Loading...
03/26/2001 - 00009212THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MARCH 26, 2001 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund, Councilmember Barnette, Councilmember Bolkcom, Councilmember Billings, Councilmember Wolfe. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. Mayor Lund stated that he wanted to apologize for the manner in which the residents' concerns were addressed during the last meeting. He did not intend to minimize the importance of anyone's concerns, he was just trying to have the meeting flow more smoothly. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the Proposed Consent Agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of March 5, 2001. APPROVED. OLD BUSINESS: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1149 RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING" BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 205.31, 0-6 RESIDENTIAL LOTS CREATED PRIOR TO 1955 DISTRICT REGULATIONS (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #00-04, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this legislation creates a 0-6 zoning district for appro�mately 191 single-family residential lots in Fridley. These lots were made nonconforming by an ordinance that raised the minimum lot size and width for lots that FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 2 were created after December 29, 1955. The new legislation would make e�sting structures on these lots conforming as long as they were built on lots that contained a minimum of 5,000 square feet and were at least 50 feet wide. The new law also includes 5,000 square foot lots that are at least 50 feet wide that were created prior to January 1, 2001. The purpose of the legislation is to protect the property values of e�sting homeowners and create incentives for investment in these previously non-conforming properties. First reading of this legislation was approved at the March 5 Council meeting. Staff recommends approval of the second and final reading. WAIVED THE READING AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1149 ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1150 AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS (REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #01-01, BY GATEWAY EAST REDEVELOPMENT, LLC) (WARD 1): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated the property is generally located at the intersection of 57th and University Avenues. It is the former location of an automotive repair shop, a duplex and two vacant lots. The rezoning will enable the construction of 28 new townhomes by Real Estate Equities, Inc. Subject to Council's approval of the rezoning from C-2 (General Business) and R-2 (Two Family Units) to S-2 (Redevelopment District), construction is scheduled to begin on or about May 15, 2001. Council approved the first reading of this rezoning at their March 5 meeting. Staff recommends approval of the second and final reading. WAIVED THE READING AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1150 ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. NEW BUSINESS: 3. RESOLUTION NO. 16-2001 APPROVING A PLAT, P.S. #00-03 (L& L BUILDERS ADDITION), BY L& L BUILDERS TO REPLAT PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING LOTS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 35 - 62ND WAY N.E. (WARD 3): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this legislation would formalize the splitting of a single-family lot at 35 - 62"d Way. The petitioner, Mr. David Lopez, plans to build a single family home on the new lot. The lot meets all requirements for construction of this single family home. Council approved the preliminary plat for this lot split at the February 5 meeting. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 16-2001. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 3 4. RESOLUTION NO. 17-2001 ORDERING FINAL PLANS AND ESTIMATES OF COSTS THEREOF: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 2001-1: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the resolution will allow staff to move forward with the 2001 neighborhood street improvement project. The streets to be improved include Hillcrest Drive, Woody Lane and Tennison Drive. The project includes the reconstruction of the streets and the replacement of bituminous curb and gutter with concrete curb and gutter. It also includes replacement of old, cast iron water lines with ductile iron water lines. Staff recommends Council's approval of the resolution . ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 17-2001. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 18-2001 ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS: RECARPETING MUNICIPAL CENTER PROJECT NO. 339: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the resolution authorizes staff to seek bids for recarpeting the Municipal Center. The specifications require 36 x 36-inch carpet tiles with a 24-ounce tufted, te�tural loop pile. The tiles will be easier to install than traditional rolled carpeting and can be replaced as stains or wear dictate. This year's capital improvements budget includes $140,000 for this project. Staff recommends Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 18-2001. 6. ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 23, 2001, TO CONSIDER THE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATON OF KING CLUB AND RESTAURANT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1051 EAST MOORE LAKE DRIVE: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this motion establishes April 23 as the public hearing date for the consideration of this license. Staff recommends Council's approval. SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 23, 2001, ON THE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION OF KING CLUB AND RESTAURANT. 7. MOTION TO SUPPORT THE LEASING OF THE ISLANDS OF PEACE VISITOR CENTER BY ANOKA COUNTY TO TAMARISK RESOURCES: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that under the terms of a joint powers agreement with Anoka County, Fridley must agree to any lease agreements for the Islands of Peace Visitor Center. The motion provides Council's concurrence with a five-year lease agreement between Anoka County and Tamarisk Resources. Tamarisk proposes to use the building to support caregivers and families of the terminally ill during business hours, Monday through Friday. The building will be available for rental to others during FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 4 evenings and weekends. Tamarisk has agreed to be available to greet park visitors and to show the facility to potential renters. The agreement appears to meet the objectives of both Anoka County and Tamarisk as well as to serve the interests of Fridley residents. Staff recommends Council's approval. APPROVED THE LEASING OF THE ISLANDS OF PEACE VISITOR CENTER TO TAMARISK RESOURCES. 8. APPOINTMENT - CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that staff is recommending the appointment of Lynne Tellers Banks to the newly created Captain's position in the Fridley Police Department. Lynne began her service to Fridley in 1980. She was promoted to Corporal in 1984 and to Sergeant in 1992. She finished first among her peers in a recent assessment center promotional process. Mr. Burns stated that we are also recommending the appointment of Michelle Gease to the Sergeant's position being vacated by Lynne Tellers Banks. Michelle has been with the Fridley Police Department since 1992. She has served as a neighborhood resource officer, field training officer and, most recently, as investigator. She finished first among her peers in a recent promotional assessment center process. APPOINTED LYNNE TELLERS BANKS TO CAPTAIN POSITION. APPOINTED MICHELLE GEASE TO SERGEANT POSITION. 9. CLAIMS: APPROVED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NUMBERS 98459 - 98739. 10 LICENSES: APPROVED ALL LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. 11. ESTIMATES: Carl. J. Newquist, Esq. Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of December, 2000 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... $13,890.20 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 5 No one in the audience spoke regarding the consent agenda items. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to adopt the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM,VISITORS: Mr. Tom Myrha, 6360 Able Street, stated that the City spends a lot of time on sign ordinances and a lot of time with Menard's and Home Depot monitoring. When it comes to the sight along the freeway, the City blew it. He was happy when Medtronic bought the land along the freeway, but the building is one of the worst examples of beauty. He thought the City should pay more attention to the buildings being built. Councilmember Barnette stated that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. PUBLIC HEARING: 11A. CONSIDER STINSON BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 2001-2: MOTION by Councilmember Billings 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 7:43 P.M. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated that the City of New Brighton has proposed to reconstruct Stinson Boulevard from Mississippi Street to 66-1/2 Avenue. It is a common boundary street between the cities of Fridley and New Brighton. The project has two different project identification numbers, one for Fridley and one for the City of New Brighton. It will be similar to what was done last year on Stinson Boulevard from Rice Creek south of Gardena. The street will be reconstructed and the e�sting bituminous curbs will be replaced with concrete curb and gutter. The underground utilities have been checked to make sure they are in adequate condition. It does not appear that any upgrades are needed. The gas company is still evaluating their lines to see if they want to upgrade. They are presently maintaining that the current gas mains are sufficient. Mr. Haukaas explained that there are thirteen Fridley properties that will be affected by this project. The cost to upgrade to concrete curb, and gutter is assessable. It will be assessed to the properties addressed on Stinson Boulevard not to exceed the cost of $15 per foot of lot width, FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 6 pursuant to City policy. Eight properties will be assessed. They are 80 feet wide and the ma�mum assessment will be $1,200 each. The remaining five lots are corner lots addressed on east and west streets. They will not be assessed for this project because they paid curb assessments when the east-west streets were constructed. Mr. Haukaas stated that an informational meeting on 7anuary 17 was held. At the February 26 City Council meeting, the City received its feasibility study on the project. New Brighton held their public hearing on March 13 and the affected Fridley residents were invited to this meeting. Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Haukaas who was getting the better deal, the Fridley residents or the New Brighton residents? Mr. Haukaas stated that the City of Fridley residents were, because New Brighton assesses the adjacent residents 25% of the cost of reconstruction. Our policy identifies only the new concrete curb, and gutter as being assessable. Mr. Tom Larson, 6556 Stinson Blvd., stated that he is for this project. He wondered how people were going to get in and out of the area during construction. His wife has a daycare. Mr. Haukaas stated that during construction the City will make sure there is access. Every night things will be cleaned up so that people will have access on to their properties. The only exception is that driveways will be closed for one or two days after the concrete curb is poured. If there is a problem, the contractors are very good to work with. Mr. Larson stated that he has double driveways that are separated. Will they keep the driveways separated? Mr. Haukaas stated that it is not necessary. They try to put back exactly what was there. Mr. Burns asked if New Brighton will be replacing the mailboxes. Mr. Haukaas stated that it will not be part of this process. He can talk to the New Brighton Public Works Department to make sure. Councilmember Billings stated that he would like Mr. Haukaas to go out and see how many driveways there are similar to Mr. Larson's and interview the homeowners to find out what they want. This should then be communicated to the construction crews. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:52 P.M. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 7 REVOCATION HEARING: 12. CONSIDER THE REVOCATION OF THE TOBACCO LICENSE FOR WALGREENS DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. (WARD 1): MOTION by Councilmember Billings to open the revocation hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE REVOCATION HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:53 P.M. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that Chapter 12.09 is the chapter by which the licensure of tobacco sales within the City is regulated. It also regulates the manner in which those sales are supervised and controlled. Section 12.09(B) authorizes the City to revoke a tobacco license in the event that a licensee has three non-compliance violations within one year. The City has had good success in compliance on the part of its licensees in the past. It is uncommon to be in this situation. There were two previous incidences of non-compliance. The third incident will be described in detail tonight. Mr. Lenzmeier, Deputy Public Safety Director, was placed under oath for the purpose of testifying. He stated that pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, the Fridley Police Department conducted tobacco compliance checks. State Statutes make it a gross misdemeanor to sell cigarettes to minors. There is also a possible $3,000 fine and up to one year in jail. The Police Department decided to make the City's ordinance fairer for the store clerks and reviewed other cities' ordinances and asked all retailers to come to meetings for input into creating the new ordinance. The retailers themselves set up the penalties. The penalty for the first offense is $250 for the clerks and $500 for the retailer. Mr. Lenzmeier stated the ordinance passed in 1996 and has worked for us. The Minnesota State Statutes state that cities that have a tobacco ordinance should do one compliance check per year. We are trying to make a goal of doing two. Walgreens failed the first compliance check in September of 1999. They failed a second check in February of 2000. They failed a third check in November of 2000. They failed a fourth check in February of 2001. Walgreens failed four compliance checks in about 14 months. Mr. Knaak asked if the letter sent to him by the Walgreens manager dated September 24, 1999, signed by Mr. Lenzmeier involved the September, 1999, incident. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that each time the business failed, a letter was sent out. He told them they needed to pay a penalty and he told them how many checks failed. A copy of the ordinance was sent and he highlighted the area regarding penalties. Mr. Knaak asked if Walgreens paid a$500 fine for the September, 1999, failure. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 8 Mr. Lenzmeier stated that they did. Mr. Knaak asked if the letter dated February 8, 2000, was for a similar violation. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that it was. Mr. Knaak stated that the letter refers to the February 5 violation. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that was correct. Mr. Knaak asked if the letter notified of the $1,000 penalty and if the penalty was paid. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that it did and the penalty was paid. Mr. Knaak asked if there was any objection by Walgreens. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that he had no contact with Walgreens. Mr. Knaak asked Mr. Lenzmeier to describe the letter dated December 19, 2000. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that it concerns the November 25 compliance check The letter tells them they failed that check and that if they failed another one that year their penalty would be $1,000 payable within 20 days. Mr. Knaak asked if they paid and acknowledged there had been a violation. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that he did not see the check but he believes that it was paid. Mr. Knaak asked him to explain about the final compliance check. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that he asked a sergeant in the Police Department to try to do a compliance check at Walgreens before February 5. He selected an officer to do the compliance check and they went into Walgreens with a young lady and conducted the compliance check which Walgreens failed. The age of the young lady they used for the compliance check was 14. Officer James Mork was placed under oath for the purpose of testifying. He indicated that he was directed by Sergeant Prois to conduct a tobacco compliance check at Walgreens. That took place on February 4, 2001, at 4:20 p.m. Prior to that, we made arrangements with a 14-year-old female and conducted specific training and explained how the compliance check should take place. We then went to Walgreens and the juvenile female entered the store on her own. She exited a few minutes later with a few other items of inerchandise and a pack of Camel cigarettes. She was searched for tobacco products prior to entering the store and none were found. Officer Mork asked the juvenile female what happened. She stated that she had gone to the check out lane and asked the clerk who was a juvenile male, for a pack of Camel Lights. At that time, he grabbed the cigarettes and placed them on the counter. The clerk then saw another FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 9 customer approaching and getting in line. He then asked the juvenile female for her ID. She responded that her purse was stolen and she did not have her ID. She was never asked for any other type of identification. The clerk proceeded to ring up the sale of cigarettes and also the other merchandise. The female then exited the store and walked up to the unmarked squad car. She described the sale and provided the merchandise. Officer Mork indicated that he then entered the store and identified himself as a Fridley police officer. He asked the clerk to contact the store manager on duty. Assistant Store Manager Calvin Pottler arrived to discuss the matter. He then asked the clerk if he had just made a tobacco purchase to a young blond haired girl. He said he had. I asked him if he ever asked the juvenile buyer how old she is. He replied "No." He did not ask her for her birth date and he knew it was illegal to sell tobacco to a juvenile. He then claimed that he asked the juvenile if she was of age. He told me she said yes. He asked her if she was serious and she claimed she was. The juvenile buyer stated that the clerk did not ask her if she was of age. The only thing he asked her when she asked for the cigarettes was "Are you serious?" Officer Mork said he explained to the store manager and the clerk that this was illegal and provided copies of the ordinance and the statute to the store manager and advised that the City would be contacting them in the near future. He placed the cigarettes into evidence and prepared his report. Mr. Knaak asked him if this was out of the ordinary in terms of investigative procedure or compliance checks for tobacco. Officer Mork stated that it was not, except that they usually work with 15, 16, or 17 year old juveniles. Mayor Lund asked if there was any knowledge that Walgreens has paid the third and fourth fines. Mr. Knaak stated that to his knowledge they have. The first offense was in September of 1999. This is the first instance he has seen in the City of four consecutive non-compliance checks. He believes there should be a one-year revocation of the tobacco license for Walgreens. 7oe Lally, Walgreens Representative, stated that Walgreens takes these issues very seriously. These incidences happened with four separate clerks who were 17 years old. Each individual has had to pay the penalty. In two of the incidences both clerks asked for identification. In the November, 2000, incidence, the employee asked for identification and the juvenile produced it. The employee then did not pay close enough attention to birth date and sold the tobacco product. In the February incidence the clerk asked for ID and was assured that her purse was stolen. The training for this is continuing and there are notices where the employees punch in. He said Walgreens wants to make all reasonable efforts to comply and address this problem. He said he was concerned about the one-year revocation and asked that the Council consider a probationary period of six months during which all tobacco sales would be rung up by a management level employee. There would be training for all staff at the Fridley store. A civil penalty of $2,000 would be agreed to. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 10 Councilmember Billings asked if he knew that the hearing was for permanent revocation of the tobacco license. Mr. Lally stated that they are aware that is what the ordinance permits and they are asking for an intermediate consideration. Mayor Lund asked if the fines have all been paid. Mr. Lally stated that the first three fines have all been paid. Mr. Al Julin, District Manager for Walgreens, stated that he has been with Walgreens over 30 years. They do take this seriously. He has 16-year-old twins who he would not like to see purchasing cigarettes and he is a non-smoker. He wanted to share their training policies. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to accept the policies. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Julin stated that all employees must read the first training pages. A form 265 is signed by all employees beginning work stating that they are aware they do not sell tobacco products to underage people. A training manual for employees and supervisory employees is used and also a training video. Dave Caroon, Fridley Store Manager, gives all employees a quiz. The register has a scan-lock system. After scanning the tobacco product, the register will ask "if you were born before this date" and we check identification. We have discussed having only management personnel being allowed to sell tobacco. Walgreens wants to comply. It was never their intent to illegally sell tobacco. Councilmember Barnette asked if the clerks have to be 18 to sell tobacco. Mr. Julin stated that in Minnesota it is 16. Mr. Knaak stated that everything except the quiz has been in effect for the past year. Mr. Julin stated that was correct. Mr. Knaak stated that notwithstanding that, there were still three violations in the past year. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to close the revocation hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 11 Councilmember Billings stated that the packet presented by Walgreens was impressive and indicates that the management does takes it seriously. However, the testimony indicates that the store clerks are not the only ones at fault for being careless. He would think that after the first or second violation someone in management would have stepped forward to say we should only have our managers sell the cigarettes. It only happened after the fourth violation. He is not sure he would be supportive of a permanent revocation but of a revocation for a period of time. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to revoke the tobacco license of Walgreens for a two-year period from April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2003, or not renew the license on April 1, 2001. Walgreens would be required at the time of application to meet all requirements for a new licensee application, rather than a renewal. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. Councilmember Billings stated that there is no difference for an application for renewal or a new license. He does not know what will transpire between now and then. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she is willing to go for a one-year revocation and then for the ne�t year between 2002 and 2003 that only the managers sell the tobacco and have very strict guidelines and more compliance checks. She is very disappointed that they let this go this far. The teenage employees could have used more training by the Police Department. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he has two teenage kids and in some cases it does not matter how much you train the kids. Walgreens seems like they are trying their best to train. He likes the idea of the management selling the tobacco products but it will be hard to monitor that. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she thinks that teenage smoking is a huge issue. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he agrees but Walgreens has done the training and he likes the idea of the managers selling the products. Councilmember Barnette stated that he would be agreeable to a one-year revocation and probation for one year. Mayor Lund asked what percentage of tobacco sales the store has. He does not want to create an undue hardship. Mr. Neil Pankau, Corporate Representative, stated that he checked that this morning. He believes it is $7,000 per month which only amounts to a profit of $14,000 per year. It is not the money, it is the reputation they are trying to uphold here. A one-year suspension is the same as revocation because they would have to move out the tobacco products and fill up the shelves. A one-year suspension is a punishment more harsh to this store than you may think. Mayor Lund asked what the alternative was. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that it was a fine and six months probation. She asked why they let it go this long if they got the letters and saw the ordinance. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 12 Mr. Pankau stated that four different employees were involved and they were written up. It is now a policy that it is one week without pay for the first offense. The second time it is a termination of employment. It is easier for the store to pay the fines than to pay for legal counsel to address those issues. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the manager has to take some responsibility. Mr. Pankau stated that in a retail setting the manager can only be there at certain times. You can train kids over and over again, and that is why they came up with the alternative. Councilmember Billings stated that his decision has nothing to do with the sales and amount of hard work Fridley staff has done. It is not his intent to permanently end tobacco sales at this store. There are four distinct undisputed violations, three occurring in a one-year period, thus kicking into action the Fridley ordinances. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend the motion striking the words " two years" and "March 31, 2003 ", and inserting one year and the date of March 31, 2002. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. Mayor Lund called for a vote on the motion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBERS BILLINGS, BARNETTE, BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1. Mayor Lund called for a vote on the main motion that was changed to a revocation period of one year. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBERS BILLINGS, BARNETTE, BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1. Mayor Lund stated that they do not want to create animosity with Fridley businesses. He thought the one-year revocation period was very generous under the terms. Fridley wants to be pro-business but you have to abide by the ordinance. Mr. Lally asked if the revocation is effective April 1. Councilmember Billings stated that was correct. OLD BUSINESS: 13. SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 223, CONCERNING MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS, REQUIRING OWNERS TO PAY RELOCATION EXPENSES TO DISPLACED RESIDENTS UPON PARK CLOSINGS: and FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 13 APPROVE OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE: Mr. Fernelius, Housing Coordinator, stated that on March 5, there were a couple of amendments made to the first reading of the ordinance. If this second reading is approved, the ordinance would be published on April 5 and would become effective 15 days later, or on April 20, 2001. The first change involves Section 223.06 concerning "Displaced Resident Obligations." The te�t was modified stating that the displaced resident can elect to receive relocation assistance or compensation. The second change involved Section 223.08 with the election to receive compensation and a minor te�t amendment indicated that the compensation shall be in an amount equal to the current market value of the home, or if no appraisal e�sts, the current assessed value. This is one of the changes Councilmember Billings requested. The third change is the addition of Section 223.09, "Limitation on Total Amount of Relocation Assistance and Compensation Paid to Displaced Residents." The final change involved renumbering the last two sections. Ms. Kristina Carter, 7303 Oakley St., stated that she is a part-time resident of Fridley Terrace Manufactured Home Park She supports this proposal. She paid $13,000 for her home and made $20,000 in repairs. The County of Anoka has the assessed value at $13,200. Under the terms of that amendment with the cap and under the language of the first amendment it looks to her like the cost of her repairs would be totally out the window if the park were closed. She could pay for an independent appraiser and will do so. Nonetheless, she does not believe this ordinance was proposed to deprive people compensation for improving their homestead. If you do not like where you are at and your home is more than ten years old, no other park will take you. Therefore she would have to accept whatever compensation the park owners will give her. This will discourage repairs and rehab of the older units of which there are many. Mayor Lund stated that as he believes that Section 223.08 states that the current fair market value will be given or it will be appraised as well. The appraisal will show the repairs. It is not the intent to discourage remodeling. Mr. Fernelius stated that this ordinance provides some compensation and assistance. It may not be perfect but is a step in the right direction. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that this is true with any property. Someone who invested a lot of money in a home and the City condemned it would be the market value for the basis of the evaluation. Sometimes the money put into the homes is reflected and sometimes it is not. There is no special provision in this ordinance for this situation. Ms. Carol Jenkins, 1013 North Circle, stated that she has had to pay close to $15,000 for damage from the hail storm two or three years ago. She was forced to repair her home and her insurance company did not consider the hail damage to the aluminum siding as payable. She will not be able to recoup this. Mayor Lund stated that he suggests she could check for different insurance because he knows that many homes received adequate insurance. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 14 Ms. 7enkins stated that they only covered roof damage and window damage, nothing for the siding. This is not fair under the cap. Councilmember Barnette asked who she thinks should be responsible for paying the costs. Ms. Jenkins stated that she sees his point. A lot of insurance carriers say that it is cosmetic damage. It costs her more to repair it than what she paid for it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she does not see what the cap has to do with that. There is an appraisal. It is not different than anyone else who has property that suddenly needs to put a new roof on the house. Some of this stuff is also maintenance. Councilmember Barnette stated that these are circumstances where the home is valued less than what they put into it. He indicated that 20% of the County's assessment on the park of $7,500,000 is $1,500,000. Dividing that by 360 homes will bring around $4,500 for top dollar with the cap. We are giving some protection to the people living under the mobile home park. Who is going to be responsible if the park would sell? The park owner may not be monetarily able to pay that. We think this ordinance is a reasonable solution to the situation. If we did not have this ordinance you would get nothing. Councilmember Billings stated that there is a possibility that the park may sell for more giving more for a cap. You are locked in for 20% of the selling price or 20% of the appraised value. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that this could be to their advantage. Councilmember Billings stated that the 20% cap is evenly distributed to each home depending on how much they are valued. Ms. Jerri Lynn, resident of Fridley Terrace Mobile Home Park, stated that the cap issue has been handled in 11 different municipalities. With these caps there are a number of things the Fridley park closing ordinance has not addressed. How the money will be paid out and the timing issue with the cap are a couple of things. She wondered if the market value on the year that the settlement took place was going to be used. Councilmember Barnette stated that the ordinance states that the market value is determined by the year the park is scheduled to close. Mr. Fernelius stated that is correct. Ms. Lynn stated that the Burnsville ordinance states clearly that the park owner and park purchaser shall not exceed 20% of the purchase price of the park and 20% of the estimated market value of the park as most recently determined. People then know it will be the most recent figure. The County does not assess the manufactured home parks in Fridley. The Fridley assessor does. A number of the other ordinances include some sort of language describing how the money will be divided which will clarify matters immensely. Fridley should also consider language in regards to the purchase price of the park The City could contribute to a part of the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 15 relocation settlement like the City of Shakopee does. The cap will cause financial hardship for most of the people in the manufactured home parks in Fridley given the fact that the homes cannot be moved. The park purchaser's contribution to the relocation should be considered though. The amount of money that a person who lives in Fridley Terrace would get based on the park closing ordinance language using the 2001 estimated market values, would be $4,467 each. Park Plaza Estates residents would get $3,015. Why should they get so much less for their hardship? Amendments to the cap could be added to make it more specific to avoid litigation. Councilmember Barnette asked if the City of Shakopee committed public dollars. Ms. Lynne stated that it is based on the purchase price of the park to make the differential with the 20% cap. Councilmember Wolfe asked if the assessor of Anoka County assesses the park. Mr. Fernelius stated that the City assessor assesses the value of the land for the park The County assesses the individual manufactured homes. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1151 on the second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that this is a good ordinance and compromise. Staff has gone over this in great detail. Councilmember Barnette stated that this was the result of a request to pursue this ordinance and the City Attorney feels that it is better to have an ordinance in place. Ms. Tracey Tomas, Park Plaza Estates Representative, stated that she is familiar with the Shakopee ordinance. What is before us is a compromise and City staff has done an excellent job in listening to both sides. Councilmember Billings stated that we cannot anticipate all the circumstances surrounding some nebulous closing of a park. We cannot predict what the park would be sold for. State statutes provide that we can make this determination at that time of the required public hearing when we have the facts in front of us to make a reasonable determination. The City of Fridley does not have any business sticking its nose in this. Mayor Lund asked for a vote on the motion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, BOLKCOM, AND MAYOR LUND VOTING AYE, COUNCILMEMBERS BILLINGS AND WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 16 MOTION by Councilmember Billings to direct City of Fridley Staff to publish the condensed version of the Official Title and Summary. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER PERTAINING TO TAXATION AND FINANCES (TABLED MARCH 5, 2001): MOTION by Councilmember Billings to waive the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. Mr. Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive N.E., stated that the part of the amendment added to Chapter 6(B) had more language than he realized that should have been stricken out. He said that nothing was published about a meeting on this. Mayor Lund stated that the public hearing notice was duly published. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that it was published as a public hearing and it was tabled. That information was not in the Fridley Focus. There are parts of this that he is not fond of. Mayor Lund stated that the language was unanimously decided on. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that it was not unanimous. He voted against it and feels that he should have never joined that meeting. It should have been left as it was. Councilmember Billings stated that Minnesota State Statutes are clear on the fact that the Council can accept the ordinance the way it is or send it back to the Charter Commission for rewording. It requires a unanimous 5 to 0 vote. This is a technical revision of the item that was on the ballet in November of 2000. This is the ordinance as recommended by the Charter Commission. Mayor Lund asked for a vote on the motion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 15. CONSIDER TOBACCO LICENSE REQUEST BY DENNIS G. BUCHANAN: Mr. Sallman, Public Safety Director, stated that he is recommending denial of the tobacco license request made by Mr. Dennis G. Buchanan. Mr. Buchanan has requested a tobacco license for the Fifth Element Smoke Shop. Mr. Buchanan is a convicted felon. In October of 1992 upon execution of a search warrant, he was charged and convicted pursuant to Minnesota FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 17 Statute 152.05 for possession of marijuana with intent to sell. The selling of tobacco is a regulated industry. Tobacco is getting increasingly regulated and we are trying to keep tobacco products from youth. The felony drug charge violated the laws of Minnesota within the last ten years and he probably should not be in this business. They conducted a background check and found that Mr. Buchanan owns five other businesses and at least one he owned when he was convicted of the marijuana charge. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Knaak if Mr. Buchanan needs to be notified that this is an agenda item. Mr. Knaak stated that there is no formal requirement to notify him. It is not like he already has a license. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Sallman if he had a conversation with him about Mr. Sallman's recommendation. Mr. Sallman stated that he did not. He indicated that would come from the Finance Department. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to deny the tobacco license request made by Mr. Buchanan. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 16. CONSIDER REAPPOINTMENTS TO CITY COMMISSIONS: MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve the reappointments to the Planning Commission, Appeals Commission, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Cable Television Commission, Police Commission, and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to appoint LeRoy Oquist to the Human Resources Commission for a three-year term. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 17. INFORMAL STATUS REPORT: Councilmember Billings stated that the City Clerk has informed the Minnesota Charitable Gambling Board that the City of Fridley is refunding a portion of the gambling license to people and they have been approached by the Charitable Gambling Board to produce the deposit ticket FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2001 PAGE 18 for the check They indicated they have not received the check yet. He asked about the status of that matter. Mayor Lund stated that the request would be referred to the Finance Director. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MARCH 26, 2001, CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor