My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0820_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0820_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:41:30 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 2:54:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
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
Ms. Bennett <br />October 3,2006 <br />Page 5 <br />to the property, the compliance officer may seek an administrative warrarit to conc�ue� the <br />inspection, we are concerned that an owner may argue that the Ordinance is unconstitutional <br />because it states that an owner "shall permit the compliance officer to inspect a11 premises." <br />As explained above, the Camara case provides that a tenant cannot be forced to allow an <br />inspection of his/her rental property for purposes of a municipality's housing code without a <br />warrant. In order to lessen the chance that a property owner will argue that the proposed <br />Ordinance is unconstitutional, we have revised the wording to state that "[p�roperty owners and <br />their agents shall permit, either oursuant to consent or in com�lia�c� with an administrative <br />warrant, during regular business hours, the compliance officer to inspect all premises ���." <br />In connection with the draft Ordinance, you asked whether the City can assign <br />administrative fines to tax rolls. We are not optimistic that the law provides authority for the <br />City to take such action, but we will look into that issue and will get back to you by the end of <br />the week. Minnesota Statute Section 429.101 governs unpaid special charges that may be <br />collected as a special assessment against the property benefited. That section allows a city to <br />collect, as a special assessment, the cost of reinspections which find noncompliance after the <br />due date for compliance with an order to correct a municipal housing maintenance code <br />violation. �ec. Minn. Stat. $429.101, subd. 1(9}. The draft Ordinance does not state that the <br />property owner will be charged for the costs of the original inspection or any subsequent <br />inspections. If, however, the City decided to charge the property owner for the costs of any <br />reinspection, Minnesota Statute � 429.101 would allow the City to assess the cost of the <br />reinspection if the reinspection resulted in a fmding of noncompliance after the due date for <br />compliance with a correction order related to a housing maintenance code violation. <br />If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call. <br />Very truly yours, <br />Jay T. Squires <br />Amy E. Mace <br />Enc. <br />RRM: #46890 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.