04/27/1998 CONF MTG - 4817�
�
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING
Apri127, 1998 - 6:00 p.m.
Conference Room A (Upper Level)
1. Speed Board Trailer Demonstration (5:50 p.m.)
2. Lawful Gambling
3. 1999 Goals and Objectives (Police Department)
4. Fridley Community Center Update
5. Systematic Code Administration/Enforcement
6. Rental Property Inspection Program
7. Other Business
Adjourn
�
cirY oF Fwo��r
MEMORANDUM
TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS CITY MANAGER ��
, �
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: LAWFUL GAMBLING CHAPTER 30
DATE: APRIL 24,1998
Attached is ir�formation from City Attomey Fritz Knaak regarding possible amendments to
our Lavvful Gambling chapter of the City Code. This ir�formation is intended to be used as
discussion material at the Cor�ference Meeting on April 27.
Once Council determines a direction for amending Chapter 30, staff might have some
additional suggestions that would help clarify the reporting requirements for lawful gambling
proceeds.
APR-25-98 SAT 01;16 AM FAX N0, P, 02
W�y�}� n. IIolst�d
Russcll L.C. Larson
John L. I,i��dell
ICarcn I-l.ill Pjeld 'j'�
John C.1'ovcjsil
�'Rc:�11 Property Law Spccialisl
April 24, 1998
��O�,STA� �b.Nl) LA�tSf�N, r.�,.c.
Attorncy5 at Law
3535 VaJnabs Ccntcr lnt•ivc, Suitc I30
St. Paul, Minneso[� 5S110
Tclep[i�tic: (6X2) �i9U-9078
�+,icsim9lc: (6�2) 490-1580
Mr. William Champa
City Clerk, City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
,Fridley, MN 56321
RE: Charitable Gambling
D�ar Bill:
OJCnr�nsel
T'rcderic W. Knaak* '
" /11,� 1.iCC(l�Oti Ill
Wisconsin R: (;ol�rad�
BY FACSIMILE AT 571-1287
AND U.S. MAIL
� As we discussed yesterday, the Council directed me to provide it with some information
for its Conference Meeting this coming Monday on possible options for amending the
City's Lawful Gambling Ordinance.
At a previous meeting, I had agr�ed to do some addtional informal, investigations
concerning the effectiveness of some of the provisions that can be found in other City
Gambling Ordinances. That work was to include contacting other city attorneys to see
if their experiences could be mined to see whether other language created any
particular problems for their cities. �
I have called around and discovered that most of the organizations covered by these
ordinances are, in fact, local, and no particular problems about their Iocations have
come up, at least that anyone was willing to discuss with me. Unfortunately, I found
little to improve my own discomfort about the use of residency requirements.
As you can imagine, other cities, like Fridley, would prefer that only Iocal organizations
b� permitted licenses within their jurisdiction so as, presumably, to assure that the
gambling proceeds would be spent in the City. The Cities with residency requirements
(requiring an office location within the City is one such requirement) generally have not
had any bad experiences with non-qualifying outsiders objecting to the requirement.
There is, no knowing whether the requirements have had the effect of fending off
outside organizations that might otherwise have wished to conduct lawful gambling
within the City.
APR-25-98 SAT 01�17 RM FAX N0, P, 03
Mr. Wiiliam Champa
April 22, �1998
page Two
1 have attached to this letter a draft ordinance that addresses this and several other
issues related to lawful gambling. The language I have drafted does not focus on a
residency requirement, as such, but instead centers on the ongoing presence of the
organization in the City, either by maintaining a permanent office in the City, or having
an Officer or Board Member of the Organization in the City and avaidable at all times.
This would focus on the City's desire to have a responsible person within the City,
available to the City in its supervisory role over its licensees. It would be a reasonable
defense to an argument that the City was imposing an ill�gal residency requirement. It
would also have, I believe, the intended effect of encouraging the selection of local
organizations, as opposed to others, by premises owners. At the very least, it would
require an "outside" organization to maintain an active, ongoing presence within the
City beyond a pulltab booth in a local tavern.
Other language I have drafted for the Council to consider in its examination of the issue
is �n increase in the percentage of gambling proceeds that must remain local, a�d the
creation of a requirement that the organizations donate ten percent of their net
proceeds to a special fund created by the City.
I hope you will find this information of assistance to you and 'the Council in its
consideration of this matter. Let me know if ( can be of any further assistance to you.
