My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0130
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0130
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:31:18 AM
Creation date
2/15/2006 10:14:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/30/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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 />Motion #2 <br />All provisions of the IPMC adopted as part of the Roseville City Code shall be fully stated as part of the <br />city code) not by reference to the IPMC. <br /> <br />The International Property Maintenance Code is a licensed "product" of the International <br />Codes Council, not a public document. To make sure that residents can have full access to <br />9ur local laws, IfRoseville decides to adopt provisions of the IMPC, we should write them <br />into our Code, as Shoreview did. Also attached is the Fridley Residential Rental Property <br />Maintenance and Licensing Code, which also adopts IMPC standards directly into city <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Motion #3 <br />Adopt only Chapters 2-7 of the IMPc, after additional public hearing at the HRA or council to review <br />and consider possible amendments to the specific maintenance standards of those chapters. Delete and <br />do not adopt Chapter 1 (Administration). Leave existing administration and enforcement ordinances <br />and policies in place. <br /> <br />As discussed above, Shoreview has adopted many of the maintenance standards from the <br />IMPC, but not the administration and enforcement provisions. Hopkins is another example <br />of this - see Hopkins Property Maintenance Code attached. Hopkins has its own <br />compliance and enforcement ordinances in place of IMPC Chapter 1, and has also deleted <br />or amended a significant number of the IMPC maintenance standards in Chapters 3-7. <br /> <br />If Roseville adopts all of the administration/enforcement provisions of the IMPC, the result <br />will be the creation of a new city department of property maintenance with broad powers of <br />entry and inspection of all property, and greater power to punish violators (through <br />prosecution of strict liability misdemeanors). No evidence or reasons have been presented <br />to show a need or justify this. Why not focus on updating and strengthening maintenance <br />standards first, and review enforcement mechanisms if necessary afterward? <br /> <br />Motion #4 <br />Delete Section 101.2 (Scope) and amend it to clarify that the code applies only to exterior maintenance <br />of owner occupied structures and that interior standards and inspections apply only as to rental <br />licensing requirements. <br /> <br />This would make the scope of the maintenance code consistent with staff recommendations. <br /> <br />Motion #5 <br />Delete Section 104.4 (Right of Entry) <br /> <br />Instead, create inspection rights and procedures as part of the rental licensing code. <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.