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 21 <br /> <br />Glen Merrill, 469 Lake Wabasso Court, Shoreview (owner <br />ofrental on Oakcrest Ave for the last 20 years) <br />Mr. Merrill noted that he had provided the City Council with the <br />Pioneer Press article regarding a similar program implemented in <br />Burnsville; and encouraged staff and the City Council to look at <br />the possibility of using a "carrot and stick" approach covering all <br />properties, rather than offending property owners already in <br />compliance. Mr. Merrill opined that this would be a cooperative <br />ordinance, and would get at the "bad apples," with a non-fee <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Merrill asked that, if the City Council pursued their current <br />proposed ordinance, inspection criteria be outlined (i.e., older <br />homes and aged electrical systems; no smoke detectors in <br />bedrooms, etc.); and requested a list of such inspection criteria to <br />ensure compliance prior to inspections being scheduled; and to <br />avoid re-inspection fees if non-compliance was found; as well as <br />a timetable for compliance (i.e., electrical service upgrades); and <br />provision of sufficient lead time to anticipate potential problems <br />during the inspection. <br /> <br />Kris/David Krengel, 1681 Ridgewood Lane <br />Mr. Krengel opined that imposition of such a rental license fee <br />and inspection was similar to the state's imposition of s <br />"temporary" half-cent sales tax. Mr. Krengel opined that this was <br />a privacy issue for him; referred to a past incident when he had a <br />house guest that became disgruntled when Mr. Krengel <br />attempted to remove him from his residence; and staffs <br />inspection of his private property at that time at the instigation of <br />the house guest. <br /> <br />Mr. Krengel addressed the need for consistency in dealing with <br />condition of properties, whether rental or private residences, <br />while also protecting people's privacy; fee violations and <br />whether misdemeanors or criminal citations were issues; impacts <br />of such citations on certain business license holders; and <br />expressed concern that such an ordinance would allow access to <br />people's homes for inspection at any time. <br /> <br />Donald Sem, 2231 W Roselawn <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.