Except as otherwise provided in this section aII provisions of sections 5.08 to 5.I5 of this code are applicable to licenses issued under .this section. Subd. ?. FEES. The fees for licenses required by this section are in the amounts established in Appendix ~-D of this code. A license fee, or license transfer fee which is not paid on the date due shall be increased by a IO$ penalty for each month or portion thereof during ~; which said fee remains unpaid. ~- ~~,~~-~~ p, C Subd. 8. COMPLIANCE WITH MINNESOTA STATUTES. Nothing in this section is intended to modify or abrogate the rights of tenants of apartment units or owners of apartment houses granted by Minnesota Stat- utes, sections 566.18 to 566.33. The city manager. may designate, subject to city council approval, adminis- trators to carry out the duties assigned by the court pursuant to said statutes. Subd. 9. REMEDIES. Violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor. In addition the city may designate, subject to city council approval, administrators to carry out the duties assigned by the court pursuant to said statutes. Subd. 10. Subd. 3 and 7 This ordinance is effective on The initial license fees required by shall be prorated for the period to June 30, 198 ." III. The city code is amended by adding new Section 3.23 to read: 3.23. CERTIFICATE OF HOUSING MAINTENANCE COMPLIANCE FOR SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY HOMES. Subdivision 1. CERTIFICATE REQUIRED. _, (1) After July I, 1987, whenever the ownership of any single or two-family structure located within the city changes, the person relinquishing ownership, or any agent designated by the person relinquishing ownership, shall make application for the certificate of housing maintenance compliance. (2) This section shall not apply to any mul- tiple-dwelling structure licensed under section 3.22 of this code, and shall have no effect upon the provisions of law or other ordinances related to the issuance of building permits. Subd. 2. APPLICATION AND INSPECTION. (I) Application for the certificate of housing maintenance compliance shall be executed upon forms provided by the city and accompanied by the initial fee established in Appendix D of this code. (2) Upon xeceipt of a properly executed applica- -~tion the building official shall cause an inspection to be made of the premises to ensure that the structure is in compliance with the housing maintenance code, ~~. section 3.21, subdivisions 8 and 10 of this code. ~~. Subd. 3. ISSUANCE `OF CERTIFICATE. If -the ~truc- ~ ture is in compliance with the requirements ®f the housing maintenance code, a certificate shall be issued to the person relinquishing ownership or the agent thereof, stating that the structure has been inspected and is in compliance with the housing maintenance code. During the period of one year following its issuance, a certificate may be accepted by the city in satisfaction of the requirements of this section without the need for a second inspection. Subd. 4. OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED. The person relinquishing ownership or their designated agent shall obtain the certificate from the city prior to transfer of ownership. .The prospective owner shall not occupy the structure prior to issuance of the certificate, except pursuant to subdivision 5. Subd. 5. OCCUPANCY. A person may be granted permission to occupy a dwelling prior to issuance of the certificate upon the approval of the building official. The approval shall be based upon undue hardship or other extraordinary or exceptional circum- stances, provided that no circumstances shall consti- tute an immediate hazard. Approval shall not be given until the prospective owner or designated agent has filed on forms supplied by the city, a statement of intent to comply with the building official. Compli- ance dates in the statement of intent to comply shall be established by the building official. Failure to make the required corrections by the compliance dates shall constitute a violation of this code and shall render void any approval given pursuant to this subdi- vision. Subd. 6. If following the issuance of a certifi- cate, the city finds by complaint or otherwise that the structure .may be maintained in a substandard or deferred manner, a new inspection will be required in order to satisfy the requirements of this section. 0055BI87.F54 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MEMORANDUM March 21, 1987 TO: James Prosser, City Manager FROM: Patrick Coughlin, Fire Division Commander SUBJECT: PROPOSED RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE Atached is the rental licensing ordinance we wish to propose to the city council for consideration. ~: ,~~~ The ordinance is one part of our response to concerns raised by council members and citizens regarding the condition of property in the city. Our objective is to systematically develop a set of ordinances designed to control deterioration of Richfield's housing stock, since such deterioration increases the risk of ( health and safety problems for .our residents. We will be presenting further recommendations in the near future on revisions to other ordinances and changes in our enforcement methods. BACKGROUND The City of Richfield has enforced housing maintenance ordinances since 1968. The ordinances are based upon nationally recognized standards for housing. They are designed to ensure that homes and apartments are maintained in compliance with the building code after they are built. Our ordinances require the minimum safety, hygiene and space standards needed to allow our citizens to live in a safe environment. We enforce the housing maintenance ordinances by responding to complaints generated by citizens, usually neighbors or renters who become aware of a violation and cannot get it resolved. The ordinances require that we notify the violator in writing and give him ten days to comply with the ordinance. We have concluded from our analysis of the problem that our present housing maintenance standrds are adequate; we will not be recommending that we add new standards or make our existing ones more restrictive. We have identified the problem as the process we use to enforce those standards. i .