HomeMy WebLinkAbout1A, Community Livability
..
_rIlLLS
Request for Council Action
Prepared By: James Lehnhoff,
Community Development Director
Council Meeting Date: October 20, 2008
Community Livability: Property Maintenance and Enforcement Project
(Administrative Fines and Rental Property Regulation)
Budgeted Amount:
$
Actual Amount:
$
Funding Source:
Planning & Zoning
Recommendation:
1. Clarify the City Council's goals and priorities for enhancing the quality of life in
Arden Hills.
2. Based on the stated goals and priorities, review the tools available to enhance
community livability described in this memo, ask questions, and provide direction
on a course of action.
Supporting Documents:
1. October 20, 2008, Memo to the City Council
2. Rental Focus Group Minutes (May 22 and June 5, 2008)
3. July 31, 2008, Letter from the City Attorney
4. Example of Accelerated Abatement Code - City of Shoreview
5. Example of Rental Registration Code - City of Roseville
~
~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 20, 2008
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Community Developlnent Department
SUBJECT: Community LivabiJit)7: Property Maintenance and Enforcement Project
(Administrative Fines and Rental Property Regulation)
ReQuested Action
1. Clarify the City Council's goals and priorities for enhancing the quality of life in Arden
Hills.
2. Based on the stated goals and priorities, review the tools available to enhance community
livability described in this luemo, ask questions, and provide direction and priority on a
course of action.
Settin2 Goals and Priorities
Before continuing, it is important to detemline what the City's goals and prIorItIes are for
increasing community livability and quality of life. The code enforcement tools and processes
described in this memo have different strengths, weaknesses, benefits, and costs. Determining
which tools will work best will depend on the goals and priorities of the City. What are the
City's goals for improving the quality of life? What results are desired? In order of importance,
please write down your top four goals for enhanci~g community livability and quality of life:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ci~V 0.( Arden Hills
Ci(v Council Work Sessionfor October 20, 2008
\ IAhdocs llahIAHdafa\Planning\Communify Developmenf\COl11mlmi~v Li\'abili~v\lvfemos \1 02008 - CC ~Memo - Community Livability. doc
Page] of]2
Introduction
At the end of 2007, the City Council directed staff to begin researching rental regulation and
administrative fining programs. This project was primarily initiated due to increasing concern
over property maintenance issues, code enforcement issues, the conversion of owner occupied
housing to rental housing, and college student occupied rental housing. While this project
initially focused on rental licensing and administrative fines, it became clear that the concerns
expressed by residents and City Council relate to overall quality of life and not just rental or
college student occupied properties. Moreover, a rental regulation or administrative fine
program alone is unlikely to resolve the City Council's and residents' concerns.
In order to address the broader community livability issues, this research project was expanded
from a review of rental licensing and administrative fine programs to include rental registration,
abatement, accelerated abatement, education, and regulation review. This report summarizes the
findings of that research, tools available to the City, implementation, a brief evaluation of costs,
and a potential course of action.
To help frame the issues and discuss potential courses of action, staff assembled an informal
focus group and researched code violation trends. A summary of current code enforcement
resources is also provided.
Rental Housing Focus Group
On May 22 and June 5, an informal focus group was convened to discuss rental housing
issues and related concerns. The prilnary purpose of this group was to help identify the
issues and concerns of the community regarding rental properties and to discuss the
regulatory tools available to the City to deal with these issues. These discussions
included residents, a representative from Bethel University & Northwestern College, the
owner of Park shore Apartnlents, a nlelnber of the Planning Commission, a Ramsey
County sheriff deputy, and rental property owners. The attendees and minutes are
included in attachment A.
While this was not a fonnal cOlnmittee, they did provide input on the concerns and
potential courses of action. A number of issues were discussed, including parking,
occupancy levels, property maintenance, yard maintenance, and other nuisances. The
general conclusion of the group was that the code violations and other nuisance concerns
went beyond just rental properties. Moreover, the group determined that most of the
concerns expressed by the group were already dealt with in the City's regulations and that
the more pressing issues are education and the City's ability to enforce the existing codes.
The suggestion of the group was to provide more education, communicate with the
community, review existing regulations, and explore better legal options for code
enforcement.
City of Arden Hills
Ci(v Council Work Session for October 20. 2008
\ \Ahdocs 1 \ah \AHdata\Planning I Community De...,'elopment\Communi~\' LivabilitylA1emos\1 02008 - CC .Memo - Communi~v Livabili(v.doc
Page 2 of 12
Code Violation Trends
At the end of the first half of 2008, there were a total of 167 registered complaints. In the
first two weeks of the third quarter 2008, City Staff received over 140 new complaints,
(127 were received by one resident reporting improperly stored garbage containers).
Staff is in the process of preparing the full third quarter code enforcement report. By
comparison, there were 191 code enforcement cases involving 255 issues in 2007. In
2006, there were 325 issues of which some properties had more than one issue. The
majority of the code enforcement cases are for parking issues (too many vehicles and/or
parking on lawns), garbage container location, drainage/erosion control, animal control,
and unmaintained lawns.
The most recent detailed breakdown is for the second quarter of 2008, which produced
III separate complaints. While the complaints varied, the most common violations
included:
1. Sixteen violations of objectionable weeds or plant height in excess of eight
inches;
2.. Sixteen violations related to the International Property Maintenance Code
(IPMC);
3. Eleven violations of vehicles parked in prohibited areas or more than four on the
property;
4. Eight complaints regarding drainage or erosion concerns.
Other complaints in the second quarter of 2008 included the discharge of a firearm,
illegal sign change, illegal fishing, and garbage container storage issues. The majority of
the IPMC complaints involved educating the property owner on the standards to which
properties need to be maintained, which is typically to the condition the property was
originally built.
An estimated 60 percent of complaints are resolved upon first contact with the property.
Most of the remaining 40 percent are resolved with a second notice or third notice. For
those properties that require a second or third notice, it is not uncommon for some
properties to fall back out of compliance, particularly for garbage container location and
parking violation. However some properties refuse to comply or stay in compliance,
which can result in a civil or criminal citation. Since the City's goal is to obtain
compliance, staff works diligently with properties before pursuing the civil or criminal
citation process, which can take six to twelve months and legal fees to obtain compliance.
Existing Code Enforcement Resources
The City currently has a quarter time code enforcement officer. The remaining three
quarters of that position is dedicated to residential building reviews and inspections. Due
to increasing code enforcement demands, the amount of time used for code enforcement
in this position has been increasing, which decreases the amount of time available for
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for October 20, 2008
I IAhdocsJ lahIAHdalaIPlanning\Communi(v Development\CommuniZF Livability\lv/emos \ 1 02008 - CC Memo - Community Livability-doc
Page 3 of]2
required inspections. In addition to the Code Enforcement Officer, the Building Official,
City Planner, Community Development Director, and other administrative staff
contribute to code enforcement efforts as necessary.
As part of the City's contract, the Ramsey County Sheriff is also responsible for
enforcing the City's regulations. Their services are particularly needed during after
regular business hours and on weekends. Additional conversations with the Sheriff s
office may be needed to ensure that the City's regulations are being enforced, and
residents need to be educated to know that they are able to call Ramsey County during
non-business hours.
Staff is in the process of contacting other cities of similar size to assess their code
enforcement staff resources. Each of the cities adjacent to Arden Hills has a full-time
code enforcement officer.
The remainder of this report outlines the options available to the City to address the code
enforcement concerns addressed by Council, the focus group, and members of the community.
In moving forward with this project, the primary goal of staff is to gain compliance and improve
community livability. No single approach is likely to resolve all code enforcement issues facing
the City, and the costs and benefits of each tool must be weighed. A combination of education,
reviewing existing regulations, and providing more substantive enforcement tools is necessary to
make the code enforcement program more effective. Despite any cities best efforts, problem
properties are still likely to exist.
Finally, this report also includes a section on how complaints are received and processed, which
is integral to the code enforcelnent process.
Enforcement Tools and Cost Recoverv
Citations (Civil and Criminal)
The City's existing regulations allow for the use of civil and criminal citations. The July
31, 2008, letter from the City Attorney outlines the legal background and process
(Attachment B). While both types of citations are available as a tool for code
enforcement, it can be cumbersome to use because quick results are rarely achieved in the
legal process. As noted in the City Attorney's letter, the civil citation process may take
six to twelve months and the criminal citation may take six to nine months during which
time the violation may remain unresolved. Additionally, the City incurs costs for staff
time, attorney's time, and court costs, which may not be recoverable even if the City wins
the court case.
