pf_03708 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

^ The International Property Maintenance Code is a licensed "product" of the International Codes Council, not a public document. To make sure that residents can have full access to our local laws, If Roseville decides to adopt provisions of the IMPC, we should write them into our Code, as Shoreview did. Also attached is the Fridley Residential Rental Property Maintenance and Licensing Code, which also adopts IMPC standards directly into city ordinance. • We cannot take code language out of the IPMC and place it into the City Code due to copyright laws. This would necessitate rewriting everything and likely having a less readable document. • If an observed violation reaches a second letter, we always reference the code section in violation. By policy we could include a copy of that code language for the property owner so they would have the language referencing the violation in their possession. This has not been deemed necessary in the past because most violations are for outside junk and debris or, inoperable vehicles, and most residents are aware they are in violation. Motion #3 Adopt only Chapters 2-7 of the IMPC, after additional public hearing at the HRA or council to review and consider possible amendments to the specific maintenance standards of those chapters. Delete and do not adopt Chapter 1(Administration). Leave existing administration and enforcement ordinances and policies in place. Chapter 1(Administration) does notgive staff more authority than it now has. What it does is: help with clarity by taking the authority provisions of typical city codes and the building code and place them here in this document so they are easier to find and reference. This chapter also references professional standards the code enforcement o�ce must follo►v (ie. proper documentation, records, coordination for the benefit of the property owner, etc.). The specific provisions in the body of the code (chps 2-7) do give the City more authority, authority to address problems and deteriorating buildings that the City cannot now address (particularly interior deterioration). As discussed above, Shoreview has adopted many of the maintenance standards from the � IMPC, but not the administration and enforcement provisions. Hopkins is another example of this — see Hopkins Property Maintenance Code attached. Hopkins has its own compliance and enforcement ordinances in place of IMPC Chapter 1, and has also deleted or amended a significant number of the IMPC maintenance standards in Chapters 3-7. If Roseville adopts all of the administration/enforcement provisions of the IMPC, the result will be the creation of a new city department of property maintenance with broad powers of entry and inspection of all property, and greater power to punish violators (through prosecution of strict liability misdemeanors). No evidence or reasons have been presented to show a need or justify this. Why not focus on updating and strengthening maintenance standards first, and review enforcement mechanisms if necessary afterward?