~., `~. ~~ The rental licensing ordinance. is designed ' enforcement procedure. It will allow us to sooner by looking for violations on routine rather than wait until the problem becomes someone notifies us. to change our identify problems periodic inspections, so serious that The present method of enforcement requires that someone notify us of a violation before we investigate. We find that in most instances people will tolerate a violation for a long period of time before calling us. They do so for several reasons. For instance, people often hope that the violator will correct the problem voluntarily, and don't want to risk offending the violator by complaining. We are all aware of a host of neighbor feuds which started. with such a complaint. In the case of renters, they usually have notified the owner and don't call us until they feel the owner's work wasn't effective or he is taking an unreasonable amount of time to respond to their request. The time delay, for whatever reason, means that the violations have become more serious by the time we investigate. That complicates the enforcement process because more serious violations are more expensive to remedy and take longer to correct. Meanwhile the renter or neighborhood is exposed to a health or safety risk for a longer period of time. About half of the property maintenance complaints we receive annually are from rental occupancies, although rental units comprise only a third of all living units in the city. The enforcement problem is being aggravated by the rapid increase in rented one family homes. The number of these homes has more than doubled in the past ten years. The 1977 housing survey noted 200 homes which were not owner-occupied. The most recent count notes 500 homes in this category. Historically, absentee landlords have been the most difficult types of violators to deal with. The inspection records sY}ow that they are less likely to maintain their property than owner- occupied homes, and thus generate a higher rate of complaints. We have difficulty in locating the landord to discuss the problems, as many of them use a post office box to collect rents and do not make their home address or phone number readily available. When we do contact them it usually takes several contacts to get any cooperation. Other cities in Minnesota and around the country have implemented rental licensing ordinances to help resolve the health and safety problems brought on by deteriorating housing. A list of Minnesota cities which regulate rental units and levy fees is attached.. ti J ~.; ~~~~ FEATURES OF RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE The ordinance would require every owner of rental living units, be they apartments, duplexes or one family homes, to apply for a license to operate. It would not apply to homeowners who live in their home and rent out a room: The license would be annually renewable and subject to revocation if the property does not comply with the housing maintenance ordinance. A fee would be charged, and the revenues would pay for two and one half new positions in the Inspection Division. A housing inspector would be hired to perform the more complex and technical inspections, such as electrical and heating systems. A firefighter would be hired to work a 40 hour per week schedule to perform the routine housing inspections. A half-time secretary would be added to handle apointments and scheduling for both inspectors as well as the license applications, record keeping and correspondence. Hiring persons specifically for those duties-would allow us to select persons who can use common sense and diplomacy in enforcing the housing ordinance, as we realize that those characteristics are important for gaining compliance in a cooperative spirit. Training would be ongoing to ensure that they maintain a high level of technical and communication skills. ADVANTAGES OF RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE The rental licensing ordinance will allow us to inspect each rental unit periodically to ensure that it is being maintained in compliance with the housing code. We will be able to spot potential problems and inform the owner before a violation occurs. For example, we can point out a screen door that isn't shutting properly so the owner can repair it before it becomes an opening for mice or insects; at present we do not become aware of the problem until the building needs pest control measures. We will be able to point out minor violations and get them corrected before they become a serious health and safety threat. Lastly, we will be taking on the responsibility for noting the violations to the owners instead of leaving it to the tenants and neighbors. This will serve to keep relations between them smoother and reduce tensions caused by having to inform us of violations. C DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD MEMORANDUM April 17, 1987 James Prosser, City Manager Patrick Coughlin, Fire Division Commander COSTS