Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 11-28 CCM Study Session MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 28, 2011 CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services Jim Glasoe, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Lasman requested the following correction to the Study Session minutes of November 14, 2011: Page 2, 8 paragraph: " Councilmember b asm Kleven stated she will plan to attend." It was the majority consensus of the City Council to accept the correction of the November 14, 2011, Study Session minutes. Councilmember Ryan requested discussion on Item 9b, Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -020 Submitted by Independent School District No. 286, specifically related to the Planning Commission Application by ISD 286. He stated he is in support but wondered if staff could make mention of the funding mechanism for this undertaking to construct a new recreation center, gymnasium, and basketball court. City Manager Curt Boganey stated it is part of the special sales tax authorized for the construction of the Twins stadium approved by the Legislature with a percentage to be available for sports programs in Hennepin County. Councilmember Lasman noted the facility has locker rooms but does not include showers. Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel stated it provides restrooms and a storage room and the intent is for a casual workout and practice sessions. Mr. Boganey requested discussion on Item 10d, Ordinance Relating to Licensing of Rental Properties; Amending Brooklyn Center City Code Section 12 -910. He explained this item is on 11/28/11 -1- tonight's agenda for first reading of an amendment to the City's licensing code. It is also scheduled for discussion at tonight's Work Session. Mr. Boganey stated the modification proposed is straight forward to address concerns raised by Mr. Soderberg, and the City Attorney has drafted language for the City Council's consideration. It was noted the City Council can act on that proposed ordinance or postpone action so it can be discussed. If approved, the amendment allows staff to accept a new rental license during the revocation period and allows the City Council to approve the new rental license with an effective date following the end of the revocation period. MISCELLANEOUS None. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS YOUTH PARTICIPATION REQUEST Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services Jim Glasoe introduced the item and indicated members of the Brooklyn Youth Council had invited the City Council to its Blue Jean Ball and requested time on a future agenda to tell the City Council about their organization and how they can assist the City Council with decisions involving youth. Kayla Gray, 6909 Regent Avenue N. and Naomi Chan, 9010 60 1 /2 Avenue N., New Hope, described the establishment of the Brooklyn Youth Council in 2008, current membership, goals, and vision to lower the rate of violence, create safer environments for all, and more resources for youth. The Brooklyn Youth Council would like to be more interactive with the Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center City Councils to help communicate concerns on issues that affect the City's youth and to help make decisions that would improve the community. Ms. Gray offered the Brooklyn Youth Council's assistance to gain insight of youth on important issues and services that affect youth, become more representative of the community as a whole, and engage youth in the governmental progress. The City Council was invited to send a liaison to Brooklyn Youth Council meetings to discuss issues impacting the community and how to bring youth's voice to the conversation. At the invitation of Mayor Willson, those in attendance introduced themselves. The City Council expressed its appreciation to the Brooklyn Youth Council members for attending and complimented Ms. Gray and Ms. Chan on their presentation. The City Council indicated the youth's perspective is important and it has high hopes for hearing their input. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to schedule discussion on a future Work Session agenda of the Brooklyn Youth Council and feasibility of a Council Liaison. RENTAL LICENSE — REVOCATION PROCESS 11/28/11 -2- Mr. Boganey introduced the item and reviewed the City Council's February 14, 2011, action relating to revocation of the Brookhaven Apartments. It was noted that on November 14, 2011, James Soderberg addressed the City Council and indicated his interest in purchasing this property. However, under the current City Code Mr. Soderberg would be unable to make rental license application prior to the expiration of the 12 -month revocation, effectively resulting in a revocation period that substantially exceeds 12 months since the application process can take 60 days or more to complete. Mr. Boganey referenced the ordinance amendment drafted by City Attorney LeFevere that would allow for an application to be accepted and processed by staff prior to the end of the revocation period. It also allows the City Council the ability to act on said" application; however, the effective date of the new license would commence after the expiration of the revocation period. Mayor Willson stated this clause had been placed in the ordinance because the City Council did not want ownership to change hands every other month or as a token gesture by owners to obtain a new rental license. The clause assures that if the City Council determines a revocation, the full term would run regardless of new ownership. Mayor Willson acknowledged a hardship does exist if a new owner comes into the building and does not have a set time when they can tell the bank the license will be approved. If the new owner can do up front licensing and get approval by the bank, the property could be rented once the revocation is expired. Councilmember Lasman stated support for the amendment, noting the revocation period would still have to be served regardless of ownership. She noted the need to assure the ordinance language protects the City in the event there is irresponsible behavior. In addition, all requirements must be met in the new rental license application. Mr. Boganey indicated the City will need to determine timing for when a rental license application will be accepted, inspections made, and Council action scheduled so the process can be completed prior to the end of the revocation. He noted the application would be subject to the same rules, regulations, and standards. Mr. Boganey indicated that the licensing approval would spell out those issues if the process is completed several months in advance of the revocation expiration. Mayor Willson agreed the City Council would base approval on conditions and the same stipulations would be in place, such as the mitigation plan. Mr. Boganey reviewed the timing for the application and inspection process and suggested the ordinance address timing so that an application can be received no sooner than 90 days prior to expiration of revocation, which is the current ordinance requirement for property owners to make a new application 90 days prior to expiration. Mayor Willson suggested language from an administrative perspective to assure a "last look" of the property just prior to the end of the revocation period. Mr. Boganey concurred and noted it is a unique situation when there is a new owner. 11/28/11 -3- Councilmember Ryan stated he favors the change in principle with the reservations expressed by, Councilmember Lasman to protect the interest of the City and have strict enforcement of the ordinance. He noted the intent of the ordinance is that the revocation be fulfilled. Councilmember Ryan stated he felt Mr. Soderberg had expressed a reasonable request but the City Council needs to approach the amendment carefully to assure it meets the interest of the City. Mr. Boganey stated he wanted to make it clear that should this ordinance be adopted, it will apply to good and bad landlords as well as new and prior owners of a license that is revoked. The ordinance would not discriminate on the quality of the applicant. Also, even if this amendment is adopted on first reading tonight, it does no good in terms of Mr. Soderberg's desire to acquire a particular property because by the time it takes effect it will be after the revocation period. Mr. Boganey noted the City Attorney had pointed out if the City Council specifically wanted to address the concerns of Mr. Soderberg it could reduce the revocation period for the specific property at hand. However, the City Council has not considered that action in the past. Mayor Willson cautioned the City Council that changing the revocation period can be a "slippery slope" if the City does not know who is purchasing the property or their intentions. In this case, he noted the City has a proven track record with Mr. Soderberg but that may not always be the case. Mayor Willson stated he tends to agree that on the surface it appears to be a hardship on the buyer to wait out the term of the revocation prior to being able to make application for a new rental license. Councilmember Kleven stated if possible, she would like to consider a change in the revocation period for Mr. Soderberg as long as it does not establish precedence. Mr. Boganey noted a significant issue is that if the City Council changes the revocation period it cannot be done for Mr. Soderberg but only for the property. In addition, Mr. Soderberg is not the new owner so the revocation reduction would go to the current owner and future buyer. Councilmember Lasman felt that would be a dangerous precedence to consider. She agreed that Mr. Soderberg has a good track record but that is not the case with all landlords. Mr. Boganey explained that during Mr. Soderberg's initial conversation he was interested in acquiring the property and looking for any option available to move forward. Reducing the revocation period was one option discussed. Mr. Boganey stated he had indicated that based on previous history, it is probably not something the City Council would likely do. Councilmember Ryan agreed the essential point was that revocation was against the property and it would be speculating on the ultimate ownership since this property is in receivership and if the past owner satisfies the mortgage, they could be back in the picture. 11/28/11 -4- ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RECONVENE STUDY SESSION Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to reconvene the Study Session at 6:47 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RENTAL LICENSE — REVOCATION PROCESS — CONTINUED Mayor Willson asked if proof of ownership can be provided if the property is in receivership. He noted the time period will probably work itself out by the time the revocation expires. Councilmember Lasman pointed out that if the City Council chose to reduce the revocation period, it would not work itself, out. She stated if Mr. Soderberg does not benefit by this amendment, she is not comfortable making this ordinance amendment. Councilmember Lasman stated she would be nervous about considering a reduction of the revocation period. Mayor Willson stated he tended to agree. He believed that at some point the City will have a hardship case, but it is not this one. Mayor Willson noted the City Council is not being asked at this point in time to shorten the revocation period but is being asked to look at the ordinance because of the circumstances. He stated he does not think the City has to take action at this time to amend the ordinance since the City Council does not have a clear understanding of all of the pieces. Mayor Willson stated the City Attorney's assistance is needed in drafting language to cover the City's interests in looking at shortening the revocation period and timing to apply for a new rental license prior to expiration of the revocation. Mr. Boganey stated his recollection from conversation with Mr. Soderberg is that this type of change is one he would favor for any owner at any time in the future regardless of whether he directly benefited today or not. Mr. Boganey indicated the amendment results in an ordinance that is more equitable and fair and reasonable. The other point is that this issue has been raised by others who found themselves in a situation where they wanted to acquire a property that had a revoked rental license and wanted to expedite the process. Mr. Boganey explained the amendment is not in response to one property owner's interest but in response to what appears to be a common argument that staff hears again and again. It is a question whether the City wants to keep telling the property owners that is how the ordinance is written or if this is the time for I the ordinance to be more flexible. Mayor Willson agreed the amendment is not being driven by one property owner but is an issue of fairness. He felt a hardship did not exist and the City Council does not have full details; 11/28/11 -5- therefore, he would not support first reading to amend the ordinance tonight. He indicated he wants more discussion on this item. Councilmember Lasman stated the protective language contained in the ordinance was deliberately included but maybe times have changed in Brooklyn Center and an amendment should be considered. She noted the bottom line is that the revocation period will be served. She stated if Mr. Boganey is comfortable with the amendment, then she is also comfortable. She stated she does not need additional time to consider the amendment as long as the revocation time period will be served. City Attorney LeFevere stated it seems the City Council may wish to make additional changes to the ordinance beyond what is proposed tonight. He explained the amendment, if approved, would make the punishment more precise. The current ordinance indicates a property owner cannot submit an application for a new license until the revocation is up. Because it takes a while to complete the rental licensing process, which cannot start until the revocation has expired, it results in additional punishment that is unintended. Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciates the remarks by Messrs. Boganey and LeFevere that the revocation period would be for a definite period. He indicated he would favor first reading. Mr. Boganey explained if the amendment is approved for first reading tonight it will be back on the City Council's agenda for second reading in January 2012. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Study Session at 7:00 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 11/28/11 -6- STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss. Certification of Minutes CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER) The undersigned, in Brooklyn be the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of rookl g g Y q pP Y Y Y Center, Minnesota, certifies: 1. That attached hereto is a full, true, and complete transcript of the minutes of a Study Session of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center held on November 28, 2011. 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 December 12, 2011, Regular Session.' City Clerk Mayor 11/28/11 -7-