CC_Minutes_2016_0725 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 25, 2016 Page 7 cilmember McGehee opined that if the issue happens to be one particular prob- lematic tenant that had removed smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. it created a tricky situation, and made her question whether it was necessary to change a policy based on the established process followed by staff in this instance. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Englund reviewed staff s rationale for putting in place a six month MOU to address seasonal timing for exterior painting, and budgeting, hiring and having work completed by a contractor as weather permit- ted. As noted by Mayor Roe, Mr. Englund clarified that the property owner was no longer served by the MOU upon completion of the exterior painting and other violations; and thus now on their honor, since there would be no inspections, if this renewal was approved, until the end of the three-year term. In terms of grounds to deviate from the current numerical violations standards in code, Mayor Roe questioned if the City Council had any discretion similar to that in its liquor licensing process. City Attorney Gaughan advised that if staff and the City Council have agreed and approved these particular rules, standards and procedures, they be followed ac- cordingly to ensure equal treatment. Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a three-year multi-family rental dwelling license renewal for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019, for property owner Mailand Management Corporation, for their facility located at 885 W Highway 36, Roseville, MN. Mayor Roe noted that tenants or other Roseville residents could file a complaint with the city for any noticeable violations that would then be addressed per the city's recourse as laid out in Chapter 301 of city code. Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of those concerns raised by Coun- cilmember Etten, but deferred to the advice of City Attorney Gaughan. Councilmember Etten also agreed with the advice of City Attorney Gaughan. However, Councilmember Etten wondered if future review was possible to pro- vide some leeway for problems such as this in the future. Councilmember Etten stated that he found this type of issue troubling with repeat violations and lack of response by a property owner until the last minute or when they had received a fi- nal notice of noncompliance. City Attorney Gaughan noted that the best course of action was not to deviate from policies in place; but suggested the City Council could review its current policy and establish guidelines moving forward.