Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 05-24 CCM Work Session MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION MAY 24, 2010 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council /Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor /President Tim Willson at 7:58 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Tim Willson and Councilmembers /Commissioners Kay Lasman, Tim Roche, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Acting Police Chief Kevin Benner, Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carla Wirth, Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. JOHN RODER REQUEST TO RECONSIDER STERLING SQUARE RENTAL LICENSE REVOCATION City Manager Curt Boganey reviewed the history of the action to revoke John Roder's rental license for one year and Mr. Roder's written and verbal statement including additional information indicating why he thought reconsideration was justified, important, and necessary. The question before the Council is whether or not, based on information received, this is an item worthy of review and possible reconsideration. Councilmember Ryan stated he had made it fairly clear at the hearing and when the resolution was approved that he did not favor a full year revocation. In light of the additional information on the hardship the owners experienced, he would support the Council considering Mr. Roder's request. However, he remained firm that the Council needed to be direct and supportive of ordinance enforcement and demand compliance. Councilmember Ryan indicated he would consider a license suspension so Mr. Roder would not have to reapply for his rental license. Councilmember Roche spoke in favor of consistent Council action and noted there had been recent police activity at this property and the landscaping was not maintained. Mr. Boganey clarified the full range of latitude before the Council is to consider a suspension for up to 90 days and /or a revocation up to one year. Mayor Willson acknowledged the apartment owner's recent health issues; however, the ownership involved a partnership and yet they did not make arrangements with the City to 05/24/10 -1- postpone and neither partner attended the hearing. He noted in the past the Council has been amenable to requests for postponement. Mayor Willson stated his belief the Council's action was warranted and that is still the case. Councilmember Lasman stated that she wants to remain firm on enforcement of ordinances and in the case of Mr. Roder had indicated at the time of revocation she would support either a six - month or one -year revocation. Councilmember Yelich agreed with the need to be firm to enforce the City's ordinances and while he was sympathetic with the owner's health issues, that is not pertinent to this consideration. He stated his continued support for the action taken to revoke as opposed to a suspension but was open to modifying the length of time. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere addressed the question raised at the last meeting regarding establishing precedence. He explained that while action would not establish a binding precedence, people would expect the same treatment. Mr. Boganey stated the Council's policy allows the audience to speak on a Work Session item after the Council has completed its discussion. Mayor Willson asked if the Council would like to open the floor to comment. No objection was stated. John Roder, 6610/6700 Humboldt Avenue N, informed the Council of their financial- related problems that required them to decide which bill to pay first. He advised that they are now current on taxes and utilities and their lack of attendance at the hearing had been an oversight due to miscommunication with his partner. He apologized for the overabundance of time the Council has spent related to this rental property, reviewed his and John Cook's residency in Brooklyn Center, and asked the Council to reconsider its action to revoke. The Council asked questions of Mr. Roder. It was noted that Mr. Roder had made a conscious decision to not pay property taxes and utilities and use income from this property to pay other bills. Mr. Roder stated this is correct but he knew he would eventually pay the property taxes and utilities. He advised that Sterling Square Apartments will be refinanced at the end of the year and they are considering several hundred thousand dollars of improvements over the winter. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Council indicated it was not inclined to make a change with regard to Mr. Roder's request. The Council agreed with Mr. Boganey's request to next consider Item #4. APARTMENTS WITH DELINQUENT PAYMENTS POLICY City Manager Curt Boganey reviewed the Council's past discussion whether rental property owners should be allowed to avoid the revocation or suspension hearing by making payments prior to the schedule hearing. The Council also questioned whether there should be additional penalties /fines to cover the City's costs to publish and mail notice of the hearing. Additional 05/24/10 -2- issues are whether all violators should be treated the same or consideration given to first -time offenders as opposed to repeat offenders. Mr. LeFevere stated the Council can also consider whether it wants to treat nonpayment of taxes and nonpayment of utilities at the same level of seriousness. He reviewed the details of his May 20, 2010, e -mail to City Manager Boganey that listed issues to consider in the formulation of a policy on the imposition of sanctions on rental properties that are not current in payment of taxes and/or utilities. Mr. LeFevere clarified that imposition of monetary penalties is not applicable to payment of taxes because that is County matter. The City currently charges penalties for nonpayment of utilities through an administrative penalty process. He explained the Council needed to look at this matter in the context of the Housing Ordinance; aesthetic violation versus life /safety violation, so the most serious penalty imposed is for violations deemed to be the most serious. The Council discussed each of the six issues put forward by Mr. LeFevere and reached the following consensus: 1. Does the Council wish to establish a reminder and rgrace period for payments? The Council discussed whether a 30 -day grace period was warranted and it was noted that the current process already includes a grace period. The Council agreed that the goal is to create responsible ownership of rental properties and creating a grace period would result in additional staff "babysitting" and overhead costs. 