pf_03708 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � � TO� FROM� MEMORANDUM MEMBERS OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY COUNCIL �MY IHLAN SUBJECT� CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE DATE� JANUARY 17, 2006___ �`�`,"i 1 rI =�_1 1I�'., �'�:>:�l'� l l�:_: �:�', I have concerns that the proposed adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code will create powers of enforcement going way beyond our current oidinances. Whether or not additional higher property maintenance standards are a good idea, there are some serious questions about whether these enforcement powers are needed, or can be justified. For example, the council was told at a public hearing last year that the proposed property maintenance code would apply only to building exteriors, and allow inteiioi inspection of rental propeity only._Tli�� opt��icr+_� :_sr�_ to rr'�,-zlai�c �..s_per iiie �`t.,tt- 1,i,iilr)if-��f (��r��_ �iirl t}-,,;� T��i��', :=�hirh allnws ir►_�Pripr inc�eCtioli i�poii ''�= ;'';';�':- Rental propertv, under a rental licensin� ordinance wa>>�d h�.-e mand�t�r�- ll`�17��Ct1C�11= �'�F�f� �I'� '�:`il?�11"= f�1�3 ca1_�rrl'Oi�l'',�7+8 TPI1f.=tl L�_:�i5=e. But there are no such - -- -- -- - -- _ _ .. - —_ _ limitations I can iind in the code. Section 101.2 ("Scope") indicates it applies to "all existing residential and nonresidential structures" and "constitutes minimum requirements and standards" for a whole range of maintenance issues. This means all piopeities would be subject to the "right of entry" under Section 104.4 for maintenance purposes— not just rental properties subject to inspection under the proposed rental licensing code. ��;s, Iike anv builc�_in� code, entrance can L-e requested, but if refu: e�a,, the City must seek an admi�ll t:��.,ti �_:.-,�r!•�i�t to r,n� � r_i L_=. in�ide for code related iii�l�FCtion-. Section 106.3 makes violations of the maintenance code "strict liability" ti-�e Cit-.- 1; �:, r,,_�-. ;:�ill id.dre:= � c!,i - �;�_i�_�,� misdemeanors, which means that no proof of criminal intent is required, and there is effectively no way anyone can defend theinselves as long as the code was violated. See Section 202 (General Definitions). This goes far beyond our current enforcement ordinances, which define violations as misdemeanors, without imposing stiict liability. The new proposed maintenance code also provides each day of violation after notice is a separate offense (see SeCt10I1 1�6.4� !��Q��t� �_11��CTi' l��I11 17.=�"- .�i ��0?li�,I71.111i r_ 7C1��i1�,�11 j�i'��C� _ —?�'�l_��l i_ 7:_� ;� ,�� t- �: �_ � � i �� n��; _so it would be possible to convict someone of a whole string of strict liability misdemeanors instead of just one. No reasons have been given to explain why it is necessary to create a new category of strict liability misdemeanors, ��:it�._;�ttgrne�:- to e;:�.�l��in% or how it would be fair or justifiable to do this for property