My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0123_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0123_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 4:38:12 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:30:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
132
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
MEMORANDUM <br />TO: MEMBERS OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY COUNCIL <br />FROM: AMY IHLAN <br />SUBJECT: CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED PROPERTY MAlNTENANCE <br />CODE <br />DATE: JANUARY 17, 2006— ��L�iTH STAFF �C��1��EI�T� <br />I have concerns that the proposed adoption of the International Property <br />Maintenance Code will create powers of enforcement going way beyond our current <br />ordinances. Whether or not additional higher property maintenance standards are <br />a good idea, there are some serious questions about whether these enforcement <br />powers are needed, or can be justified. <br />For example, the council was told at a public hearing last year that the proposed <br />property maintenance code would apply only to building exteriors, and allow <br />interior inspection of rental property only. The o�tions are to re�ulate as �er the <br />State Buildin� C��� and the �1��'f�: �,��l�i�_fY allows interior �n��ec�i�n ����?n i�:�«w�., <br />Rental �ro�erty, under a rental licensing ordinance would have mandatorX <br />ins�ections before �ai�in� the a�nro�riate rental license. But there are no such <br />limitations I can find in the code. Section 101.2 ("Scope") indicates it applies to "all <br />existing residential and nonresidential structures" and "constitutes minimum <br />requirements and standards" for a whole range of maintenance issues. This means <br />all properties would be subject to the "right of entry" under Section 104.4 for <br />maintenance purposes— not just rental properties subject to inspection under the <br />proposed rental licensing code. Yes. like any buildin� code, entrance can be <br />rec�uested, but if refused, the Citv must seek an administrative warrant to e�ter t�a� <br />inside for code related ins�ections. � <br />Section 106.3 makes violations of the maintenance code "strict liability" the Cii� <br />Attornev will address this issue) misdemeanors, which means that no proof of <br />criminal intent is required, and there is effectively no way anyone can defend <br />the�nselves as long as the code was violated. See Section 202 (General Definitions). <br />This goes far beyond our current enforcement ordinances, which define violations as <br />misdemeanors, without imposing strict liability. The new proposed maintenance <br />code also orovides each dav of violation after notice is a seoarate offense (see <br />Section 106.4) (code enforcement uses a continnine violation �rocess — each day is a <br />se�arate offense) so it would be possible to convict someone of a whole string of <br />strict liability misdemeanors instead of just one. No reasons have been given to <br />explain why it is necessary to create a new category of strict liability misdemeanors, <br />(city attorney to explain or how it would be fair or justifiable to do this for property <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.