Loading...
CCM 10/28/2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY OCTOBER 28, 2019 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember Ostwald Councilmember Tillberry Councilmember Eggert Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: Wally Wysopal, City Manager Daniel Tienter, Director of Finance/City Treasurer/City Clerk Jay Karlovich, City Attorney Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Dan Cahill, Neighborhood Preservation Specialist Matt Brown, 7661 Brigadoon Drive Attorney Albert Usumanu Abdulrzaq Ali, 5895 Central Avenue NE Tracy Honl-Zmuda, 980 Mississippi Street NE Michael Honl-Zmuda, 980 Mississippi Street NE Vicki Bode, 4863 Third Street NE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 1. City Council Meeting of October 14, 2019. APPROVED. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Resolution Approving Alternations in the Budget for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2019. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2019-60. 3. Resolution Receiving Report and Calling for Hearing on Improvement for 2020 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2020-01. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2019-61. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 2 4. Resolution Adopting the Anoka County 2019 Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazards Mitigation Plan. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2019-62. 5. Resolution Approving Gifts, Donations and Sponsorships for the City of Fridley. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2019-63. 6. Resolution Designating Time and Number of Council Meetings for 2020. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2019-64. 7. Approve Proposed 2020 Development Review Schedule for Planning Commission and City Council Action. APPROVED. 8. Claims: (186865 - 187013). APPROVED. ADOPTION OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Eggert to adopt the proposed consent agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Matt Brown, 7661 Brigadoon Drive, said he wanted to talk to Council about some parking rules. He heard that one of their constituents is unhappy with a rule regarding trailers and RVs, has lodged some complaints, and is lobbying to change that rule. He said he liked that rule the way it was. He and his family bought a travel trailer this year, and they come and go a few times a year. It is kind of tough with schedules and getting kids fed and to bed, and sometimes he leverages that 24-hour rule the City has - where he can come home and unpack. He said he knew other people in the neighborhood who do similar things and also like the rule. He just wanted them to hear both sides of the story. He said he was not trying to abuse the rule, and he has worked with Mr. Cahill and others. Mayor Lund stated he has seen Mr. Brown’s vehicle parked in his driveway. He asked if it fit in the driveway. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 3 Mr. Brown replied it does fit in his driveway. Initially, he did not think it would, so he got a spot for it at storage unit in Ham Lake. He said that was why they were parking on the street. They would come home, and he would have to unload it first and then take it to the storage unit. That idea did not work, but he realized he could get it up his driveway. He put it there, and he got a message from Mr. Cahill a few months later that said he was within 15 feet of the curb, and he was not allowed to park it in his driveway. Mayor Lund asked if he could move it so it is 15 feet away from the curb. Mr. Brown replied the trailer is 30 feet and the driveway is 40 feet. He found out he could park it near the side of the house. That is where it has been. However, late at night when he gets home and it is dark, it is kind of a tricky maneuver to get it up that hill and into that spot on the side of the house. Sometimes it sits on the street until the next day. Mayor Lund stated they are looking at the code. They just discussed it before the meeting tonight. They looked at this about 15-18 years ago. They are not trying to make it overly restrictive. They certainly understand, and that is one of the reasons they allowed a 24-hour period, up to twice a week, for people so they have a night to pack, and when they get back, a night to unpack. Mayor Lund stated in Mr. Brown’s case; his driveway may not work. The reason why it is 15 feet away is because they do not know where all the rights-of-way are. Some are 10 feet and some are 15 feet. It has been troublesome for Mr. Brown’s neighbors. He has told him to try and be neighborly and park it in his driveway whenever possible. The Council has asked the Planning Commission in the future to discuss it and maybe come up with some recommendations. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Eggert. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9. Consideration of the Revocation of the Motor Vehicle Body Repair License for th Flying Eagle Auto Service Located at 15 – 77 Avenue N.E. (Continued August 26, 2019) (Ward 3). MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to remove this item from the table. Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 4 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REMOVED FROM THE TABLE AT 7:09 P.M. Dan Cahill, Neighborhood Preservation Specialist, stated there have been complaints about junk vehicles, outside storage, and illegal street parking at this property since 2013. There is good news for all three businesses. They are no longer in violation. Street parking is no longer an issue here and there are no junk vehicles in the parking lot. Mr. Cahill recommends Council close the public hearing and take no action. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Eggert. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:10 P.M. 10. Consideration of the Revocation of the Motor Vehicle Body Repair License for Sky th High Automotive, Located at 17W – 77 Avenue N.E. (Continued August 26, 2019) (Ward 3). MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to remove this item from the table. Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REMOVED FROM THE TABLE AT 7:11 P.M. Dan Cahill, Neighborhood Preservation Specialist, stated there were complaints about outside storage, illegal storage, and an unpermitted spray booth since 2019 when they moved in. However, they are no longer in violation. The spray booth has been completed. There are no street parking issues, no parking lot issues, and they actually leased another area in their building. They have two sections to handle their flow of traffic. Everything is compliant with the City codes. Mayor Lund asked if they were able to add space because one of the other tenants moved out. Mr. Cahill replied, yes, the City Attorney sent a letter, because they did not have a license with the City, so they had to leave. Mr. Cahill recommends Council close the public hearing and take no action. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 5 Councilmember Bolkcom clarified that not only do they have a spray booth, but it has been approved by the building official and the Fire Department. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:13 P.M. 11. Consideration of the Revocation of the Auto Body Repair License for Auto Body th Shop, LLC, Located at 13W – 77 Avenue N.E. (Continued August 26, 2019) (Ward 3). MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to remove the public hearing from the table. Seconded by Councilmember Eggert. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REMOVED FROM THE TABLE AT 7:13 P.M. Dan Cahill, Neighborhood Preservation Specialist, stated there were complaints since 2013 about junk vehicles, outside storage, illegal parking, and then a spray booth that had not been properly installed. They are no longer in violation. They did complete their spray booth permit and did get a license with the City to have an auto shop there. Mr. Cahill recommends Council close the public hearing and take no action. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they have a motor vehicle body repair business license but on the bottom Mr. Cahill wrote, staff will issue the City license. She asked whether that is a different license. Mr. Cahill replied, yes, they have applied and done all the proper process but just needed the Council to no longer consider revocation in order to have a license. Councilmember Bolkcom asked and by doing that tonight he is saying that they will have a license issued. Mr. Cahill replied, they are saying the business is compliant with all City codes and no longer in violation. He does not see why they would not renew their license. Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether that is a separate license or are they doing that by having this public hearing and saying it is okay to issue. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 6 Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, replied what they are saying is the review has been done and by closing the public hearing in the record they recognize the license can now be issued. The holdup was this. He asked the City Attorney if that is correct. Jay Karlovich, City Attorney, replied that is correct. Councilmember Bolkcom stated, as part of the public record, staff may issue the City license after this City Council meeting as no additional action is needed. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Eggert. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:16 P.M. 12. Consideration of the Proposed Assessment for the 2019 Nuisance Abatements; and Resolution Adopting the Assessment for the 2019 Nuisance Abatements. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:17 P.M. Daniel Tienter, Director of Finance/City Treasurer/City Clerk, stated Minn. Stat. Ch. 429 authorizes municipalities to finance certain improvements using special assessments against the benefitting properties. State law outlines a series of so-called improvements and among them are nuisance abatements. Consistent with that law, the City has also adopted Chapter 128 of the Code which allows it to recoup costs associated with abatement. It is important to note the costs include things like administrative fees, contractor and vendor charges, removal and storage costs, and of course City staff time. Mr. Tienter stated Chapter 110 of the City Code also defines what constitutes a public nuisance. These include things, just as a general statement, that unreasonably annoy or endanger the danger, safety, health, or comfort of the public. Under more specific issues, these include things such as obstruction of right-of-way, storage of junk or motor vehicles, improper storage of hazardous materials, and uncovered wells or holes. Mr. Tienter stated consistent with the process outlined in those regulations, the City must go through a series of steps. The first was on September 23 when Council declared the costs to be assessed and ordered the preparation of the proposed assessment roll, which is included in the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 7 agenda packet this evening. The public hearing was scheduled for tonight. On September 26, City staff mailed notices to all the impacted property owners and published the notice of this public hearing in the October 4 edition of the City’s official newspaper. Mr. Tienter stated as outlined in their memorandum, prior to the public notice, there were about 63 properties with assessments totaling just under $75,000. Following the notice, they did have a handful of people come in and pay, so the final assessment roll contains 57 properties with assessments totaling approximately $69,823. In 2017, there were 32 properties with assessed values of just under $19,000; and in 2018 there were 26 properties with just over $19,000. Mr. Tienter stated typical to the special assessment process, the property owners have a period of time to pay if the assessment is approved by the Council. Per City policy, they establish their interest rate at 2 points above the prime rate, which was established earlier this year when the prime rate was 5.25 percent. It has slid a little lower recently, but the City has maintained that rate since other assessments this year were adopted at the 7.25 percent. Mr. Tienter stated the property owners can pay their assessment interest-free for 30 days following the adoption of the assessment roll by the Council. Because of the Thanksgiving holiday, the payments will be accepted until November 27. Mr. Tienter stated in Fridley that a person can pay all or at least half of the assessment, and that partial payment must exceed at least $100. Then any remaining balance will be included in the assessment roll that is certified to the County for collection with property taxes. Mr. Tienter stated during this public hearing, Council may accept comments about the assessments and accept any oral or written objections. Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 requires that no appeal may be taken after this step unless the affected property owner files a written objection with the City Clerk prior to this public hearing or during the public hearing and presenting it to the presiding officer, which in this case is the Mayor. Mr. Tienter stated at the time this presentation was put together the City has received three written objections and shortly before the meeting this evening they received a fourth. Following the properly filed objection this evening, the property owner may appeal the assessment by serving notice on the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after adoption and then within 10 days thereafter, they also have to file their appeal with district court. Mr. Tienter stated it is important to note that in 1995 the Council adopted a deferment option for retired or disabled property owners. The property owner must own a qualified homestead, be 65 years or older, and retired by virtue of a permanent disability that would constitute a hardship. They must make application within 30 days after the adoption of this assessment, and they do have to meet certain income standards that are outlined in the application process. If anyone is interested in exploring this deferment opportunity, they can reach out to the Finance Department who can provide them with the appropriate paperwork and walk them through the process. Mr. Tienter stated the recommendation this evening is to conduct the public hearing and then adopt the resolution, essentially adopting the proposed assessment as final. Upon approval and FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 8 then after that November 27 deadline passes, the City Clerk will transmit the certified copy of the resolution to the County Auditor. Attorney Albert Usumanu stated he is here on behalf of Edmundo Villalobos (regarding property located at 5974 Third Street NE). He would like to keep it simple by saying the first thing his client got was an invoice. He never received any violation notice. He got an invoice dated September 18. After receiving this invoice to pay $673.37, he did not know what it was about, there was a phone number on the invoice of 763-572-3592, which he called and left a voicemail. His client never heard back from anyone at the City. Councilmember Bolkcom asked and what date was that? Attorney Usumanu replied, right after he received this. The amount they are talking about is now $2,059. Mayor Lund asked what item is he on? Mr. Tienter stated on the assessment roll, it is Property No. 33. Attorney Usumanu stated his client bought that property a year ago this October. He never got any violation notice. He owns the property but the things that were collected, some of the materials, did not belong to him like the canoe, some ladders, shingles, and things of that nature. Mayor Lund replied it does not matter. It was on his property. Attorney Usumanu replied correct, but he never got a violation notice. Mayor Lund replied that he finds that hard to believe. It would be much easier to prove if he did an e-mail or snail mail rather than a phone call. The phone call really does not relieve his responsibility. Mayor Lund asked the staff if they have some evidence that the property owner got the notices. The letters did not come back to the City. The City never just sends an invoice saying, you did not clean up your yard, so we had to hire somebody to do it at taxpayers’ expense, instead of the property owner taking care of his problem. He finds it hard to believe the City would just send him an invoice without any prior notification. Dan Cahill, Neighborhood Preservation Specialist, stated he did send three letters to this property. The first one was just an educational letter stating please clean up the property. The second one was to do this by the end of the month. The last one was his 20-day abatement letter stating they needed to move this, or the City will remove it. Attorney Usumanu replied, again, his client never received any of these notices. The only thing he got was an invoice. If they look at where the City sent it, they will see that he lives at 614 – nd 62 Street in Lino Lakes. He asked if these letters were sent to the property? FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 9 Mr. Cahill stated they did know it was an apartment complex. They sent letters there and to the owner of the apartment complex in Lino Lakes. Anoka County had a different address, so he sent all three letters to both. Mayor Lund stated is there any validity that the property owner could have not received the letter because he had a Lino Lakes address? Mr. Cahill stated when he figured out it was an incorrect address, he started over the clock. Attorney Usumanu stated the only thing they got was the bill. They did not get notice. Mayor Lund asked Attorney Usumanu if his client picked up the mail? The City started the process all over again once staff found out about the incorrect address. Attorney Usumanu replied they got this letter to come in here today and wanted to let the Council know they never got any notices about any of this. His client owns a trailer and he could take everything out if he saw it on time. Maybe this was sent to the wrong address. This was a due process problem and is really not fair. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Cahill to give them the addresses where he sent the notices. Mr. Cahill replied that it is on the invoice, and it goes to the property address and the place of the abatement is on the other side of the invoice. Mayor Lund stated so the City had the right address for the three letters, and it is the same address that is on the invoice. Mr. Tienter stated the City sent letters to the property address, which they have listed as 5974 nd Third Street NE and then to the address of the property owner, 614 – 62 Street, Lino Lakes, which was the address that the notice for this hearing was also sent to. Councilmember Bolkcom stated Attorney Usumanu is saying it is the same address. They don’t know what happened to those letters, but they never came back to the City. They were sent to the exact same address. Mayor Lund stated they are saying the City got the invoice to the property owner but not the other three letters. Attorney Usumanu stated his client was very surprised to get the invoice. He has known Mr. Villalobos for more than ten years. He owns a business. He is a hard-working man. He owns this apartment building. If he had known and gotten notice, he would have taken care of this. He owns vehicles he could have used to take care of this. Mayor Lund stated he does hear this from time-to-time. The parties who generally say that are the owners. It is his word again the staff’s word. The City has several staff members, and he FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 10 does know the character of the staff members. He finds it hard to believe they are lying to him. Unfortunately, Attorney Usumanu’s client is saying, Oh, I never got those letters, and therefore, I am held harmless and I should not have to pay the $2,006 and on top of it that means all the taxpayers in Fridley are paying for the cleanup. He has a problem with that. Attorney Usumanu stated he knows his client. He is a man of integrity. He is not telling a lie to the Council. Mayor Lund stated somebody is telling a lie here - the staff or Attorney Usumanu’s client. Attorney Usumanu replied that these things happen. Mayor Lund asked staff if there was ever a phone call and if they tried to reach the property owner? Mr. Cahill replied he does not recall but he would have to check his records. Attorney Usumanu asked that Mr. Cahill check his records because his client called and left a voicemail. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why would he not call again? Attorney Usumanu replied, he had other things going on. He owns a business. He owns a family. He got an invoice. He called and left a voicemail. You do not hear from somebody, you know, other things come up. Councilmember Bolkcom stated in all due respect, if she gets a bill from someone and, even if she left a number, trust her she would be calling again. If he did not understand it, his should attorney should call the City and take care of it. Attorney Usumanu replied that the invoice was not for the amount of money in the assessment letter. The invoice they got was for $579, the other one for $673.37. So, he proceeds to call. It was not for $2,000. The $2,000 appears in the letter that they have here today. The invoice was for $600. So, he calls the number, never heard back, so he is expecting maybe the City will call him back. Next thing you know, he gets a letter stating he owes $2,000 and to come in here. Councilmember Tillberry stated what he is confused about is why not more than one attempt. If he has an invoice and he does not understand it, you usually call the person or wherever it is coming from. And, if he does not hear from anyone, he consistently goes after it again. You need to work this problem because it is not going to go away. Mayor Lund asked the staff for a summation of what work was done and the dates of service. He assumes Advance Companies took care of it or someone like that. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 11 Mr. Cahill stated the actual abatement was on August 1. Prior to this, there was the 20-day letter. Before that, another 15-day letter, so around two months. Mr. Cahill presented photos of some of the items that were removed. Mayor Lund asked Attorney Usumanu when his client received the invoice. Attorney Usumanu replied he thinks one has September 13 and the other one has September 18. Mayor Lund stated to Attorney Usumanu he received more than one invoice, he received one on thth the 15 and one on the 18. Attorney Usumanu replied it is not clear. They all say September 15. The one they called on is September 18, but the first one is September 13. thth Councilmember Tillberry said they called on the 13 versus the 18. th Attorney Usumanu replied they called back for the 18 letter. th Councilmember Tillberry asked what happened with the 13 letter. Attorney Usumanu replied that it did not have a phone number to call. It was just an invoice. Councilmember Tillberry stated so you have an invoice and you just wait for five days? Attorney Usumanu asked what was wrong with that. Councilmember Tillberry replied that he would want to know why he owed that amount of money. Attorney Usumanu replied that most invoices you have 30 days to pay. Even this one says you can pay in 30 days. If you have an invoice, and you wait for 5 days, he has not done anything bad. He can call back in a week or even two weeks. That would not be late. But to get an invoice, you call back, and no one has challenged them here to say that. The City should go and check your voicemails. Councilmember Bolkcom asked the property owner if he surveyed the rental properties, because if all this stuff was there, including couches, and it was suddenly all gone, did he wonder what happened. Attorney Usumanu replied it does not belong to him. People are renting the apartment complex. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is his property. He has a rental license. He has responsibility. If all these items were there at one time. It was a junk pile, and his neighbors were probably not happy. There were all these different items and now they are gone. As a FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 12 landlord, she would wonder what happened to them. Then, she got an invoice. She would wonder what was going on. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they can sit here and talk about it. This did happen. He does have a responsibility as a landlord, and it is very clear that as a landlord with a rental license, that you must keep up your property. It does not matter if your client is renting this property. The property owner is responsible to take care of all of this. Someone did because the property owner did not. The City staff spends a lot of time going and checking, rechecking and sending letters. They know the letters were sent to these addresses, and it is really tough to stand here and argue about this. Attorney Usumanu replied, that is incorrect. The invoices were sent to him. No letter was sent to him saying that he has XYZ property, and to take them out within 7 days or 14 days or the City will take this measure. None of that happened here. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why this letter made it to him and the others did not. Attorney Usumanu replied that they do not know. If anyone has any proof it was sent to his home, they wanted to see it. Mayor Lund stated they can keep going around and around on this. He for one is going to side with the City staff. They do this professionally and, unfortunately, do it all day long. Unless the property owner can prove that he did not get the letters, and it was to the right address and he got the invoice, he cannot say that the City did not send him letters. He said he would not be voting in favor of the property owner. The property owner can appeal the decision to the County. Attorney Usumanu asked what his client’s options were. Mayor Lund stated he has 30 days to make an appeal to the County and take his case before the County. Mr. Tienter stated correct. They have received the written objection, which preserves the property owner’s right to pursue the matter in district court. Mayor Lund stated he cannot see giving the property owner a $2,000 deal and have the taxpayers of Fridley pay for this. Attorney Usumanu replied it started out as $500 and now they owe $2,000. Mr. Cahill stated the first invoice would be for the actual abatement and then they have a storage fee for things they thought had value, which needed to be stored for 30 days. They received no call back. He sent a letter after the abatement asking him to contact the City if he wanted his items back. There was a fourth letter after that. Mayor Lund asked if Council is taking these cases one at a time and voting on them. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 13 Mr. Tienter stated as part of the public hearing process, they would accept comments from anyone who is on the assessment roll and from members of the public. They have heard from only one of the four written objections so far. Mayor Lund asked so at the end they can just say if they want to remove anyone and make a motion for the rest of them. Mr. Tienter replied yes. They could remove or amend the resolution like they would for any resolution. Abdulrzaq Ali stated he lives at 5895 Central Avenue N.E. Mayor Lund asked what line item he was. Councilmember Bolkcom replied that he is number 47. Mr. Ali stated when staff sent him the first letter to cut the grass on his property, he was in Yemen visiting his mom. His wife called his nephew to come and cut the grass. They did cut the grass. They received the invoice and then they called. Mr. Ali said cut the grass before the date that was mentioned, but still got the invoice. It said they did not cut the grass in the back of the yard, but they did. He did it when he came back about 2 days after the invoice. It is a small fenced back yard. Nobody can see it. They said you did not cut the back, and then they cut it. They did not cut the grass in his back yard. He cut it himself. He does not know why they charged him for something they did not do. Mayor Lund asked how long he was out of the country. Mr. Ali replied for 29 days. Mayor Lund asked when he was gone. Mr. Ali replied that he went from the beginning of May and came back in the middle of June. Mayor Lund stated from staff’s point of view, the City got a bill from somebody to cut the back yard. He asked if they cut it more than once. Mr. Cahill replied, this one was actually a trip charge. Mr. Ali did cut it. Unfortunately, when he did the follow up on the day it was supposed to be cut, it had not been done. He told the contractor to cut it the next day, and they came over to that property and it was cut. The City charged for that trip. Mayor Lund asked if it was June 10. Mr. Cahill replied it was due to be done on June 10. The contractor came over on June 11. Mayor Lund asked if it was cut between June 10 and 11. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 14 Mr. Cahill stated the contractor has three days to go to the properties. Mayor Lund said the dates do not line up. Mr. Ali stated the second day after he returned, he cut the back yard after his wife talked to him. His nephew cut the front when they sent the letter. Mayor Lund said but the City charged the trip charge. Mr. Cahill stated he charged the trip charge because it was not done on the due date. The contractor has three days to mow it once notified, and people do cut it before the contractor arrives. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the regular cost would be if it was $340 for a trip charge. Mr. Cahill replied it would be $170. The minimum charge is $50 this year and then a charge was added for staff time to write the letters, follow up on the property and process the paperwork. Mr. Ali stated he is the only income in their household. They have four children. The $340 charge is not easy for him. He does not know if they came or not. When he called the City, they said they would take care of it and did not. Mayor Lund said it was a trip charge. It is expensive. When the property owner was gone, and his wife got the letter did she call anyone about the letter? Did she call the City and say she was having your nephew mow the lawn? Mr. Ali replied, no, because of the date. They cut it before that date. Councilmember Bolkcom stated but no one called the contractor to say it was done. Mr. Ali stated he was here to deal with it and apologized. Mayor Lund said Mr. Ali did the right thing, cut the lawn, only not in the timeframe that was indicated on the letter. He said they should have contacted staff and acknowledged they received the letter, and let them know if they had any questions or problems. Best to deal with them so that they know what is going on. On larger issues, people will contact them and work something out. They will even give someone an extension, if they know they are cooperating. In this case, there was no communication. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the bottom of the letter said. In Mr. Ali’s defense, he did have the lawn mowed. Mr. Cahill replied, “This is your only notice. The next inspection will be on (this date). If the property is not mowed by this date, the property will be placed on the City’s mowing list.” FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 15 Mayor Lund stated this is June 10, the next inspection. He asked if this was a continuation where staff gave him more time or if there had been multiple issues with the mowing. Mr. Cahill stated he did go another time when the grass was very tall. It exceeded 10 inches. He sent the contractor out there again on June 25, and then it was cut within the three days. Mr. Tienter stated the contractor fee that has been discussed is a $35 trip charge and a $50 trip charge. Then there was staff time for each respective trip of $112.50 and then $75. For the first one, the total was $147.50. For the second trip, it was $125. That brings it up to the total amount, and then the certification letter received by the property owner includes that 25% assessment penalty, which brings it to the total of $340.63. In this situation, it is quite possible that, as has been suggested here, the grass was in fact mowed by the property owner and the trip charges were still being assessed because that was part of the abatement process along with the staff time that went into it. Mayor Lund said it was cut by June 11. Then a few weeks later, they went back to not cutting the lawn again and it was already 10 inches tall. Mr. Ali replied no, they cut the front before the date. Mayor Lund stated they are talking about June 25, which was another date for reinspection. Mr. Cahill stated actually there was a second time he was notified that the backyard was not cut. That is why he brought the contractor out there again on June 25, because the grass was not cut in the backyard. He told the contractor to make sure to go in the backyard. That was why there was a second charge. Mayor Lund stated it was a lack of communication on Mr. Ali’s end once he received the notifications. Councilmember Bolkcom said it sounds like Mr. Ali only took care of part of it. Normally, staff do not walk around looking for grass that is long. It is usually because of a complaint from a neighbor saying they do not like looking at the long grass. Mr. Ali asked if the neighbors complained. Councilmember Bolkcom stated most of the complaints are related to someone complaining. It does not matter if it is in the front or the backyard; that is the City’s ordinance. It is not a rental property where the City would be doing rental inspections. Mr. Cahill replied in this case it was by complaint. The front yard was cut on that date. The contractor did not realize the backyard had not been cut, and then he got another complaint stating the back yard was not cut. Councilmember Bolkcom said so the contractor mowed the backyard. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 16 Mr. Ali replied, actually on June 25. When they arrived, it had been cut. Mayor Lund said they would split the bill with him. There definitely was some miscommunication, but it does say at the end of the letter, if you have any questions or concerns contact City staff. Tracy Honl-Zmuda stated her property is at 980 Mississippi Street NE. Mayor Lund asked what their line number was. Councilmember Eggert replied it was number 18. Ms. Honl-Zmuda stated it was shocking how many notices these people received because they had received one notice. Previously, they had worked with Amy and then Dan, after he took over Amy’s position. They did not know anything about the change. She said it seemed to her that they paid all the charges that were incurred for the abatement. They were thrown on her mortgage, which went up $126 a month. With the issues on her lawn, unfortunately, money is not growing in the backyard. She has a vehicle she owns, the Blazer, which is covered with a tarp. Unfortunately, it died. Her sons were going to work on it. Unfortunately, they must do that in the driveway and that has not worked. She has since had to get a vehicle. Now, she has another truck payment and with a loan you need to have full insurance coverage. She said they are asking for another $3,700 just for their troubles. They have already paid the expenses the City has incurred because they put them on her taxes. Michael Honl-Zmuda, 980 Mississippi Street NE, stated they did get charged for lawn cutting and they got a letter. He had somebody come out three times and mow. The City then came out, the grass was not even that tall, and cut it. There was no need for the lawn to be cut. It was unnecessarily cut by the City. They have had problems where Dan has walked through behind their house, opened up his vehicles in his backyard. He should have no reason or permission to open up any vehicles or look in any windows on their property. He has witnesses to that. The police have accompanied him out there several times, because he refused to leave when their son told him to leave. He has come in, stuck stickers on his vehicles, and they had only been there for a day. He has not even given them a chance to move them. Mayor Lund asked if they had a garage. Mr. Honl-Zmuda replied yes, a two-car garage. Mayor Lund asked why they did not put the non-working vehicle in the garage. Ms. Honl-Zmuda replied that her mom’s vehicle is in there. Mr. Honl-Zmuda stated his wife’s mom is disabled and lives with them. They take care of her full-time. He and his wife work full-time, and his wife has also a part-time job. He said it is hard to maintain everything around the house. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 17 Mayor Lund stated they are paying their assessments already by virtue that it has been on their mortgage. He asked if this was last year’s abatement. Mr. Cahill replied, they are talking about an abatement prior to him being there. He has done a new abatement since then. This would be new charges. Mayor Lund asked if they put it on their mortgage, he assumed it went from abatement to the County to their property taxes and then it was added onto their mortgage. This was last year’s abatement. Mr. Cahill replied, and now they are talking about his abatements for this year. It would be new charges. The new charges would be for the two abatements. One was done by Julie Jones and the second one was done by him. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the two abatements were for. Mr. Cahill replied, for a large amount of stuff. He presented photos of items, which were taken prior to him, on January 7, 2019. Many things were frozen to the ground. It was an issue for the contractor. They did remove whatever they could on the property, such as car hoods, trash in the backyard, refrigerator, some cooler stuff, and more things in the back. There was also a hood in the front yard, and gas cans. Mayor Lund asked if someone was driving or parking in the yard. Mr. Cahill replied yes, they constantly do that. He showed another photo of the backyard with some more random stuff that was not frozen down, including automotive pieces, transmissions, engines, tires, oil cans, random wood, and some cans. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if those items were taken out at the same time. Mr. Cahill replied yes, this was from the abatement in January. He showed photos of the front yard and backyard. Mayor Lund asked if all this stuff was removed in January. Mr. Cahill replied yes. Mr. Honl-Zmuda said it was not. Ms. Honl-Zmuda said nothing was moved before Mr. Cahill started. Mayor Lund asked if the City had a bill from the contractor for that abatement. Mr. Honl-Zmuda stated no, nothing was done with Amy or Julie Jones. Nothing was removed off his property. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 18 Mr. Tienter stated according to the City’s records there are contractor fees totaling $1,831 across the three assessments. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the date was on those. Mr. Tienter replied that the date of the first invoice was January 18, 2019, in the amount of $555 for the contractor’s fee; for June 14, 2019, it was $1,206; and on July 23, 2019, a lawn mowing charge of $70. There are other administrative costs attached to that. Those were just the contractor’s fees. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Cahill if he had other photos to show them. Mr. Cahill stated he started working with the City after the first abatement. He sent another 20- day abatement notice after everything was thawed and could be removes. He did an abatement on May 23. He presented pictures from May 23. They were working with vehicles and a lot of oil was coming from them. He showed a photo of the backyard with some random wood, tires and a vehicle. There was also parking on the grass in the backyard. Mr. Honl-Zmuda asked when he took that picture. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Cahill if this was a licensed, operable vehicle. Mr. Honl-Zmuda replied yes. Mr. Cahill replied, it was not a licensed vehicle. It was inoperable. It had expired tabs, plus it was parked on the grass. He showed photos of more items that were underneath it. He showed a picture of another vehicle in the backyard, which was also parked on the grass. That was operational with current tabs. He showed more items, including car parts, tires, and some sort of metal screening in the back. Ms. Honl-Zmuda stated it was a broken heater, and it had all been cleaned up. Mr. Cahill presented a photo of the backyard showing more items that were just thrown back there including miscellaneous chairs, which were all deteriorated and unusable. They had been burning trash at the property. He showed a Google map of what the property looked like on June 2019. The length of the grass did exceed 10 inches. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Cahill if he had bills from the City’s contractors. Mr. Cahill replied yes. The first abated charges were January 18 and then the 20-yard dumpster of trash was on June 14, 2019. They had a mowing on July 23. Mayor Lund asked Mr. and Mrs. Honl-Zmuda if they wanted to make some comments. There were a lot of differences here. They said the truck was licensed at the time. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 19 Ms. Honl-Zmuda said the tabs were expired, but it was only there about three days. Mr. Honl-Zmuda stated no, it was not even three days. When he came over, the truck was parked in a different way. It was not backed into the spot. He stated that Mr. Cahill said, “Go ahead and back it into the spot.” He also said that Mr. Cahill said he would let it go if they promised to get it out of there in a couple of days. To him that should not have been an issue. He said his kid came over right away the next day and got it out. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they were not being charged for that. It was for all the other stuff they cleaned up. Mr. Honl-Zmuda stated as far as all the wood in the backyard, they worked with Amy for several years. Not once did she walk through his backyard. He said he and his wife both have medical issues. With the larger logs, it is hard for them to lift, roll, and stack them because they are heavy. The tree went down in front and they worked their butts off to get everything picked up in the front yard and moved to the backyard; a lot of the logs had been cleaned up. Councilmember Bolkcom stated with all due respect, there were a lot of other things that were cleaned up. Mr. Honl-Zmuda stated but you could not see anything from the street. There was not a street hazard. Mayor Lund stated the City’s ordinances have changed. Mr. Honl-Zmuda asked when they changed. Mayor Lund stated they had to get stronger with their enforcement. They are being more stringent because more and more people are part of the problem instead of the solution. He is sure this is a typical case where their neighbors probably hate it because their yard is a mess. They have a shed that looks like it was built probably ten years ago, and it is weathered badly. Ms. Honl-Zmuda stated three. He said it was just a matter of having people who are unreliable. They do not have the extra cash. Mr. Honl-Zmuda stated they tried to get a loan through the City to do the front yard where it is missing the grass, but the City does not want to help them out like that. Ms. Honl-Zmuda stated yes, they were not able to get a loan. They had debated selling and they did get a couple of quotes on the driveway to extend it. If they are going to move, then why do it. There are certainly other things going on or this would not be a problem. Mayor Lund stated he is sure there are a lot of things going on with their health and finances, and those all play into it. Mr. Honl-Zmuda stated $600 on their property taxes is a lot of money. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 20 Ms. Honl-Zmuda stated to pay the wages of the staff does not seem fair to them. Mayor Lund stated there was a penalty added. Mr. and Ms. Honl-Zmuda replied and said it was cleaned up. Mayor Lund stated it sounds like a lot of the clean up was done by the City’s contractors. Ms. Honl-Zmuda stated $1,800 went on their taxes, which was just a couple of months ago. Mayor Lund stated that was from last year. They are a repeat offender. The City has not even abated this year. They are talking about three different instances here. This abatement process now at this stage is going to the County, and that will also be added to their property taxes or to their mortgage. What is already on there is something from the past, which was abated last year at this time. Mr. Cahill stated he believed they were paying some other delinquencies on utility bills as well. Ms. Honl-Zmuda replied that she has not been late this year. Mayor Lund stated to Ms. Honl-Zmuda she seems surprised she already has an abatement with their mortgage, which relates to the property taxes. From what he is hearing from staff, it was on their utilities. Ms. Honl-Zmuda replied that she understands, but that is not correct. She has been current on her utility bills. The $1,800 from January went onto her property taxes. Mr. Cahill stated that would be for last year. Mr. Tienter stated the bill from January right now with the 25 percent assessment fee totals $998.44. Ms. Honl-Zmuda replied that she is confused because the City is saying the abatement has not yet happened. They have already come and cleaned up their yard, and they have been charged for the mowing of their lawn, which they had done three times since this letter. Mayor Lund stated they have already talked about in January, June, and July. The cleanup occurred. These bills are due now only because staff is coming to the Council and saying they need the Council to send them to the County, and they will be put on the property owners’ taxes, unless they pay them within the next 30 days. Ms. Honl-Zmuda stated she believed that this had already occurred. It was not from 2018. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 21 Mayor Lund stated to Ms. Honl-Zmuda she will need to talk to staff about what happened the previous year. Right now, they are talking about this year and the January, June, and July clean ups. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if she was saying they never received any letters relating to this. Mr. and Mrs. Honl-Zmuda replied they received a letter for this abatement. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they had a conversation with Amy, so they knew about that. Mr. Honl-Zmuda replied they have had several conversations with Amy and Dan. Ms. Honl-Zmuda stated the letter they received was almost like a statement for your troubles. They are going to pay another $3,700. There was nothing listed. It was not an invoice. They received an invoice for the $1,800 and then one for the mowing of the lawn, which was $125 or $140. Those are the only two invoices. They did get a letter after the abatement for $700 and it said they could have gotten all their stuff back. She did not have that kind of money. They had to let it go. She asked if the City sold that stuff. Mr. Cahill said they just throw it all away. Mayor Lund stated it costs more to auction it. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what was put into storage. Mr. Cahill replied tires and anything else that was usable and had any value. Mr. Tienter stated in reviewing the assessments from last year, the property in question was certified $1,002.52 for delinquent utility bills. Mayor Lund stated that was assessed last year about this time. They can only do it once a year. That $1,000 plus was last year’s assessment. It goes to the County. The County collects the property taxes. The City staff is here to assist them in getting clarification. Mr. Honl-Zmuda stated he understands there were wrongs, and he will admit to it. He agrees that things got a little out of hand, and he is willing to pay, but he would appreciate getting a little help from Fridley since, like he said, they have some health issues. They are also taking care of an elderly woman, who is 69 years old and beat cancer twice, but she can still move around. He is not trying to make excuses, but he would at least like the City to have a little sympathy. Mayor Lund told Mr. Honl-Zmuda that he must take care of his property better than he has done in the past. Mr. Honl-Zmuda replied that he made a mistake. It will not happen again. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 22 Ms. Honl-Zmuda stated and they have been there 11 years. Mr. Honl-Zmuda stated it seems like he has been picked on by Mr. Cahill. All the time, he turns around there is a letter in the mail. Mayor Lund stated Mr. Honl-Zmuda has commented and made his points, and they appreciate it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated if a property owner has submitted a letter, they do not have to come forward. Vicki Bode, 4863 Third Street NE, stated she has many, many items to go through as far as items that are incorrect. Yes, there was a first violation letter. She did have a roommate at the time. Ms. Bode did not see the letter. Mr. Cahill came out with the abatement people from Advanced Companies, which is when she learned she was going to be abated. Ms. Bode stated she did not get a second notification that is required by City. Under the code enforcement section on the website, it says property found to be in violation will receive a written notice of the violation, which would be the initial one that she did not know she had. Councilmember Bolkcom asked when she found out she did have it. Ms. Bode replied after Mr. Cahill was at her house. Regardless, it said he would reinspect the property and confirm the resolution of the problem, which did not happen. If he did reinspect, she was unaware, because she was working at that time. It said if the property was not cleaned up by the deadline, the property owner will receive an additional notice indicating that the property will be abated. She said she never received the second notification. It said she would receive a citation and the property owner would pay for the cost of the abatement. She has no problem with paying the costs. Ms. Bode stated there would not have been an abatement had she received the second notification. It was unfortunate that her roommate at the time had buried the letter under other items. She would never have let this come to that. She would have cleaned up her property. She even helped them move items into her garage when they were abating. They caught her on her day off. She would much rather have sold the items, which she had planned to do. However, some of them were not hers. She was going to donate a lot of the items as well to Mr. Michael’s Bicycles. She would have taken care of getting it into the garbage too. Ms. Bode said she understands that it got abated. Even though the City ordinance says she deserved that second notification. She did not get the notice, and people get their mail stolen constantly. The reason why these people are not getting notifications is because their mail is stolen or misplaced. For example, sometimes your mail is folded in a newspaper. She said she was not sure why they were not getting their second notifications. She has copies of all the letters that were sent this year. There was never a second notification. Mayor Lund asked if she had spoken to staff and gotten all the letters. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 23 Ms. Bode replied yes, last Friday. Mayor Lund asked what the letters were. Ms. Bode said she would get to those. In the letter under code violations, it says the actions that needed to be corrected. It also lists how to get a hold of him and correct the violations identified. Under violations, all it says is she has outside storage on her property. Councilmember Bolkcom said going back to when she first said she did not know her roommate had buried the letter, she said she met with Mr. Cahill. Ms. Bode said he was at her door. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if she had a conversation with Mr. Cahill about what was going on in her yard and what she needed to do. Ms. Bode replied no, he was there to abate her property. Yes, it was messy. Yes, there were items. She is not disagreeing with any of that. Councilmember Bolkcom asked when she found the first letter. Ms. Bode replied after the abatement had already transgressed. Mayor Lund thanked Ms. Bode for her comments. He asked staff if Ms. Bode was given a second notice. Mr. Cahill stated they went straight to a 20-day abatement letter because there had been prior issues since 2010. The same issues, including no address, a large truck, a bush pile in the back, parking off the pavement, no garbage service, outside storage problems, inoperable vehicles, more outside storage issues, burning garbage in the backyard, some dog issues, mulch piles, a dumpster bag that needed to be picked up, and more materials in the backyard. He sent a second letter on June 6. He abated the property on June 18. Mayor Lund stated the City abated her property on June 18 and that is probably when she met with Mr. Cahill. Mr. Cahill replied yes. Mayor Lund asked if there was another abatement. Mr. Cahill replied yes, but it was for next year, and there would be a trip charge for that. Ms. Bode replied the dates are incorrect. Mayor Lund stated he sees a trip charge on August 20. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 24 Mr. Cahill replied yes, there was another outside storage issue at that time. Mayor Lund asked if there was another abatement here. Ms. Bode asked when the abatement happened. Mr. Cahill replied June 6. Ms. Bode asked why the abatement was dated June 18. Mr. Cahill replied because he was doing the billing on the 18. Ms. Bode replied okay, so that has changed now. Mayor Lund asked to see the pictures. Mr. Cahill presented photos of miscellaneous items, including snow blowers and lawn mowers stored outside. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if this was in the back of the house. Mr. Cahill replied this was in the back of the house. He presented a photo of an overview of the property and most of the items were in the back of the house, behind the garage and leading towards the neighbor’s fence. Ms. Bode replied that they were not in the view of anybody. Mr. Cahill presented more photos of items in the backyard, which included some miscellaneous containers for gardening and a mattress in the front yard next to the garage. He also presented a photo, which showed bikes, lawn mowers, snow blowers, miscellaneous stuff, a pool, a chair, and a dog crate. Councilmember Bolkcom asked would the bicycles have been put into storage. Mr. Cahill replied that anything with value they kept in storage. They had to get a storage container. Ms. Bode said she requested not to. Mr. Cahill stated they stored all that for 30 days. After 30 days, they had to bill her for the disposal of all the lawn mowers or anything with value, like the bikes. He presented more pictures of the abatement. Ms. Bode stated that as to the fence, Mr. Cahill did come out and talk to her about the fence. She is a single woman trying to maintain a household and keep her dog in. As they mentioned earlier, there was a dog issue, but that picture could not have been taken in June. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 25 Mayor Lund stated the photos says, June 6. Ms. Bode stated it would have been physically impossible for that to happen. It was not there in June. Councilmember Bolkcom said the rest of the stuff was still there. Ms. Bode stated she is currently being abated for this fence. She would like to try and keep the two abatements separate as much as possible. The paperwork she had received regarding this abatement has been incorrect. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Cahill if the City did anything with the fence. Mr. Cahill replied that Ms. Bode communicated at the time that she needed to fix it; and he gave her that opportunity to fix it and she has not. Ms. Bode replied that would be this past month. Regarding the abatement, she did talk to Mr. Cahill about not receiving a second notification. He said that there would not be and that he did not need to, according to the City Code. Mayor Lund replied that she already brought that case up. From what he has heard, she does not want to hear from them and wants them to forgive this. Looking at the history, she has stuff from 2010, and it looks like it is just about every year. It is not like she can say she did not know any better. She is contending she should get a second notice. The first one does not count. She automatically waits for the second one and waits until things get out of hand. Ms. Bode asked if they had a picture of the front of her house. It looks beautiful. Her house is the best-looking house on the block. She works at a nursing home. Mayor Lund stated they have given her ample time. Ms. Bode said she has all these bills. She has two different bills and they are all dated wrong. Suddenly, there are four hours. They were only here for not even two hours - an hour and 10 minutes. They are trying to charge her four hours. Mr. Cahill said they did have to have a police officer there as well. Mr. Tienter stated prior to the City Council meeting, City staff did receive written comments from a Mr. Daniel Yesnes, he is the property listed as No. 57 on the assessment roll. If it would be in order, Mr. Tienter would like to read his comments into the record. “Dear Mr. Tienter, to briefly recap our phone conversation, I am unable to attend tonight’s Council meeting due to some family issues.” Regarding the assessment he states, “I have hired an assistant with the above property, and she was in charge of this when all of this happened with the City. She had assured me that she had taken care of everything under control. I found out later that not only did she not do what she was supposed to do but she was stealing money from me and tenants as FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 26 well. I have since fired her and am trying to right the ship to solve the problems she has caused. I have subsequently hired an actual management firm to take over the property so there will be no more issues in the future. I understand there were some costs, but I am respectfully asking the City Council to consider a reduction in the assessment as it is quite high and would be a serious financial burden/cost to us. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Daniel A. Yesnes.” Councilmember Bolkcom asked for a brief summary of the costs and if this was a rental property. Mr. Tienter replied the costs include a contractor’s fee of $825.40 and staff time charge of $206.25 for a subtotal of $1,031.65. As presented this evening, the assessment roll does include the 25% assessment fee, which is $257.91, for the total cost reflected in the assessment roll. Councilmember Bolkcom stated is it for more of the same type of thing where they are cleaning up some trash and other things around this rental property. Mr. Cahill replied that this was a 24-hour abatement. They had physical trash that was left out on the curb. There was the possibility of wildlife getting into it. He posted the property giving the owner 24 hours to remove all the items and it cost more for Advance Companies to do so this since they do not handle raw garbage. There was also a television and an A/C compressor, which had freon. So, it is more expensive to remove. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they had service. Mr. Cahill said when he got the complaint, it had been sitting out there for a month. The trash had a lot of maggots in it. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they needed to get the other letters into the record. Mr. Tienter replied he would just recommend they accept any written petitions or objections into the record. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom accepting any written objections into the record. Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there were several comments about it not being seen from the right-of-way. She asked if they can go over that ordinance that was revised this spring. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said Mayor Lund was correct when he stated earlier there had been a modification in the ordinance that allowed property to be viewed from another vantage point and, therefore, an abatement could take place. That was earlier this year. There were several different instances where they were invited into an adjacent property and saw FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 27 a yard full of items like they saw tonight. Now, the City has an opportunity to do an abatement because they are visible. Mr. Hickok said for many years the City had an ordinance that said that it had to be seen from the public right-of-way. They had several people look at that including the legal advisors and they asked why we had an ordinance that does not allow us to fully take care of the problem when it exists. Mr. Hickok stated the City did go through the standard process, took this item before the Planning Commission, and then the Council, and it was approved. Now, it is possible for the City to do an abatement and, oftentimes because you cannot see from the right-of-way, based on an inquiry from the vantage point of the complainant. If it can be seen from an adjacent property, it is something the City notifies the property owner about and they go through the standard process. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they had an intern this summer. Someone said the intern was just walking around and looking in people’s backyards. The intern was just following up on complaints. She has been on the City Council quite a while and one of the things people say the most is their neighbor’s front yard looks good, but the backyard looks horrible. It is tough to be in your backyard and look over at your neighbor’s yard and see a big junk pile. People do not have to have a pristine lawn and not have creeping charlie growing in it, but when someone has stacks of tires, wood, junk, and trash in their yard, it seems reasonable whether it is in the front or the backyard to have it taken care of. Mr. Hickok said the intern’s primary focus last summer was on commercial and industrial properties that were there under a special use permit. The intern did a very nice job of inventorying them and making sure all those properties were abiding by the stipulations contained in the special use permits. Mr. Hickok stated the intern did have opportunities to go out with Mr. Cahill who taught him code enforcement, and he did a very nice job. There were not out in back yards just searching. People realized the City changed its ordinance and it allowed them to do something they could not do in the past. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there has been some discussion about administrative fees. She asked staff to explain them. Mr. Tienter replied when it comes to staff time, the City charges a rate of $75 per hour and the staff involved records their time against the property. Anyone who received an invoice from the City would see it with information outlined, i.e. processing, scheduling. There would be an amount of time listed, usually in the quarters of hours that was applied against the rate, to establish the staff time fee. Additionally, the City ordinance that controls the assessment of nuisance abatements stipulates a 25 percent assessment fee if costs are certified to the County. Those are principally the two so-called administrative costs that would increase the overall cost of the nuisance abatement as presented this evening. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 28 Councilmember Bolkcom stated and one step further, again, some of these were abated back in January. They must pay these services and pay staff. Something that happened in January that got abated and was paid for, basically the taxpayers are paying for that right now. If it goes onto their taxes, it does not get paid back right away. There is a reason and a process for all of this, and it makes sense. There is $69,823.08 due right now, and if they are not paid before that date, it will basically come out of the City’s revenue. Mr. Tienter replied that was correct. The City does have costs related to the nuisance abatements, and if they are not satisfied and ultimately assessed, the City would not receive reimbursement until such time as they made all of their tax payments in the following year. It is also worth noting that from time-to-time, some of these properties do end up being delinquent in certain fees and taxes, and there may be a situation on some properties where the City never actually receives reimbursement if the property goes to tax forfeit. Councilmember Eggert stated in one of the recent items here, they had a trash can out front and Mr. Cahill did an expedited abatement. It was very serious. He asked what causes them to expedite abatements. Mr. Cahill replied, if it has raw garbage, which is something an animal can get to. Anything that is raw garbage such as vegetables, any kind of bones, meats, that would cause a different animal to come into that area would be a 24-hour abatement. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:51 P.M. Councilmember Bolkcom stated Mayor Lund mentioned he was going to go half-way with the one gentleman. Mayor Lund replied that was his recommendation. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they reduce the price of the assessment for one person, does that person still has the opportunity to take this and appeal it, even if he is no longer here? Mr. Tienter replied yes, that is correct. In the objection, they are objecting to the nuisance abatement assessment in total. If the amount is reduced that may persuade them from proceeding to district court, but their objection will still stand because Council has already accepted it pursuant to the Statute that controls these proceedings. Councilmember Eggert asked with respect to 5895 Central Avenue N.E., have they not been cutting the grass since then. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 29 Mr. Cahill replied no, they have not been. After they notified the resident, he has been taking care of the property. Councilmember Eggert said there have been no reoccurrences. Mr. Cahill replied there were no reoccurrences. Mayor Lund stated he wanted to make that clear to those who are listening. Sometimes there is a lack of communication with staff. If you get on a cycle, the contractor continues to come out to mow or charge a trip charge if they see that it is mowed. They need to contact City staff. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2019-65. Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mayor Lund to amend Line No. 47 for Mr. Ali and reduce the assessment by 50 percent. That is the property address of 5895 Central Avenue N.E., and the amount should be reduced to $170. Seconded by Councilmember Eggert. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. Consideration of an Ordinance to Transfer Property Generally Located at 6431 University Avenue N.E. from the City of Fridley to the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority and First Reading of an Ordinance Under Section 12.06 of the Fridley City Charter and Minnesota Statues, Section 465.035, Regarding Certain Real Estate and Authorizing the Conveyance Thereof (Ward 1). MOTION by Councilmember Tillberry to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:57 P.M. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated this has to do with the former City Hall and it is an ordinance to correct the title. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) entered into a contract with Ivy Properties in December 2018 to develop a 134-unit senior service building. Demolition was completed in October 2019. The closing was to happen by December 2019. What is important here to know is that the property has had three title FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 30 examinations. Recently the developer’s title company indicated that a small portion of the property may have not been conveyed to the City from the HRA in 1984 in a replat of Fridley Plaza. Because of that, a solution lies in approving an ordinance authorizing the transfer of any of the City’s interest in Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Fridley Senior Addition through a quit claim deed. MOTION by Councilmember Tillberry to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Eggert. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 9:00 P.M. MOTION by Councilmember Tillberry to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 14. Resolution Authorizing Execution of End Grant Agreement with the Metropolitan Council for Inflow/Infiltration Reduction. Wally Wysopal, City Manager, stated inflow and infiltration is unintended water that gets inside the City’s sanitary sewers and then ends up being treated at the Pigs Eye Plant by the Metropolitan Council. As a result, the City ends up paying for that and charges get spread across all the City’s utility users. Mr. Wysopal stated the State Legislature and the Metropolitan Council have made grants available for the past few years. The City has incurred expenses to fix those sanitary sewer pipes and try to find where the inflow and infiltration is. It does that by lining and replacing pipes. This grant is a continuation of one the City has participated in the past. They will find out later how much it will receive. The City is eligible for a minimum of $50,000. MOTION by Councilmember Eggert to adopt Resolution No. 2019-66. Seconded by Councilmember Ostwald. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. Informal Status Report: Energy Action Plan Update. Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated as part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan process, the City was required to incorporate resiliency. As a result, the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan recommends the City take specific steps to reduce the City’s contribution to FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 PAGE 31 greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, “adopting climate mitigation and/or energy independent goals and objectives” is a GreenStep Cities practice. Mr. Hickok said in order to help reduce the City’s energy use by 5 percent in 2020 and by 20 percent in 2030, they are going to receive some design assistance from the Energy Partners Program. It will offer three important services: (1) design, production, and in-kind donation of outreach materials and marketing material; (2) project management of engagement activities; and (3) data tracking. Mr. Hickok stated all of these will be provided to help the City make its goals. The City has seen electricity savings of 1,864,715 kWh from participation in this energy conservation program. They are proceeding with the steps outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and hope to reduce the City’s consumption in the near term and out to the year 2040. Mr. Wysopal stated this is a great community participation program that Rachel Workin was responsible for, and the Mayor was at a number of these meetings. It is great to see people stepping forward and participating in programs like this. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Ostwald to adjourn. Seconded by Councilmember Eggert. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:18 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor