My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_1022
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_1022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2008 2:15:22 PM
Creation date
11/14/2007 1:35:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/22/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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
Parks & Recreation Commission <br />co?~.tractors, getting estimates, monitoring work, approving bills, etc. Council has <br />authorized one full time land use code enforcement officer, this staff performs mast <br />inspections, inputs most of the data entry and writes most correspondence. Initiating mare <br />abatement cases would require additional paid assistance. <br />Question 3.) Just a note of concern: If a case file has been maintained all along, I am <br />struggling to see why it needs to take an additional 45 days to get county court citation <br />cases before the council. I need more explanation of this timing issue. <br />Response: <br />- Complaint cases proceed as follows; letter, letter, Administrative Ticket. <br />If not resolved with the Administrative Ticket they then go before Council for a potential <br />court citation (or abatement). At this point a public hearing must be scheduled and the <br />property owner notified. Current policy is to provide a 30 day notice of the hearing date <br />to the property owner. A few days are added for scheduling, composing and posting notices. <br />Because council meeting dates are not weekly, the next available council date can be 30-40 <br />days out. Therefore, a court citation can't be written for 30-45 days. <br />- We have a repeat offense before us naw which involves a rental property <br />with appliances, a couch and other household items left in the yard. It is a repeat <br />offender. An Administrative Ticket was issued, however, the landlord did not pay, appeal <br />or comply. Staff is now scheduling a public hearing before Council. Sending the notice <br />today, the 18th, means the next available date, after the 30 day notification, is November <br />26th. This is 40 days out. <br />- Recently, staff has been given direction to change and tighten some <br />previous procedures. For example, if there are cases of repeat offenders, dropping one of <br />the two 'friendly' letters and/or going directly to the Administrative Ticket. This was <br />done with the case mentioned above, staff went directly to the Administrative Ticket. <br />Question 4.) I'd like to consider just taking out the rigid 30-day requirement for coming <br />to the council that we have, and allowing staff more ability to do compassionate <br />enforcement up to a point where staff concludes it is no longer of benefit. Then quickly <br />get the case before us to deal with. <br />Response: <br />- The 30 day notification is policy, not a code requirement for all cases. A <br />30 days notice is only required by code when the property is vacant, the owner unknown, <br />and posting is necessary. Otherwise a IO day notice is required, with certified/registered <br />mail. Due to the practice of refusing certified/registered mail delivery it became <br />division policy to 'post' all cases going before Council, thus, the 30 day notification <br />policy. <br />- In March of this year staff proposed shortening the notification period to <br />10 days as per actual code wording, however, the then Community Development Director <br />decide to retain the 30 day notification policy. <br />Question 5.) As to possible staffing enhancements to deal with the seasonal nature of code <br />enforcement coinciding with building season, per our recently adopted policy resolution we <br />will need an analysis to back up a staffing request. (As a general note related to this, <br />perhaps it makes sense to utilize an outside "efficiency expert" to provide a technical <br />analysis of the situation that leads to the conclusion that more staff is needed in a <br />particular area. That way, when a request for additional staff comes to the council, it <br />has some good solid data behind it. Also, such a fresh, 3rd party analysis might suggest <br />ways to optimize the use of existing staff that had not been thought of that could at <br />least partially obviate the need for additional staff.) <br />Response: <br />- For informational purposes: Typically Code Enforcement efforts fall behind <br />in the busy construction season of May to August. Many cities augment staff during these <br />periods with intern/seasonal staff. Such a position in Roseville would cost approximately <br />$10,000.00 per year (intern for 4 months). <br />If there are any follow-up questions, please send them through the City Manager or the <br />Interim Community Development Director. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.