My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008_0225_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2008
>
2008_0225_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2012 1:34:50 PM
Creation date
12/29/2011 8:38:51 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
201
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION <br />DATE: 02/25/2008 <br />ITEM NO: 12.c <br />Department Approval.* City Manager Approval.- Agenda Section.- <br />PT/DM/RT Wim REPORTS <br />Item Description.- Council Discussion of Code Enforcement in Roseville <br />13 1.0 REQUESTED ACTION: <br />City Council directed Community Development staff to research Land <br />Use Code Enforcement procedures and programs of other surrounding <br />cities and to report back to Council with comparisons and options for <br />consideration. Council also wished to have,, at this same time,, further <br />discussion of Code Enforcement policies and procedures in Roseville. <br />2.1 Community Development Staff met with staff from 10 other cities with <br />similar aged housing (Shoreview, Oakdale, Fridley, Richfield, Brooklyn <br />Park, Brooklyn Center, Edina, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and New <br />Hope),. A comparison of procedures and programs is attached. <br />2.2 Highlights of the findings include.- <br />• Land Use Code Enforcement operations are located in a number of <br />different departments, including.- Fire, Public Safety, Planning, and <br />Community Development. The most common was Community <br />Development, however, the scope of enforcement duties were often <br />spread among numerous departments and not concentrated in one <br />department, as is the case in Roseville. <br />• The numbers of full time employees in code enforcement in other <br />cities was difficult to ascertain (for comparison purposes), because of <br />the dispersion of duties into other departments. St. Louis Park and <br />Brooklyn Park (with very proactive programs), appeared to have more <br />employees devoted to code enforcement, a number of cities had two <br />employees performing this work and the two smaller cities had one <br />employee each. Some cities have additional staff that alternate <br />performing rental licensing inspections in the winter and code <br />enforcement inspections in the summer. Four of the cities use seasonal <br />assistance in addition to regular staff. Roseville has one full time <br />employee with periodic assistance from other staff <br />• The number of complaint cases per city was not compared because <br />recording practices are different in many cities. Some cities record <br />contacts (inspections), vs. cases,, some total land use cases with other <br />Page I of 3 <br />C:\Documents and S,ettings\margaret.driscoll\LocaI S,ettings\Temporary Internet <br />Files\OLKD6\RCAPrePacketCodeEnforcDlscussO2252007.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.