CC_Minutes_2007_1022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

eg Iar lty ci eeti ®n ay, ct® er age 1 jority's lack of interest in streamlining the process to allow for quicker resolution of violations. Councilmember Ihlan, in an effort to move forward in the near future, requested additional information from staff on whether Roseville was in the minority of other communltles involved in having their City Council make a decision on whether to proceed with a court citation on code enforcement cases, opining that such a practice was rare. Councilmember Ihlan expressed appreciation to staff far the matrix of problem cases, and asked that it be provided periodically for Council information. Mr. Munson advised that staff would be reissuing a land use update monthly, and their individual status. Ihlan moved, Klausing seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1354 entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 4, Section 407.05, City Council May Enforce; and Section 407.06, Powers of Officers." Councilmember Pust opined that it didn't make sense to enact the ordinance if the prior action had not been successful. City Attorney Scott Anderson responded that, in fact, part of the reason his office had worked with staff on clarifying these proposed ordinance changes was due to some individuals claiming that staff was not properly enforcing the ordinance, and were questioning whether staff was the designated authority. Mr. Anderson ad- vised that proposed ordinance language changes clarified the designated authority for administration and enforcement of code. Councilmember Roe questioned specific terms of the ordinance language related to defining notice, the process, and its application. City Attorney cited language in the proposed ordinance, Section 407.06, specific to nuisances and abatement of nuisances, and powers delegated to code enforce- ment personnel. Discussion included language of Section 407.06, Part A and B, and their specific provisions; staff's strict adherence to the outlined procedure, if the first flexible approach becomes fruitless; and the intention to notice the abatement and poten- tial language enhancements to reference non-compliance with the initial violation. City Attorney Anderson proposed revised language to Section 407.06, Part A as follows: "Notice: Whenever an officer charged with enforcement determines that a public nuisance is being maintained or exists on premises in the City, hand determines that the City abatement process is appropriatej, the officer shall notify, in writ-