2006_0123_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MEMORANDUM TO: MEMBERS OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: AMY IHLAN SUBJECT: CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED PROPERTY MAlNTENANCE CODE DATE: JANUARY 17, 2006— ��L�iTH STAFF �C��1��EI�T� I have concerns that the proposed adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code will create powers of enforcement going way beyond our current ordinances. Whether or not additional higher property maintenance standards are a good idea, there are some serious questions about whether these enforcement powers are needed, or can be justified. For example, the council was told at a public hearing last year that the proposed property maintenance code would apply only to building exteriors, and allow interior inspection of rental property only. The o�tions are to re�ulate as �er the State Buildin� C�� and the �1��'f�: �,��l�i�_fY allows interior �n��ec�i�n ��?n i�:�«w�., Rental �ro�erty, under a rental licensing ordinance would have mandatorX ins�ections before �ai�in� the a�nro�riate rental license. But there are no such limitations I can find in the code. Section 101.2 ("Scope") indicates it applies to "all existing residential and nonresidential structures" and "constitutes minimum requirements and standards" for a whole range of maintenance issues. This means all properties would be subject to the "right of entry" under Section 104.4 for maintenance purposes— not just rental properties subject to inspection under the proposed rental licensing code. Yes. like any buildin� code, entrance can be rec�uested, but if refused, the Citv must seek an administrative warrant to e�ter t�a� inside for code related ins�ections. � Section 106.3 makes violations of the maintenance code "strict liability" the Cii� Attornev will address this issue) misdemeanors, which means that no proof of criminal intent is required, and there is effectively no way anyone can defend the�nselves as long as the code was violated. See Section 202 (General Definitions). This goes far beyond our current enforcement ordinances, which define violations as misdemeanors, without imposing strict liability. The new proposed maintenance code also orovides each dav of violation after notice is a seoarate offense (see Section 106.4) (code enforcement uses a continnine violation �rocess — each day is a se�arate offense) so it would be possible to convict someone of a whole string of strict liability misdemeanors instead of just one. No reasons have been given to explain why it is necessary to create a new category of strict liability misdemeanors, (city attorney to explain or how it would be fair or justifiable to do this for property