Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Roseville authorizes abatement of tires at commercial property; owner to bear costs
Summary
After repeated notices and a failed permit effort, Roseville Council authorized staff to abate remaining tires and remove noncompliant outdoor storage at a County Road C property and charge the costs to the property owner. Staff estimated disposal at about $1,500 plus abatement processing fees.
Roseville — The City Council authorized staff on Feb. 9 to abate piles of tires stored outside a commercial property on County Road C and charge abatement costs to the property owner after concluding previous notices and enforcement had not produced sustained compliance.
Codes Official David England told the council staff received a complaint Jan. 6, confirmed numerous tires outside code limits, left notices and followed up multiple times. Staff received a permit application for an enclosure but asked the contractor for clarifying details several times without a satisfactory response. England said the business appears to remove tires only when volumes reach 50 and that the property has been subject to multiple abatements (including for snow) this winter.
Staff recommended abatement and presented an initial contractor estimate for removal and disposal of about $1,500, plus an administrative abatement fee approved by council. Council members asked whether the fence/enclosure would need removal (England: yes, non‑compliant structures would be removed as part of the abatement) and whether the business rents the property (England: business rents from a corporate owner based in Texas). England said one prior abatement invoice had been paid but the property has generally shown poor responsiveness.
After a public‑comment period produced no speaker representing the business, Council Member Strachan moved to authorize the abatement with costs allocated to the property owner; Council Member Graf seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Staff said the invoice from the contractor for actual costs and the administrative fee will be billed to the property owner; repeated noncompliance could prompt additional steps such as administrative citations or court action.
