Laserfiche WebLink
maintenance offenses —where, if anything, we should be looking for more flexible <br />methods of enforcement to achieve more cooperation and compliance. <br />Section 106 also appears to require creating liens against properties (similar to <br />currentpra�tices with un�aid ���1i�� bills which �o to tax rolls on the �rot��rtv� in <br />enforcement actions —which will encumber the owners' ability to sell or transfer <br />ownership of the property if they are unable to maintain or repair it. In fact, <br />Section 107.5 prohibits transfer of ownership as soon as a notice of violation is <br />served and until compliance is achieved. (Once the code ins�ector has issued a <br />com�liance (f� u�� order or a citation has been issued, �hou.l.dx�'� *��* �° ^�r� ^�th� <br />record as �at of the owners disclosure �rior to sale as in other issues such as ��_?,t�r <br />dama�e, mold, etc. Isn't it in the i��i�i;c'� interest to have the issue identified ��� <br />resolved 7 Again, this seems to go in the wrong direction, by forcibly limiting the <br />owners' options to sell or transfer property to someone else better able to take care <br />of it. (Without the com�liance issue i�c;���� known, how can the buv�r\s�iler <br />ne�otiate on the a�nro�riate �rice? }3� not revealing building faults� isn't ��his <br />counter roductive to ractice of ood housin preservation and buildin� <br />maintenance?) <br />I also have a question about a comment in a previous staff report — that the net <br />result of the proposed code is to require maintenance of properties "only in <br />compliance with the code in effect when they were built." (See the �ro�osed changes <br />in the citv ordinance ado�tin� the IPMC, which clarifies this issue. Again, I can't <br />find anything in the code that limits compliance to previous code standards. Section <br />101.2 says that the code applies to "all existing residential and non-residential <br />structures" and provides "minimum requirements and standards" for maintenance. <br />Section 101.3 specifically requires that: <br />Existing structures and premises that do not comply with these provisions <br />shall be altered or repaired to provide a�n,zi�in�um level of health and safety <br />as required herein. (Emphasis added). <br />There is no reference to measuring compliance by codes in place at the time � <br />construction. <br />If the impact of the proposed maintenance code is to be limited consistent with staff <br />recommendations, then these sections need to be removed or amended. Another <br />solution would be to leave current code enforcement provisions in our ordinances as <br />is, and consider adopting only some of the maintenance standards (in Chapters 3-7). <br />I will not support the proposed maintenance code unless the scope and enforcement <br />powers are limited consistent with our current ordinances. <br />� <br />