Laserfiche WebLink
Member Kelsey noted that the CAG wondered why the process had changed several years ago <br />and that they got the sense that staff had never abused the process before. They felt that staff took <br />the extra steps to get compliance sometimes at the frustration of adjoining neighbors. This is <br />particularly evident when dealing with a homeowner situation. <br />Chair Majerus reiterated that there would be safeguards in place that assure that staff can not <br />unfairly issue court citations and that the approval process includes many steps. <br />Member Kelsey asked what role the civil attorney has in the process. Mr. Munson noted that the <br />civil attorney would review the case prior to having it go to court and if they felt there was not <br />enough evidence then it would not move forward and other alternatives would be reviewed such <br />as abatement or mediation. <br />Member Maschka wondered how the CAG determined that there was not a large criminal <br />problem in the community. Ms. Raye noted that it was an anecdotal conclusion based upon <br />conversations with the Roseville Police Chief as well as members of the CAG who represent <br />rental properties. <br />Member Maschka also asked why the CAG did not deal with parking issue. Ms. Raye noted that <br />the CAG felt that the parking issues was not related specifically to rental property but an overall <br />community problem and that there was not sufficient time to explore the issues and possible <br />solutions through this process. <br />Chair Majerus requested comments from the public and requested that each speaker provide their <br />name and address for the record. <br />David Russlor – 2716 Merrill St. lives in Roseville and has a rental property. He strongly <br />opposes rental registration. He feels that the properties that are a problem would not register <br />anyway. Those that live in the community take care of the property and should not be required to <br />be part of the program. He noted that the program would increase the rental rates which may <br />result in difficulty competing for renters. <br />Dick Houck – 1131 Roselawn owns a duplex and lives in one side and rents the other. He was not <br />represented on the committee although he applied. He does not have a problem with exterior <br />requirements but is opposed to any language that would give the city or any government access to <br />private homes. The City should only be allowed access through a warrant which is allowed by <br />the constitution. He noted that rental homes are people’s homes and the government does not <br />have any right to be in those homes. Mr. Houck noted that he heard arguments for the program <br />because rental property is business property and therefore should be monitored. He feels that <br />business property is where people go to purchase services and rental property is not a service <br />purchased. He noted that Roseville should not be implementing programs just because other <br />communities do. He noted that the safety of property should apply to all property not just rental. <br />If a fee is applied to rental property, then it will show up on the rent and this does not help make <br />housing affordable. He felt that the fee is not necessary. Also, if the problems are a few students <br />living in housing then this is what should be addressed, not all rental property. Mentioned that he <br />asked at the first meeting for data on the number of violations and has not seen this documented <br />and have not seen a list of the number of offenses. In conclusion, he does not see a need for such <br />a program or the right given to the city to access people’s property. In addition, landlord and <br />tenant rights and responsibilities are already in law. There is a booklet that provides tenants with <br />methods to address deficiencies in maintenance issues. Therefore, do not need another agency to <br />provide more oversight. <br />5 <br /> <br />