06-14-2006 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

As has been discussed previously, high calls for service places a strain on our police resources, lessens the perception of safety for the residents of the high call complexes, and impacts the citizens' perceptions of the quality of these complexes and the overall safety within our community. (This was evidenced in our recent community survey conducted by Decision Resources whereby 14% of the respondents singled out Montreal Courts or LaBore Road as a place they felt it wasn't safe to walk alone at night. Decision Resources said it was very unusual to have a specific apartment complex identified to that degree and was indicative of a problem area.) We have also attached some sample Rental Licensing Ordinances to give us some ideas as to how other jurisdictions have approached this issue. New Brighton and Brooklyn Center have similar ordinances. They create a "provisional licenses" if calls for service exceed .5 and .65 per unit respectively and are based on the more serious types of calls. The risk with their ordinances is the legality of the provisional license given recent statutory changes that appear to make license fees illegal that are based upon calls for service. Another approach has been taken by the City of Burnsville with the assistance of the Minnesota Multi Housing Association. In this situation, Burnsville has chosen to avoid an initial license fee thereby not penalizing properties that have done a good job in property management. Financial consequences are imposed based on violations of the ordinance, including property maintenance. Revocation of licenses can result. A property maintenance code should be considered with whatever approach we take. As has been mentioned previously, staff receives complaints about the quality of units including concerns about water leaking from ceilings, mold, timeliness of repairs, etc. A property maintenance code coupled with a rental licensing ordinance would seem to give us more teeth in addressing these types of issues. In regards to Montreal Courts, the Sheriff's Department feels an "on-site" law enforcement presence is need on a limited basis to gain control of activity on the property. One need only look at recent activity reports to see that some serious issues are emanating from that property that is caused not only by tenants but also by others "visiting" the complex. See below: CN 06 -13488 On 6 -1 -06 at 0125 hours, deputies were dispatched to 351 LaBore Road apartment garages, on parties stripping a vehicle in what was supposed to be a vacant garage. Dep. Patterson responded from one direction; Dep. Lindeke from another. Two suspects ran from Patterson's location into Lindeke. Further update from the comp, two more suspects were hiding in a garage. They too were taken into custody. The vehicle being stripped was a reported stolen from St. Paul; from a residence two doors down from one of the suspects. The suspects. All were booked at the LEC for Auto Theft. Note: None of the suspects resided at Montreal Courts. There have been two obstacles to obtaining an "on-site" law enforcement presence. The first is reluctance by Montreal Courts to spend the money to provide for off -duty officers to be available at the property. (The Sheriff's Department would provide them with a squad and related equipment.) The cost to provide an on -site presence for 18 hours per week would be about $40,000. Montreal Courts has indicated they may be willing to commit up to $12,000. A second obstacle has been a concern about insurance. As off -duty officers, Montreal Courts does not want to take on the exposure of insuring these people as employees. I believe this -2-