CC_Minutes_2016_0509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 9, 2016 Page 10 should do something. If the city was going to require criminal background checks of others beyond the owner, Councilmember McGehee opined that there should be something in the system to ensure that if and when you move into a rental unit in Roseville, if this ordinance has any value at all, a resident can know they aren't in a building that a checklist has flagged as having an owner, manager or other person involved in the building that the checklist has flagged as having some sort of criminal history making it inappropriate for them to hold that position or have access to individual units. City Attorney Gaughan stated his main concern was about challenges to the city using whatever systein it decided, and impact on licensing of adults with criminal background checks. Mr. Gaughan noted that this code as originally enacted by the City Council, and now proposed to be revised as to its breadth, included the same license application process in place since its inception; but was now simply being proposed for highlighting for the City Council and public. Councilmember McGehee noted the expansion in Item B from including only "prospective tenants" is a significant change and expansion to the original lan- guage. Based on his personal reading of the proposed language revisions, Councilmem- ber Willmus opined that this shifts things from the property owner to the city. Councilmember Laliberte recognized that this language had originally been in the ordinance, but she agreed that this appeared to her to shift the responsibility to the city. Councilmember Laliberte asked City Attorney Gaughan what the city's lia- bility is if asking the property owner to perform the bacicground checks and some- thing happened with the city having taken no action to ensure someone's safety; and could the city have some liability. City Attorney Gaughan responded that the city's risk had not increased by asking for something not previously asked for. Mayor Roe suggested language revisions for this section, such as: "The city will not be the recipient of the content of these criminal background checks, and use of the information provided in the background checks is the responsibility of the li- censee". City Manager Trudgeon asked for feedback on the remainder of the ordinance; and suggested if there were no other concerns in proposed revisions, that the pro- posed revisions in Section B simply be struck, using the original language focus- ing on tenants. Mr. Trudgeon advised that this would allow staff to perform more due diligence and research that section, bringing it back to the City Council at a future meeting. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that his suggestion would mean all red language in Section B is removed prior to action tonight, and remain as originally