Due to the time and potential cost of issuing a criminal or civil citation, staff works with
property owners to obtain compliance and avoid this process where possible.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for October 20~ 2008
I IAhdocs 1 \ah\AHdata\PlanningICommuni(v Development\Communi(F Li\:abili(vIA1emos\/ 02008 - CC IVlemo - Community Livabili~y.doc
Page 4 of]2
Unfortunately, there are cases where a property owner refuses to comply and the City has
no other choice than to pursue thjs legal process. This report does include additional
code enforcement tools; however, the criminal and civil citation process is sometimes the
only remaining option when a property owner refuses to comply.
While the criminal and civil citation process has been used sparingly in the past, a
discussion on using this process lllore often is advisable. On average, fewer than five
citations are issued each year. Although some property owners will fight the compliance
requirement all the way to court, additional use of the citation process may encourage
some people to comply faster. When a citation is issued, the City can rescind the citation
before a court date is set if compliance is met. The act of issuing a citation may
encourage some property owners to comply sooner.
City Code: No changes to the City's code are needed to use the civil or criminal citation
process.
Cost: There are no set up costs, but the use costs relate directly to how many citations are
issued. The costs can vary depending on how much staff and city attorney time is needed
in the prosecution process. Even if a citation is rescinded by the City before the court
reviews the citation, the City will likely incur some costs for the initial processing and for
the City Attorney.
Administrative Fines
The administrative fining process has grown in both popularity and in controversy in
recent years. The City Attorney's July 31, 2008, letter includes the detailed legal
background for this tool (Attachment B). It is clear that cities do not have the legal
authority to administer fines for traffic regulations at the local level. However, some
cities have adopted regulations that allow a city to issue fines for certain zoning, building,
and other city code related violations.
Although definitive research on the effectiveness of administrative fines is not available,
we did speak with other cities that have implemented the program. They did indicate that
it has been a helpful tool to increase compliance with City regulations. It was also noted
that since the goal of administrative fines is to gain compliance, the program cannot be a
revenue generator for a city, and it may not pay for itself in terms of staff time and
resources. However, according to the cities we contacted, few properties received the
actual fme because the potential for a fine was incentive enough to comply with City
regulations with the first notice. When a fine was issued, some cities waive the fine if
there is compliance within a set time period.
As part of this program, a city must build in due process. After a fine is issued, the
person receiving the fine can appeal it the hearing officer at City Hall. The hearing
officer is generally the city administrator, though it can be the city council. The hearing
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for October 20, 2008
\ IAhdocsl \ahIAHdata\Planning\Community Development\Communi~F Livabili~FlAlemos\l 02008 - CC J.Vemo - Communi!)" Livability. doc
Page 5 of 12
officer reviews the violation and determines if the fine was warranted or should be
dismissed. There are not any statistics readily available on the number of fines that are
appealed.
Should a property owner refuse to comply or pay the fine, there is disagreement in the
legal community on what occurs next. Some cities have adopted a code that allows them
to assess the fine to the property taxes. Based on his initial research, the Arden Hills City
Attorney has advised us against adopting a code where the administrative fine could be
assessed to property taxes. While the city may be able to recover the fine, the city may
still not have compliance. In cases where conlpliance is unattained, a criminal or civil
citation is often the only remaining tool. For certain public nuisance violations, a city can
abate the property and assess the cost, which is discussed further in the below sections.
City Code: In order to use this process, the City Council would need to adopt the
necessary regulations to the City Code and amend the fee schedule to include the fines
for violations. The Code would also need to appoint a hearing officer to hear appeals to
the administrative fines.
Cost: This process would require involvement from the City Administrator, Community
Development Director, City Attorney, Building Official and Code Enforcement Officer.
While there is not a standard cost for setting up this type of program, a reasonable
estimate is $2,500 to $3,500 for the cost of staff and city attorney time. This process
would also require a continual dedication of staff time and resources without a guarantee
of cost recovery.
Until. an administrative fine policy is created, it is difficult to estimate the number of fines
that would be issued each year and the impact of ongoing costs. However, for a purely
hypothetical example, assume that a fine is issued on the second notice and waived if
there is compliance within seven days of issuing the fine. If 80 fines are issued, 40 fines
are waived due to compliance, 35 fines are paid due to continued noncompliance, and 5
are appealed, the staff time could be at or above 80 additional hours per year (estimate of
one hour per fine for admin, preparation, finance, and correspondence time). At a rate of
$30/hour, staff time would cost $2,400. Revenue should not exceed the cost of the
program but could vary depending on the fine (e.g. the City of Roseville charges $100
per fine). In this example the program would pay for itself in terms of cost; however, it
would not be sufficient revenue to hire another full or part time employee. Unless other
staff activities are reduced, additional help would likely be needed to administer the
program. Since an administrative fine does not guarantee compliance, some fines would
likely be converted to civil or criminal citations.
Accelerated Abatement
The current City Code allows for the abatement process for public nuisances; however, it
can be a relatively long process for certain types of nuisances that need immediate
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for October 20, 2008
I IAhdocsl \ahIAHdafa\Planning\Communi~v Developmenf\Commllni~v LivabilifylMemos\l 02008 - CC Memo - Community Livabili~y.doc
Page 6 of 12
attention. The accelerated abatement process allows a city to determine that a public
nuisance exists, move forward with abatement, and assess the cost of abatement to the
property in a more timely fashion. Typically, an accelerated abatement process is used
for tall grasses, nuisance weeds, other vegetative growth, snow/ice removal, removal of
public health hazard, and graffiti.
For example, the accelerated abatement process could be used when a property is found
to have grass exceeding eight inches in height. The city would send a certified letter
and/or post a notice at the property ordering the grass cut within five days. If the grass is
not cut, the city council would hold a hearing at the next possible meeting where
abatement could be ordered. The city, or hired contactor, then cuts the grass. The costs,
including administrative costs, are assessed to the property. For more severe public
nuisances, such as removal of a hazardous building, a longer process and possibly court
involvement is still required.
In cases where a property may be a repeat offender, a council's abatement order could be
extended so that a new hearing is not needed for each violation. For example, the order
could be made to last for two years, which would allow staff to order abatement without
an additional hearing.
Some cities, including Roseville, have adopted an ~~adlninistrative abatement" process
whereby city staff can authorize the accelerated abatement process for those limited
offenses without a council hearing. The Arden Hills City Attorney is researching this
process to determine if could be used in Arden Hills. An example of the Shoreview
abatement code, including accelerated abatement, is Attachment C.
City Code: While Chapter 600.05 of the City Code allows abatement, it would need to be
amended to clearly include this accelerated and streamlined process for the certain types
of public nuisances described in the above paragraphs.
Cost: To set up the program, staff estimates a cost of $2,500 for staff and city attorney
tilne. With this accelerated process, abatement would likely be used more than it is
currently. However, with a clear violation procedure, it is unlikely to require much, if
any, additional staff time to the existing process and may actually reduce staff time on
these types of violations. Staff is already required to contact these properties, and the
accelerated abatement process would condense the process and lead to greater
compliance. Moreover, the time devoted to the process will almost always result in
conformance since the City or a City contractor would cOlnplete the work, which is not
certain with administrative fines.
This process would involve the Code Enforcement Officer, Building Official,
Community Development Director, City Council, and the finance department.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work SessionJor October 20, 2008
\\Ahdocsl\ahIAHdata\Planning\Community Deve/opmentlCommunity Livability\Memos\.J02008 - CC Memo - Communi~v Livability. doc
Page 7 of]2
Rental Reeulations
While statistics for code violations specifically on rental properties are not available, the City has
witnessed a growing concern over the conversion of owner occupied properties to rental
properties in recent years. The concerns have related to decreased property maintenance (grass
and weeds), violation of parking regulations, over-occupancy of a housing unit, and noise.
While these types o[violations mayor may not be more prevalent on rental properties,
enforcement procedures can, at times, be more difficuIt.on rental properties when a city is unable
to easily locate and contact the property owner. Administering a civil or criminal citation can
then also be difficult.
Rental registration and rental licensing are two common terms used to describe the regulation of
rental housing, though there is not a legal or standard difference between the two terms. Cities
have implemented various types of rental regulations and used whichever term they saw fit.
However, in reviewing examples of rental regulations, rental licensing tends to include an
inspection program while rental registration does not.
Rental Registration
A rental registration program typically requires property owners to register with the city
before the property can be rented. The registration allows a city to track the location of
rental units and maintain contact information for the property owner at the City. If the
property owner is not a local resident, a city can require the owner to provide a local
contact. When a city determines that there is a violation, a registration process can make
it easier to contact the property and, if necessary, administer fines and/or citations. As
part of the program, the property owner can verify the occupancy limit of the unit and
that city regulations have been met.
Perhaps more importantly, the registration process gives a city an opportunity to interact
with the property owner and inform them of the city's regulations and expectations if the
property is rented. When a city's regulations are violated, the city can revoke the
registration and issue a citation. Violations that could lead to revocation include failure
to maintain the lawn and building, violation of state statutes, disorderly conduct, violating
the parking regulations, etc. Although many cities limit a dwelling to no more than four
unrelated individuals, this type of limitation is extremely difficult to enforce.
While registration can apply to all rental units, it is not uncommon to exempt nursing
homes, on-campus student housing, and senior housing units. Some cities do require a
property owner to register a housing unit even if just a rOOln is rented. Other cities, such
as Roseville, have required buildings with fewer than four units to register and exempted
actual multi-family buildings. Roseville's recently adopted rental registration program is
in Attachment D.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session.lor October 20, 2008
\lAhdocsJlah\AHdalaIPlanrringICommuni(v DevelopmenllCommunity LivabilizvIMemos\/02008 - CC lv1emo - Communizv Livability. doc
Page 8 of 12
City Code: There are a number of codes used by other cities that could serve as a
template for Arden Hills if this program is adopted. A fee for the registration would also
need to be set in the City's fee schedule.
Cost: In addition to the cost of updating the code to include this program, there would
also be ongoing administration time involved in locating rental properties, processing
applications, recording applications, and issuing approved registrations. Staff estimates
that setting up the program would cost $2,500 of staff time, including the City Attorney.
Ongoing administration costs would vary depending on compliance. The registration fee
would likely cover the cost of the program; however, an additional or telnporary
employee may be needed to initially set up the database, track applications, and perform
ongoing administration.
As of August 2008, there were almost 210 non-homesteaded single family homes, which
is the only data source the city has for estimating the number of single family rental
properties. Actual number of rental units is likely to vary from the non-homesteaded
number. During the 2000 census, the City was reported to have 350 rental units, which
included the 37 unit Parkshore Apartments building and the senior apartments. If there
are 210 single family rental units, a $25 registration fee would produce $5,250 in
revenue. The revenue would be dedicated to covering the cost of administering and
enforcing the program.
Rental Licensing
Rental licensing generally includes all of the provisions under rental registration but also
includes a periodic inspection program internal to the dwelling. A rental licensing
program would require property owners to submit to an inspection by a licensed inspector
before the property could be rented. Cities with many multi-family buildings often use
this type or program; however, it can be extended to single family dwellings. Since
Arden Hills has just one traditional apartment building and two senior apartment
buildings, a rental licensing program that focuses on multi-family buildings would have
little impact at this time. With the development of multi-family housing on TCAAP, a
rental licensing program may be warranted in the future.
While a rental licensing program can have some benefits where the housing stock is
deteriorating, the program does not address the issues that have been expressed by
Councilor residents any more than does rental registration. Furthermore, all housing in
Arden Hills is covered under the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC),
which was approved by the City in 2006. The IPMC already allows the City to require
repairs internal and external to a structure if there is deterioration.
City Code: There are a number of codes used by other cities that could serve as a
template for Arden Hills if this program is adopted. A fee for the license would also need
to be set in the City's fee schedule.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Sessionfor October 20, 2008
\\AhdocsJ\ah\AHdata\Planning\Community Development\Communi~v L ivabilizv \ Memos \1 02008 - CC Memo - Coml11uni~v L ivabilizv. doc
Page 9 of 12
Cost: In addition to the cost of updating the code to include this program, there would
also be administration time involved in locating rental properties, processing applications,
recording applications, and issuing approved licenses. As noted above, the City had an
estimated 210 non-homesteaded single family properties in August 2008.
A city can charge permit fees that are sufficient to cover the cost of inspection and
administration; however, there may not be enough rental properties in Arden Hills to
cover the cost of an additional full time employee. The city would likely need to hire an
inspection service to handle the building inspections. Ongoing administration costs may
also require outside assistance. Staff is in the process .of estimating total setup and
ongoing expense; however, it will be higher than rental registration due to more
administration and inspection work.
Education and Resources
Education is a key component of any existing or new regulatory, enforcement, or inspection
program. Most property owners do not intentionally violate the code and most are anxious to
resolve the situation when they are notified of a violation. Keeping residents up to date on City
regulations is an important part .of deterring violatians.
As noted above, a rental registration pragram may pravide an informational boost to rental
housing by ensuring that occupants and property owners are aware of city regulations and
expectatians. Staffhas been in contact with Bethel University and Northwestern College
regarding student occupied housing. Both institutions have expressed a desire to work with the
City to distribute the applicable regulations to students that chaose to rent.
Whether a rental registration pragram is developed or not, staff is recomlnending the preparation
.of a rental h.ousing guide for students and other renters. In addition to a city prepared
educational booklet, staff also recommends keeping an updated list of grant and loan programs to
assist residents, whether .owner or rental, in keeping their properties well-maintained.
Re2ulation Review
Since it can be difficult to fully measure the cost or effectiveness of a particular regulation when
it is adopted, it is important to periodically evaluate the City's regulatians to ensure that they are
meeting the goals of the City, enhancing the quality of life for residents, and that the costs do nat
outweigh the benefits. While many regulations are important to ensure a healthy and safe living
environment, ather regulatians reflect aesthetic preferences that can change over time.
For example, the current City Code requires garbage containers to be ".. .kept in an enclosed
building .or in a location which is properly screened to be as least conspicuous as practical fram
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for October 20, 2008
\\AhdocsJ\ah\AHdafa\Planning\Commun;~v Development\Commun;~v L;vabihtyLMemos\102008 - CC Memo - Commun;~v Livability.doc
Page ]0 of]2
adjoining properties or public streets" (660.05 of the City Code). Although the intentions of this
regulation may be good, hundreds of properties may be out of compliance at any given time.
Additionally, gaining continued compliance has proven to be difficult. While tonight's
discussion does should not focus on rewording City regulations, this example demonstrates the
need to revaluate the benefit and purpose of regulations when widespread compliance is difficult
to obtain and taxing on staff time.
Complaint and Enforcement Policv
The City of Arden Hills, along with many other cities, uses a complaint-based approach to code
enforcement. This type of program relies on people contacting City Hall with concerns as
opposed to City staff actively patrolling for code violations. The complaint-based approach does
require residents to get involved by contacting the City with the location of a potential violation,
but residents are not expected to supply the City with full details of the potential code violation.
The complaint-based approach does come with a couple of ilnportant caveats. Firstly, the City
works to immediately act upon health' or safety violations. For example, if a sign is blocking a
traffic site line, the City will remove or relocate it without a complaint. Secondly, if the City
receives a complaint but notices that multiple violations of the same type in the area, the City
will follow up with a reminder letter and/or informational pamphlet of the regulation.
As part of this process, staff recommends preparing a more formalized complaint and response
policy to ensure that violations are treated consistency and fairly. As part of a complaint and
response policy, it may also be necessary to set a policy on anonymous complaints and repeat
offenders. Anyone submitting a complaint to a city has a right to expect confidentiality.
However, a city can set a policy that favors responding to identified complaints before
anonymous complaints. It is important to note that even when a person identifies him or herself,
that is still considered confidential information. A city cannot unilaterally ignore complaints
from outside the city or complaints from people outside a neighborh'ood where the violation has
occurred.
Some cities do have a type of active code enforcement program, such as Shoreview' s SHINE
program. This type or program typically involves proactively searching for violations in a
designated area each year. The designated area is usually rotated to different parts of a city from
year to year so that the entire city is inspected of the course of several years. The city also sends
out a notice to residents prior to the inspection to encourage compliance before the inspection
occurs. Moving to a proactive program would require the City to increase the time devoted to
code enforcement, which would involve adding staff.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Sessionfor October 20,2008
l\Ahdocsl\ahIAHdata\PlanningICommuni(v Development \ Community Livability \ A1em os 1102008 - CC .Memo - Community Li'vability.doc
Page ] 1 of 12
Recommendation
Despite the array of tools described in this report, some properties will undoubtedly still have
code violation issues. However, the purpose of this project is to add more tools and options to
the City to provide more consistency for residents, better public education, and a faster
conclusion to code enforcement issues. The primary goal of a code enforcement program is to
obtain compliance, which, despite the City's best efforts, can take time and diligence no matter
what tools are available.
In moving forward with changes to the City's code enforcement process, it will be necessary to
set programmatic priorities and evaluate available City staff resources that would create and
administer any new programs. Due to limited resources, staff is not recommending approval of
all programs at once but, instead, focusing on a single program at a time to ensure that it is
effectively implemented and not overwhelming for Council, staff, or residents.
Additional direction from Council is needed; however, a potential priority list is as follows:
Priority:
1. Education - Ongoing
2e Code Review and Amendments - Ongoing
3e Accelerated Abatement - November/December 2008
4e Develop a written code enforcement response policy - 2008/2009
5. Rental Registration - 2008/2009
6. Administrative Fines - additional review required - 2009/2010
At this time, staff is not recommending the adoption of a rental licensing program. A licensing
program is unlikely to address the concerns brought to the city or add significantly more value or
outcome to the enforcement process. This option should be reevaluated as TCAAP develops.
Attachment
A. Rental Focus Group Minutes (May 22 and June 5, 2008)
B. July 31, 2008, Letter from the City Attorney
C. Example of Accelerated Abatement Code - City of Shoreview
De Example of Rental Registration Code - City of Roseville
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Sessionfor October 20, 2008
\\AhdocsJ\ahIAHdata\Planning\Community Development\Communi~v Livability\Memos\102008 - CC ,~1emo - C()mnnll1i~v Livability. doc
Page ]2 of ]2
Attachment A
Rental F oeus Group Minutes (May 22
and June 5, 2008)
October 20, 2008, City Council Work Session
Rental Licensing/Registration Discussion
Summary of minutes
5/22/2008
Meeting started at 6:00 PM.
In attendance at the meeting were:
Karen Albert, resident / rental owner
Beverly Aplikowski, resident / former mayor
Elwood Caldwell, resident / Arden Hills Townhome Association
Kristy Effinger, resident / Arden Manor
Pamela Hanson, resident, / Arden Hills Townhome Association
Bruce A. Kunkel, resident / Vice President for Campus Services, Bethel University
Chuck Mertensotto, resident / rental owner,
Robert Morgan, rental property owner,
Rob Peifer, resident/ owner of Park shore Apartments
Staff:
Meagan Beekman, Planner I
Noah Simon, Assistant City Administrator
Jerry Filla, City Attorney
Dave Scherbel, Building Official
Following introductions of attendees, Noah outlined purpose, goals, and objective of the
meeting. Some general comments were taken regarding current issues in the City about
rental properties. They are:
· Parking
· Occupancy levels
o Number of bedrooms
o Square footage
o Number of unrelated persons in the household
· What effect on the manufactured home park
o Would the "final product" apply to manufactured homes?
· General property maintenance
o Enforcement of property maintenance codes
· Identifying landlords, rental properties-contact information, rental registration*
· Ability to inspect rental properties-- frequency
. Noise
· Lawn care/exterior maintenance
· Nuisance issues
*the group collectively agreed at the end of the meeting to further discuss this issue at the next nleeting
After a brief discussion regarding rental properties and inspections of these properties,
Mr. Peifer explained that his units are regularly inspected by multiple agencies-the
Ramsey County Health department, Fire Marsha~ and others. Many of the residents are
elderly and on a fixed income. Rental licensing or registration fees (including inspections
etc.) would just be passed on to the resident.
Ms. Hanson talked about the issue of the rising rentals in the Arden Hills Townhomes.
She explained that there were no regulations in the bylaws against renting of the homes.
Recent issues included fires.
More discussion about problem properties ensued.
Staff indicated that they did speak with Mounds View, Shoreview, and RosevilIe about
partnering with a city for a rental licensing program. Smreview indicated that their one
person was stretched thin and was not interested at this time. Roseville's program is
rental registration. There was some interest from Roseville should that City move to a
licensing program. Mounds View did express an interest in partnering, but further
discussions on the subject have not yet been pursued.
Mr. Filla explained that nuisance issues involve a small portion of the properties and the
owners/residents just don't care. He also explained the difficulties of enforcement of
these problem properties.
More discussion revolved around general maintenance issues, such as dripping faucets.
Some felt a rental licensing program would help to maintain these problem properties. It
was explained that the City currently has a property maintenance code that addresses
these issues. It was also explained that there are many groups that can help out renters
regarding maintenance issues such as the renters association.
In addition, many of the items in the list and from the discussion were not limited to just
rental properties. Traditional single family homes have the potential for the same issues
and often do. Does a rental licensing or registration program fix the problem? It may
alleviate some of the issues but not all. The City can address many of the issues through
existing mechanisms such as code enforcement and planning/zoning
Discussion also included vacant and foreclosed properties and the difficulties in dealing
with them, mostly contacting a responsible party to do the upkeep. It was also discussed
that vacant and other ~'problem" properties may not always be rental properties, but
owner-occupied as well.
Ms. Aplikowski stated that the City may be able to help residents by providing or hosting
a seminar on foreclosure and other housing related issues.
The issue of financing a rental licensing program was discussed and generally agreed that
the program cost would not be covered by fees. Discussion also included what penalties
would be applied for non compliance.
Mr. Simon summed up the discussion For the next meeting, staff will present contact the
Sheriffs office and see if they can attend the next meeting to talk about their response to
2
community nuisance complaints, and stated that staff would try to have answers for their
questions, possibly have a representative from the Ramsey County Sheriff's office at the
next meeting. Also, Staff will try to find examples of educational materials for residents
and for college students/colleges/universities. Finally, the Staff will put together a list of
frequent code enforcement complaints and how those complaint are handled.
He requested members to think about the issues discussed and possible solutions for the
next meeting.
The next meeting is scheduled for June 5th, 6:00 p.m.
3
Rental Licensing/Registration Discussion
Summary of minutes
6/5/2008
Meeting started at 6:00 PM.
In attendance at the meeting were:
. Karen Albert, resident / rental owner
Beverly Aplikowski, resident / former mayor
Elwood Caldwell, resident / Arden Hills Townhome Association
Kristy Effinger, resident / Arden Manor
Pamela Hanson, resident, / Arden Hills Townhome Association
Bruce A. Kunkel, resident / Vice President for Campus Services, Bethel University
Clay Larson, Planning Commission Chair and resident
Mark Nagel, resident
Sgt. Kevin Otto, Ramsey County Sheriff
Rob Peifer, resident/ owner of Park shore Apartments
Staff:
Meagan Beekman, Planner I
Noah Simon, Assistant City Administrator
Amy Schmidt, City Attorney
Dave Scherbel, Building Official
Following introductions of attendees, Noah gave a summary of last meeting, and outlined
the intent and objective of to day's meeting.
Ms. Hanson made the announcement that the Arden Hills Townhouse It;sociation had
amended their bylaws to include registering rental properties.
Ms. Aplikowski stated that identifying owners of rental properties was important. The
property owners can not always rely on the police department to address all of their
. .
nUIsance Issues.
Sgt. Otto stated that the Sheriff s department does and will respond to nuisance calls.
Mr. Scherbel stated that a driving force behind exploring a rental licensing program, was
to help give staff another tool to address complaints the City was receiving about homes
being converted to rentals for college students. He stated that two of the most frequent
complaints dealt with parking and the number of occupants living in a home. Mr.
Scherbel also stated that the City had adopted new regulations trying to address these
complaints. One regulation that was adopted is that no more than four vehicles can be
parked on a driveway in a residential area. The other regulation was that no more than
four unrelated persons can live in a home.
A question was asked about the total number of complaints received each year by the
City, for the two complaints listed above. The response was approximately 40
complaints. Of those complaints, a majority are corrected "quickly" with only a small
number of complaints that eventually reach the courts.
There was discussion about these complaints and how to address them. Mr. Kunkel
stated that in order to park on campus the student would need to have a sticker placed in
the car. That sticker has a number identifying the student. A call could be placed to the
Student life services at Bethel to identify them if there was a problem at the property.
Mr. Nagel stated that implementing a rental licensing program created a whole new larger
issue related to staffing and cost. He questioned the need to implement a rental licensing
program just to address the parking and occupancy levels in a single family home.
Mr. Caldwell stated that the concern was owner occupied homes were better maintained.
Renters are not concerned with the value of the home.
Mr. Larson stated that he did not believe that the City lnd a rental problem here. He
stated that many cities have adopted rental licensing programs to address much larger
concerns and a significantly larger number of rental properties, single family and multi
family. Many cities have adopted rental licensing to not only address declining property
values, but drug related problems. He felt that what the City needed was better, timelier
prosecution. You need to have prompt resolution to the violation, within 30 days.
Ms. Schmidt stated that prosecutions for property maintenance do take a long time to
resolve. The Ramsey county courts are usually backed up two to three months.
Mr. Caldwell stated that he was concerned about the number of town homes being
converted into rental properties and how best to address it.
Sgt. Otto stated that he did not believe that the conversion of townhome rentals was a
City problem and could be addressed by the HOA.
Ms. Aplikowksi stated that she saw this as a three year program. The City needed to start
communication and education with residents about the City regulations, using the
newsletter, web site and other educational materials such as pamphlets or brochures. She
stated that the City needed to work with the colleges to improve education and
communication between students living off campus and the City. She asked if the City
could possibly create an ordinance with more teeth to it and stiffer consequences for
nuisance type violations, using such tools as abatement to handle situations where the
property is not brought into compliance in a timely manner.
Ms. Schmidt stated that may be possible, but the City was still limited in the abatement
process and what it could actually regulate.
2
Sgt. Otto inquired on whether the Lake Johanna Fire Department was involved In
property inspections and to look for things like smoke detectors?
Mr. Scherbel stated that in single family homes, no.
Ms. Aplikowski moved to recommend to council to have staff look at possibly adding
more consequences for enforcement of the City's regulations.
Ms. Beekman asked if there was a better process such as administrative fines to address
the enforcement issue.
Ms. Schmidt stated that there is a lot of debate over legality of administrative fines. How
would the City administer an administrative fine system? She stated that citations are not
a very good tool for resolving property maintenance issues.
Mr. Nagel stated that the City still needed faster enforcement and prosecution of
violations.
Ms. Aplikowski made a second motion to allow staff to develop materials to
communicate and educate the public on City codes.
Mr. Caldwell asked if adopting a rental licensing program was dead.
Ms. Beekman stated that possibly a rental registration program could be implemented
instead.
Mr. Larson felt that registration would be ineffective. He questioned what the penalty
would be for those who did not register. He stated that the City can keep track of
problem properties through complaint tracking programs just as well as through
registration.
In conclusion, the consensus of the group was to look at education, communication,
working with Bethel and Northwestern College, reviewing and revising existing codes
(abatement) and to look at the legal process. Mr. Simon indicated that the goup would
be kept informed of the progress, initiatives and future meetings and discussions staff
would have with the Council on this issue.
3
Attachment B
July 31, 2008, Letter from the City
Attorney
October 20, 2008, City Council Work Session
\ ,
..; ;.
~. ..
Warren E. Pelerson
Jerome ~ Filla
Daniel Win Frain
Cfe on A. Bergman
John Michael MmeJ
.\.Michaef T. Oherle
\. }steven Ii, Bruns.
......Paul W. fanning-
Sonja R. Ortiz
Amy K. L Schmidt
Ben L Rust
Jonathan R. Cuskey
Jared M. Goerlitl
p~,
fRAM - BERGMAN
..t....:&.........~...~~..."&~......~...I.~.
Suire 800
51) East Fifth. Street
$1. Paut MN 5510f~l7f8
H61) 291-8955
1(51) 228-I7SJ faCSimile
wwwpfb-pa.com
<651}290-6907
itilta(@pfb- pa.com
July 31 J 2008
Noah Simon
Assistant City Administrator
~ity of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills) Minnesota 55112
VIA EMAll
RE: Rental Licensing, Code Enforcement and Administrative Citations
Dear Noah:
Recently, the City of Arden HiHs has been considering whether to establish a licensing
ordinance for rental properties within the City.. A citizens~ task force met on two occasions
to discuss the merits of such an ordinancer and other alternatives. The task force has
made its recommendation to the Council..
As I understand the background of the discussion, there is some concern among the
Council and the community about on-going property fssues. such as parkingJ property
maintenance, noiser nuisance conditronst and the like.. As the task force debated the
issues; they also dtscussed pursuing stepped up enforcement of the CityJs applicable Code
provisions through the Building Official.. This was relevant to the question of rental
licensing because such activity could provide a viable alternative to a rental licensing
ordinance. The task force also discussed the possibiHty of a rental registration ordinance,
and seemed interested in exploring atternatives to rental licensing or rental regrstration.
In addrtion to the implementation of a rental licensing ordinance, or a rental registration as
a means of addressing on-going property concerns, the City has a number of options
available, namely code enforcementt civil actions, abatement authority, hazardous building
provisions, and administrative fines.. Each of these options is available for both rental and
owner-occupied properties. Each option is drscussed beJow.
Code Eniorcement By NoUce and Citation.
The City~s usual Code Enforcement process starts:when a property owner files a complaint
regarding the use or the maintenance of a neighbor's property. At this stager the identity of
the reporting property owner is confidential pursuant to the terms of the Minnesota Data
Practices Act Upon the receipt of the complaint, the City usuaHy undertakes the following:
'ALSC.,\{)MiTT[[) IN WISCONsn..'
f'
July 31, 2008
Page 2
. 1.
( 'i ()
~-D}~ -ei-l ~f('<i?i:l t.;/ v --\)-\1 ~ .e /"
(~ (i() ')
2.
The Building Official inspects the offending property.
Where appropriate, the Btttld~ql sends the offending property owner
a written notice which identifies the facts which support the complaint and
the sections of the City Code which are being violated. The Notice arso
contains a compliance date.
3.
A second inspection occurs.. If the property is in compliance, the City wHI
send a fetter thanking the offending property owner for cooperating_
4.
If the property owner is not in compliance within the required timet one or
two additional notices and rnspections can occur.
5.
When it becomes clear that the offending property owner cannot or will not
comply with the City~s regulations, the Building Official prepares a criminaf
citation and files it and supporting documents with the clerk of the Ramsey
County District Court. A copy is sent to our officea We have instructed the
Clerk of Court to require court appearances in connection with this type of
violation.
6a
The Clerk of Court notifies the offending property owner to appear on a date
certain. The Building Official to inspect the property before the date of the
court appearance. At the first appearance~ the offending party can plead
guBty or not guHtYa If a guilty plea is entered~ the matter ;s resolved at that
time~ If a not guilty plea is entered. the matter is scheduled for a pretrial at
a later date.
7.
At the pretrial, the offending property owner has the same choices as he/she
did at the first court appearance. If the offending property owner continues
to plead not guilty, the matter is scheduled for a jury trial. All City Code
violations are misdemeanors unless specifically indicated otherwise in the
City Code~ The maximum penalty for a misdemeanor is a fine of $1,000 or
a jail sentence of 90 days or both. Since the offending property owner may
serve time in jail jf convicted, the law allows the offending property owner to
have a jury trial.
8.
From start to finish} the above process may take six (6) to nine (9) months
to complete, in the meantime7 if the property continues to be in violation of
the City Code.
9..
Criminal cases need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt andr because
the defendant is the offending property owner and does not have to testify
against him/herself. discovery options are very limited. The issuance of a
July 31, 2008
Page 3
criminal citation results in the imposition of penalties and does not necessarily
resolve the underlying property maintenance issue. A person may choose to pay a
fine and/or serve some time in jaB rather than clean up the property.
Code Enforcement bv Notice and Civil Action
This Code enforcement method starts in the same way as the notice and criminal citation
process. However, during the initial notice phase, it may become crear that the violations are
of more serious nature and are ongoing. Therefore the City would not only want the probfem
corrected, but it would like a court order to ensure that the problem doesnJt reoccur. In regard
to civil enforcement process:
1. The City serves and fifes a Summons and Compfaintr
2 - The offending property owner is required to fife an answer.
30 There (s ample opportunity for discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure (i.e.
interrogatories, depositions, request for admissions, court ordered inspection of
the property).
4. In a civil case, it is usual for the court to require that the parties attempt to
mediate the issues before the case proceeds to trial.
5. The trial is usually to the court.
6. From start to finish, a civiJ case in the Ramsey County District Court can take six
(6) to twelve (12) months.
7. If the court finds in favor of the City, it could award the City its costs. The court
order could restrict future conduct. If there is a future violation of the court
order, the City would simply petition the court to enforce its order.
Code Enforcement for Nuisance Abatements.
The City rs authorized to define nuisances, abate nuisances, and to specially assess the cost of
abatement against the property on which the nuisance was located (Minn. Stat. 412.221 r
subd. 2'3; 429~221 t subd. 8 and City Code Chapter 6). The process for abating a nuisance is
as follows:
1. The Building Official notifies the property owner that a nuisance exists, identifies
the steps that must be taken to abate the nuisance. and indicates the time for
bringing the property into compliance.
July 31, 2008
Page 4
2. The notice is personally served or sent by certified mail to the property owner. If
the property is not occupied~ the notice can be posted on the property.
3. If the nuisance is not abated by the property owner within the required tlme, the
City Administrator notifies the property owner that the matter win be reviewed
by the City Council at a specific meeting. CouncilwiU then consider the report
of the City staff and the comments of the property owner~
4. At the conclusion of the Council hearing. a decision i~ made by the City.. If the
City Council determines that a nuisance exists, it approves the appropriate order
requiring that the nuisance be abated..
5~ The City Council Abatement Order can be appealed to the District Court, in
which case, the matter will be tried as other civil cases.
6. If a delay in the abatement of a nuisance will unreasonably endanger public
healthJ safety or welfare, the City can also order that the nuisance be summarily
abated.
7. The property owner is personally liable tor the cost of the abatement and the
cost can be assessed against the property~
Code Enforcement or Hazardous Building Removal.
The procedure for removing a hazardous building is as follows:
1 . The Building Official makes a hazardous building determination.
2" The property owner is notified.. If the property owner consents to the removal of
the building, the City abates the hazard and assesses the cost against the
property. If the property owner does not consent to a removal of the hazardous
building, the matter is presented the City Council with the staff's
recommendation. The property owner can appear and comment at the Council
meeting. The Council could then adopt the appropriate order requiring the
removal of the hazardous building.
3. The City Council's order to remove the hazard is served on the property owner.
4. The property owner has twenty (20) days to file an answer with the Ramsey
County District Court. If an answer is not filedt the City proceeds to obtain a
summary judgment. If an answer is filed, the matter proceeds as other cases~
..
July 31 J 2008
Page 5
Administrative Fines as an Alternative.
The issue of cities' authority to establish administrative fines for certain violations has been the
center of debate and controversy in Minnesota over the past several years. Some, including the
State Auditor, have concluded that cities do not have the authority to take such action in
certain areas of enforcement. At the same time, there has been great legislative effort over the
past several sessions for at (east some clarity on the issue.. Again in 2008, the Legislature
did not take any steps to clarify city authority to implement a scheme for administrative fines.
Accordingly, a city should proceed cautiously before passing such an ordinance, and consider
the following:
1. Authority.
As a general rule, cities have only the authority expressly granted to them in statute or
in a city charter, or necessarily implied by the express authority given to them. Mangold
Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfieldt 143 N.W.2d 813, 819-20 (Minn. 1966). Except in two
specific circumstances, there is no express authority for a statutory city to impose
administrative penalties. The two specific circumstances are set out in (1) Minnesota Statutes
9 461..127 subd. 3, which allows cities (or a licensing authority) to impose administrative
penalties for sale of tobacco to a minor; and in (2) 340A.415, which establishes an
administrative penalty for certain violations involving the safe of alcohoL
Otherwise~ statutory cities generaHy rely on more general powers granted by the
legislature:
The council shall have the power to declare that the violation of any ordinance
shaH be a penal offense and to prescribe penalties therefor. No such penalty
shan exceed a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment in a city or county jail for a
period of 90 days, or bothr but in either case the costs of prosecution may be
added.
Minn.Stat. ~ 412~231 (emphasis added). Most cities interpret this section as either an
express grant of authority to establish administrative penalties, or at the very feast, to be
authority unecessarily implied" in their general powers to do so. See also, State v. Robitshek
60 Minn. 123J 125, 61 N.W. J023, 1024 (1895) (enforcement of ordinances is as much
within the authority and power of city council as is enactment).
Based on this general authority, many Minnesota cities, both statutory and charter,
have established administrative penalties for a variety of ordinance violations. However, this
has not been without controversy) specifically as it relates to cities enforcing their own traffic
regulations rather than state traffic laws~ In 2003, the former Statue Auditor took the position,
#
July 31~ 2008
Page 6
and the former Attorney General issued an opinionl that cities are preempted from enforcing
local traffic regulations. The current State Auditor has issued a Position Statement that her
office wiU follow the opinion of the AG as it relates to traffic code enforcement. Her office
issued letters/surveys to cities, asking whether they have an administrative process for traffic
offenses~ how much revenue has been coUected, and demandrng repayment to the State for
any amount coUectedfor traffic fines that should have been prosecuted in district court. Her
office issued a SJSpecial Study" in February 2008 discussing the findings.
It is important to note that the former and current State Auditors and the AG do not
specifically deny a city's authority to enforce other code provisions, such as building code,
zoning code, housing code or pubfic nuisance violations, through an administrative process,
despite statutory provisions that might apply (e.g., nuisance abatement of dangerous
buildings). Certainly 1 as noted above} a city may enforce these other code provisions by
citation in district court if the city.s code provides that such violations are misdemeanors.
Arguably! the focus of the State Auditor and of the Attorney General on preemption in the field
of traffic violations without an expticit statement denying the existence of city authority for focal
enforcement of aU types" courd be read as recognition that code enforcement in these other
areas is something inherently focaly dealing directly with livability issues and community
valuesy and should be enforced locally.
The league of Minnesota Cities has been working each legislative session over the past
several years for a clarification of citiesJ authority in this area. No bills have been passed thus
far, but more are expected for the 2009 session beginning in February. fn the mean time, the
league has taken the following po~it;on:
The League supports the use of city administrative fines for local regulatory
ordinances, such as buitding codes, zoning codes, hearth codes, and public
nuisance ordinances. The league supports the use of city administrative fines,
at a minimum, for regulatory matters that are not duplicative of misdemeanor or
higher state traffic and criminal offenses. Further, the League endorses the
concept that administrative penalty hearings should be held before disinterested
third parties, which may include city councifsJ to ensure fairness in the
proceedings.
If state leaders enact legislation that prohibits cities from using administrative
fines for minor traffic offenses, they should also change the distribution of
statutory violations fine revenues so that cities are adequately compensated for
enforcement and prosecution costs. Finally, the state should require that if a
court reduces the amount paid by a viofatoft any reduction should be made from
the surcharge and not the Hne.
July 31, 2008
Page 7
As the Legislature continues to debate the issue, it is ffkely safe for cities to proceed
with administrative penalties for non-traffic-refated violations.
2. Enforcement issues.
Assuming a city has full authority to establish an administrative process for code
enforcement in given situations. the question remains whether such a process witl be effective.
This is an open question, with littleJ if any, guidance in the Jaw..
Obviously, criminal enforcement in district court is an option, but, as noted above, is
not perfect_ However, it is far from clear whether an administrative process is more effective.
Except for the two statutes cited above, where administrative penalties are specificafly
proscribed, cities are generally free to establish their own process.. For example, there could be
progressive fines (first offense} $300; second offense. $500; third offense $1000, and so on);
or there could be progressive fines to a certain pointt eventually leading to a criminal citation.
Some cities provide that an unpaid administrative penalty results in a misdemeanor citation.
There is no conclusive evidence that these procedures are more effective in accomplishing code
compliance.
There is also the issue of collection of an adminrstrative penalty. Cities approach this
differently. Some do take the approach that an unpaid administrative fine becomes a lien
against the property and may be assessed against the property and caffected in the same
manner as taxes. A statutory city does not have clear authority to follow this procedure. While
it is true that a city has authority to intervene to abate a pubHc nuisance pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ~ 429.021, subd. 1 (8) 1 and specially assess the cost,. the assessment authority is for
the cost of abatementt not for an administrative penalty for a code violation. AccordinglYJ
authority to assess an unpaid administrative penalty is not express in every situation.
For example, a city does have the authority to certify "unpaid [water and sewer] charges
to the county auditor with taxes against the property served for coHection as other taxes are
collected:' Minn.Stat. ~ 444.075, subd. 3e. This authority does not extend to unpaid
municipal gas or efectric charges. See A.G. Op. 624-D-5 (July 6, 1953). Likewise, there is
no explicit authority granted to statutory cities to certify any amount they choose for collection
with property taxes..
July 31 t 2008
Page 8
There is no concrete evidence that statutory cities who do employ this procedure have
ever been challenged on it in court. Until there is a challenge or a legislative clarification, it is
advisable to consider another alternative for coHection of unpaid administrative penalties.
JPF:jmt
cc: Ron Moorse
Attachment C
Shoreview Abatement Code
October 20, 2008, City Council Work Session
City of Shoreview Municipal Code
Chapter 200. Development Regulations
210 Nuisance
210.010 Nuisance
(A) Definition. A public nuisance is a thing, act, or use of property which:
(1) Annoys, offends, injures, or endangers the health, comfort, repose, morals,
decency, peace, or safety of any considerable number of members of the
public; or
(2) Unlawfully interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage a
public waterway, park, square, street, alley, highway, or any other public
propel1y or right of way; or
(3) Depreciates the value of the property of a considerable number of
members of the public; or
(4) Is declared to be a nuisance by any provision of this code, any statute, or
regulation.
(B) Health, safety, and welfare nuisances shall include, but are not limited to, the
following as declared by the City Council.
(1) Certain ponds, pools and accumulation of stagnant water.
(2) Accumulation of refuse or debris.
(3) The pollution or contamination of any well or cistern, stream, lake, canal,
or body of water by sewage, or industrial waste or other substance.
Rev ~ Date
4/3/06
Ord~ No~ 793
(4) Of noxious weeds as defined in Minnesota Rules, parts 1505.0730,
1505.0732, and 1505.0740.
(5) Accumulation in the open of discarded or disused machinery, household
appliances, and furnishings, automobile bodies, or other material, in a
manner conducive to the harboring of rats, mice, snakes or vermin, or the
rank growth of vegetation among the items so accumulated, or in a manner
creating fire, health or safety hazards from such accumulations.
(6) All dangerous unguarded machinery, in any public place, or so situated or
operated on private property as to attract the public.
(7) Ice, snow, or rainwater to fall from any building or structure upon any
public street or sidewalk, or to direct any rainwater or water from ice melt
or snow melt so as to flow across any public sidewalk.
Section 210. Nuisance
21 0-1
City of Shoreview Municipal Code
Chapter 200. Development Regulations
210.020
Rev.Date
4/3/06
Ord. No. 793
Rev. Date
4/3/06
Ord. No. 793
(8) Any well, hole or excavation left uncovered or in such other condition as
to constitute a hazard to a child or other person, being or coming upon the
premises where the same is located.
(9) Hazardous buildings.
(C) Prohibition. No person shall commit, create, or cause a public nuisance, or
shall cause or permit a nuisance to exist on property under hislher control.
(D) Enforcement. The provisions of this ordinance shall be enforced by the police
department or by such other officers, employees, or agents as the City Council
may designate. Such officers, employees, or agents shall have the power to
inspect private premises in accordance with law, and take all reasonable
precautions to prevent the commission or maintenance of public nuisances.
The provisions of this ordinance for abatement of nuisances shall be in
addition to any other penalty or remedy provided by this code, by county
ordinance, or by state statute or regulation.
Abatement.
(A) General. Whenever the officer charged with enforcement determines a public
nuisance exists on a premise, the officer shall notify in writing the o~ner or
occupant of the premises of such fact and order such nuisance be terminated
and abated. The notice shall be served in person or by certified or registered
mail. If the premises are not occupied and the owner is unknown, notice may
be served by posting it on the premises. The notice shall specify the steps to
be taken to abate the nuisance and the time, not exceeding thirty days, within
which the nuisance is to be abated; provided the time for abatement shall not
exceed five days in the case of tall grass or noxious weeds. If the notice is not
complied with within the time specified, the enforcing officer shall report that
fact forthwith to the City CounciL Thereafter, the City Council, after notice
and hearing, may cause the nuisance to be abated by the City.
(B) Emergency Abatement. When the officer charged with enforcement
determines that a nuisance constitutes a serious and imminent danger to the
public safety or health, the officer may summarily abate the nuisance after a
reasonable attempt to notify the owner or occupant of the property. The office
shall immediately thereafter notify in writing the owner or occupant of the
premises of the action taken. The notice shall be served in person or by
registered or certified mail.
(C) Accelerated Abatement for Certain Nuisances. Not withstanding the
provisions of Section 211.070(H)( 1), city officers charged with enforcement
of this chapter shall follow the accelerated procedure described below for
abating accumulations of tall grasses, nuisance weeds and other vegetative
growth under Section 2] 1.060(C) of this chapter.
Section 21 o. Nuisance
210-2
City of Shoreview Municipal Code
Chapter 200. Development Regulations
(1) Notice of Violation: Whenever the officer charged with enforcement
determines that a nuisance proscribed under subsection 211.070(H)( 1) or
211.060(C) or 21 O~010(B)(4) is being maintained or exists on premises in
the city, written notice by certified first-class mail or registered mail shall
be provided to the property owner or occupant. If the premises are not
occupied and the owner is not known, the notice may be served by posting
it on the premises. The certified notice shall specify the nuisance to be
abated, that the nuisance must be abated within five (5) working days, and
that if the nuisance is not abated within five (5) working days, that the
City Council will hold a hearing, that the owner has the right to appear at
said hearing, that the city will have the nuisance abated and 125 % of the
cost of the abatement, including administrative costs, will be charged to
the property owner and certified against the property for collection with
taxes if the bill is not paid.
(2) Abatement by City: If the owner or occupant fails to comply with the
notice within five (5) days, the City shall provide for abatement of the
nuisance, after notice and hearing by the City Council. The officer
charged with enforcement shall keep records of the cost of abatement,
including administrative costs, and shall provide this information to the
city manager for billing and assessment against the property pursuant to
section 210.020(D)(2).
(D) Record of Abatement Costs. The City Manager or his/her designee shall keep
a record of the costs of abatements, including administrative costs, done under
this ordinance and shall report monthly all work done to the appropriate
officer for which assessments are to be made, stating and certifying the
description of the land, lots, parcels involved and the amount assessable to
each.
(1) Collection of Abatement Costs. On or before September 1 of each year,
the clerk shall list the total unpaid charges for each abatement against each
separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable. The City Council may
then spread the charges or any portion thereof against the property
involved as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes Section
429.101, as amended, and other pertinent statutes, for certification to the
County Auditor and collection the following year along with current taxes.
Such assessment shall be payable in a single installment, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101, Subd. 2, as amended.
(2) Recovery of Cost.
(a) Personal Liability. The owner of premises on which a nuisance has
been abated by the City shall be personally liable for the cost to the
Section 21 o. Nu isance
210-3
City of Shoreview Municipal Code
Chapter 200. Development Regulations
City of the abatement, including administrative costs. As soon as the
work has been completed and the cost determined, the City Manager
or other official designated by the City Council shall prepare a bill for
the cost plus an additional 25% and mail it to the owner. Thereupon,
the amount shall be immediately due and payable at the office of the
City Manager.
Rev. Date
4/3/06
Ord. No. 793
(b) Assessment. If the nuisance is a public health or safety hazard on
private property, the accumulation of snow and ice on public
sidewalks, or the growth of weeds on private property or outside the
traveled portion of streets, the City Manager shall, on or before
September 1 next following abatement of the nuisance, list the total
unpaid charges along with all other such charges as well as other
charges for current services to be assessed under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 429.101 against each separate lot or parcel to which the
charges are attributable. The City Council may then spread the
charges against such property under that statute and other pertinent
statutes for certification to the County Auditor and collection along
with current taxes the following year or in annual installments, not
exceeding ten, as the City Council may determine in each case.
(3) Prohibition and Abatement.
(a) The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 168B are adopted by
reference. Any abandoned motor vehicle, as defined by Minnesota
Statutes Section 168B.0 11, may be impounded and disposed of in the
manner provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 168B.04.
(b) The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 through 463.261
are adopted by reference. Any hazardous building or excavation may
be abated in the manner provided by statute.
