My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_0209
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_0209
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2015 2:49:36 PM
Creation date
3/2/2015 2:49:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/9/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, February 9,2015 <br /> Page 35 <br /> Roll Call <br /> Ayes: Wilimus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe. <br /> Nays: None. <br /> Mr. Munson reviewed the areas recommended for revision as detailed in the <br /> RCA. <br /> Councilmember Wilimus questioned the recommended 90 day appeal period ra- <br /> ther than a shorter period(page 8). <br /> Mr. Munson noted the needed time for the appeal process including staff consid- <br /> eration, consultation with the City Attorney, development of an RCA for public <br /> hearing purposes, and availability of agenda time at the next City Council meet- <br /> ing, depending on their meeting schedule, allowing for more flexibility for prop- <br /> erty owners. <br /> Councilmember Wilimus noted the inclusion of the word "within," allowing for <br /> submission before that 90 day expiration as well. <br /> Councilmember Wilimus noted proposed revisions in the number of units availa- <br /> ble for inspection and those re-inspected providing a good representation of units <br /> overall throughout the cycle. <br /> Councilmember Etten spoke in support of staff's proposed changes after practical <br /> use. <br /> Mr. Munson advised that staff was attempting to get the revisions implemented <br /> prior to the next inspection cycle in May, and intended to return for action at the <br /> City Council's February 23, 2015 meeting. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte advised that she was generally in favor of the revisions, <br /> and her concerns with the 90 day appeal period had been addressed and including <br /> "within" in the language; and expressed appreciation to staff for their review of <br /> the document after determining how it worked in implementation. <br /> Councilmember McGehee thanked staff for the program, and their recommended <br /> tweaks, especially their recommendations (page 3, line 8) regarding coordinating <br /> inspections to avoid multiple inspections for residents. <br /> Councilmember McGehee suggested some type of incentive that could be offered <br /> to ensure background checks could be required not only for the person on the <br /> rental lease but as a follow-up for any and all additional people moving into a <br /> unit, that they also be subject to the same background checks. Councilmember <br /> McGehee opined that this could alleviate problems found in some buildings and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.