2006-11-21_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4 Member Maschka asked what the CAG envisione d with regards to the safeguards noted in recommendation #2. Ms. Raye noted that the group felt that there were certain requirements that would assure proper oversight without specific council action. Member Maschka also asked why the CAG did not ask for the number of renters and that it should be part of a rental registration program to help determine occupancy. Chair Majerus asked if the CAG looked at other or dinances for benchmarks. Ms. Raye noted that the CAG looked closely at the Burnsville ordinan ce which indicated that it was created to address other problems such as crime which is not a speci fic problem seen in Roseville. In addition, the group looked at other community programs and took ideas from several programs. Chair Majerus asked if the CAG looked at how ot her communities deal with the citation process. Ms. Raye indicated that is was the groups understa nding through discussions with staff that other communities have stronger enforcement methods than Roseville and do not have the further review by council. Chair Majerus asked staff to provide background on how an enforcement process currently works and with the CAG recommendations what safeguards would be in place to assure that specific violations would be reviewed by the appropriate officials. Permits Coordinator Don Munson addressed the safe guards that were in place several years ago prior to going to the courts. It n eeds to be backed by specific code violations, repeat attempts to gain compliance, approved by community developm ent director, concurred by city attorney and then reviewed and concurred by the criminal attorney prior to going to the courts. Process outlined as follows: 14 days notice 14 days notice Administrative ticket issued - $100 ticket and another 14 days City attorney review & Community Development Director review Court citation or abatement procedure de termined – court citation is quicker. Criminal attorney reviews and brings before a judge to administer fine or dismiss case. Member Kelsey asked how many cases have gone through this process. Old process without specific council approval – 4-5 per year Current process with specific council approval – 1-2 in three years The current method adds 30-60 days to the process. Once the case goes to court it takes another 30-60 days to be processed. Member Kelsey asked how recommendation 7 can help those residents that do not have the financial means to fix code violations through ab atement. Mr. Munson noted that when residents are not able to improve their homes due to financia l difficulties, then they may be forced to sell without making the necessary improvements. At this point these homes are a target to turn into rental property without the additi onal improvements being completed. Member Elkins asked if there is a mediati on process to address some of the non-compliance cases. Ms. Bennett noted that there was an appeal process built into the original rental ordinance.