Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br />Member Maschka also asked why the CAG did not ask fo r the number of renters and that it should be part <br />of a rental registration program to help determine occupancy. <br /> <br />Chair Majerus asked if the CAG looked at other ordi nances for benchmarks. Ms. Raye noted that the <br />CAG looked closely at the Burnsville ordinance whic h indicated that it was created to address other <br />problems such as crime which is not a specific problem seen in Roseville. In addition, the group looked <br />at other community programs and took ideas from several programs. <br /> <br />Chair Majerus asked if the CAG looked at how othe r communities deal with the citation process. Ms. <br />Raye indicated that is was the groups understanding through discussions with staff that other communities <br />have stronger enforcement methods than Roseville and do not have the furt her review by council. <br /> <br />Chair Majerus asked staff to provide background on how an enforcement process currently works and <br />with the CAG recommendations what safeguards would be in place to assure that specific violations <br />would be reviewed by the appropriate officials. <br /> <br />Permits Coordinator Don Munson addr essed the safeguards that were in place several years ago prior to <br />going to the courts. It needs to be backed by specifi c code violations, repeat attempts to gain compliance, <br />approved by community development director, concu rred by city attorney and then reviewed and <br />concurred by the criminal attorney prior to going to the courts. <br /> <br />Process outlined as follows: <br />14 days notice <br />14 days notice <br />Administrative ticket issued - $100 ticket and another 14 days <br />City attorney review & Community Development Director review <br />Court citation or abatement procedure de termined – court citation is quicker. <br />Criminal attorney reviews and brings before a judge to administer fine or dismiss case. <br /> <br />Member Kelsey asked how many cases have gone through this process. <br /> <br />Old process without specific council approval – 4-5 per year <br />Current process with specific council approval – 1-2 in three years <br />The current method adds 30-60 days to the process. Once the case goes to court it takes another 30-60 <br />days to be processed. <br /> <br />Member Kelsey asked how recommendation 7 can help those residents that do not have the financial <br />means to fix code violations through abatement. Mr . Munson noted that when residents are not able to <br />improve their homes due to financial difficulties, then they may be forced to sell without making the <br />necessary improvements. At this point these homes are a target to turn into rental property without the <br />additional improvements being completed. <br /> <br />Member Elkins asked if there is a mediation pro cess to address some of the non-compliance cases. Ms. <br />Bennett noted that there was an appeal process built into the original rental ordinance. <br /> <br />Member Kelsey noted that the CAG wondered why th e process had changed several years ago and that <br />they got the sense that staff had never abused the proc ess before. They felt that staff took the extra steps <br />to get compliance sometimes at the frustration of adjoin ing neighbors. This is particularly evident when <br />dealing with a homeowner situation. <br /> <br />Chair Majerus reiterated that there would be safegua rds in place that assure that staff can not unfairly <br />issue court citations and that the approval process includes many steps.