FOR. IMPLEMENTING RENTAL LICENSING AND POINT OF SALE ORDINANCE Per your request, I have broken down the costs of maintaining an inspection program to enforce the above ordinance, which was reviewed at the April 9th Council study session. The program is designed to be self-supporting. No funds from the inspection fees will be used to support any other activities. Once the program is underway we will monitor the costs and revenues, and will adjust the fees up or down to reflect our actual costs. The program's total cost is based upon four factors, the number of inspections required, the time needed for the inspections, the number of personnel needed to perform the inspections, and the level of expertise of the personnel. Each of these factors is discussed below in detail to show how they relate to the cost. Number of Inspections Our estimates of the number of inspections required are based on data supplied by the Community Development Department. They list 4,575 apartment units, 374 duplexes, and 500 non-homesteaded single family homes in the city. Home sales in the city have averaged about 500 per year, with a range from 200 to 700. 1 Our inspection experience with current building and fire . inspections indicates that each apartment building and house will" require 1.5 inspections. That is, for every two inspections we perform, one will require that we do a follow-up inspection. For the apartment unit inspections, we will need 1:2 inspections. 'The annual total number of inspections required to enforce the " ordinance will be approximately 7,549 inspections. .~ 1 i Inspection Time G~ ° ` Our estimates of the time required to perform the inspections are based upon our experience with building and fire inspections. Follow-up inspections take about one third to one fourth the time. of initial inspections. We verified our estimates with the City of St. Louis Park fire department, which has a licensing program similar to our proposal. Our estimates .matched their experience. The total hours required for the inspections will be approximately 2,315 hours. Number of Personnel The number of personnel required to operate the inspection program are based upon the assumption that the inspectors would be devoting.20-30 hours per week to inspections, with the balance used for report writing, filing, training, lunch breaks, etc. Two inspectors will be capable of performing the required inspections in 40-60 weeks, depending upon where in the weekly range our actual experience falls. In addition, a clerical position will be needed to handle correspondence, perform the telephone scheduling for the inspectors, receive and process the license applications, and maintain the record system. We are proposing that we start with a halftime clerical position for the program start-up, and not go to a full time position unless it is warranted after the program is fully operational. Level of Expertise The point of sale inspections will require an inspector trained and experienced in all facets of building and housing codes, including building, electrical, plumbing and heating. This person must be familiar with the full .range of electrical, plumbing and heating devices-which exist, and must be capable of performing a thorough inspection of each system. We will require that the succesful applicant hold a state certificate in building inspection. Also, the person selected will be one with several years of experience in residential inspection, since good judgement is 'required to determine when an older component of any of these systems is likely to be a safety threat. The apartment inspection can be performed by basic building inspection requirements. This need the level of expertise of the above, as inspector would be available for consultation problems. a person trained person would not the housing on technical J in 2 "~D l We are proposing that a firefighter working a 40 hour week be assigned to inspect apartment units. Using a firefighter will give us one more person available for any structure fires during .the day. The firefighter/inspector would be called to a fire on the average of once a week, which would not affect the inspection duties that much. It will, however, provide us with an extra person at a time when it is difficult to get off-duty personnel. The clerical position will not require skills beyond normal secretarial duties. The. specific building and housing code background needed for the position can be taught on the fob. Program Costs Nearly all of the program's cost is personnel cost. The annual salaries for the positions were derived from existing personnel costs. The amounts reflect the entire cost of each position, i.e., salary plus all fringe benefits such as vacation, holidays, health and life insurance, pension costs, etc. Also, the amounts are based upon the salary ranges for experienced personnel. Housing Inspector $30,000.00 Firefighter 40,000.00 Clerical 20,000.00 Administration, j Office Supplies, Forms, etc. 20,000.00 -• TOTAL $110,000.00 R ovonn c ~. The revenues are based upon the proposed four. The schedule considers the time nee Inspections for point of sale, apartment houses will take the most time (about 45 these occupancies have a higher fee than will take less time. fee schedule on page aded per inspection. building and rented ;. minutes). Therefore, apartment units, which i Four attachments are included after page four, which show fees charged by other cities in the metro area for similar programs. ti 3 Brooklyn Center - ` ~-~~ C Single family - 525.00 (2 years) Duplex.' - $25.00 1 unit - $35.00 2 units . Multi-family - $20.00 