Laserfiche WebLink
<br />asked why there were line items for miscellaneous repair and maintenance and a similar <br />line item for just repairs and maintenance. Other similar line items were office computer <br />equipment and another line item for computer equipment. <br /> <br />Mr. Price asked Director Lehman Walker how the charge for rental property registration <br />would work. Mr. Lehman stated that of the 17,000 properties, forty-two percent are rental. <br />Each rental unit would be charged a twenty-five dollar registration fee similar to the vacant <br />building registration and this would generate approximately $175,000. He said <br />Washington University has approximately 800 units and Wynncrest has the same. <br />Between the two they comprise about twenty-five percent of the rental units in U.City. Mr. <br />Price said he did not look at it as revenue but rather as an expense reduction and asked <br />whether the fine level for nuisance houses or repeat offenders were only like a slap on the <br />wrist. Mr. Walker said the problem is that rentals have absentee owners and they just <br />don’t pay the fines. He said he has approached the City Attorney about being able to <br />place liens on these properties for unpaid fines. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner asked what the start up schedule would be for registration requirement for <br />rental properties. Mr. Walker said it would be a process of about three months. Mr. <br />Wagner asked Mr. Walker if the $175,000 is a reasonable estimate for the revenues <br />generated by the new program. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe asked if Mr. Walker would need any additional staff to do the rental registration <br />and was told he would not need additional staff but would need existing staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow asked Mr. Walker if he had a qualifying estimate of the time his staff spent on <br />rental properties in order to justify the registration charge. Mr. Walker sated he would have <br />to come back with those figures. Mr. Crow asked if the estimated collection for registration <br />was a gross figure and Mr. Walker agreed. <br /> <br />Ms. Ricci asked Mr. Walker about line item demolition and board up in his budget. Mr. <br />Walker stated that prior to FY 09, it was in the City Manager’s budget and had been moved <br />over to his department. Ms. Ricci asked Mr. Walker if there were any other line items that <br />were not contributable to revenue or expense of Community Development. Mr. Walker <br />stated that the salary of the City Hall’s receptionist is budgeted totally out of his <br />department. He also stated that money collected for demolition and board-up, does not <br />come back to his department. Other revenue his department does not receive is any <br />money from court fines, even though generated by Community Development. Mr. Lehman <br />stated that in terms of expenses the Community Development has charged to the cost of <br />inspections, includes staff salaries of the Zoning Administrator and the Manager of Long <br />Range Planning. Ms. Ricci stated that previously the City Manager talked of changing the <br />inspections of rental property to a three year inspection period but if the property turned <br />over, the new owner would be charged again even though an inspection would not be <br />done because of being within the three years. She asked how this would work. Mr. <br />Walker deferred an answer to the City Manager. Ms. Feier stated that the concept was <br />formed when looking at the high turnover in the rental areas. She said the amount <br />collected did not cover the cost of the inspections and re-inspections. Ms. Feier stated that <br />the City was trying to pick what was a reasonable time frame of having the City <br />inspections. Ms. Feier said that housing stock and quality housing stock is a priority and <br />the City wants to keep it at a high level without being there all of the time and identifying <br />new things. Ms. Ricci was concerned with the three years as she felt rental properties <br /> <br /> <br />