2015_0223_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

78 With an MOU, the property owner agrees to correct all violations according to a set 79 schedule. The property is then monitored for compliance. 80 If the property does not maintain this schedule, the property is brought before o 81 Council with a staff recommendation that the property be re-assigned a D type 82 license (with re-inspections and payment of fees every 6 months) until the 83 property is again in compliance. 84 Staff anticipates many of the items in a MOU would be similar and therefore is 85 requesting Council approve general guidelines regarding acceptable timeframes for 86 compliance so that MOU’s will be consistent, have Council direction, but not require 87 dozens of Council hearings that are repetitive and unnecessary. Any applicant that 88 disagrees with a proposed MOU or any determination of staff, always has the ability to 89 bring that issue to the Council in an appeal. 90 In order for the Memorandums of Understanding process to function efficiently and 91 effectively, a Council approved policy is proposed. This would provide guidance for 92 staff when entering into MOU’s with property owners. The following are proposed: 93 The MOU form to be developed by the city attorney. o 94 MOU’s to be signed by both the property owner/manager and the City. o 95 Life-safety violations required to be corrected immediately. o 96 Basic maintenance violations required to be corrected within 90 days. o 97 Extensive or weather dependent violations required to be corrected over a o 98 reasonable period of time (approved by the Community Development Director). 99 Note: staff to also share HRA funding information with rental properties, to 100 possibly assist with costs. 101 This policy would work very similar to the current ‘public nuisance/abatement o 102 process’. Where properties are cooperating with the ordinance, operations remain 103 with staff. Where properties are not cooperating with the program (or wish to 104 appeal), the issues are brought before Council. 105 Note: The Police Department has been using MOU’s and they have proven to be o 106 successful and effective. 107 6.Section 908.04.F: Revise ordinance wording to clarify that payment of license renewal fee is 108 required by the license renewal date: 109 This revision specifies that payment of the license fee is due by the license renewal date. 110 The present language (‘…within thirty (30) calendar days of notice of licensing type.’) 111 specifies a date that is ambiguous and could be a moving target. Both property 112 owners/managers and the city will be better able to plan ahead for payments if there is a 113 specific date. 114 7.Section 908.08A & B: Extend the appeal timeframe to 30 calendar days and the public hearing 115 timeframe to 90 calendar days: 116 Present ordinance language requires a property owner/manager to file an appeal within 117 ten (10) calendar days of an order or decision being given (by staff). With most 118 decisions (in correspondence) sent by mail, this could mean there would not be enough 119 time for the property owner/manager to review the order/decision and respond. It is 120 proposed to increase this timeframe to 30 calendar days. 121 Present ordinance language requires the City to hold a public hearing before City 122 Council within 30 calendar days of receipt of an appeal. Depending on the time of year 123 and Council’s public meeting schedule, this timeframe does not allow enough time for 124 staff review and discussion of the appeal, scheduling of a public hearing, and, creating 125 RCA’s in time for the Council packet. Also, multiple rental properties typically renew 126 Page 3 of 5