pf_03708 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�-. � MEMORANDUM TO� MEMBERS OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY COUNCIL FROM� �MY IHLAN SUBJECT� CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE DATE� JANUARY 17, 2006 (�YITI� STAFF CO�1'��1E�`�T'S) I have concerns that the proposed adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code will create powers of enforcement going way beyond our current ordinances. 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 interior inspection of rental property only. The apti�iis are to re�ulate as per the St,,te R»ildin� Cnr_�e �n�l the IPi'�T(�, �vhir_.h �ilows interior inspection upon re �z� ect. Rental property, under a rental licensing ordinance would have mandato� in�pections before 4ainin� the appro riate rental license. But there are no such limitations I can find in the code. Section 101.2 ("Scope") indicates it applies to "all existing residential and nonresidential structures" and "constitutes minimum iequirements and standards" for a whole range of maintenance issues. This means all pioperties 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. Yes, like any building code, entrance can be requested but if refused the City must seek an administrative warrant to enter the inside for code related inspections. Section 106.3 makes violations of the maintenance code "strict liability" the City ��tt�arn�_z- �vill address this is.-.u�) misdemeanors, which means that no proof of criminal intent is required, and there is effectively no way anyone can defend themselves as long as the code was violated. See Section 202 (General Definitions). This goes far beyond our curient enforcement ordinances, which define violations as misdemeanors, without imposing strict liability. The new proposed maintenance code also provides each day of violation after notice is a separate offense (see Section 106.4) (c��a� enf��r�,eiileri"t uties a co�ltinuinf� violaiiail_�aroct �s -_ eac]Z da�� a. ��%�arate._ofien�.�)_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, (city attorne tY o explain) or how it would be fair or justifiable to do this for property