Section 210. Nuisance
210-4
Attachment D
Roseville Rental Registration Code
October 20, 2008, City Council Work Session
ORDINANCE # 1361
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 BY ADDING CHAPTER 907 TO THE
CITY OF ROSEVILLE CITY CODE REGARDING REGISTRATION OF
RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY OF 1 TO 4 UNITS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:
Section I. Chapter 907, hereby titled RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY
REGISTRATION is hereby created- as follows:
907.01. Purpose. The City recognizes a need for an organized registration program of
residential rental property with 1 to 4 units within the City in order to identify and quantify
small rental units in the City and provide information and a method to enforce minimum
standards to meet City and State safety, health, fire and zoning codes within the City and to
provide a more efficient system to ensure that the stock of rental property within the City is
properly maintained. The City recognizes that the most efficient system to provide
information on the rental status of certain residential properties is through the creation of a
program requiring the registration of all residential rental property with 1 to 4 units within
the City. -,
907.02. Definitions.
1. The term ~~residential rental property" means any building, structure, room, enclosure,
or mobile home with 1 to 4 units including the real property upon which it is located
and which surrounds it, which is rented or offered for rent as living quarters.
Residential rental property does not mean on-campus college housing, hospital units,
nursing home units, multiple rental property over 4 units or hotels or motels with
daily rental units, all of which shall be specifically exempt from registration under
this Chapter.
2. The term ".unit" means all or a portion of a residential rental property that is arranged,
designed, used, or intended to be used as separate living quarters and which is leased
to an individual or group.
3. The term "person" includes natural persons as well as business entities, whether one
or more.
4. The term ~~City" means the City of Roseville, or the person or entity designated by the
City to administer and enforce this Chapter.
907.03. Registration Requirements. Except as provided in Sections 907.05(1) and 907.06,
it is unlawful for any person to hereafter occupy, allow to be occupied, advertise for
occupancy, solicit occupants of, or let to another person for occupancy any residential rental
property of 1 to 4 units within the City for which an application for registration has not been
properly made and filed with the City or after the tilne that a registration is suspended or
revoked. Initial registration shall be made upon forms furnished for such purpose and shall
specifically require the following minimum information:
10 Name, address and phone number of the property owner and, if owner is not a natural
person, the name, address and phone number of a designated agent for the owner.
2. The name, phone number, and address of any person authorized to make or order
made repairs or services for the property, if in violation of City or State Codes, if the
person is different than the owner.
3. The street address of the rental property.
4. The number and types of units within the rental property (single family, duplex,
triplex or fourplex).
5. If the rental unit is occupied by the property owner and rooms are rented to boarders,
the number of boarders and bedrooms.
6. Number of bedrooms and bathrooms in the rental dwelling unit.
907.04. Fees. There shall be a registration fee. All fees shall be established annually by the
City Council. All fees and fines shall be charged to and payable by the property owner.
907.05. Manner of Registration.
I. An owner of an existing rental property as defined by this Chapter must apply for
registration pursuant to this Chapter no later than 60 days following the effective date
of this Chapter.
2. An owner of a non-rental property that after the effective date of this Chapter wishes
to convert the property into a rental property, shall apply for and register the property
prior to its conversion.
3. If there is a change in the type of occupancy from the type stated on the registration
statement, a new registration statement shall be filed within 30 days of the change.
4. When property is sold, the new owner shall register within 30 days of the sale.
907.06. Registration Exemptions.
I 0 The owner of a rental dwelling unit is exempted from the registration requirement of
this Chapter if all renters residing in the rental property are related to the owner as a
parent, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, step-parent, step-child,
step-grandparent, or step-grandchild and the owner files an affidavit with the City
stating that each of the renters are one of these relations. The owner must notify the
2
City in writing within 30 days if the exemption described in this Chapter is lost
because the renters are not related to the owner as one of the above-referenced
relations.
907.07. Registration Suspensions and Revocation. Property registration may be revoked
or suspended at any time during the life of said registration for grounds including, but not
limited to, the following:
I. False or misleading information given or provided in connection with a registration
application.
2. Failure to maintain the rental property in a manner that meets pertinent provisions of
City Code including, but not limited to, Code Chapters 407 and 906.
3. Violations committed or permitted by the owner or the owner's agent, or committed
or permitted by the tenant or the tenant's guests or agents, of any rules, codes,
statutes and ordinances relating to, pertaining to, or governing the premises including,
but not limited to, the following:
A. Minn. Stat. 609.75 through 609.76, which prohibit gambling;
B. Minn. Stat. 609.321 through 609.324, which prohibit prostitution and acts relating
thereto;
C. Minn. Stat. 152.0 I through 152.025 and 152.027, subds. 1 and 2, which prohibit
the unlawful sale or possession of controlled substances;
D. Minn. Stat. 340A.40 I, which regulates the unlawful sale of alcoholic beverages;
E. Minn. Stat. 609.33, which prohibits owning, leasing, operating, managing,
maintaining, or conducting a disorderly house, or inviting or attempting to invite
others to visit or remain in a disorderly house;
F. Minn. Stat. 97B.021, 97B.045, 609.66 through 609.67 and 624.712 through
624.716 and Chapter 103 of the City Code, which prohibit the unlawful
possession, transportation, sale or use of weapon;
G. Minn. Stat. 609.72, which prohibits disorderly conduct;
H. Roseville City Code Section 407, prohibiting public nuisances, Section 405, noise
control, Section 906, property maintenance, Sections 1004 and 1 005, land use and
Section 1018, parking; and
I. Minn. Stat. 609.221, 609.222, 609.223, 609.2231 and 609.224, regarding assaults
in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth degree.
3
A suspended or revoked rental registration may be reinstated when the circumstances leading
to the suspension or revocation have been remedied.
907.08. Violation. Except as provided in Sections 907.05(1) and 907.06, any person that
maintains a rental dwelling unit without having the property registered, or after the
registration for the property has been revoked or suspended, or who permits new occupancy
in violation of Section 907 is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, is subject to a
fine and imprisonment as prescribed by state law. In addition to, or in lieu of, charging a
misdemeanor, the City may impose administrative fees in an amount set in the City Fee
Schedule. Upon the failure to pay an administrative fee, the City may post the dwelling unit
as illegal for habitation. Thereafter, the dwelling unit may not be occupied by anyone other
than the primary homestead owner and that person's immediate family until ( a) the
administrative fee has been paid; (b) a rental registration is obtained or the City is satisfied
that the dwelling unit will not be used as a rental dwelling unit, and ( c) completion of any
abatement, written compliance order, legal action from a citation or action per City Code
Sections 407.06, 407.07 and 407.08. Each day of each violation constitutes a separate
offense.
907.09. Maintenance of Records. All records, files and documents pertaining to the Rental
Registration Program shall be maintained in the office of the City and made available to the
public as allowed or required by applicable laws, rules, codes, statutes or ordinances.
907.10. Authority. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the City from taking action under
any applicable rule, standard, statute or ordinance for violations thereof and to seek either
injunctive relief or criminal prosecution for such violations as therein provided. Nothing
contained in this Chapter shall prevent the City from seeking injunctive relief against a
property owner or designated agent who fails to comply with the terms and conditions of this
Chapter on registration including an order prohibiting the occupancy of such rental units
until violations of this Chapter have been remedied by the property owner or designated
agent.
907.11. Applicable Laws. Residential Rental Property shall be subject to all applicable
rules, standards, statutes and ordinances governing use, maintenance and occupancy of the
dwelling or dwelling unit; and this Chapter shall not be construed or interpreted to supersede
any other such applicable rules, standards, statutes or ordinances.
907.12. Notice to Tenant. The owner, or its agent, must provide each tenant with a
Resident Maintenance Handbook provided by the City and Tenant Rights and
Responsibilities Handbook provided by the Attorney General's office.
907.13. Rules, Policies and Procedures. The City Council may adopt from time to time,
by resolution, rules, policies and procedures for the implementation of this Chapter.
Violation of any such rule, policy or procedure by a property owner shall be considered a
violation of this Ordinance.
4
907.14. No Warranty by the City. By enacting and undertaking to enforce this Ordinance,
neither the City, its designees, the City Council, or its officers, agents or employees warrant
or guarantee the safety, fitness or suitability of any dwelling in the City. Owners or
occupants should take whatever steps they deem appropriate to protect their interests, health,
safety and welfare. A warning in substantially the foregoing language shall be printed on the
face of the rental registration.
907.15. Severability. If any provision of this Chapter or amendment thereto, or the
application thereof to any person, entity or circumstance, is held invalid or unconstitutional
by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Chapter shall remain in full force
and effect and the application thereof to other persons, entities or circumstances shall not be
affected thereby.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance amendment to the City Code shall take effect on
March 17, 2008, after passage and publication.
Passed this 17th day of March, 2008.
5