Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, April 10, 2017 <br />Page 17 <br /> <br />Etten moved, Roe seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1523 (REVISED <br />Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville <br />City Code, Title 9, Chapter 907, to Registration of Residential Rental Prope r- <br />ty of 1 to 4 Units;” further amended as follows: <br /> Including Mayor Roe’s revisions as noted in the bench handout; <br /> Strike “natural” person and replace Line 82 and any similar references with <br />“individuals” <br /> <br />Councilmember Etten, with agreement by Mayor Roe, stated that other discussion <br />items addressed tonight were part of a larger policy discussion and didn’t need to <br />prevent this ordinance from moving forward for the code enforcement staff’s a d- <br />ministrative work. <br /> <br />While it may be nice to move the ordinance forward tonight, Councilmember <br />McGehee stated her preference to remove addit ional specifications dictating <br />where an owner or local agent resides; and also incorporating the suggested made <br />by Councilmember Laliberte to ensure registration compliance. <br /> <br />Specific to those points raised by Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee about <br />the local agent, Councilmember Willmus stated that he could not support the mo- <br />tion as proposed. <br /> <br />Amendment to the Motion <br />McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, revising language of Section 907.02 <br />(Definitions) Item C (Lines 72 – 78) to remove references to living in the sev- <br />en-county metropolitan area. <br /> <br />Based on his understanding with the rationale in having the language in the orig i- <br />nal ordinance, Councilmember Etten asked what happened if someone needed ac- <br />cess to the building and if that now meant the tenant would be responsible to pro- <br />vide that access; and if so, did they then become the “local agent” as defined in <br />the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten voiced their lack of interest in removing <br />that language. <br /> <br />Councilmember Willmus noted that his concern was with long-lasting impacts on <br />a property, and how a representative was authorized or entitled to act on behalf of <br />a property owner, raising risk issues for property owners, agents, tenants and the <br />city. If the language is struck from this section, Counc ilmember Willmus noted <br />other areas in the ordinance that also needed revision (e.g. Section 907.03 - Regis- <br />tration Requirements). <br /> <br />After further discussion for residency location requirements, at the sugge s- <br />tion of Mayor Roe, and accepted by the makers of th e motion, reference to