per building and $5.00 for each add. unit Bloomington Apartment and Townhouses 550.00 for first 2 units and S 6.00 for each additional unit Duplex: If owner lives in one side there is no fee, If both sides, renters charge is 536.00 New Brighton Multi Family $5.00 .per unit per year with a minimum of 515.00 St. Louis Park License fees for 1 or 2 buildings $30.00 r multi-family 3 to 9 buildings 560.00 t 10 or more 5120.00 Inspection fees for 3-5 units S 6.00 multi-family 6-10 5.50 11-20 5.00 21-40 4.50 v ~ 41-100 4.00 .101-200 3.50 ' 200 & up 3.00 ~~ff~~-- J9~? f/'~',rr ~, ~- Decision Resources Ltd. March 1, 1989 Mr. Jack Erskine Director of Public Safety City of Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Erskine: ~~.34 When you asked me to consider methods of evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed rental unit inspection ordinance, I had no idea that straighforward techniques could not be readily applied. I had hoped that statistical methods had progressed sufficiently so that some sort of standard measurement could be used; unfortunately, they have not! So, instead, it will be necessary to approach the evaluation problem from several perspectives. The starting place in any evaluation procedure is to first pre- set the desired outcomes from the ordinance. Clearly, Richfield would hope to reduce the number of "eyesore" rental units within the city. Code violations in the longterm should witness a decline.. Unfortunately, the aggregate number of violations will not initially witness this decrease. In the short run, an actual increase in violations will be noted because of the increased "tagging" due to more rigorous enforcement. The expected phenomenon, then, would be an increase in violations during the preliminary implementation period followed by a decline over time. This is referred to in the policy evaluation literature as an "adoption curve" and follows a predictable, testable pattern. The tracking of these numbers is fairly straightforward. If the ordinance is effective, a decrease in repeat offenders should be witnessed after the initial implementation period. This will be achieved through one of two processes: first, owners will comply with the more rigorous enforcement of codes; or second, owners will sell their property to new managers who will be more likely to comply. The tracking of these numbers should also be fairly simple. Over time, a decrease in readily visible violations should be 3128 Dean Court • ` inneapolis, ivtinnesota 55-16 • (612) 920-0337 ~`_'/ anticipated. However, a similar statement about non-obvious violations cannot be made. The nature of code violations should change from the former to the latter as owners become more familiar with the parameters of the law. Again, this is a simple tracking process. These types of measurement, however, are internal and time series comparisons. They do not permit complete assurance about the impact of the ordinance as separated from factors which may be influencing violations totally external to city activities. In other words, is it the new ordinance or was something happening in the suburbs at the time which could provide an alternative explanation? We do not have the luxury of totally precluding all competing explanation, unless the City would like to selectively enforce the new ordinance and allow a random selection of a test site! But, we can add some certainty to the evaluation process by devising a structure that would allow comparisons between Richfield and one or two other communities. Granted, there would not be a one-to-one relationship between Richfield and the other municipalities, but careful selection could minimize the major differences. Ideally, one community without a similar enforcement policy change and one which has instituted a change in the past should be used as comparative bases. A trained researcher would be able to standardize data collection and' maximize comparability. I would anticipate that the project :could be .completed in a very cost-effective manner and would not require a significant time expenditure. The combination of time series and longitudinal techniques, the two types of measures suggested, are referred to generically as "quasi-experimental methods." While they do not permit evaluators to be absolutely certain about the impact of a public policy, they do allow the rejection of most major and serious alternative explanations for any noted changes. And, when used with care, they can provide a sound basis for a:~sessing the impact of adopted policies. I hope that this discussion sufficiently addresses your concerns. In summary, while absolute certainty about the impact of an ordinance can be judged only under extremely rare circumstances -- usually illegal -- sound and defensible judgments can be made. We would be most interested in pursuing a rational evaluation strategy and cost-effective data analysis framework with you, if the need arises. Sincerely, /`~ . William D. Morris, Ph. . President ~~~~ C y r fl ~ rn ~~ ~ rn 3 o ~t1 ~ n p O ,~, O ~ n O O - `< ~ o' {~ o o' s -t ~} n 1 ~ C o e 3 a n ~ 1 r o 3 O ~ O ,~ w O ~ r- o rn C ~ ' Z 0 Z 0 r- Z o rt r- ~ m n O n A a n 9 .+~ M ~ ~jf P > r > O > .~ n e r o o r n e r o z ~ -v n rn ~~ City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue • Minnesota 55423 City Manager Mayor _ Council James D. Prosser Steve Quam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman February 6, 1989 Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council. City of Richfield Council Members: At the January 17, 1989 meeting of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), a proposed Truth in Housing type ordinance for rental property was discussed. Based on those discussions, the HRA adopted a motion urging the City Council to adopt such an ordinance for the following reasons: 1. The recently completed community survey indicates strong public support for the exterior and interior inspections of rental property in Richfield. 