, Sincerely, .
, . ��,� ,
�rederic W..Knaak
Fridley City Attorney
cc: W Burns
APR-25-98 SAT 01�17 AM FAX N0, P, 04
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNES07A,
AMENDING SECTION 30 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE
GOVERNING LAWFUL GAMBLING WITHIN THE C11Y
THE CITY COUNCIL OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS:
That Section 30 of the City Code be amended, in pertinent part, to read as follows:
�
Section 30.03. REGULATIONS
1. Licensed organizations conducting lawful gambling within the City of Fridley
shall expend #i#t�pefseR�-(�A°l� one hund,red percent (�OOfI of its expenditu�es for
lawful purposes conducted or located within the City of Fridley trade area. The Citv of
Fridley Trade area is limited to the City of Fridley and each city contiguous to the City
of Fridley.
�
3, Licensed organizations conducting lawful gambling may not conduct pull-tab
sale operations in more than�we one premises within the City.
7. In order to conduct lawful vamblin_q within the City, a l;censed or.c�anization
must either: 1Z mainfain within the Citv a staffed otfice or similar location af
which it mav be contacted durinq norma/ business hours and which would serve
as the formal addre�ss of the orpanization wirhin the Cifv: or 2) have amona its
6oard vf Directors or Officers an individual who resides in the Citv whase
resnonsibilitv it wou/d be #o be avai/able to the City af anv and all times as
necessarv in the supervision and requ/ation of the licensed /awful qamblinq
activities, and who wvuld be a fullv authorized aqent of the licensed oraanization
wifh full aufhorify to acf on ifs behalf. /n eifher instance, the licensed
orqanization shall have on call and available on a twentv-four-hour a-day basis,
an individual fullv authorized to act on its behalf in matfers re/atinq fo its lawful
_qamblinq license. �
�
4
APR-25-98 SAT 01�17 RM FAX N0, P, 05
SECTION 30.04 LOCAL GAMBLING TAXAND COMMUNITYFUND
1. A local gambfing tax of three percent (3°!0) of the gross reccipts from lav+r�ul
gambling, less prizes actually paid by the organization, shall be paid to the City for the
purpose of regulating said gambling. Any tax not utilized in conjunction with regulating
said gambling shal) be returned to the contributing organizations annually.
Organizations operating under a State and City approved lawful gambling exemption
certificate are exempt from the local gambling tax.
2, Ten�nercenf (10%) of al! net profits derived from lawful charitable Qam6linq
in the City of Fridley sha/l be aaid to the Citv by the lawful 4amblin4 license
holders annuall and de osited b fhe Cif in a s ecial account and fund
established for thaf ur ose. Proceeds from that fund shall be used exclusivel
for fhe purnose vf fundinp lawful activities within the Citv of �rid/elr,
The foregoing was advpted by the Fridley City Council, after its First Reading, on
, 1998, and Second Reading on
Signed;
Attest:
��� f i � I ��
� i i'% i �
Please bring the Poiice Depart.ment's
1999 Goais and Objectives
to the conference meeting
on Monday night. �
Thank you.
a
MEMORANDUM
PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: April 23, 1998
TO: William W. Burns, City Manager �`�'�
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Kurt Jenson-Schneider, Planning Assistant, Code Administration
SUBJECT: Systematic Code Administration/ Enforcement
INTRODUCTION
One of the Community Development Department's 1997 objectives was to improve
the appearance of residential and business properties. The primary activity to
implement this objective was to systematically inspect one half of the City. This
memo will provide a general review of the systematic process, 1997 statistics, a
review of the division of tasks between systematic and complaint systems, a
discussion of the use of an intern, use of CSO's, weed procedures, innovations in
enforcement ,repeat offender procedures, proposed inspection areas, computer
tracking, and reports.
GENERAL REVIEW OF THE SYSTEMATIC PROCESS
Systematic Code Administration is a process that puts staff out in front of citizen
complaints. It allows neighbors to co-exist without complaining about each other.
Our systematic process began in 1997. The process involves a blanket inspection
of a specific area, notification of the owner's of property with violations within that
area, a re-inspection of the district after 15 days, re-notification of property owners
who have not corrected their issues, a final re-inspection of those properties, and
the issuance of a citation for those property owners who have simply ignored the
process.
UPDATE ON 1997 STATISTICS
To put the 1997 statistics in perspective it is appropriate to review 1996 numbers.
During 1996, Kurt handled 607 code cases. These ranged from: outdoor storage,
to illegally posted signs, illegally parked vehicles, weeds, and
William W. Burns
April 23, 1998
PAGE 2
general property conditions. Only 1%(7 cases) resulted in citations. The City
received favorable verdicts in all cases.
Year-end numbers were up in 1997. A total of 1198 cases were initiated. Of those
cases, 89% were resolved on the first notice. There were 7% of the remaining
cases that were resolved upon second notice and the final 4% (51 cases) went to
court through the a criminal citation process. The City once again received
favorable verdicts in all cases in the court system. To our knowledge, this is the
heaviest level of code enforcement court activity, in the City's history.
As of year end 1997, Kurt had tagged 188 vehicles as junk or inoperable. Only 7%
required impoundment. The police department has provided a great deal of
assistance in this area.
Did we reach our goal of 50%? No, we fell short , but we've identified the issues
and their solutions for the 1998-99 inspection program.
1998 PROGRAM
The 1998 code enforcement program has included finro large scale nuisance
abatements (5750 Madison St. / 5861 West Moore Lake Dr.) and the successful
prosecution of the property owner at 650 Ely Street. The summer of 1998
promises to be a very productive one in the area of code enforcement. Early
indications show that staff will surpass the volume reached in 1997.
INNOVATIONS IN CODE ENFORCEMENT
The 1998 process has undergone some significant changes. The division of
duties between the efficient systematic inspection program and the time intensive
complaint response approach will be more clearly defined. A 20 hour per week
intern is currently being sought to serve as the systematic inspector while Kurt
concentrates on complaint driven cases, systematic inspection inquiries, and
cases requiring court activity.
Use of an intern
Staff anticipates bringing the systematic inspection intern on-line by mid-May.
The intern will be responsible for the first round of district inspections, properly
owner notification, and data entry. Kurt will conduct follow-up inspections of those
locations that receive non-compliance notices. In conjunction with the complaint
driven cases, the intern will also be entering code enforcement data into a
Microsoft Access/VVord database. Staff anticipates using this data for detailed
tracking and reporting purposes.
William W. Burns
April 23, 1998
PAGE 3
Modifications to the notification process have also been initiated. To minimize the
initial administrative impact of producing large volumes of letters, a"leave at the
door" duplicating notice is in the development stages. These notices will more
effectively/efficiently notify residents of code violations on the day of the inspection.
During the week of April 13 -April 16, staff received 11 complaints from Council
members. As with all complaints, these need to be resolved, but oftentimes there
is a higher expectation for turn-around time on Council issues. Rather than
beginning the standard process once the complaint is received, staff is asked to
resolve the issues quickly, sometimes within the day that the complaint is issued.
Inter-departmental cooperation
Staff has developed strong working relationships inter-departmentally. Numerous
cases have been resolved with cross-involvement of police, fire, public works,
assessing, and various other staff.
The use of Community Service Officers and the general cooperation of the police
department in the code enforcement process has been very beneficial. Routine
reporting of incidents involving code enforcement issues is taking place.
Community Senrice Officers are actively using the code violation obsenration
tablets to report violations they have observed.
The Fire/Rental inspection staff has agreed to document outdoor conditions on all
future rental inspections. Any notes on violations will be documented through the
tablet process and turned over to Kurt for follow-up.
WEED PROCEDURES
Community Service Officers will also be enlisted to pay specific attention to weed
violations and vacant lot maintenance. Staff will initiate contact with "repeat" weed
violation loc�tions by June 1, 1998, in an attempt to address property maintenance
concerns before violations are present. A similar attempt occurred last year and
was successful in gaining the cooperation of several habitual weed violators.
REPEAT OFFENDER PROCEDURES
Staffs process in dealing with repeat offenders has been streamlined. Upon
observation of a violation on a site staff checks the property owner information of
that property. If our records show that this is the same owner that has been
notified previously for the same or a similar violation, no notice is given. A citation
is issued.
William W. Burns
April 23, 1998
PAGE 4
PROPOSED INSPECTION AREAS
A map of the districts to be completed in 1998 is attached for your review. Districts
E3, E4, F3, &F4, have been completed, but there are some large scale clean-up
projects (i.e. Steve Saba properties, Tam's Rice Bowl, etc) that continue as we
move forward into the next districts. Districts A1, B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, C2, C3, and
C4 will be completed next. We anticipate that inspection of these districts will
begin the last week of May. The highlighted districts in the center of the City will
be assigned to our intern in May.
COMPUTER TRACKING AND REPORTS
A Microsoft Access/Word tracking database is currently being used to track
complaints and to issue notification letters. This software is currently under
refinement. The end result we are working towards is an advanced reporting
feature that will allow staff to better query files and report statistics by violation
type, address, name of violator, etc.
1999 PROCESS PREPARATION:
Our experience over the past finro years tells us we need additional staff to fully
realize the success we desire. Therefore, a 20 hour/week intem will be requested
in 1999. That intem (like the one programmed for this year) will supplement our
eyes on the street completing district inspections, leaving notices at properties,
and entering data once they have retumed to the office.
The additional hours will allow us to continue our progress on the systematic
process, while allowing time to follow-up on the complaints that demand immediate
attention.
CONCLUSION:
The objective of the code enforcement process is to improve the appearance of
residential and business properties. Though coverage has not been as rapid as
anticipated, great progress has been made and staff looks optimistically to the
future of this process. We hope this memo has provided you with an adequate
update of the systematic process, has introduced you to some of the innovations,
and has alerted you to the staffing needs for 1999.
x
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
x�
TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER iT
FROM: RALPH MESSER, RENTAL PROPERTY INSPECTION DIVISION (RPID ��
DATE: APRIL 22, 1998
SUBJECT: RENTAL PROPERTY INSPECTION PROGRAM
This is the Fire Department's Rental Property Inspection Division (RPID) Annual Report for 1997. The
report is intended to assist Council's evaluation of the inspection program's achievements, obstacles and
goals. The report contents are:
I. Achievement of Inspection Performance Objectives
Rental Inspection District Grid Map
A. Completion of 1997 Inspection Objectives
B. 1998 Inspection Objectives
II. Compliance Challenges -1997/1998 License Year
III. Reporting - Statistical Graphs
A. 1997 Inspection Activity By Quarter
B. Correction Orders Issued by Violation
IV. Administrative Challenges - 1998
We are available to answer any concern which you or Council may have regarding the rental property
inspection program.
Thank you.
cc C. McKusick
R. Larson
NOTES
Inspaction G�ids by Inspec,�ian
� Year Tvw
Grt�ids 3, 4, 5, 7, 10,
0 Year Three
G�ids 8, 14, 66
� Year Four
�ids 2, 13, 15, 55
0 C�.urerrtly No Rerrtal Units
far Inspec,�tian in G�ids 6 and 12
1997 ANNUAL REPORT
I(A). Completion of 1997 Inspection Objectives
Inspection District # 8
Boundaries: North: Mississippi Place, N.E.; South: I-694; East: East River Road, N.E.; and
West: Mississippi River.
Units: 644 units (37 properties)
Note: Filister Enterprises, Inc. (dba Georgetown Apartments) owns 462 units. Division
personnel have been excluded from inspecting by owner, Mr. Harvey Filister. Fritz Knaack,
City Attorney, is nearing a settlement with Mr. Filister which will permit inspection of his
properties. Filister Enterprises unit totals are not included in the total of "Initial Inspections
Remaining" .
Units Completed: 164 units
Property Description by Units:
Single dwelling units: 2 properties
Two dwelling units: 7 properties
Three or four dwelling units: 7 properties
Five to eight dwelling units: 0 properties
Nine to twelve dwelling units: 9 properties
Thirteen to twenty four dwelling units: 0 properties
Twenty five or more dwelling units: 12 properties
Inspection District # 14
Boundaries: North:
Highway 65
Gardena Avenue, N.E.; South: I-694; East: City Limits; and West:
Units: 179 units (56 properties)
Units Completed: 165 units
Property Description by Units:
Single dwelling units: 50 properties
Two dwelling units: 0 properties
Three or four dwelling units: 0 properties
Five to eight dwelling units: 0 properties
Nine to twelve dwelling units: 3 properties
Thirteen to twenty four dwelling units: 0 properties
Twenty five or more dwelling units: 3 properties
Inspection District # 66
Boundaries: North: Rice Creek; South: Mississippi Street, N.E.; East: Highway 65; and West:
University Avenue.
Units: 1 (1 property)
Units Completed: 1 unit
Property Description by Units:
Single dwelling units: 1 property
When access to Filister Enterprises properties was denied, two other complex properties for 1998 inspection
(River Road East and River Pointe) assented to initiating inspections in 1997. Full completion of the
inspection process is scheduled for 1998.
