My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0122
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0122
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:44:08 AM
Creation date
2/14/2007 1:07:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/22/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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 Study Session - <br />01122/07 Minutes - Page 6 <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust noted and clarified <br />recommendation #4 was to suspend further action <br />Rental Licensing Ordinance for two years. <br /> <br />that the <br />on a Draft <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan further clarified that if the City Council <br />approved Recommendation #4, they would not be moving <br />forward with a fonnal inspection program or licensing for at least <br />two years. <br /> <br />Mr. Majerus affirmed these interpretations. <br /> <br />FUliher discussion included reluctance of some landlords and <br />tenants in having their homes inspected, with Councilmember <br />Roe reviewing State Statute for landlords having rights, with <br />proper notice, to enter their rental properties; and opined that <br />most property owners would want to present themselves as being <br />cooperative with building and code enforcement staff related to <br />the internal maintenance code. <br /> <br />Jim Olson and Annette Phillips, as members of the Citizens <br />Advisory Committee, were also present and provided input into <br />the discussion with Councilmembers. <br /> <br />Mr. Olson noted that when the first ordinance came before the <br />City Council for approval in November of 2005, he reviewed it <br />as a non-resident landlord, and questioned why a few landlords <br />needed to be penalized for what a few landlords were doing. Mr. <br />Olson further noted, that when the revised ordinance came before <br />the CAG, which he opined had great attendance and represented <br />a broad spectrum of commercial and small property managers, it <br />was the CAG's consensus that the revised ordinance was not <br />more regulation, but better regulation, and didn't penalize those <br />living in compliance. <br /> <br />Ms. Phillips opined that the CAG felt that pulling out the parking <br />resolution as a separate item was necessary to address it <br />community-wide and not directly related to rental housing but as <br />a broader housing issue throughout the community as a separate <br />Issue. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.