2. Such an ordinance would identify in a timely manner rental properties in the community which are starting to decay. Such early detection allows corrective measures to be employed before such properties become a problem area and before the problems become so costly that correction becomes difficult and subject to long delays. 3. Richfield has maintained a high standard of property maintenance in the past. This ordinance would ensure that the tradition is continued. 4. Richfield has had a long tradition for single and multiple family rental property. Inspection is the only practical way to insure that the level of quality and maintenance required of rental projects when they were approved will remain in effect as these properties age. Finally, as part of the inspection program, a method of evaluating program successes should be engaged. Program evaluation results could serve as a basis to either continue or modify such an inspection program. However, results would likely speak for themselves, showing the benefit and ongoing need for this program. ~'~ eaely, Thomas E. arms HRA Chairman Telephone 869-7521 (612) An Equal Opportunity Employer T~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 6 Agenda March 6, 1989 Issue Statement: Workers compensation coverage for elected officials.. Background: The workers' compensation statutes provide benefits to an "employee" who is injured while working. M.S. 176.011, subd. 9, (5), provides that an elected official is considered to be an "employee" for workers' compensation purposes only if the City has passed an ordinance or resolution to that effect. An elected official injured while performing his or her duties would not be eligible for workers' compensation benefits unless the City had passed that ordinance or resolution. Richfield's Personnel Ordinance does not define an elected official as an "employee" for the purpose of workers' compensation coverage. In addition, there is no record of a resolution that provides for workers' compensation coverage. Currently, an elected official of the City would not be covered by workers' compensation while performing official Council business. The purpose of this letter is to inform Council Members of this fact and seek direction from the Council concerning this policy. If the City wishes to provide workers' compensation coverage for elected officials, it is preferable to use an ordinance rather than a resolution. An ordinance will generally be easier to keep track of permanently, since it is also recorded in the City's ordinance book as well as in the Council minutes. The following wording could be used for such an ordinance: "Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 176.011, subdivision 9, clause 5, the elected officials of the City and those municipal officers appointed for a regular term of office are hereby included in the coverage of the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act." If the City does wish to cover its elected officials for workers' compensation, I would suggest that the Council pass an ordinance to that effect at a future City Council meeting. Recommended Motion: None. "-~ Basis For Recommendation: not applicable Discussion/Decision Mode: Not applicable. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:eja 7~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 5 Agenda March 6, 1989 Issue Statement: Consideration of strategies regarding Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. Background The City of Richfield continues to refine policy and develop strategy regarding the Metropolitan Council's dual track strategy. The policy refinement and strategy development is guided by the Richfield Airports Strategy Group (RASG). This group generally meets once or twice per month. Most recently the group met on February 23. One policy refinement issue was discussed based on the previous City Council work session. An analysis of the city position regarding the second airport took ,place. The general recommendation from RASG was that there was no need to emphasize support for, or opposition to, a second new airport. The City position should remain that the need for anew airport has not been firmly established. This is distinguished from a position which indicates adamant opposition to a new airport. The committee recommended that the City position emphasize the need for additional information prior to making a decision regarding a new airport or new runway as opposed to adamant opposition to the new airport. Updates on strategy implementation include the following: -Bloomington City Council has voted 4-3 to authorize Bloomington's participation in a joint Richfield/Bloomington study regarding the dual track approach. A charter requirement indicates that five affirmative votes are required for this study. The Bloomington City Council directed Bloomington staff to initiate contact with other communities to gauge possible broader support for this effort. -The airport brochure has been finalized and will be mailed shortly. After consultation with Council Members changes suggested at the previous workshop session were finalized. The cost of a cover letter and envelope mailing were estimated to be $1500. Again, Council Members agreed