1997 Inspection Statistics
Initial Inspections (Scheduled maintenance inspections): 881
Initial Reinspections (Follow up inspection to Initial Inspection): 823
Rental Complaints Received: 154
Rental Complaint Investigations: 135
Rental Complaint Reinspections: 128
Rental Complaint Cleared: 102
Entry Denied By Tenant: 13
Correction Orders Issued: 1584
Ordinance Violation Notice (Pre-Citation Final Warning): 1
2
Analysis of Conditions Requiring Correction - 1997
Total Correction Order Issued: 1584
Conditions Requiring Correction Orders
1. Interior Finishes 19.7 %
Includes damaged or unsecured floor covering; paint and finishes on walls, ceilings
and trim; damaged kitchen wall and bathroom wall tile; damaged counters, closets,
cabinets and built-in storage; replacement of damaged trim and moldings; heat register
covers; includes interior window trim, glass and operation
2. Exterior Structural 16.7 %
Maintenance of building entrance and exit doors and closers; dwelling unit entry doors
and closers; siding condition; roofing, eaves, fascia and trim replacement; foundation
walls
3. Interior Structural 16.2 %
Repair of damaged walls, ceilings and floors including replacement and resurfacing of
damaged drywall; floor and underlayment repair; repair of damage to interior doors
4. Life Safety Conditions 12.7 %
Smoke detectors; maintenance of fire alarm systems; fire extinguisher maintenance;
Improper storage of combustibles and flammables
5. Exterior Finishes 12.4 %
Exterior paints and finishes; exterior screens and windows; exterior caulking
3
I(B). 1998 INSPECTION OBJECTIVES
Year 4 Inspection Total: 763 dwelling units (84 properties)
Total Units Scheduled or In Inspection Process: 691 units (90.5 %) (As of April 1, 1998)
Note: Units owned by Filister Enterprises (dba Georgetown Apartments) have not been included in
these totals. We believe that a negotiated settlement with Mr. Filister is imminent with regard to
entry of rental property inspectors. In part, the agreement contains the provision of inspection one
building per month until the complex is completed. Inspections of Filister's 462 units (11 properties)
will commence immediately upon settlement and continue at the rate of one property per month.
Inspection District # 2
Boundaries: North: 79�' Way, N.E. and 79�' Avenue, N.E.; East: University Avenue, N.E.;
South: Osborne Road and Osborne Way, N.E.; and West: Mississippi River.
Total Properties in District: 19
Total Dwelling Units in District: 323
Units Scheduled for Inspection or Involved in the Inspection Process: 313 (96.9 %)
Property Description by Units:
Single dwelling units: 4 properties
Two dwelling units: 8 properties
Three or four dwelling units: 2 properties
Five to eight dwelling units: 0 properties
Nine to twelve dwelling units: 0 properties
Thirteen to twenty four dwelling units: 0 properties
Twenty five or more dwelling units: 5 properties
Inspection District # 13
Boundaries: North: 61S` Avenue, N.E./ West Moor Lake Drive, N.E.; East: U.S. Highway 65;
South: I-694; and West: University Avenue, N.E.
Total Properties in District: 29
Total Dwelling Units in District: 85
Units Scheduled for Inspection or Involved in the Inspection Process: 60 (70.6 %)
Property Description by Units:
Single dwelling units: 8 properties
Two dwelling units: 13 properties
Three or four dwelling units: 4 properties
Five to eight dwelling units: 2 properties
Nine to twelve dwelling units: 0 properties
Thirteen to twenty four dwelling units: 0 properties
Twenty five or more dwelling units: 0 properties
4
Inspection District # 15
Boundaries: North: I-694; East: Central Avenue, N.E. (U.S. Highway 65); South: City Limits;
and West: University Avenue, N.E.
Total Properties in District: 27
Total Dwelling Units in District: 162
Units Scheduled for Inspection or Involved in the Inspection Process: 142 (87.7 %)
Property Description by Units:
Single dwelling units: 4 properties
Two dwelling units: 9 properties
Three or four dwelling units: 10 properties
Five to eight dwelling units: 1 property
Nine to twelve dwelling units: 0 properties
Thirteen to twenty four dwelling units: 0 properties
Twenty five or more dwelling units: 3 properties
Inspection District # 55
Boundaries: North: Rice Creek; East: University Avenue, N.E.; South: Mississippi Avenue,
N.E. and Mississippi Way, N.E.; and West: Mississippi River.
