My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0820
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0820
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2009 2:53:21 PM
Creation date
9/12/2007 10:47:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/20/2007
Meeting Type
Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
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
City C®uncil Study Sessi®n <br />Monday, August 2®, 2®07 <br />Page 20 <br />cooperation with homeowners to resolve issues; comparison of the <br />pre-2002 process, current process and compliance rates for both; and <br />staffs success due to their unique "compliance with compassion" <br />program that had been well-received by citizens. Mr. Munson re- <br />viewed some options available to resolve issues (including charitable <br />organization involvement) and considerations for senior citizens in <br />accomplishing code enforcement issues. <br />Discussion included limited staff resources and time; seasonal nature <br />of code enforcement activity and complaints; citation and abatement <br />timeframes, and additional neighborhood and staff pressures caused <br />by lengthy delays in resolution. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined her support for keeping the "compliance <br />with compassion" program; and returning to the pre-2003 process, <br />leaving in place a safeguard for staff and City Attorney consensus <br />prior to issuing citations. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that <br />the City Council still needed to be involved in any condemnation con- <br />siderations. Councilmember Ihlan asked staff to provide additional <br />information to bring code enforcement levels current for their esti- <br />mated 5% of the cases needing action; how many people, how much <br />money, and other issues to avoid a backlog; and offered her support if <br />staff found acost-effective way to achieve current status. <br />Councilmember Roe brought up concerns with language in Chapter <br />407; and the need for additional clarification. <br />City Attorney Anderson noted a lack of consensus between staff and <br />the Prosecuting Attorney on interpretation of code related to the <br />Prosecuting Attorney's contract language and not proceeding with <br />court citations unless a public hearing had been held before the City <br />Council. Mr. Anderson reviewed the process, and sought direction to <br />clarify language to correctly interpret how the City Council wanted to <br />be involved in code compliance issues. <br />Councilmember Roe concurred with City Attorney Anderson's obser- <br />vations; opining that additional discussion was required to identify op- <br />tions and expectations early in the process to determine procedures <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.