Loading...
101193 EDA CITY OF NEW HOPE EDA AGENDA FDA Regular Meeting//13 October 11, 1993 Revised Agenda//13 (Item 6 added) President Edward J. Erickson Commissioner W. Peter Enck Commissioner Gerald Otten Commissioner Terri Wehling Commissioner Marky Williamson 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes of September 13, 1993 4. Resolution Approving 1993 Amendment to Redevelopment Plan 85-1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan 85-1 and Requesting the Approval of the City Council 5. Resolution Calling for a Closed Meeting of the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope Authorized by Minn. Stat. §471.705 to Discuss Litigation/Settlement Strategy on the Doyle/I. ee Eminent Domain Proceedings (//493) 6. Discussion of Ordinance Regarding Conduct and Licensing of Multi-Family Rental " Dwellings 7. Adjournment Official File Copy CITY OF NEW HOPE EDA AGENDA EDA Regular Meeting//13 October 11, 1993 Agenda//13 President Edward J. Erickson Commissioner W. Peter Enck Commissioner Gerald Otten Commissioner Terri Wehling Commissioner Marky Williamson 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes of September 13, 1993 4. Resolution Approving 1993 Amendment to Redevelopment Plan 85-1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan 85-1 and Requesting the Approval of the City Council 5. Resolution Calling for a Closed Meeting of the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope Authorized by Minn. Stat. §471.705 to Discuss Litigation/Settlement Strategy on the Doyle/Lee Eminent Domain Proceedings (#493) 6. Adjournment CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved EDA Minutes September 13, 1993 Meeting #12 CALL TO ORDER President Erickson called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 9:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Erickson, Enck, Otten, Williamson, Wehling APPROVE MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Enck, seconded by Commissioner Otten, to approve the EDA minutes of August 9, 1993. Voting in favor: Enck, Otten, Williamson, Wehling; Abstained: Erickson. Motion carried. PROJECT 510 President Erickson introduced for discussion Item 4, Resolution Approving Item 4 Multi-Family Housing Policies (Project #510). Mr. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Assistant, indicated at the EDA's authorization staff has been meeting with Gary Stout to formulate multi-family housing policies. Mr. Gary Stout, Public-Private Ventures, Inc., introduced himself and pointed out that many cities are attempting to stabilize areas of the city and maintain property values. He stated in New Hope there are approximately 3800 rental units and generating several hundred thousand dollars worth of funds would allow the City to direct $100 to $200 per unit. He emphasized the importance of the City realizing how to use funds effectively and recommended utilizing loans as the financing method instead of grants. Mr. Stout informed the Council that his research included investigating prior federal loan requests to determine recurring problems. The proposed policy attempts to eliminate similar problems. He continued by stating many owners are having difficulty obtaining private capital necessary to rehabilitate and maintain multi-family housing units and the City has a desire to provide assistance. The goal is to meet public policy needs in the housing and human services area. Mr. Stout reviewed the recommended policy to be used by the EDA to evaluate potential future requests for assistance by rental unit owners. The sixteen items included funding amounts, type of funding, required bids for work, repayment provisions, matching funds, etc. The EDA complimented Mr. Stout on his thorough report. Commissioner Williamson questioned the definition of multiple dwelling and asked whether the policy would apply to condos, townhomes, twin-homes, etc. Mr. Stout explained that the policy relates to rental multiple unit housing. He stated the financing problems are specific to investment properties. New Hope EDA September 13, 1993 Page 1 Commissioner Enck questioned the funding source(s). Mr. Donahue, City Manager, stated he will proposed to utilize funds from the existing EDA account. He explained that of the tax increment district monies five to ten percent is designated for administrative purposes and a portion of that is maintained in the EDA account. Commissioner Williamson asked whether the City would utilize Mr. Stout's services when funding requests are made by rental multi-family property owners. Mr. Donahue responded that the City may wish to retain Mr. Stout's services on an as-needed basis to assist the City in analyzing each specific project. EDA RESOLUTION Commissioner Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its 93-13 adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING POLICIES Item 4 (PROJECT #510)". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Otten and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: Erickson, Enck, Otten, and Williamson; and the following voted against: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was duly passed and adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Enck, seconded by Commissioner Williamson, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. The New Hope EDA adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope EDA September 13, 1993 Page 2 ' ~) REQUEST FOR ACTION originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager EDA j ~ 10-11-93 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant By: 4 RESOLUTION APPROVING 1993 A~NDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 85-1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN 85-1 AND REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL' The enclosed resolution states that the 1993 Amendment to expand the area subject to the redevelopment plan and authorizing the expenditure of tax increment revenues derived from the district to pay a portion of the public redeveloment costs in the additional area has been presented to and approved by the EDA Board and requests approval of the City Council. After the New Hope EDA adopts the resolution, the City Council meeting should be reconvened for the purpose of adopting a resolution in response to the EDA recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Approving 1993 Amendment to Redevelopment Plan 85-1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan 85-1 and Requesting the Approval of the City Council. Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-OO ] ~ CERTIFICATE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY I, the undersigned being the duly qualified Executive Director of the New Hope Economic Development Authority, hereby attest and certify that: 1. As such officer, I am the recording officer of the New Hope Economic Development Authority and have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached resolution was transcribed. 2. I have carefully compared the attached resolution with the original record of the meeting at which the resolution was acted upon. 3. I find the attached resolution to be a true, correct and complete copy of the original: EDA RESOLUTION NO. 93- Resolution Approving 1993 Amendment to Redevelopment Plan 85-1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan 85-1 and Requesting the Approval of the City Council 4. I further certify that the affirmative vOte on said resolution was ~ ayes, ~ nayes, and ~ absent/abstention. 5. Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof, as required by law, and a quorum was present. WITNESS my hand officially as such Executive Director this ~ day of ,1993. Daniel J. Donahue, Executive Director Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: EDA RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION APPROVING 1993 AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 85-1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN 85-1 AND REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL BE 1T RESOLVED, by the New Hope Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), as follows: 1. Proposed Amendment. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of New Hope, Minnesota .(the "HRA") has approved a redevelopment plan, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, subdivision 16, designated as Redevelopment Plan 82-1 ("Redevelopment Plan 85-1"), and a redevelopment project to be undertaken pursuant thereto, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, subdivision 14, designated as Redevelopment Project 85-1 ("Redevelopment Project 85-1"), and that in order to finance the public redevelopment costs to be incurred by the HRA in connection with Redevelopment Plan 85-1 and Redevelopment Project 85-1, the HRA has approved a tax increment financing plan, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, designated as Tax Increment Financing Plan 85-1 ("Financing Plan 85-1"), which establishes a tax increment financing district, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 9, designated as Tax Increment Financing District 85-1 ("District 85-1") which is designated by Hennepin County as Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1605. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.094, subdivision 2, the City has transferred control of Redevelopment Plan 85-1, Financing'Plan 85-1 and District 85-1 from the HI~ to the EDA. It has been proposed that the EDA approve an amendment to Redevelopment Plan 85-1 and Financing Plan 85-1 which is entitled "1993 Amendment to Redevelopment Plan 85- 1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan 85-1" (the "1993 Amendment") to expand the area subject to Redevelopment Plan 85-1 and to authorize the expenditure of tax increment revenue derived from District 85-1 to pay a portion of the public redevelopment costs in the additional area subject to Redevelopment Plan 85-1 by the 1993 Amendment and with respect to property adjoining such additional area which is already subject to Redevelopment Plan 85-1. 2..Approval of 1993 Amendment. The 1993 Amendment which has been presented to this Board and is ordered placed on file in the office of the Executive Director of the EDA, and the 1993 Amendment is hereby approved. The 1993 Amendment further serves the original goals and purposes of the City and HR~ in approving Redevelopment Plan 85-1, Redevelopment Project 85-1 and Financing Plan 85-1, by developing property in the City and providing facilities which will be of benefit to all residents of the City. 3. Presentation to City Council. The 1993 Amendment hereby approved shall be presented to the City Council for a public hearing thereon pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.029, subdivision 6 and Section 469.175, subdivision 4. Dated the llth day of October, 1993. President Attest: Executive Director -2- EDA ' ~} REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager EDA /0-11-93 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant By: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A CLOSE~/MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF NEW HOPE AUTHORIZED BY MINN. STATUTE §471.705 TO DISCUSS LITIGATION/SETTLEMENT STRATEGY ON THE DOYLE/LEE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS Staff requests that a closed meeting, of the Economic Development Authority be held on October 11, 1993, immediately following the adjournment of the regular meeting of the New Hope City Council. The purpose of the meeting shall be the discussion of settlement alternatives and prosecution/defense strategies in connection with the litigation of Hennepin County District Court File No. DC-2290. The enclosed resolution calls for a closed meeting, as authorized by Minnesota Statute §471.705. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. · o: Review: Adrrdntstration: Finance: RFA-O01 l~ EDA RESOLUTION NO. 93-__ RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A CLOSED MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF NEW HOPE AUTHORIZED BY MINN. STAT. §471.705 TO DISCUSS LITIGATION/SETTLEMENT STRATEGY ON THE DOYLE/LEE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. §471.705, Subd. l(d) authorizes and permits the Economic Development Authority in and for the City New Hope (hereafter EDA) to hold a closed meeting to discuss EDA issues and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, and WHEREAS, the EDA commenced or has been made a party to a lawsuit or been threatened with litigation which has presently activated its right under the referenced statute to hold a closed meeting, and WHEREAS, specifically the EDA is a party to a lawsuit commenced pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chap. 117 identified as Hennepin County District Court File No. CD - 2290 for the purpose of determining whether an appeal should be made to District Court from the Award of Commissioners, and WHEREAS, a closed meeting of the EDA is necessary to consider the acceptance or rejection of a settlement offer/proposal and to consider various legal strategies for the continued prosecution or defense of said action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope as follows: 1. That a closed meeting of the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope shall be held on October 11, 1993 immediately following the adjournment of the regular meeting of the New Hope City Council, or adjournment of the regular meetings of the New Hope EDA or HRA in the event said public bodies have a regularly scheduled meeting on said day, at the New Hope City Council Chambers. 