Total Properties in District: 9
Total Dwelling Units in District: 193
Units Scheduled for Inspection or Involved in the Inspection Process: 176 (88.3 %)
Property Description by Units:
Single dwelling units: 0 properties
Two dwelling units: 2 properties
Three or four dwelling units: 2 properties
Five to eight dwelling units: 3 properties
Nine to twelve dwelling units: 1 property
Thirteen to twenty four units: 0 properties
Twenty five or more dwelling units: 1 property
5
IL COMPLIANCE CHALLENGES - 1997/1998 LICENSE YEAR
1. In 1997, Filister Enterprises, Inc. notified the Rental Property Inspection Division that it would not
permit inspection of its 11 Fridley rental properties. Mr. David Karan, Attorney for Mr. Harvey Filister,
stated in writing that Filister's primary concern was a tenant right to privacy issue. Dialogue has continued
between staff, Mr. Filister, Mr. Karan and Mr. Knaak for just over a year to resolve all issues and permit
inspection of Filister property. Currently, the City has made an offer to Mr. Karan and Mr. Filister for
resolution of disputed issues. We anticipate either initiating inspections or continuing resolution dialogue by
the end of April, 1998.
2. Two problem properties owned by Eric Cermak at 5901 and 5924 2 lh Street, N.E. are finally in
compliance with Chapter 220. In May, inspectors completed inspections of both properties with the follow
up inspections scheduled for June 30. Division personnel were unable to contact Mr. Cermak to confirm the
follow up inspection and Mr. Cermak did not appear at either property and would not return calls for
rescheduling the inspections. Two calls for assistance were received in August and October from the
property at 5901 2 lh Street, N.E. During those calls, deplorable conditions were discovered by responding
firefighters. The apartment which was the subject of the August 2 call was posted as unfit for human
habitation. After each call, correction orders were written for affected units and forwarded to Cermak.
Additionally, it was discovered that Cermak had not paid his license fees. A meeting was scheduled with
Cermak to collect license fees and discuss immediate compliance with previous correction orders.
Inspections of both properties were conducted by Chief Larson on January 6, 13 and March 10, 1998. All
interior corrections have been made. One unit remains to be inspected on April 15, 1998 and all exterior
corrections will be completed by May 12, 1998.
3. Correction of deficient conditions at 910, 950 and 990 Lynde Drive, N.E. are nearing completion.
These properties are owned by Lynde Investments, Inc. Mr. Bennie Rozman is the main corporate operative
for Lynde Investments. Mr. Rozman has been steadily progressing toward compliance and many units in
Lynde Investment buildings have all corrections completed. Mr. Rozman has stated that remaining repairs to
the properties will commence this Spring and be completed by the Fall of 1998 including a large number of
windows which need to be replaced. Thus far, Mr. Rozman has been cooperative and responsive to our
correspondence and requests.
4. All initial inspections at River Road East, located at 6540-50 East River Road, N.E. have been
completed. Initially, KCS Property Management was asked if they would authorize inspection of their
properties out of sequence due to the Filister Enterprise situation. Several meetings were held between Fire
and City staff and building owners to address and resolve the tenant privacy issue. Tenant refusal at River
Road East has not influenced the effectiveness of the inspection program. To date, twelve tenants have
refused to allow inspections out of 141 units.
5. We are currently ordering the owner of 1284-96 Norton Avenue, N.E. to repair exterior siding,
refinish the building, repair all broken windows and replace or repair all damaged or missing window
screens. This building, located on the corner of Norton Avenue and Central Avenue, N.E., has been
somewhat of a neighborhood problem as well as a tenant problem. Much of the repair will be warm-weather
repair and probably will continue through the early Summer of 1998.
6
6. The property located at 5830 2°d Street, N.E., formerly owned by the late John Weatherly was
reclaimed by the bank and is now a HUD property. The building is currently vacant and maintained by
HUD. We have advised HUD that licensing, a full inspection and repair of deficiencies must occur
immediately following their sale of this property.
7. During 1998 inspections, Division personnel will assist Community Development with exterior
inspections during our scheduled rental property initial inspections. Examples of items department inspectors
will check include dumpster facilities including enclosures, lot and driveway maintenance, derelict vehicles
and general exterior conditions. Community Development has designed a pre-printed violations form for our
use. Following completion, we will return the form to Community Development for their use.