2. Does the Council wish to impose an administrative fine to encourage compliance without a hearing? Mr. LeFevere advised that the fine cannot be imposed the same day because all of the processes take some time. He asked when does the liability occur and if it should be one day after payment is due. He described several options for consideration, such as sending a reminder for the first violation with no consequence if paid in a week, no grace period if a second violation, and imposition of an administration penalty with a hearing if not paid within a certain period of time. In addition, if a hearing is scheduled for a first -time offender, there may be a different penalty depending on the number of violations with the same person. Following discussion, the consensus of the Council was to impose an administrative fine to encourage compliance and that the fine be set at a level to cover the City's .costs and provide sufficient incentive to pay the utility bill as opposed to other bills. 3. Once the policy calls for setting a hearing, the notice of hearing should inform the licensee of any relevant policy provisions. The consensus of the Council was to support Question #3 because it allows the Council, if desired, to consider past violations when imposing a penalty. 4. If the licensee pays before the hearing, does the Council wish to cancel the hearing? 05/24/10 -3- Mayor Willson suggested cancellation the hearing if payment is made in advance of the hearing. He asked what would be considered at the hearing if the violation had been remedied. Councilmember Lasman spoke against canceling the hearing because some rental owners make the payment after the City has expended costs to schedule and notice the hearing. She stated it is her opinion that administrative fines weaken, not strengthen, the situation. Mayor Willson asked why a hearing would be needed if guidelines are adopted. Mr. LeFevere explained the City has to hold the hearing to gather evidence from staff to prove that the violation occurred and hear from the property owner. He noted the ordinance requires the Council to state rationale and findings. Mayor Willson noted the hearing can only be held after payment if there is an ability to impose an administrative fine to cover staff and hearing costs. Following further discussion, the consensus of the Council was to not cancel the hearing if the violation is remedied prior to the hearing date. 5. If the matter proceeds to a hearing, the Council should take into consideration whether the licensee paid the delinquent amount before the hearing. The consensus of the Council was to remain firm on ordinance enforcement and to hold rental owners accountable; however, leniency may be considered for first -time violators. 6. If the matter proceeds to hearing, the Council may wish to consider including a guideline about the imposition of penalties. It was noted that establishing guidelines and policies on the consequences would protect the City and create a better position to defend the City should a lawsuit claim unfair treatment. Mr. LeFevere agreed that if the City has a policy, it removes the argument by someone that they are not being treated the same. Mr. LeFevere advised that a late payment resulting in a sanction of a six -month to one -year revocation, may result in rental owners being quick to bring legal challenges. That is why staff needs specific direction, to assure consistency so if legally challenged it can be proven that everyone has been treated the same way. Mayor Willson stated the last sentence indicating "that evidence introduced at the hearing ... may result in the imposition of a greater or lesser penalty" has some merit. He noted the rental owner is provided with the ordinance when the license is pulled so he did not understand why the City had to consider leniency. Mr. LeFevere advised that under the Code the Council can consider a range from doing nothing to a one -year revocation. If the Council establishes guidelines for the future, then all know what happens with first, second, or third violations. However, there may be some cases where the facts may find those guidelines are not appropriate. He explained if the 05/24/10 -4- City follows that guideline, it is considered to be acting reasonably and rationally. If not using the guideline, the City would need to cite rationale. Mayor Willson asked whether the Council would still consider revocation if payment is made the day before or the day of the hearing. Mr. LeFevere advised that the rental owner paying the day before means they are no longer in violation; however, the owner was in violation when the hearing was noticed. He pointed out that most of the time, when the Council considers revocation or suspension f i e violations were cured. The offense p o the license, t may be after th does not stop just because it is corrected, and the City can sanction the behavior. If challenged, the court will decide whether the Council's action was a reasonable response under the City Code based on the nature and seriousness of the offense. The Council discussed the options and agreed that it is difficult to impose a law to achieve automatic compliance. However, the Council can take one step at this point and determine to hold the hearing even if payment is made. With regard to consideration of repeat violators, it was indicated that will be determined by the Council upon hearing the case and receiving staff's report on the history of the property. It was noted that whether a first -time or repeat violator, the hearing will be held but the Council's response could be different. Mr. LeFevere recapped the Council's discussion that the start of the process will not change up to the point of giving notice. Staff will assure those procedures are routine and consistent and all are treated the same. Once it goes to a hearing, the notice of hearing will indicate that the hearing will be held even if the violation