2. That the purpose of the meeting shall be the discussion of settlement alternatives and prosecution/defense strategies in connection with litigation of Hennepin County District Court File No. DC - 2290. 3. That said meeting shall not be open to the public, 4. That the New Hope City Clerk is hereby directed to tape record the closed meeting and preserve the tape recording for a period of two years from the date of the meeting, 5. That the New Hope City Clerk shall prepare a written roll of the members and all other persons present at the closed meeting and make said roll available for public inspection upon adjournment of the closed meeting, Adopted by the New Hope City Council this 11th day of October, 1993. Edw. J, Erickson, President Attest: Daniel J. Donahue, Executive Director CORRICK & SONDRALL A P~TNER~HIP OF PROFE~ONAL CORPORATfONS I~W~RS CORRICKwlLLIAMLAW OFFICES,j. CORRIcKPA' F~llnbu~gh Executtve Office Plaza LE~*L~TA.,s STEVe, A. SO,ORAL,, P,~ 8525 F_~inbrook Crossing ~VO,,EE. ~S~E STEVEN A.SONORALL a~CHAEL R. ~FLEUR Suite #203 SHARON OERBY ~, p. U~¢N^ Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 WILLIAM C. STRAIT TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671 FAX (612) 425-5867 Distribution of Letter and Awards of Commissioners: City Council October 5 1993 City Attorney ' City Manager City Clerk Daniel J. Donahue City Manager City of New Hope 4401X¥1on Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: North Ridge/Carebreak Adult Day Care Center Condemnation Our File No: 99.53010 Dear Dan: Please find enclosed a proposed Resolution calling for a closed meeting of the Economic Development Authority. The meeting is necessary to d~scuss litigation/settlement strategy in connection with the eminent domain proceedings on the Doyle and Lee Bros. property. As you know, these are the properties being acquired to construct the Carebreak Adult Day Care Center. On September 9th and 10th, 1993, hearings were conducted to determine damages resulting from the taking of the properties. Enclosed are the Award of Commissioners regarding said hearings. The awards are as follows: Doyle property - $277,177.00; Lee property - $56,100.00. Both parties were also awarded appraisal fees of $500.00, therefore that amount should also be added to the above figures. Regarding the Lee award, I am not recommending an appeal. As you know, we used Brad Bjorklund as our appraiser in this matter. Bjorklund's opinion for damages on the Lee property is $58,000. The appraiser for the Lee Bros. estimated damages at SgO,O00. As you can see, the Commissioners adopted the Bjorklund appraisal awarding the Lee Bros. only $100 in excess of our appraiser's opinion of damages. The award for the Doyle property does, however, cause some concern. Bjorklund's opinion on damages is $141,000.00. The appraiser for Mr. Daniel J. Donahue October 5, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Doyle estimated damages at $371,800.00. The award is $94,623.00 below the property owner's appraisal, but $136,177.00 above our own appraisal submitted by Bjorklund. [ spoke with Commissioner Newsome regarding the high award. Basically, the Commission concluded the highest and best use of the Doyle property is R-4 or R-5 multiple residenti~l~ not industrial. They came to this conclusion because the Pheasant Park apartment complex is 500 feet north of the Doyle property and the North Ridge Nursing Home complex is right across the street. Therefore, they accepted the property owner's position that it is highly probable the City would allow a rezoning to utilize the Doyle property for a multiple residential use despite the fact it is bordered on three sides by industrial property and located in an identifiable industrial park, I take some exception to their logic. Specifically, the Commission has not properly analyzed the costs associated with the construction of a multiple residential facility on the Doyle property. These costs are connected to both soil correction and administrative and legal fees necessary to obtain a rezoning assuming the City would allow R-4 or R-5 zoning for this property. The soil correction costs are the most troubling issue. Basically, these costs might be anywhere from $50,000 to $300,000 depending upon the type of building constructed upon the site. If we buy into the Commission's logic and assume that an apartment complex will be built on the site, like the Pheasant Park complex 500 feet to the north, si9nificant soil correction costs will be incurred. These costs will reduce the fair market value of the site dollar for dollar. Obviously, if a single story industrial building were constructed on the site, the soil correction costs would be much cheaper. Currently, Bonestroo's office is preparing an analysis of construction costs for soil correction due to the poor soils on that site. When that analysis is completed, we will be in a better ,.position to gauge the reasonableness of the Commissioners' award. If Bonestroo's estimate of soil correction costs comes in low, say $50,000, the present award may not be unreasonably high. If the property is buildable with correctable soil, the square foot value of the property may be as high as $2.00. The site is basically 148,800 square feet. Multiplying that number by $2.00 gives us a value on the property of $297,600.00. You will recall that we paid $2.00 a square foot for the Custom Mold property adjacent to and Mr. Daniel J. Donahue October 5, 1993 Page 3 west of the Doyle property. Therefore, considering a $50,000 soil correction cost, the fair market value of the property would be $247,000.00. If we appealed this case to argue about $30,000, we may quickly reach the point of diminishing returns in that court costs and legal fees may be $10,000 on the low side and $20,000 on the high side. However, if the cost for soil correction is in the $100,000 to $200,000 range, the case should be appealed and we should try the matter unless the property owner is willing to significantly reduce his settlement price. I recommend that we discuss these issues with the EDA at a closed meeting on October 11th, 1993. It is my understanding that the award will be filed on October 5th. If the award is filed on October 5th, we will have 40 days from said date to appeal this matter to District Court. If we appeal the matter to District Court, there will be a trial de nero on these damages issues. Please bear in mind, however, that we run the risk of having to pay the property owner's appraisal and expert witness fees if the property owner is successful in District Court. Unfortunately, the eminent domain law does not provide for the property owner to pay our expert witness and appraisal fees if the EDA is successful. Please contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, ORIGINAL SIGNED Steven A. Sondral] slt3 Enclosures cc: Kirk McDonald, Management Asst~ R ~ Valerie Leone City Clerk ~~iSCOPYFO ~;;,[ bps: Val, this letter is not for publication in the regular agenda packet nor should it be made available to the public in connection with the regular agenda for the October 11th meeting, SAS STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT The Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Pe~itioner, AWARD OF COMMISSIONERS VS. Court File No. CD-2290 Melvin J. Doyle, Elsa M. Doyle, Charles W. Lee, Jr., Audrey J. Lee, Robert E. Lee,. David G. Lee, Lee Bros. Co., et. al. Respondents, IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES The undersigned Commissioners, appointed by the above-named Court, having qualified according to law, met as directed by the Order of the Court appointing them as Commissioners, given notice in writing of the time and place of their meetings, heard the allegations and proofs of all persons interested in touching the matters committed to them, heard testimony publicly under oath from those person wishing to be heard in connection with said taking, and in their presence viewed the lands hereinafter described, completed such hearings as were requested by parties appearing with respect to said lands, now hereby make the following award of damages, which in their judgment will result to the owners of the premises described in the petition (5425 Boone Avenue North--New Hope, Minnesota 55428), and to any party having an interest therein by reason o the taking of said Parcel by the Petitioner. The total award of damages to all persons or parties interested in the premises is hereby found and determined to be in the sum of $56,100.00. Said award is made as follows: TO: Charles W. Lee, Jr., Audrey J. Lee, Robert E. Lee, David G. Lee, and Lee Bros. Co.: $56,100.00 TOTAL DAMAGES~ $56,100.00 The aforesaid award of damages is made subject to the following: 1. The owners' obligation to pay the taxes, special assessments, street maintenance and other annual charges due and payable in the year of 1993 and prior years, with penalties, if any. We further report that each of the undersigned Commissioners viewed the parcel and that all the undersigned participated in hearing all testimony of the interested parties which was offered for consideration and participated in ascertaining, determining, assessing and awarding damages for the taking of the Parcel. Appraisal fees of $500.00 are awarded. Dated: September 21, 1993 O. Jerome Newsom Commissioner Claire Hickey Commissioner R. David Lang Commissioner This instrument was drafted by: Newsom Law Offices 200 South Sixth Street #215 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT The Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Pe~i~ioner, AWARD OF CC~4ISSIONERS VS. Court File No. CD-2290 Melvin J. Doyle, Elsa M. Doyle, Charles W. Lee, Jr., Audrey J. Lee, Robert E. Lee,. David G. Lee, Lee Bros. Co., et. al. Respondents. IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES The undersigned Commissioners, appointed by the above-named Court, having qualified according to law, met as directed by the Order of the Court appointing them as Commissioners, given notice in writing of the time and place of their meetings, heard the allegations and proofs of all persons interested in touching the matters committed to them, heard testimony publicly under oath from those person wishing to be heard in connection with said taking, and in their presence viewed the lands hereinafter described, completed such hearings as were requested by parties appearing with respect to said lands, now hereby make the following award of damages, which in their judgment will result to the owners of the premises described in the petition (5501 Boone Avenue North--New Hope, Minnesota 55428), and to any party having an interest therein by reason o the taking of said Parcel by the Petitioner. The total award of damages to all persons or parties interested in the premises is hereby found and determined to be in the sum of $277,177.00. Said award is made as follows: TO: Melvin J. Doyle and Elsa M. Doyle: $277,177.00 TOTAL DAMAGES: $277,177.00 The aforesaid award of damages is made subject to the following: 1. The owners' obligation to pay the taxes, special assessments, street maintenance and other annual charges due and payable in the year of 1993 and prior years, with penalties, if any. We further report that each of the undersigned Commissioners viewed the parcel and that all the undersigned participated in hearing all testimony of the interested parties which was offered for consideration and participated in ascertaining, determining, assessing and awarding damages for the taking of the Parcel. Appraisal fees of $~00.00 are awarded. Dated: September 21, 1993 O. Jerome Newsom Commissioner Claire Hickey Commissioner R. David Lang Commissioner This instrument was drafted by: Newsom Law Offices 200 South Sixth Street #215 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Man ager ...-~1 O-11- 93 E_nA Item No. By: Dan Donahue Bye// 6 / DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE REGARDING CONDUCT AND LICENSING OF MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL DWELLINGS Staff wishes to discuss with the EDA Brooklyn Park's recently adopted ordinance concerning rental premises. MOTION BY SECOND BY Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Some find success in quelling suburban crime Brooklyn Park takes a strong stand at its apartment complexes city had been basking in new crime to city officials, had owners who The Groves had one of its buildings "We want them to know if they get ,,,~,,~c, that showed Brooklyn Park weren't too picky about their tenants, demolished, saw some units get title- was among the very few Twin Cities places and was renamed ~he Cotton- I~rooklyn Park, the Twin Cities' sec- evicted, they're not going to find housing ,,~,,t~ with a drop in crime in 1992. Quickly, the city showed il. wis seri. wood. oar-latest suburb, is toutin~ the re- , ous. And one of the initial Utr~ets was suits of an ambitious campaign to ir)Brooklyn Park aoain.' n,t last Thursday the city awok~ to Cedarbrooke, a 144-unit aparlment Police calls to the former Cedar- turn ilself around, a pro,ram that lind that the daughter-in-law of the building with 1,119 police calls in brooke plummeted. Since May, po- cajoles and at times legally threatens Kr[~ (~r~lh~m former mayor had been murdered in just two years. Another was The lice have only been called t~ the the city's large aparlment owners in an apparent home burglary. Groves, another 144-unit complex complex four limes, including once ~ attempt to control unruly tenants. ~ I ~ where nine police officers were once when a previous msm~,r drove ~ "ll's just a terrible tragedy," said involved in a shootout, to see the remodeling and residents !~ St. Louis Park, the city's largest As new figures show suburban crime month public relations firm thai are Dick Koop, who owns a grocery store made a suspicious-vehicle rePOrt. ~mployer. Methodist Hospilal. now inching upward, these cities' efforls all part of a drive to show the city's in town. "But it doesn't stop our Cedarbrooke was almosl entirely re- "This is all you're Ioitm~ to ~ee from anchors a network of local compa- show how some suburbs are grap- seriousness in reversing its image as a resolve. We've Sol Io continue on." modeled, and by turning il into hous- [seniors]," said Dave Johnson, set- hies who study police repons to spot piing with new ways to counler rising decaying inner suburb with a $rowin$ ins for 55-and-over tenants, ¥inuatly vices director for lhe citY's poli~e .;~ime trends, ranging from parking, crime, crime problem. The main target has been the city's every occupant was forced out. Frank department. I~.t exhibitionists to car-theft rings 6,200 apartments, many of which fan Lang of Lang-Nelson Associates, Ce- t~t ~a~et Honda Accords. "We're Many ~uburbs are watchi, n~ Brooklyn City officials are calling the campaign across Brooklyn Park's southern bor- darbrooke's owner, estimates that $2 The cit~"~ focu~ on apm'tment owners s~..in~ the city movinl out to the Park. The city's campaign has a slo- a success, though they have come to der in large complexes alon~ the 3- million in public and private money was even more hard-nosed, and s/4ibus'bs," explained Dick Barrett, the ~an ~ "Come Home To the Park" realize thai one day's accomplish- mile Zane Ay. corridor. Most were was spent on the complex, which was rnlscd eyebrows over how far City id~l~lal's security di~'clor. '-- a special police car dubbed the ments can be soured by the next built in the 1960s, were the source of renamed The Waterford. -~ Shazam mobile, and a $4,000-a- day's headlines. For two weeks, the' increasing police calls and, according Brooklyn Pmrk continued on p~e 5B BrooklYn Park/By law, owners respons e fOr tenants C~ltnued from p~e lB tenant~ and -- addressin~ a bi~prob- lions supervisor, anywhere from one to 10 buildings, printout listing all the police calls to pied. leto ~ were told to b~ truthful in their complex. Hall should get involved in privately delailing the rental history of tenants. Not every apartment owner joined But the city had another, even Iouch- "We found a nice Cadillac," he said. run buildings. In 1992, the city Apartment owners had long corn- eagerly, and some balked al what ier, problem- makinj~ sure ils ac- Al Trailrid~e Apartmems last week, · passed a new ordinance holding plainer that other owners would sim- they saw as a heavy-handed attempt tions were not seen as d~scriminalory Kolb unfolded the printout for Rosa- At Villa Del Coronado, Kolb listened aparlment owners responsible for the ply lie about their lenants' behavior by the city to tell them how to run as it $o! tou~h on lenanls in a cily to lind Jackson, the lensin~ consultant, as Oyen, the site man,er, described cond~scl of their tenants. The philos- m order to let rid of them. their buildings. "In the beginning, the which more pear end minoritie~ are Police were called 29 times to Trail- how some "liltle pukes" hsd stolen a ~ ophy, says one cily official, was "to city started blaming all the aparlment movin& The cie/'s mim~ily popula- ridge last month, and Jackson off- bicycle, only to be chased by a group ' get an owner to think our way." What happened was Ihal many prob- owners," said Lang, owner of The lion, which rt.p,~enmt just 4.4 per- handedly Ialks of the death threal she of angry res,dents. leto tenants would be evicted from Waterford. cenl of the population in 1980, was recently got for informing on a ten- '' if police are called lo an apartment one complex and simply move across 9.4 percent of the Iolal in 1990. ant. And al The Regent, with 20 police ';* twice in three months for anylhie4 the street lo another. "If they'r~ sty- "The city was istlraclin$ is dystrum:- calls in September, Kolb ponde~ ·" from noisy p~rties lo weapons viola- ins you, 'Oh, Ihey're the ~realesl per- tional ~roup of people," he said. "If "Race, creed or color, thal's not the The prinlout shows the usual assort- police reports rnn~ing from a man "lions, owners now musl submit a son in ~he wodd'and they've had 77 you hsd 10 people apply for nn n~rl- issue," said Morr~..Nelson, who meat of calls: A suspicious man impersonntinn a federal officer l0 written reporl delailing what lhey'rg police calls n y~r," you then ~et lhe meat, nine of them were dysfune- heads Apartment which, another found slnndinljl nlop s garage saying someone dislocating ,~ shoulder in doin~ about the problem. If Ihere's a problem, Ndd Ctm Oyen, who man- lionnl ... and the 10Ih wnsn*l Ibm! new organization in the city !o help he was collecting rocks, n blue Ford the swimming pool. IhiMincidenl it the same apartment a$es the I92-unil Villa Del Corona- much belier." But Lan{, said the unite apartment owners in weeding whose occupants a~e believed lo be r* within three more months, the city do. city's actions, in$1ead of undersland- out bad tenants. "If you're a drug selling drugs, and kids playing with a Most of these pla~-s, said Kolb, ate ~ can suspend or remove the license ink the owners' dilemma, amounted dealer, nobody warns you." smoldering barbecue. Cindy Shaw, dramatically improved over what :" aliowinl the owner Io rgnl the alNIrl- City officials said the aim was to to "kickingus when we're down." Trnilrid~e's head housekeeper, told they once we're. Even Century '~ meal force al~rUnenl owners to be allies in Onewaypolicenndap~rtmentowno Kolb about Ihe man who keeps Courts, the city's largesl complex, ha~ I ' sending · messale lo lenanls. "We Lang admils tempers have cooled, ers keep a close eye on thin{s is sounding a police siren. A mainte- had a noteworlhy drop in police call{ " Ownera were encoun~ to join a wahl Ihem to tnow if they{el evict- The cily-supporled property-mann{er through David Kolb and Terry OI- nance man described the surprising this year, said Kolb. gui he added, newly formed properly mann{ers' co- ed, they're not Ioinl lo find-housing coalition now has represenlalives son, Iwo city police otlicers who er- number of Cars -- mosl minus Ii- paging Ihrou{h the printouls: "!1'~ · alillon, were ur{ed lo use profession, in Brooklyn lark alain," said Kris from 36 of the 44 apartment corn- e~ month si! down with each -,pan- cease plales ~ found parked in ga- Iough. You gel lhe feelin{ you're do. al companies Io screen prospective Graham, Ihe city's housin~ Jasper- plexes in Brooklyn Park consisting of meat owner lo go over a computer ra~es Ihal aren't supposed lo be occu- lng everybody's laundry." OrdinancG ~92 - An Ordinance Amending Section 455 of the City Code by Adding Section 455:50, Relating to Conduct on Licensed Rental Premises and Amending Section 319:85 Subd. 4 by Repealing Subsection (d). The City of Brooklyn Park does ordain : Section 455:50 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 4~5:50 CONDUCT ON LICENSED PREMISES. ~ It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to see that peusons occuDvina the licensed premises condu¢~ themselves in such a manner as not to cause the premises to be disorderly. For DUrDoses of this Section. a premises is disorderly at which any of the followina activities occur; Violat$°n of Section 965:00 o~ the city Code CNoisv Parties) Vio~atio~ of Section 9~;00 of t~. C~t¥ Code [U~lawfu] Possession. Delivery or Purchase~ or violatio~ o~ laws relatina to the possession of controlled substances aS define~ in Minnesota Statutes. Section 152.01 et. sea. ¢, Violation of Section 920:00 o'f the City_ Code ~Disorder~y Conduct~ or violation of laws relatina to disorderly ~onduct aS de~i~ed in Minnesota Statutes. Sec{ion 609,72, d_=. Vio~atio~ O~ Sectioa 805:Q0 and 810:00 of D~ City Code (Unlawful sale of i~toxicatina liauor or nonintoxicating malt liauor} or violation of laws relatina to the ~a~e of intoxicatina liauor as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Sectiops ~40.70~, 34~702. or 340~703. e. Violatio~ of Section 970:00 of the City Code Ind~ce~ Conduct~ or violation of laws re~ati~q to Drostitq~On or acts relatina t9 urostitution a~ de~ed in Minnesota Statutes. Section 609.321. Subdivision 9. f. Vio~t~on of Section 950:00 o~ t~e City Code CWeaDo~s) or violation of laws relatina to unlawful use or Do~sess~on of a firgarm as defined in Minne~ota Statutes, $~ct~op 609.66 et. sea.. on the licensed oremises. g, Violations of Section 900:00 of the City Code CAssaul~s} or ]~---=!~ ~l&tf~ to assault, includina domestic assault as defined ~p Minnesota Statutes, Section 604.224. h. Violation of laws relatin~ to contribut~nq to need for ~ protection or services or de~nqueDcv of a minor as defined in ~innesota Statutes. Section 260.315. ~_~ The ~itv Ma~aaer shall be responsible for enforcement and administration of this ordinance. Authority to take any action authorized under this section may be deleqated to the city Manaaer's authorized desianee. ~bd. 3. UPon determination by the City Manager that a licensed premises was used in a disorderly manner, as described in Subdivision ~, the City Manager shall ~ive notice to the licensee of t~ violation and direct the licensee to take ete~s to ~revent. further violations. Subd. 4. If anotheN instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises occurs within three ¢3~ months of an incident for which a notice...in · Subdivision 3 was oiven, the City Man·asr shall notifv the licensee of the violation and shall also require th9 licensee to submit a written report of the actions taken, and PrOPOSed to be taken, by the licensee to prevent further disorderly use of the premises. This written report shall be submitted to the City Manaoer within five (5} days of receipt of the notice of disorderly use 9~ th~ premises ~nd shall detail all actions taken by the licensee .in response to all notices of disorderly use o~ th~ premises within the Dr~edinq three ¢3) mont~, Subd. 5, If another instance ~ disorder~¥ use o~ the licensed pF~m~se~ occurs within, three {3) months after any two previou~ ~nstan=es of disor~er~v use for which notices wet9 ~iven to the license~ pursua~.t to tbis ~e~t~pn..~._t_~9_.re~eal ~}.l~n~ license for th~ .' ~ d us e t ewe . v ' o d t is section shall ~ i~itl&ted bv the Citv Manager who shall ~i~ to the licensee written n~ic~ ~f · hearina before the C~v council to consider such deni&~, revocation suspe~gio~ or non~re~w~%, Such written notice shall SPecifY all violations of this sect%on, and shall stat~ th9 date. time. place and purpose of the hearing. The he·riBa shall be held no less than ten (10) days and no more than thirtv ($0) days after alvin· such n~t~Ge. F~11~m~--~:4~m~-k------i~. the Council ~¥ deriv, revoke, suspend or decline tO renew th9 license for all. or any part or parts of the licensed premises or may ·rant a l~cense upon such ~pFms and conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this section. Subd, 6, No adverse ~icense action shall be imposed wher~ the instance of ~ disorderly use of the licensed premises occurred duriDq th~ Dendencw of eviction proceedinas (unlawful detainer~ or within thirty (30% days of notice aiven by the licensee to a tenant to vacate the premises where the disorderly use was related to conduct by that tenant or bv other occumants or ~uests O~ the tenant'~ unit, Eviction'mroceedinas shall not be a bar..~9 adverse %~cense action, however, unless thev are diliqen~lv pursued by th, licensee. Further. an action to deny. revoke, suspend, or. not renew a license based umon violations of this section may b- DOStDOned or discontinued at any time if it appears that the licensee has taken amDroDriate measures which will DreveDt further instances o~ disorderly use. Subd. 7. A determination that the licensed premises have been used in a disorderly manner as described in subdivision I shall be made uDon ~ fair p~eponderance of the evidence to sUpport such a determination. It mh&ll ~ ~ ~ceesarv that criminal charoes be brought in order to suDoort a determination of disorderly u~e, nor shall the fact of dismissal or acquittal o~ ~uch a criminal charge oDera~ as a bar to adverse license ac%~oD under this sect%on. Subd. 8. All notices ~ive~ by the City under tb%s sectio~ shall be personally served on the licensee, sent by registered mail to the liceDsee's last known address or. if neither method of service effects notice, bv Dostinq on a consDicuous Dlace on the licensed Subd. 9. Enforcement actions provided in this section shall not be exclusive, and the City Council may tako any action 'Jith respect to a licensee, a tenant, or the licensed premises as is authorized bv the city Code, state or federal law. Section 319:~5 Subd. 4 Subsection (d) of the City Code is hereby repealed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 145.22. Section 319=85. Compliance Order. Whenever the Compliance Official determines that any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit or portion thereof is in violation of this or any other ordinance, he may issue a Compliance Order setting forth the violations of the ordinance and ordering the owner, occupant, operator or agent to correct such violations. This Compliance Order shall: Subd. 1. Be in writing. Subd. 2. Describe the location and nature of the violations of this ordinance. Subd. 3. Establish a reasonable time for the corrections of such violation and notify the owner of his appeal recourse. Subd. 4. Be served upon the owner or his agent or the occupant,.as the case may require. Such notice shall be deemed to be properly served upon such owner or agent, or upon any such .occupant, if a copy thereof a. Served upon him personally; or b. Sent by registered mail to his last known address; or .. c. Upon failure to effect notice through (1) or (2) as set out in this section, service may be made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 463.17, Subd. 2, which reads as follows: "Service. This order shall be served upon the owner of record, of his agent if an agent is in charge of the building, and upon the occupying tenant, if there is one, and upon all lien holders of record, in the manner provided for service of a summons in a civil action. If the owner cannot be found, the order shall be served upon him by posting it at the main entrance to the building and by four weeks' publication in the official newspaper of the municipality if it has one, otherwise in a legal newspaper in the county."; or bEQUEST FOH COUNCIL ACTION Page 2 Primary Issues to ConV~de~ o How does this ordinance amendment to the Rental Housing Dwelling Licensing Code relate to an overall coordinated program in controlling conduct on licensed rental housing premises? o Will additional staff be required to carry out actions under this new ordinance? Analysis of Issues 1. City staff working on housing problems have long recognized that undesireable and often unlawful conduct of residents, guests, and others on and nearby licensed rental premises has been a menace to the community in general. The Brooklyn Park Property Managers' Coalition has also recently brought this problem forward and asked for City cooperation toward resolution. ' / responsible members of the Brooklyn Park Property Managers, Coalition have been cooperative in taking care to not rent to undesireable tenants. Many are using third party screening agencies, model lease forms and have made considerable efforts to remove problem residents from thei'~ propertie~. /H~wever-/-~he~:~'0Perty'~'manager;'-~~'staff r&;°gniz, that some rental ~' property owners and managers take no responsiblity for the conduct of '~ persons on their properties. It is for that reason this ordinance %~~ndment has been developed and presented to City Council. Unit-]~f-uai~.lj~j~S~..;f rental housing provided part'Of'the solution. Th[s' ord[nan~e~nt combined with unit-by Unit licensure will enable us to resolve some of the City's most fundamental rental housing problems with a great deal of precision. Th~"~olice Depar~men=, Protective Inspections Division, City Council, Property Managers' Coalition and general public will all play important roles in its application. 2. No additional staff will be required to implemen= enforcement of this ordinance amen~en=. Existing staff will be enabled 2o resolve problems fha= they could no2 othe~ise resolve. Reco~eudatton Staff recommends approval upon first reading. r FOR COUNCI ACTION ..... · A~, ucno~ PROTECTIVE INSPE~IONS ~ ~o.: x.xx ~: O~~ DEPAR~ENT: o~ ~~ ~ ~ A~ ~ 311:~ ~, 4 ~ ~ ~A~BY: I~ Id). Fr~ Pe(ch & K~e Gre~ ~ESE~D BY: , , Fr~ Patch ~ropossd action Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: MOTION . , SECOND , TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT ON FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 455 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 455:50 RELATING TO CONDUCT ON LICENSED RENTAL PREMISES AND AMENDING SECTION 319:85 SUBD. 4 BY REPEALING SUBSECTION (d). The effect of this action will be to clarify the intent of Rental Housing Dwelling Licensing Code Section 455:85 by specifying in ordinance the responsibilities of the rental housing licensee to see that persons occupying the licensed premises conduct themselves in such a manner as not to cause the premises to be disorderly; and to repeal city housing code reference to a section of State Law that was repealed in 1987. 0vsrview This ordinance amendment is one component of a comprehensive program involving police, housing inspections staff, and rental housing property managers and owners. Ail are interested in controlling conduct on licensed rental housing premises. The Community Development Department, Police Department and Brooklyn Park Property Managers' Coalition have met regularly over the past six months to investigate options for addressing undesirable and often unlawful conduct of residents, guests, and others entering on licensed rental property. Existing Rental Housing Code Section 455:85 generally requires compliance with City and State laws; however, it has the strong potential to be deemed unconstitutionally vague by the courts. This ordinance amendment attempts to reinforce the current ordinance by specifying unlawful acts which are detrimental to multiple family housing communities and their neighborhoods. Other provisions in ~his amendment specify how much disorderly conduct will be tolerated on rental premises before there is cause for the City to take action against the licensee; specify requirements for notice, city council hearing, and penalties which may be imposed by City Council. z DAN: The attached copy of an amendment to Brooklyn Park's Rental Housing Dwelling Licensing Code was passed on to me from Colin. He finds merit in it and wonders if we shouldn't implement something similar. ad it and tell me what you think. At this point in time New Hope does not need to address criminal proceedings through our multiple dwelling registrations (licensing). The only cities which now have the ability or the need are Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis. The only reason for implementing such amendments is because there are some property owners/managers in these cities who did not take responsibility for the conduct of their tenants. Through the Property Managers' Association we are trying to get across the importance of SCREENING applicants before they become poor tenants. This takes care of problems before they exist. I plan to discuss this new amendment at the next meeting of the property managers. I want to make it clear to them this is something we COULD DO at any time down the road, if necessary. Also, please note sections of our dwelling ord. (see purple tabs) 3.383 - which already gives us the power to revoke or withhold registration where there is no compliance with housing code orders. (I've never had to use it) 3.384 and the owner has not been declaceO un~ toe ~uma ~ y xremedied the de,ecrm w~tn~ a prescribed reasonable tzme, the build~ng may be declared a hazardous building and treated alternative, ~n ccmp~ance w~th Chapter 9. ~. . 3.379 zlt-In De~tckenctes. Certain specific deficiencies may be deemed Co e beyon~ =eascna~le coc=ect~on by the DireCto~ .of Fi=e and Salary, Such deficiencies s~aZ1 De l~miced to the followkng: (1) ~ei~inq ~e~ht. Any existing habitable room with less than a seven tooc ceiling ~eigbt shall be considered a built-kn deficiency wb~cn ~s Oeyon~ =easonable correction. (2) SgPer~tc~a[ Floor Area. Any existing habitable room of less then n~nety square ~eet sn~ll be considere~ a built-in deficiency beyo~ reasonaDle correction. (3) Natural L~qht an~ Ventilation. Any existing habiCable room with w~n~ow area leSS than ten percent of the floor area shall be considered a buZlC-zn ~eficiency beyond reasonable correction but in no case snell the required natural light and ventilation be less than f~ve percent of the floor area. 3.38 APPEALS,; IES AND SANC~ON~ " F~re anu Safety pursuan~ tO the Dwelling Code ate governed by an~ subjec% ~o the provisions of Chap%er 1. a~ter rzg~c of appeal has expired, and any person who fails to'comply w~th a modified compliance O~aer within the time sec therein, and any person who v~olated any of the provisions of this Dwellling Code by doxng any act o~ ~icting %0 do any acc which constitutes a breach any section, snell be guilty of a misdemeanor. sa~= ~S~C~- ~- i.~-~.~-~evoke4, or renewal :hereof 3.384 Execution of Compliance Orders b~ Public Authority. Upon failure to comply w~t~ a ComP,~anc. Order w~cn~n ~n. ~,m. s.~ that.in an~ no appeal having ~e~ taken, or upon failure to com~ly with a Compliance Order within the time set therein, the criminal penalty estaml~sne~ hereunder notwithstanding, the City Counci~ay by re~olut~on cause t~e cite4 ~e~iciency to b~remedied as set forth the C~iance Order. The cost o~ such remedy shall be a lien the ~ub]e=% rea~ estate and may be levied an~ collected as a assessment in the manner provided by Minnesota Statu~es. (Ord. 77-~5 ) 3-35 072686 (6) Minimu~ $~andsrds N ...... ~ ........ : ~ ~~llin OCCU~=O~ car~ ~=il c~p~iance la made. The Bu~iding  Inspector s~all inspect each multiple dwe!ling to ascertain ~t complies w%th such requirements befcr~ ~suance. No person shall occupy as owner-occupan~ or let to another fcr occupancy any dwelling unit ~n a multiple dwelling for ~e purpose of , living, sleeping, cooking or eating tnerean, which does compky w~th the regu~rements set fcrt~ ~n %~s Code, or which has not been issued a "recelp=ed copy of regls~ras~on" and ~ccupancy 3.34~Maintenance of Basic Services ann {1) Pl~bin9, Heatinqr an,d ile=trical Service: Every owner respons~bie for ~ne provision and main~enance of pl:~bin9, heating, electrical, and ventilating service %o every occupied port,on o~ every building. (2) Sub,lied ~eat to Non-Controlling OccuR~_t: ~henever the occupant iacms direct control over ~he supplied neat to a dwelling unit, i= shall be the responsibility of the cwner that a temperature of a= least 68 degrees Fahrenheit, 2~ degrees Centigrace, or such lesser tempera=ute required by government authority, be ma~n=ained a= a distance of three feet above the floor in all habitable rooms, bathrooms and wauer clcse= ccmpar%m, ents. W~ere persons are employed in duties and operaticn~ in an enclosed space or room within non-residential facilities, and no= engaged in active physical activity, sufficient neat shall be provided in such spaces or rooms as to maintain a temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit, 20 degrees Centigrade, or such lesser temperature required by government authority at a distance of thre~ feet above the floor. (Code 081169) (3) CLimate Control as Inteqral Function: Wnen facilities for interior climate conCrg~ (heating, cooling, and/or humidity control) are integral functions of structures, it shall be %he responsibility of the owner that such facilities are maintained and opera=ed in a continuous manner and in acccrdance with %he designed capacity of the installed equipment. During insuances when the integral equipment is inoge=ative because of power or mechanical failure, alternative provisions for fresh air ventilation of every occupied portion of every building shall be the responsibility of the owner. 3.343 Structural Maintenance. (1) Structural Elements: Bvery owner of every building s~all be relponsi'ble for the maintenance of all s~ructura~ elements, including foundations, framework,, floors, ceillngs, eKterior and interior walls, roofs, windows, doors, screens, stairways, porches, balconies, platforms, balustrades, and every appurtenance thereto. (2) Reasonable Care~ Every occupant of every building shall be _~ responsible for ~he exercise of reasonable rare in the cleanin~i and opera~ion or use of all s~ructural e!emen~s. .ti~',._ 3-21 072684