Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 01-12 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 JANUARY 12, 2015 CITY HALL—COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Police Chief Kevin Benner, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community t dard 1 ver Off Site Secretarial Inc. Standards Vickie Sch eunin and Carla Wirth TimeSaver g CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Ryan requested discussion on Item 10e, Consideration of Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental Licenses, in particular the meeting procedure to poll the audience for rental owners who are present and then setting aside those licenses for consideration as a whole. Mayor Willson reviewed the meeting process that would be followed to hold a hearing when requested by the rental property owner. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she was noted as being absent and unexcused in the December 1, 2014, Budget Hearing and Special Session minutes. She explained she was unable to attend due to a family emergency. City Manager Curt Boganey explained this absence was not known before of the meeting. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Myszkowski asked for an update on the Work Session with the Parks and Recreation Commission and Brooklyns Youth Council. Mr. Boganey stated staff is following up on that matter and the issue of e-cigarettes in public places is scheduled for February 23, 2015. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS CONSIDERATION OF HEARING FOR TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS LICENSE FOR ABDOU JAITEH 01/12/15 -1- Mr. Boganey introduced the topic and presented the staff report and January 8, 2015, memorandum from City Attorney Charlie LeFevere describing the issue and concerns related to the interpretation of Section 23-104 of the City Code that provides that an applicant convicted of any tobacco products violation within five years may not be eligible for a new or renewed license. Mr. Boganey stated an applicant has submitted an application but had pending charges for sales to a minor at another Brooklyn Center location, so the City Council tabled action on that application until that issue was resolved in the court. Subsequent to that action, there was adjudication on the issue and the applicant was found in violation through a plea agreement. Mr. Boganey explained that in preparation for action, staff reviewed the newly adopted Tobacco Ordinance and found Section 23-104 specifically addresses grounds for which renewal/approval of an application may be denied as well as a list of seven elements for which a license may be revoked. Mr. Boganey stated this raises a question as to the intent of this section of the ordinance and whether or not the intent is that any applicant, whether renewal or a new licensee, who has been found to have violated any of the seven elements of this Section are to be automatically denied a license or if these seven items are simply elements for potential grounds for which a license may be approved or not approved. Mr. Boganey read the last paragraph of Mr. LeFevere's January 8, 2015, memorandum and asked for City Council direction relating to how Section 23-104 should be interpreted and what interpretation best serves the interests of the City of Brooklyn Center. He noted Attorney LeFevere has also indicated the City Council cannot deny an application without first holding a hearing. Mayor Willson stated it is not so much the applicant as the site the applicant owns, noting Attorney LeFevere has indicated an applicant may have an application in one location but a violation has occurred in another location. He felt the City Council's consideration related to the violation by site, not by applicant. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere advised that he found the language in this section to be a bit ambiguous and felt clarification may be needed depending on the City Council's interpretation. He stated direction from the City Council will help staff proceed with other ordinance amendments to add clarity to the language. Mayor Willson referred to a past consideration where an applicant had been found in violation but it had occurred at a different site. Attorney LeFevere explained that in the case of liquor, the applicant's past criminal history considered the location in which the liquor violation occurred. In this case, the language addresses the applicant and a conviction within five years is an automatic disqualifier for new applications and/or renewals. Mayor Willson stated the City retained that right with liquor licenses but in his mind, it is slightly different when considering tobacco licenses. He suggested that issue be discussed in addition to determining clarification. 01/12/15 -2- Mr. Boganey stated the first fundamental question in need of clarification is whether it is the intention of the City Council to take all of the seven elements listed under Section 23-104 as restrictions. He asked whether it is the intent that any applicant who has violated any of the seven elements is or is not eligible to receive a tobacco license at all. One interpretation is that if you meet any of the seven elements, you may not have a new license or renewal license. That is the first clarification needed. If that is not the intent, then staff presumes the intent is that some or all of the seven elements are simply items to consider by the City Council when forming its decision as to whether or not to approve the license. Mayor Willson clarified that this consideration only relates to the sale of tobacco, not liquor. Mr. Boganey confirmed that is the case. Mr. Boganey reviewed the considerations taken during the time this ordinance was drafted and that some staff felt the issue of a conviction was to apply to a new tobacco license applicant. He stated it was not staff's thought that it applied to an existing business with a violation that could result in shutting down that business. Mayor Willson asked if the location of violation by the applicant is considered. Attorney LeFevere stated it seems that at some level, it should be `anywhere in the world' and should an applicant have a bad record, the City should not be compelled to grant a license simply because they have not yet violated the law in Brooklyn Center. He explained if the intent is that the seven elements are grounds for denying the license but does not automatically disqualify the applicant, the City Council could consider the extenuating circumstances such as when the violation occurred and the type of violation. Mayor Willson stated he is willing to consider an application, depending on the circumstances, even if they have a violation that occurred at some location. He felt it was grounds for denial but was the City Council's choice to consider the facts in determining whether to issue or deny the application. Attorney LeFevere noted that some of the elements are grounds for automatic disqualification, such as being under 18 years of age, but there are other categories that are considered grounds for denial/revocation but not an automatic disqualifier. Mayor Willson stated in any event, if an application is made, the process should come before the City Council even if there has been a federal violation. Attorney LeFevere explained the two- step process for the City Council to initially consider the application and if determined to deny, then the applicant has the right to a hearing. In this case, if the seven elements are not automatic disqualifiers,then the elements would be used as grounds for consideration. Mayor Willson asked if the site of the violation is a consideration. Attorney LeFevere stated if an automatic disqualifier, then they could not have a license at either site. He noted there is nothing in the ordinance that indicates it is specific to the site so if considered as grounds, then the application can be considered. 01/12/15 -3- The City Council discussed a scenario in which SuperAmerica makes an application, the City Council finds there has been a violation, but the corporation does not operate the site as it is operated by a manager. The question was raised whether the manager would be penalized by not receiving the license, or if it would be considered as a higher-level management issue. Attorney LeFevere stated the corporate owner (SuperAmerica in this scenario) is generally held responsible and if the elements are disqualifiers, then the license would not be granted. If the elements are considered as qualifiers,then the City Council could consider the circumstances. Mayor Willson stated he thinks the intent is to look at each site individually as a business on its own merits and then look at grounds for denial. Attorney LeFevere stated that is a question for the City Council to determine. He stated if a corporation franchises businesses and each location has its own owner, the applicant may not be held responsible but that is subjective based on the suitability of the applicant. In another case where local managers change all the time, that may be a different consideration as the level of decisions and training occurs at a higher level and it may be the case where the corporation has a management problem and should not receive a license or renewal. Mayor Willson stated he does not want to penalize a site if that site does not have any violations. Attorney LeFevere stated a new site would not have any violations but the applicant may have a history of violations in other locations. Mayor Willson agreed that should be considered as grounds but he believed it should not be an automatic denial., Councilmember Ryan stated Attorney LeFevere mentioned there are a number of factors listed as restrictions, He suggested the ordinance list things that are obvious considerations for revocation/nonrenewal. Then the remaining factors could be subject to consideration and discretion of the City Council when determining whether or not to grant the license. Mayor Willson stated if there is a federal violation, or something on that level, staff would recommend the license not be approved and present a resolution with findings for denial that would come before the City Council for consideration. Attorney LeFevere stated in the case that someone under the age of 18 applied for a license, staff would recommend the City Council consider denial for that reason. Then notice would be given to the applicant and they would have the right to a hearing to prove they are not under the age of 18. He noted that would be a consideration of automatic denial. Mr. Boganey stated virtually all of the City's licenses have a criteria that in order for the application to be complete for submission to the City Council, all taxes and utilities must be current. That is the one case where the City Council will probably not see an application unless the taxes and outstanding obligations to the City have been paid and made current. That is not a denial, but a determination the application is not complete. Mayor Willson stated that would only be a consideration for a renewal of an existing license. Mr. Boganey explained there are criteria for submission of an application before it is presented to the City Council. Mayor Willson stated that may be a consideration for liquor licenses as well in the case of unpaid taxes/utilities. Mr. Boganey stated the City Council determined that unless 01/12/15 -4- the taxes and utilities are paid in full, a rental license application is not complete and will not be presented to the City Council. Mayor Willson recalled a past license for an eating establishment that did come before the City Council for a liquor license renewal but staff recommended it not be approved because the taxes had not been paid. Attorney LeFevere stated the consensus of the City Council appears to be that conviction within five years is not a disqualifier but may be grounds for consideration. He asked if there is a conviction of an employee and the owner within the last two years and criminal and civil sanctions imposed, is that sufficient grounds to not grant the licenses or if that level of violation would not cause sufficient concern and the City Council would like to hold a hearing. Mayor Willson stated he does not want a tobacco violation at one of the City's stores to be an automatic denial. He felt the grounds should be determined at a public hearing. Attorney LeFevere explained it does not have to go to a public hearing if the violation is large enough or there are multiple violations. Discussion of this item continued and reached conclusion at the January 12,2015, Work Session. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Willson adjourned the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. 01/12/15 -5- 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 Study/Work Session of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center held on January 12, 2015. 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 January 26, 2015, Regular Session. City Clerk Mayor 01/12/15 -6-