My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_1128
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_1128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:28:50 AM
Creation date
12/14/2005 11:49:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/28/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 11/28/05 <br />Minutes - Page 14 <br /> <br />process, similar to that of the proposed Property Maintenance <br />Code; possible separate contract with the HRA for <br />administration; and an outside service provider. <br /> <br />Ms. Bennett outlined the program process for rental owners, with <br />notice and application sent out by the HRA; application <br />submission by owner with fee; and scheduled inspection <br />completed by a contract inspector to ensure compliance with <br />code; with a license issued when compliance was documented. <br />Ms. Bennett reviewed the process for those not in compliance, <br />with a first failed inspection; corrective letter; re-inspection if <br />required; and additional fees for non-compliance or non-response <br />by property owners; and the administrative and/or court process <br />to be pursued by staff and/or the City Attorney. <br /> <br />Ms. Bennett noted that for the 2006 license year, since it would <br />be a learning process for staff and rental property owners, staff <br />recommended a two-year license (2006/2007) to allow additional <br />time for compliance and allow an equitable schedule to be <br />established. Ms. Bennett reviewed the proposed funding with a <br />combination of fees and HRA levy, with $80,000 currently <br />budgeted in for 2006 if the final HRA levy is adopted by the City <br />Council. Ms. Bennett noted that staff was open to suggestion <br />and that there were uncertainties for the first year's <br />implementation; non-compliance fees and consistencies; and <br />depending on the RFP implementation. <br /> <br />Ms. Bennett responded briefly to some of the written comment <br />received to-date by staff, with these items also addressed further <br />during the discussion and public comment. <br /> <br />Why charge a rental fee to those in compliance? <br />Staff response: To ensure that all are inspected and in <br />compliance, with the program evaluated on an annual basis; and <br />possible rebates for those properties in compliance, following the <br />first year's implementation. <br /> <br />Why the necessity of an annual inspection? <br />Staff response: To allow consistent and quality monitoring of <br />properties, given an estimated 30% turnover in rental property; <br />with possible modification in the future to an every other year <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.