CC_Minutes_2013_0909 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 9, 2013 Page 19 Councilmember McGehee noted the positive marketing by the HRA, and ongoing discussions of marketing and branding for the City; asking if there was any chance of co-mingling HRA and City funds for a total marketing package. As noted during previous discussions, Interim City Manager Trudgeon noted that the HRA budget included $30,000 allocated toward City marketing efforts, as part of that cooperative marketing approach, with the HRA directly contributing those funds to the City of Roseville. Councilmember McGehee expressed her support of the marketing efforts and pro- cess used by the HRA on the Dale Street project and other recent activities. Councilmember Laliberte also credited the HRA for their ongoing efforts, and thanked them for putting money toward the City's communication efforts going forward. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would be voting in support of this motion; and while always uncomfortable setting a levy at the maximum al- lowed, she hoped it could be reduced between this preliminary amount and its fi- nal iteration. Roll Call Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten: and Roe. Nays: None. 13. Business Items (Action Items) b. Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1693 Ridgewood Lane N Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed violations at this vacant single-family detached home, located at 1693 Ridgewood Lane N, as detailed in the RCA dated September 9, 2013; with the current owner identified as Francis A. Johnson, but in foreclosure and in redemption at this time set to expire in the near future. Mr. Munson provided an update, including pictures, of current violations, includ- ing pool fending and building in disrepair (violation of City Code, Section 407.02.J) and accumulation of junk, debris and brush on the property (violation of City Code, Section 407.02.D). Mr. Munson estimated that total abatement cost for removal of junk, brush and debris and repair of pool security fencing would be approximately$2,000.00. Mr. Munson clarified that the abatement request was not intended to address all the violations,just those indicated in the RCA and visible to the public or address- ing safety hazards. Mr. Munson advised that the rationale for this limited abate- ment was based on discussions with the bank and their intent to make repairs at the end of the redemption period once they take ownership, and staff's preference to avoid performing wasteful work. Mr. Munson noted that this was a very nice