is resolved and also identify the frequency of offense. During the hearing, all offenses would be addressed by the Council when considering whether to impose a penalty. Mr. LeFevere advised that staff and the prosecuting attorney are in agreement that if imposing more severe sanctions for repeat violators, those violations need to be listed in the notice of hearing. The notice will indicate the Council will consider imposition of sanctions, list the violations, and that hearing will be held whether or not payment is made prior to the hearing. The Council discussed how notice of this new procedure should be given to rental owners. Mr. Boganey recommended it be provided at the time of licensure and/or renewal. The Council suggested an article also be included in City Watch. Mayor Willson called a recess at 9:49 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:54 p.m. 6101 BEARD — 6037 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD UPDATE City Manager Curt Boganey stated this item involves a 180 -day report regarding the neighborhood of 61 Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard activities in response to concerns. Acting Police Chief Benner presented the update and advised of notable reductions in public service calls. He recommended an annual review from this point forward. 05/24/10 -5- The Council discussed the calls for service and asked about the April calls. Acting Police Chief Benner explained that five of the calls related to a wanted person report but all were unfounded. The Council acknowledged the good Police work in this neighborhood and agreed that while community standards need to be maintained, it is now prudent to shift resources to address other areas in need. Chief Benner agreed with the need to bring in community standards and that they had, perhaps, focused too much on violent crimes. He reported on the property owner's progress and efforts to be more compliant. BUS SHELTER LOCATION POLICY Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel presented the criteria used by Metro Transit to determine warrants to construct a bus shelter and that their guidelines are qualified due to budget constraints. He used a map to point out the sites that meet warrants for a bus shelter and explained Metro Transit's option to proceed with a location that does not quite meet warrants at P p p q the City's expense. It was noted that at warranted sites, Metro Transit provides and maintains the shelter but not the bench or trash receptacles. The Council discussed each of the four policy questions and reached the following consensus: 1. Does the City Council want potential bus shelter locations to be reviewed by the Administrative Traffic Committee before requests for warranted locations are submitted to Metro Transit? The Council supported this policy question. 2. _Does the City Council want to use the Metro Transit warrant criteria (minimum of 25 ridership) as the sole standard for the location of bus stop shelters to serve the residential, business, and employment needs within the City of Brooklyn Center? The Council supported this policy question. 3. Does the City Council want to pursue the Local Public Party option of placing bus shelters at bus stops which currently do not meet the Metro Transit warrants /criteria of minimum daily ridership? The Council did not support this policy question due to the City's limited resources. 4. Does the City Council want staff to process requests for Metro Transit installation of standard shelters at the locations which currently meet warrant criteria of 25 or more daily ridership? The Council discussed the locations and level of ridership. Mr. Boganey suggested that rather than assuming each location that meets warrants is a reasonable location, staff look at the location and report back with a recommendation. 05/24/10 -6- Mr. Eitel reported on staff's conversations with Hennepin County Public Services and that there is currently not enough ridership along Brooklyn Boulevard to trigger the threshold for a bus stop. Councilmember Roche advocated for a bus shelter at Humboldt Square because of the high concentration of apartments and ridership of women and children. He felt this is the first shelter that should be built and garbage receptacles should also be provided. With regard to a shelter in front of the garage, he suggested TIF money be used if the City cannot get a free shelter. STATE FUNDED LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID POLICY City Manager Curt Boganey explained this is follow up to budget discussions and advised the City will most likely sustain additional funding cuts by the State. He referenced staff's memorandum that described the benefit of creating a policy to deal with unpredictable and volatile budget sources and noted options are outlined for the Council's consideration. The Council discussed the options and agreed it would be a good strategic move and business practice. Mr. Boganey advised the State Auditor's guidance is that having five months of operations is considered reasonable for cash flow purposes. Once beyond five months, the State Auditor will question the necessity of an undesignated fund balance. He suggested having sufficient funds in an undesignated fund in case the State pulls back funding. The majority consensus of the City Council was to ask the Financial Commission to provide a recommendation on specific policy options. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman moved and Councilmember /Commissioner Roche seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:58 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/24/10 -7- STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss. Certification of Minutes CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER) The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, certifies: 1. That attached hereto is a full, true, and complete transcript of the minutes of a Work Session of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center held on May 24, 2010. 2. That said meeting was held pursuant to due call and notice thereof and was duly held at Brooklyn Center City Hall. 3. That the City Council adopted said minutes at its June 14, 2010, Regular Session. City Clerk Mayor 05/24/10 -8-