that a direct brochure mail-out would be appropriate. Council Members will be provided a copy of the finalized brochure as soon as it is available. -Representatives from .Bloomington and Richfield met with Senator Schmitz of the Senate Urban and Local '~-~ Affairs Committee. The city representatives reviewed our position regarding the airport and the prospect for a joint Richfield/Bloomington study. Senator Schmitz endorsed the concept of a study and sent a letter to MAC and Met Council requesting their cooperation in the report. Senator Schmitz said that he would await the results of that study to include the results as part of the Senate deliberations regarding airport issues. Senator Schmitz commended Richfield and Bloomington for their progressive and cautious position regarding this matter. -The strategy group reviewed the general purposes of the opinion survey previously authorized by the City Council. A copy of that outline is provided. Decision Resources, Ltd. would develop a draft questionnaire for review during early March. A finalized survey is expected to be completed in early April. -Representatives from the city met with Senator Freeman, Representative Tjornhom and Representative Henry and Met Council member Gertrude Ulrich to review our position regarding the airport. While there was general support for the city position, there were several suggestions for the use of different strategies. -City representatives met with Metropolitan Airports Commission staff to review the prospects for potential redevelopment in the New Ford Town area. That redevelopment would accommodate uses more compatible with airport related activities. The Metropolitan Airports Commission committed to developing a feasibility analysis schedule within the next 30 days. -The Minnesota Department of Transportation has scheduled an EIS scoping study for March 14. City staff is preparing a statement for that meeting. A written comment will be provided at the hearing on March 14. The comment must be delivered by March 21. -At the suggestion of Don Priebe, Bob Collette a former FAA official, has been retained by the city to assist in the strategy group. As an FAA official, Collette was responsible for planning and development for airport related activities at MSP. Collette has demonstrated a thorough knowledge of issues regarding the airport; especially as they relate to the 4/22 extension, airport capacity alternatives, and operations. Collette will assist in the development of the 4/22 EIS scoping documents. ~ -~~ -Several efforts have been initiated in the legislature regarding the airport. Those efforts generally appear to restrict MAC from any further improvements at the airport for an indefinite period of time. Recommendation• Based upon the•status of the strategy of implementation described as well as other developments, the following recommendations are made. -The city policy regarding the airport should remain as previously described. The policy includes: 1. Support keeping the airport where it is. 2. Improve the airport as necessary,. but not construct a north/south runway. 3. Minimize environmental impact. -Continuation of strategies to implement these policies including: 1. Continue to clarify City of Richfield position with Legislators, MAC, Metropolitan Council and other regulatory bodies reviewing this matter. This is accomplished primarily by testimony at hearings, letters to appropriate officials, and individual meetings with Legislators as appropriate. 2. Gather additional information to refute the basis of the dual track strategy. The City of Richfield and the City of Bloomington are working to cooperate in a joint venture to gather additional information to refute the Met Council dual track strategy. This would primarily be accomplished through a study jointly funded by the two communities. The study would examine the following basic elements: o Volume and mix of air traffic which will use Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport during the forecast period. o Capability of the MSP Airport to accommodate that traffic. Alternative ways of enhancing the airport's capacity. o Economic impact of relocation of the existing airport and the opportunities for economic growth by existing and future commercial and service business in the communities. o Interaction between the Twin Cities region and other. regions with respect to ~/ ~ demand of air travel, and the ability of each region to accommodate that demand. o The economic and environmental impacts and benefits of the north-south alternatives on the community. o Recommendation for Legislature and/or agencies actions related to meeting future air travel needs in the Twin City market. 3. Staff will provide continued updates to local legislators regarding the City position and strategies on the airport. 4. The City will conduct a public .opinion survey in Richfield and South Minneapolis. The purpose of the survey will be to gather information from the public regarding their opinion about the curent airport location. 5. The City will make contacts to other business groups in an attempt to gain their support for an airport policy similar to that expressed by Richfield. Basis for Recommendation: 1. To implement strategies consistent with the city policy regarding the airport. Alternative Recommendation: 1. A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the work shop meeting of March 6. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for discussion at the work shop meeting of March 6. Respect~"t}~lly submitted, Jame~D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja