Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2007 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2007 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. September 12 2007 Meeting b. October 10, 2007 Meeting 5. Communications . Report on Code Enforcement Activities. 6. Unfinished Business . Continue Review and Discussion on the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) and Chapter 12 of City Code. - NOTE: Please bring your copies of the 2006 IPMC and Chapter 12 of the Maplewood City Code that was provided with your 10/10/07 information packet. 7. New Business . Review of Draft Excessive Consumption of City Services Fee Ordinance. 8. Date of Next Meeting . December 12, 2007 9. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Pearson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Jeffrey James Chairperson Gary Pearson Commissioner Joy Tkachuck Vice-Chairperson Beth Ulrich Commissioner Rita Andreoli Absent Present Present Absent Present Staff Present: Dave Fisher, Building Official Michael Samuelson, Code Enforcement Officer III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Officer Stephen Heinz's presentation was moved from new business to be presented under communications to accommodate his schedule. Commissioner Andreoli moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Tkachuck seconded. Ayes - Pearson, Tkachuck, Andreoli The motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the HRA minutes for August 8,2007. Commissioner Andreoli moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Tkachuck seconded. Ayes - Pearson, Tkachuck, Andreoli The motion carried. V. COMMUNICATIONS . Police Officer Stephen Heinz - Crime-Free Multi-Housing Liaison Maplewood Police Officer Stephen Heinz addressed the commission. He is at the meeting to talk about the crime-free multi-housing coalition and how it affects the police department. Housing and Redevelopment Authority -2- Minutes of 09-12-07 This has been in place since 1980. The coalition is a group of apartment managers from Maplewood, Roseville, North Saint Paul and Oakdale that meet on a monthly basis. The coalition is run by the apartment managers. They get together to share information, to get additional training and other things that affect how they do their job. A key component that affects the police department is the crime-free lease addendum. This allows the eviction of a tenant if they are involved in drug-related activity or other types of crimes in their apartments or on the property. This coalition also ensures the apartment managers are using a Minnesota standard lease. Officer Heinz is hoping the City of Maplewood can develop some kind of program that will help identify all of the owners and what kinds of processes they are using to check the background of the tenants. Officer Heinz opened the topic for discussion. Chairperson Pearson asked what is the biggest problem the police department has encountered that would be aided by the registration process. Officer Heinz said the most beneficial aid would be when police are called to a property and have the information available on whether or not the people living on the property are the owners. This would also aid in contacting the owner if there is an emergency on the property. Chairperson Pearson asked if there are many properties where the owner is not concerned with who is renting the property. Officer Heinz said it is hard to quantify that circumstance. We do not know how many smaller operations of duplexes and home rentals there are in the city. Chairperson Pearson asked if there is a requirement for how many units can be in a building before an onsite manager is required. Officer Heinz said there is no requirement, however, it is noted that there is an improvement in the property when there is an onsite live-in manager. Michael Samuelson, code enforcement officer, asked which communities Officer Heinz works with have a multi-housing rental registration. Officer Heinz stated that North Saint Paul has a licensing program, Roseville has a registration program, and he is not sure about the other communities. Chairperson Pearson asked for clarification on how the police department aids rental managers when there is suspicion of criminal activity by one of the renters. Officer Heinz stated they have quicker access to reports that deal with any of their units. Once they receive the report they can start the eviction process. The owners will also get a synopsis of all of the calls related to their properties from the previous month. The next meeting of the grouJ' is on September 19 at 10am at the North Saint Paul community center. They meet every 3' Wednesday of the month. For those who cannot make the meetings, monthly statistics can be picked up at the police station. The coalition is open to all owners and managers of multi-housing units. There is a minimal fee to be a member of the group based on the number of units. The board discussed ways of getting this information out to rental property owners. Housing and Redevelopment Authority -3- Minutes of 09-12-07 Commissioner Tkachuck asked for clarification on the amount of work that goes into this registration and/or licensing program, which department would run the program and what kind of upkeep is required. Mr. Fisher said it may take more time to implement this program than to maintain the program. It is hard to quantify the amount it will cost because it is not known how many rental properties are in the city. City staff has estimated it will take about an hour and forty-five minutes for each registration, which would equate to about a half to two-thirds of a staff person. It is not known if that can be absorbed with current staffing. The board discussed different ways of getting rental property registration. Officer Heinz stated that if the city can make it appealing for owners to register, then there might be more compliance. Commissioner Tkachuck asked if there is money in the budget for next year to set up this program. Mr. Fisher stated the budget has to stay the same as the previous year, so no. Commissioner Andreoli suggested that home insurance be required if there is an absentee landlord. Mr. Fisher stated that most property owners will already have insurance but it is possible to get that information when they register. Mr. Samuelson stated that would be something for the city attorney to look at. Officer Heinz stated the key to getting owners to register would be to highlight the benefits that would come with registration. Mr. Fisher asked what other communities have in terms of fees. Officer Heinz stated he is not sure. The discussion was ended as the commission had no more questions. . Verbal Report on Code Enforcement (Michael Samuelson> Mr. Samuelson addressed the commission. Mr. Samuelson went over a specific property that had a large abatement made back in August. Commissioner Tkachuck asked what prevents the renters from repeating the violation. Mr. Samuelson stated that the property is flagged and the police will be watching the property as well. Now that the property is known to city staff, it will be caught earlier before it gets that bad. Commissioner Tkachuck asked how the bill will be paid if the owner cannot be contacted. Housing and Redevelopment Authority -4- Minutes of 09-12-07 Mr. Samuelson stated the owner will be billed, and if the bill is unpaid, then the amount will be assessed to the property through the property taxes. Chairperson Pearson asked if the code enforcement progress reports would be going on the internet. Mr. Samuelson stated the HRA packets are available online that give some information but the reports are not specifically added online, but the reports can be put onto the website. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS . Proposed revised mission statement for the HRA The revised draft mission statement is listed in the memo from Tom Ekstrand. Chairperson Pearson said that it should also read something about retaining the diversity of housing. Mr. Samuelson suggested that the sentence on line 4 should read, "...develop, improve and retain the diversity of housing stock in Maplewood..." Mr. Samuelson asked if the commission wanted anything in the mission statement that said the HRA also makes budgetary recommendations to the city council. Commissioner Tkachuck motioned to table this discussion until the next meeting. Commissioner Andreoli seconded the motion. Ayes - Tkachuck, Pearson, Andreoli The motion was carried. VII. NEW BUSINESS . Review and discussion about the 2006 IPMC and Chapter 12 of City Code Mr. Samuelson addressed the commission. He went over the two documents, the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) and Chapter 12 of the City Code. Mr. Samuelson went over the similarities and differences between the two documents and the staff recommended changes. After going over Chapter 1 of the 2006 IPMC, Mr. Samuelson asked for questions. There were no questions, so Mr. Samuelson then went over Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPMC. Chairperson Pearson asked about definitions that are in the Maplewood code but are not in the IPMC. Mr. Samuelson went over the definition additions he recommends for the adoption of the IPMC. Housing and Redevelopment Authority -5- Minutes of 09-12-07 Mr. Fisher recommends the city put as many definitions as possible into the city code. The commission discussed the definition of "sound condition". Mr. Samuelson went over Chapter 3 of the 2006 I PMC. After going over Chapter 3, Mr. Samuelson recommended the commission cover the last 3 chapters of the 2006 IPMC at the next meeting. Commissioner Andreoli asked about the proof processes and injury to human health and property. Mr. Fisher said in that situation the city would try to get them to hire a licensed pest control agency. Mr. Samuelson then went over the 2007 budget for the code enforcement department. Next month's meeting will have a budget estimate for 2008 that the city manager would be recommending for code enforcement. City staff and the commission discussed the possibility of a code enforcement intern position in the budget. VIII. DATE OF NEXT MEETING Date of next HRA meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2007. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2007 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Pearson called the meeting to order at 7:17 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Rita Andreoli Commissioner Jeffrey James Chairperson Gary Pearson Commissioner Joy Tkachuck Vice-Chairperson Beth Ulrich Present Absent Present Absent Present Staff Present: Michael Samuelson, Code Enforcement Officer III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ulrich moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Andreoli seconded. The motion carried. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Since there was not a quorum present for approval of the September 12, 2007 HRA minutes, the minutes will be added to the November 14 agenda. V. COMMUNICATIONS . Report on Code Enforcement Michael Samuelson presented the staff report. Mr. Samuelson updated the commission on code enforcement statistics, discussed his job description, and gave a history of the previous environmental code enforcement role with the city. He then reviewed the current process of conducting inspections, issuance of notices and follow up to verified violations of city codes. A review of "best practices" in the field and the future direction of the program was presented. Mr. Samuelson noted that the city cleanup day is October 20, 2007 at Gethsemane Church. Mr. Samuelson said the commission needs to begin to compile a strategic plan for the future. Commissioner Pearson suggested sending a letter to the open code enforcement cases dealing with junk issues notifying them of the October 20 cleanup day opportunity. Commissioner Andreoli asked staff to comment on the question of rights and freedoms of residents when enforcing codes and avoiding retaliation and lawsuits. Mr. Samuelson responded that a community needs to develop fair standards for neighborhoods to live up to and to enforce these regulations uniformly. The commission at this time moved ahead to the related agenda Item VII. - Budgets. Housing and Redevelopment Authority -2- Minutes of 10-10-07 VII. NEW BUSINESS . Code Enforcement Program Budgets for 2007 and 2008 Michael Samuelson presented information on the budget projections for the code enforcement program for 2007 and the draft budget for 2008 as has been presented to the city council. A commissioner asked if the city will be able to implement the rental registration program with current budget constraints. Mr. Samuelson responded that if implemented the rental registration program will not be the responsibility of the code enforcement program, but will be part of citizen services department. Commissioner Pearson requested a current copy of the departmental flow chart regarding job descriptions and supervisors. Mr. Pearson also requested data comparing code enforcement personnel and costs for comparable cities. Commissioner Pearson moved to ask staff to draft a letter to the city council regarding the personnel cuts being planned and about what administrative assistance for code enforcement responsibilities might be anticipated to replace the help being cut from the budget. Staff was also asked to find and review data comparing code enforcement personnel and the costs for other municipalities. Commissioner Ulrich seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS . Proposed revised mission statement for the HRA Commissioner Ulrich moved to approve the amended HRA mission statement, adding "budget" to the third line of the draft statement after the word "development". Commissioner Andreoli seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all . Continue review and discussion on the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) and Chapter 12 of City Code. Michael Samuelson briefly reviewed the remaining three chapters in the 2006 IPMC. Commissioner Pearson moved to table this item until the next meeting. Commissioner Ulrich seconded The motion passed. VIII. DATE OF NEXT MEETING Ayes - all . November 14, 2007 IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Greg Copeland, City Manager; Dave Fisher Building Official Michael Samuelson, Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Activity Report - September and October 2007 November 6, 2007 INTRODUCTION The City of Maplewood in its 2007 budget approved for the first time a full time position for a Code Enforcement Officer. These services were delivered to the community by city staff on a part time basis before this change. I began working in this position for the Inspections, Planning and Building Operations Department on Monday, April 2, 2007. The following is an overview of the basic code enforcment numbers related to the work being done in this postion. DISCUSSION The time frames for these reporting periods are from September 1 - 30 and October 1 - 31, 2007 and year-to-date performance numbers have also been provided. Please note some of this information is an approximation of the numbers of cases and violations I have responded to and observed during the past two months. September 2007 2007 YTD Total number of calls 200 825 +/- received Total number of code 70 501 enforcement cases opened Total number of inspections 193 1279 conducted Total number of cases 39 267 closed Average number of cases 174 +/- N/A open durinQ a week October 2007 2007 YTD Total number of calls 215 +/- 1,040 +/- received Total number of new code 81 582 enforcement cases opened Total number of inspections 157 1 .436 conducted Total number of cases 35 302 closed Average number of cases 218 +/- N/A open durinQ a week P:\HRA\CE Officer Report.11 0607 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Greg Copeland, City Manager; Dave Fisher Building Official Michael Samuelson, Code Enforcement Officer Review of Maplewood Housing Maintenance Codes November 6, 2007 INTRODUCTION Currently the City of Maplewood has a section of its City Code (Chapter 12) that covers property maintenance standards that separate out owner-occupied and rental-occupied residences. The purpose of this ongoing discussion by the HRA is to look at the current code and compare it to the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IMPC). DISCUSSION At the meeting on November 12, 2007 staff and HRA members will continue to review the current sections of the city code as it pertains to housing maintenance and the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IMPC). At our September 2007 meeting we reviewed Chapters one to three. The plan for this month is to review then next four chapters of the IPMC which cover light, ventilation and occupancy limitations; plumbing facilities and fixture requirements; mechanical and safety requirements; and fire safety requirements. Commissioners have been already supplied copies of City Code Chapter 12 and of the 2006 IPMC at their August and October 2007 meetings and are requested to bring one of these copies to this meeting to help facilitate this review. P:\HRA\HOUSING MAINTENACE CODE REVIEW\110607 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager David Fisher, Building Official Ordinance Amendment - Re-inspection Fee for Excess City Services or Code Enforcement Use November 6, 2007 INTRODUCTION During the budget workshop on October 8, 2007, the city council discussed new fees including having a fee for service and/or a user fee. I am proposing a new fee that would allow the code enforcement officer, building inspector, planner and/or health official to charge are-inspection fee for services as set by the city council. In order for the city to implement this fee, I am proposing a city code amendment that would allow the city to charge a fee to the owners or to the properties that are using excessive city resources. Background City Code Section 12-37 allows the City of Maplewood to collect permits and fees based on Minnesota statue. 16B.62, Subd. 1. The building inspector may charge a $50 re-inspection fee using today's ordinance and the city's fees set by the City Council. City Code Section 18-36 Notice to Abate and 18-37 Abatement by Council allows the City to recover expenditures, and an additional 25 percent on abatements cost. The Fire Department has implemented a re-inspection fee for false alarms. DISCUSSION The purpose of this fee would be to charge a property owner for the use of excessive city services. An example of this would be for any person who receives a notice of violation or notice to abate nuisance and then fails to correct the violation or nuisance. Such failure to comply requires additional time and effort from city staff to ensure the necessary corrections or improvements are made so the property meets all city code standards. For such cases, staff is proposing an ordinance that would give staff the authority to charge the property owner a re- inspection fee for all subsequent inspections by city staff until the owner corrects the violation or nuisance. The city council shall, by resolution, set the fee amount from time to time. The city intends to use this fee to compensate the city for administrative costs for excessive inspections, and would not be for enforcement of the laws. The fee shall be separate from and in addition to any fine or penalty for violation of the law. In addition, the prevailing party in any nuisance action proceeding or administrative proceeding may recover attorney fees. To help ensure the property owners know about the reinspection fees, the notice of violation or notice to abate the nuisance shall contain a prominent written statement that states "if the violation or nuisance is not corrected at the time of the first inspection, the violator may be responsible for the costs of all subsequent inspections, abatement costs and attorney fees." Additional Information City staff researched the codes of several other cities to find examples of ordinances about the excessive consumption of city services. Staff found that Saint Paul, Minneapolis, Eagan and several cities in California all have similar ordinances in place about the excessive consumption of city services. Please see the ordinances reference attachment 1. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that the city council approve the attached code amendment to the City Code (attachment 2). This amendment is for Section 1-15 (a) of the city code by adding the following language about the excessive consumption of city services. P:dave/excessive consumption fee 2007 Attachments: 1. References from Sf. Paul, MPLS & Eagan 2. Ordinance adding language to the city code about excessive consumption of city services ATTACHMENT 1 REFERENCE The following are parts of the other city codes. St. Paul: Sec. 34.24. Excessive consumption of city se (1) Council findings. The city council finds that so responsibility for the maintenance of their prope programs, has repeatedly ordered them to rem chapters of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. S the city which are over and above the normal c Property owners who must repeatedly be ordered consume an unacceptable and disproportionate s the intent of the city council, by the adoption of thi 0 associated with reinspections and the excessive onsumpti collection of such costs for certain propertie y assess requiring such excessive inspection or rei . es, pursu Section 429.101, which authorizes the einspecti n fees to be collected by special assessment and allows citi iated with removal or elimination of public health or safety h Saint Paul City Charter. (2) Definitions. For the purpos meanings ascribed to them: Excessive initial ins an enforcement officer at conducted two (2) prior init the Saint P . 've Co inspecti r was rvices ee shal de, but not be limited to: the prorata salaries of pections of the subject property; the pro rata cost of verhead costs used during inspection of the subject hes and administrative and clerical costs; and the costs of nt officers injured as a result of these inspections. enforcement officer has conducted an inspection of the or otherwise had occasion to view the premises and ision of the St. Paul Legislative Code under the jurisdiction of nspections issued a written notice of the violation(s), and determine compliance with the notice and found noncompliance. premise observed a the departmen reinspected the pr (3) Initial inspection by enforcement officer; written notice. (a) Written notice of violations. When an enforcement officer conducts an initial inspection of a premises and determines that violations of the provisions of the legislative code under the jurisdiction of the department of safety and inspections exist, the enforcement officer shall, in addition to any other action the enforcement officer may undertake, serve written notice of the violation in conformance with the requirements set forth in section 34.21 of this chapter. (b) Notice for collection of reinspection costs and excessive initial inspection costs. If the enforcement officer intends to collect the city costs for reinspections and excessive initial inspections, then the written notice provided for in sections 34.24.(3)(a) and 34.21 must also: 1. State that if the violations are not corrected within the time period or periods required in the notice, the city's costs in conducting a reinspection after the due date for compliance will be collected from the owner or owners rather than being paid by the taxpayers of the city; and 2. State that if additional new violations of t jurisdiction of the department of safety and inspec officers within the next following twelve (12 th additional inspections at the same locati s collected from the owner or owners rath ei and 3. State that such future costs wil property. code under the vered by enforcement sts in conducting any months will be y f the city; (4) Excessive consumption of inspection services, (a) The city shall be entitled to collect' who consumes either reinspection service excessive consumption of either reinspe after: 1. Written notice of a vio initial inspection; and 2. One additional' consecutive twelve-mo violation was served; 3. During e enforcement office jurisdicti of the dep otice 0 a property owner ervices. An tion services occurs n 34.24.(3) following an at the same location within a spection for which a notice of cts an inspection after the due date for nd deter nes that the violation still exists. .00) may be charged for the first initial inspection after the tion 34.24.(4)(a) subdivisions 1 and 2, and a fee of seventy d for the second initial inspection after the circumstances des ) subdivisions 1 and 2, and a fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($150. h subsequent initial inspection within a twelve-month period after the CI d in section 34.24.(4)(a) subdivisions 1 and 2. (c) A fe ($50.00) may be charged for the first reinspection described in section 34.24.(4) ions 4 and 5. A fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) may be charged for the seco Inspection described in section 34.24.(4)(a) subdivisions 4 and 5. A fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) may be charged for each subsequent reinspection described in section 34.24.(4)(a) subdivisions 4 and 5. (d) No fee under section 34.24.(4)(a) shall be charged where the city has issued a written notice pursuant to section 34.24.(3) but has abated the violation under section 45.10 or 45.11 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and assessed the costs of such abatement under section 45.11.1 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. (e) The amount of the excessive consumption of inspection services fee shall be a debt owed to the city and shall be collected by special assessment under the authority in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 and the Charter. (f) Action under this section does not preclude any other civil or criminal enforcement procedure. (5) Cost; collection. (a) Cost records. The enforcement officer shall ke consumption of inspection services, the name and a dre inspections giving rise to the excessive consump . in violations of the Saint Paul Legislative Code un uri and inspections, and the total amount of the co services to be collected against a particular pr director of financial services. (b) Resolution approving total, setting date each year, the director of financial services or his the total cost of such excessive inspection services portion of such costs to be assessed against excessive inspection services. Upon recei public hearing at which time the council charges. The date of public hearing sh resolution. (c) Notice of council hearing. F resolution provided in paragraph (b) above, the directo fin s Ish a notice of the hearing in a daily newspaper of the city at I (5) da ublic hearing. The notice shall state the date, time and place lng, the hearing, identify the services provided and the property t ssed a se therefore, and shall state the proposed rates of servic be considere y the council. (d) Notice to owner a parties. At least ten (10) days before the hearing, notice the ailed b ail to the owner and any interested party known to the city notice shall also inform the recipient of the notic f the costs for excessive r, the dates of the 'ces, the observed epartment of safety i ection , to the shall intereste thereof, the c the service char inspection services. installment. (f) Certification to county for collection with taxes. After adoption by resolution of the service charges and assessment rates therefore, and no later than November 15, the city clerk shall transmit a certified copy of said resolution to the county department of property taxation to be extended on the proper tax list of the county and collected the following year along with current taxes. s he or ,must follow under the charter in order to appeal ict court, and f Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195 and the rocedure established pursuant thereto. of assessment roll. On the date of public hearing the council of the proposed service charges. The council shall hear all proposed charges. At such meeting or at any adjournment the proposed service charges, and shall, by resolution, adopt cial assessment against the properties which utilized excessive I assessments levied hereunder shall be payable in a single (g) Appeal. Within twenty (20) days after adoption of the resolution adopting the service charges, any person aggrieved may appeal to the district court in the manner set forth in chapter 14 of the City Charter. (C.F. No. 05-740, ~ 1, 9-14-05; C.F. No. 07-149, ~ 9,3-28-07) Minneapolis: 244.190. Re-inspection fee. (a) There shall be no fee charged for an initial inspection t housing maintenance code violation. A one hundred olla each subsequent re-inspection finding noncompli at compliance with an order, as determined by the of designee. he existence of a shall be charged for after the due date for e director's (b) The re-inspection fees prescribed above sha person/agent of the property. Re-inspectio when not paid within thirty (30) days after i Failure to pay such fees shall be grounds f renewal of a rental dwelling or lodgin This subsection shall not be consider and shall not preclude collection by oth (c) Every notice of violation and ord and conspicuous explanation of t 01 lolations shall contain a clear g fees for re-inspections. (d) The director, and housin re-inspection fee in case of 10-92; 93-0r-106, ~ 1, 7-. 080, ~ 1, 7-23-04) nated by the director, may waive a er good cause. (92-0r-172, ~ 1, 12- ; 2002-0r-164, ~ 1, 10-25-02; 2004-0r- im City extraordi cost over an protection City of this n is to protect the public safety, health and peat service response calls by the City to the same property , as defined herein, which prevent police or public safety y. It is the intent of the City by the adoption of this Section to from the owner or occupant, or both, of property to which nd for any repeat nuisance event or activity that generates e repeat nuisance service call fee is intended to cover that providing normal law or code enforcement services and police Subd. 2. Scope and . ication. This Section shall apply to all owners and occupants of private property which is the subject or location of the repeat nuisance service call by the City. This Section shall apply to any repeat nuisance service calls as set forth herein made by an Eagan peace officer, part time peace officer, community service officer, animal control officers and code enforcement technicians. Subd. 3. Definition of nuisance call or similar conduct. A. The term nuisance service call shall mean any activity, conduct, or condition occurring upon private property within the City which: (i) unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort or repose of any member of the public; (Ii) or will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke breach of the peace, to which the City is required to respond, including, but not limited to the following: 1. Any activity, conduct, or condition deemed as a ublic nuisance under any provision of the City Code; 2. Any activity, conduct, or condition in violation 0 n of Chapter 10 of the City Code; 3. Any conduct, activity or condition con prohibiting or regulating prostitution, gambling, 4. Any conduct, activity, or condition c of Minnesota Statutes. Subd. 4. Repeat nuisance service call fee. The call fee upon the owner or occupant of private pro responded to the property on three or more occasions withl to or for the abatement of nuisance conduct, conditio The repeat nuisance service call fee unde all be an adopted by City Council resolution. All r . e call fee imposed and charged against the owner or occupant under th d delinquent 30 days after the City's mailing a billing statement theref subject to a ten percent late penalty of the amount due. . service viding the st nuisanc shall: ctivity or condition that is or has occurred or is ates of the nuisance conduct, activity or condition; y be subject to a repeat nuisance call service the property for the same nuisance, in addition or actions for abatement of the nuisance or imposed against an owner or pant with written notice of the prior call rendered by the City upon which by U.S. Mail upon the owner or occupant at the last known Subd. isance service call fee. Upon the imposition of a repeat nuisance shall inform the owner or occupant of his/her right to a hearing on th uisance service calls. The owner or occupant upon whom the fee is imposed hearing by serving upon the City Clerk within five business days of the mailing of the ice, inclusive of the day the invoice is mailed, a written request for hearing. The hearing s I be heard by the hearing office within 14 days of the date of the owner's or occupant's request for hearing. The hearing shall be conducted in an informal manner and the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence shall not be strictly applied. The hearing need not be transcribed, but may be transcribed at the sole expense of the party who requests the transcription. After considering all evidence submitted, the hearing officer shall make written findings of fact and conclusions on the issue of whether the City responded to or rendered services for repeat nuisance service calls of the same or similar kind on three or more occasions within a 365 day period. The findings and conclusions shall be served upon the owner or occupant by U.S. Mail within five days of the notice of hearing. An owner or occupant's right to a hearing shall be deemed waived if the owner or occupant fails to serve a written request for hearing as required herein or fails to appear at the scheduled hearing date. Upon waiver of the right to hearing, or upon he hearing officer's written findings of fact and conclusions that the repeat nuisance call service' nted hereunder, the owner or occupant shall immediately pay the fee imposed. Subd. 7. Legal Remedies Nonexclusive. Nothi City's other available legal remedies for any viol service call hereunder, including criminal, civil, (Ord. No. 311, 2nd series, S 1, eff. 5-24-01) Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING LANGUAGE TO THE CITY CODE ABOUT EXCESSIVE CONSUMPTION OF CITY S VICES The Maplewood City Council approves the followi Ordinances: Section 1. Section 1-15(a). Excessive Cons underlined and deletions are crossed out): Excessive consumption of city services. (1) Council findings. The city council finds some maintenance of their property until the city, thr ordered them to remedy violations of the M costs for the city that are over and above t Property owners who the city must repeat an unacceptable and disproportionate sha Therefore, it is the intent of the cit costs associated with re-inspecti collection of such costs for ce such excessive inspection 0 which authorizes the council allows cities to the costs Such fees d by C ection, to impose and coliect the n of city inspection services. The ent against the real property requiring terms defined in this section shall have the person or employee appointed by the City Manager such as, ector, Building Official, and Health Official to conduct code or the city. E enforcement prior initial inspe under the jurisdictio pursuant to Chapters 1 - means an inspection and observation of a new violation by an perty address after an enforcement officer has conducted two (2) elve-month period and found violations of the Maplewood City Code artment of safety and inspections, where the owner was notified in writing and 44 of the city code and by State Statues. Excessive inspection services fee means the fee that the city would impose for are-inspection or excessive initial inspection. The fee shall include, but not be limited to: the prorated salaries of enforcement officers performing inspections of the subject property; the prorated cost of equipment, materials and all other overhead costs used during inspection of the subject property, including ownership searches and administrative and clerical costs; and the costs of any medical treatment of enforcement officers injured as a result of these inspections. Re-inspection means that an enforcement officer has conducted an inspection of the premises, based upon a complaint or otherwise had occasion to view the premises and observed a violation of any provision of the Maplewood City Code under the jurisdiction of the Inspections, Planning and Building Operations Department, has issued a written notice of the violation(s), and then re-inspected the premises to determine compliance with the notice and found that the owner or responsible party had not complied with the written correction notice or orders. (3) Initial inspection by enforcement officer; written notice. (a) Written notice of violations. When an enforc m n premises and determines that the property has violatio e in addition to any other action the enforcement offic d or violations in conformance with the requirements ts an initial inspection of a nforcement officer shall, en notice of the violation (b) Notice for collection of re-inspection c enforcement officer intends to collect the city costs for then the written notice provided for in the City Code al 1. State that if the violations are not c the notice, the city's costs in conducting a re-inspection a collected by the city from the owner or 0 r than be 2. State that if additional new gislative department of safety and inspection forcement icers within the next following twelve (12) months, the . additional inspections at the same location within such twelve (12) m wner or owners rather than being paid by the taxpayers of the 3. State that the city coli property. (4) Excessive consumption iolation is served under the City Code following an initial nt officer conducts an inspection after the due date for compliance on s that the violation still exists. (b) The city may c arge a fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the third inspection after the circumstances described under the City Code. The city may charge a fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for the forth inspection after the circumstances described under section City Code. The city may charge a fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for each subsequent initial inspection within a twelve-month period after the circumstances described in the city code. (c) The city may charge a fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the third re-inspection described in City Code Chapter 1-15(a) 2. The city may charge a fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for the forth re- inspection described in City Code Chapter 1-15(a) 2. The city may charge a fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for each subsequent re-inspection described in City Code Chapter 1-15(a) 2. (d) No fee under City Code Chapter 1-15(a) 2.shall be charged where the city has issued a written notice pursuant to City Code Chapter 1-15(a) 2.but has abated the violation under the city Code Section 18.36 through 18.39 and assessed the costs of such ab ment under The City Code Section 18.36 through 18.39. (e) The amount of the excessive consumption of i the city and shall be collected by special assessment u 429.101 and the City Code Section 18.39. (f) Action under this section does not preclu shall be a debt owed to nesota Statutes, Section (5) Cost; collection. (a) Cost records. The enforcement officer sha consumption of inspection services, the name and add giving rise to the excessive consumption of inspection , and the total amount of the costs for excessive consumption of in against a particular property, and shall report su n to the finance director. (b) Resolution approving total, se each year, the city finance director or his 0 such excessive inspection services perfor be assessed against each lot and parcei 0 receipt thereof, the city council shal re council shall consider adopting an least twenty (20) days after the ci (c) Notice of city cou paragraph (b) above, the cit newspaper at least ten (10) place of hearin urpose 0 city will b ice cha be cons' ring. 0 r before October 1 of e city council of the total cost of d the portion of such costs to e inspection services. Upon hearing at which time the city e date of public hearing shall be at n of the resolution provided in . At least ten (10) days before the hearing, notice mail to th ner and any interested party known to the city, at his also shall inform the recipient of the notice: or she must follow under the charter in order to appeal the I and innesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195 and the cedure established pursuant thereto. ( of assessment roll. On the date of public hearing, the city council shall meet to of the proposed service charges. The city council shall hear all interested parti proposed charges. At such meeting or at any adjournment thereof, the council may amen d service charges, and shall, by resolution, adopt the service charges as a special assessment t the properties that used excessive inspection services. Special assessments levied hereu der shall be payable in a single installment. (f) Certification to county for collection with taxes. After adoption by resolution of the service charges and assessment rates therefore, and no later than November 15, the city clerk shall transmit a certified copy of said resolution to the county department of property taxation to be extended on the proper tax list of the county and collected the following year along with current taxes. (g) Appeal. Within twenty (20) days after adoption of the resolution adopting the service charges, any person aggrieved may appeal to the City Council. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on , 2007. Attest: City Clerk