0
<
z
�
�
c
m
O
a
�
d
�
0
m
<
0
m
o'
�
Z
0
�
m
��
�
c
m
o.
o �
a�
� �
c -r
m
�- m
�
n �
o `�
1 IY
� O
� �
o �-
� N�
n c�n
� �
�
N p
� �
c
�a �
m
��
ca
c
�-
�,
c
�
m
a
Q
�
m
�
m
�
c�c���
0 0 0 0
3 � 3 3
(� �1 � �
a �. < <
.. � a
0 0 0 (�
a � �° 3
� �
ro �' � �.
� � � �
� � y
<
v � � �
Q �• � m
<
O j Q'
�
�
0
�
c
v
�
�
-n
m
c�
0
�
r
rn
�
rn
z
v
_ _
� �
�
m a,
�' v
� �
� �
� �
na �
�
m �
a a
> >
d �
� �
o v,
o �
� �
.n�.
� o.
� �
�
�
v
m
�
o'
�
�
m
�'
�
v
m
0
o�
�
.
• � �
� � � , �
.
.. •
..
.. .
�
i
.. ..
• •
•
�
. �
•
� . `
.
.
.. • .
•
• •
• •
�
�
•
.
.. . .. � �
. • . . •
•
�
:
� �
m Q
� _
� �
—�
� �
o �.
-�
5 �
y �
� �
N
� �
C' �
(D
�
�
�
�
¢1
� �
� N
'� �
A � �
� �; tD
� O y
fD �
3 D
rt
<
e�a�
K
c,.�
W
�
�
�
� T
� a
d �
-�
� T
O �.
�
7 �
N �
'D �
N
� �
fD
7
n
0
r�
�
rn^
♦I J
� �
0 �
Z "�
A
N
N
�
�
ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES 1998
1. DATABASE ESTABLISHMENT AND RENTAL PROPERTY & OWNER TRACKING
Much of our owner and rental property database tracking system has been installed and is currently
functional. Updated rental property and owner database information is forwarded each month to Community
Development, Police and Inspections departments by RPID. This procedure allows those charged with
enforcement of code provisions and ordinances the latest rental property owner information listed by
property. With the establishment of our computer network, rental property information will be forwarded
through the network. Work continues on the automation of correction order preparation and other pertinent
tasks and record keeping responsibilities which can be accomplished electronically.
Rental property owner changes continue to create a problem for staff. Although Chapter 220 permits
residential rental property license transference following a sale of the licensed property, there is no provision
requiring either Buyer or Seller to notify RPID when a property sale takes place. Therefore, staff expends a
disproportionate amount of time and effort tracking new property owners to enforce the licensing requirement
and update rental property and owner database information. A recommended legislation change requiring
reporting of a rental property sale or purchase is under current consideration by staff.
2. ELIMINATION OF DUAL LICENSING DATA ENTRY AND EFFORT
Updated procedures for rental property license issuance, license fee processing and application approval are
in place for the next license renewal period initiating in July, 1998.. RPID has established and will maintain
a licensing database for license information management, process fees, oversee the approval process and issue
licenses. This new procedure increases staff efficiency by reducing effort duplication by Finance and Rental
Property Inspection Division personnel and should simplify and streamline the licensing process.
3. RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM COST RECOVERY
Based on interest shown during the recent Council and Commissioner Survey, we will continue to examine
the issue of cost offset between the cost of the rental property program and rental property licenses revenues.
Although rental license fees have not increased since 1994, rental rates throughout the City continue to
increase. Currently we are developing several options which may generate additional revenue to offset
operational costs. Those include an increase in the base per unit fee (currently $ 25.00) which would
generally impact owners with four units or less; increase of unit fees after the base of four units are paid
(currently $ 5.00) which would impact larger building and complex owners; or an increase in both the base
and unit fee structures. The difficulty is devising a plan which will equally impact owners of all rental
property.
4. CODE CHANGES
During the course of business, the RPID has become aware of some areas of Chapter 220, Residential Rental
Property Maintenance and Licensing Code, which may require modification to be more effective.
10
a r
. �
Community Development personnel and RPID personnel will meet to discuss possible legislation changes
which may be recommended to Council for consideration.
We are also initiating a compilation of code provisions which are not currently a part of Chapter 220 but are
applicable to rental property and the inspection process. After examination of those provisions, a
recommendation may be made to include those provisions by reference or establish them as a part of Chapter
220.
ii