Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1891 <br />July 7, 2003 <br /> <br />important part of the fabric of U. City. They have been assuring fair housing practices <br />and making a handy reference for rentals and housing purchases in U. City for many <br />years. He would like to comment on the new contract wording that Mr. Ollendorff <br />mentioned. Mr. Wagner stated that section 9 is a bunch of mandates from the City <br />which instructs UCRS not to list properties if the City has deemed that the property or <br />owner has not met certain code requirements. This is a great idea, but in reality they <br />are unfriendly, unfunded mandates on UCRS. This would be a great administrative <br />burden for UCRS. He would rather see that this burden be put back on the Planning <br />inspectors. With that understanding, he highly supports this contract to UCRS. <br /> <br />Ms. Welsch noted that she had just recently purchased a building that did not need to <br />be inspected, but as she understands it, when a new tenant goes in, then it does have <br />to be inspected in order for that tenant to receive an occupancy permit. Mr. Ollendorff <br />said that she was correct. Ms. Welsch asked for further clarification on the timing <br />conflict involving how UCRS could list if the inspections aren't even scheduled until after <br />the tenant is found. Mr. Ollendorff replied that the law states that one cannot occupy <br />premises unless it has been inspected and brought up to our standards. He continued <br />saying that some landlords don't get around to requesting the inspection, and allows the <br />tenant to move in. Some landlords do follow the law. He is after the landlords that do <br />not. This means it is impossible for that unit to be up to code before the tenant moves <br />in. He would like to say that UCRS should not be able to list until they make all of the <br />repairs, but he thinks that this might be too strict. He would at least like to see the <br />landlords have the inspection made so there is some assurance that in a reasonable <br />time the repairs will be made. The inspections are good for six months. This also <br />initializes the 60 to 90 day timeframe to make repairs. We want to do everything <br />possible to encourage the landlords as quickly as possible - hopefully so the repairs are <br />done before they get a tenant. Ms. Welsch feels that the wording should be changed to <br />reflect that UCRS could list upon the landlord's agreement to get the inspection within a <br />week of listing or something along those lines. Mr. Ollendorff offered that UCRS could <br />list upon a paid and scheduled inspection. Ms. Welsch felt that this change would be <br />satisfactory. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner also felt that this was a good change. Mr. Wagner envisions that when <br />UCRS gets an offer to list a property that UCRS would send it over to Lehman Walker <br />and get UCRS a response within 24 hours. It is important for the City to be part of this <br />process. The burden should not rest on UCRS alone. Mr. Ollendorff said that the <br />landlord would only have to take his paid receipt from Planning for his scheduled <br />inspection over to UCRS and request his listing. This would be easier for everyone. <br />Mr. Wagner would rather the Planning department respond within a reasonable length <br />of time to a list or otherwise UCRS can go ahead and list it. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner offered an amendment for the top of #9 and #9d of the contract. Wording <br />should be included that amends current language for UCRS to exclude properties from <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br /> <br />