Laserfiche WebLink
<br />In order for the Memorandums of Understanding process to function efficiently and <br />78 <br />effectively, a Council approved policy is proposed. This would provide guidance for staff <br />79 <br />when entering . The following are proposed: <br />80 <br /> <br />The MOU form to be developed by the city attorney. <br />o <br />81 <br /> <br />to be signed by both the property owner/manager and the City (code <br />o <br />82 <br />enforcement staff and Community Development Director). <br />83 <br /> <br />Life-safety violations required to be corrected immediately. <br />o <br />84 <br /> <br />Basic maintenance violations required to be corrected within 60 days. <br />o <br />85 <br /> <br />Extensive or weather dependent violations required to be corrected over a <br />o <br />86 <br />reasonable period of time (approved by the Community Development Director). <br />87 <br />Note: staff to also share HRA funding information with rental properties, to <br />88 <br />possibly assist with costs. <br />89 <br /> <br />o <br />90 <br />process. Where properties are cooperating with the ordinance, operations remain <br />91 <br />with staff. Where properties are not cooperating with the program (or wish to <br />92 <br />appeal), the issues are brought before Council. <br />93 <br /> <br />Note: The Police Department has e proven to be <br />o <br />94 <br />successful and effective. <br />95 <br /> <br />6.908.04.F: Revise ordinance wording to clarify that payment of license renewal fee is required <br />96 <br />prior to license renewal date: <br />97 <br /> <br />This revision specifies that payment of the license fee is due by the license renewal date. <br />98 <br />99 <br />specifies a date that is ambiguous and could be a moving target. Both property <br />100 <br />owners/managers and the city will be better able to plan ahead for payments if there is a <br />101 <br />specific date. <br />102 <br /> <br />7.908.08A & B: Extend the appeal timeframes to 30 days and 90 days: <br />103 <br /> <br />Present ordinance language requires a property owner/manager to file an appeal within <br />104 <br />ten (10) calendar days of an order or decision being given (by staff). With some <br />105 <br />decisions (in correspondence) sent by mail, this could mean there would not be enough <br />106 <br />time for the property owner/manager to review the order/decision and respond. It is <br />107 <br />proposed to increase this timeframe to 30 days. <br />108 <br /> <br />Present ordinance language requires the City to hold a public meeting before City <br />109 <br />Council within 30 calendar days of receipt of an appeal. Depending on the time of year <br />110 <br />111 <br />staff review and discussion of the appeal, scheduling of a public hearing, and, creating <br />112 <br />113 <br />the same date, which could result in multiple appeals at the same Council Public hearing <br />114 <br />which could clog the Council agenda. It is proposed to increase this timeframe to 90 <br />115 <br />days. <br />116 <br /> <br />8.As a follow-up, staff have met with the property managers of Roseville Senior Apartments <br />117 <br />(1045 Larpenteur) regarding their concerns about having additional rental license program <br />118 <br />inspections that they felt would be disruptive to their residents. Staff and the management <br />119 <br />company have coordinated a time for the rental license inspections, they will occur at the same <br />120 <br />time as their HRA inspection. <br />121 <br /> <br />122 <br /> <br />123 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />