Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Couacil Meeting 86 Executive Sessioa <br />Monday, March 23, 2009 <br />Page 16 <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Pust; Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; and Klausing. <br />Nays: None. <br />Councilmember Pust noted that the record clearly indicates her support for this <br />project, with proposed and minor revisions. <br />Mr. Wellington assured Councilmembers that this process and discussion had <br />been productive, and that they would continue their collaborative venture with <br />staff and the neighborhood. Mr. Wellington encouraged a workshop discussion <br />with Councilmembers that could facilitate improved designs and allow for broad <br />community input reflecting those wishes. <br />Councilmember Johnson opined that this was a great project; and he looked <br />forward to resolution of remaining issues. <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of allowing time on a future agenda and <br />non-voting session for public input and Councilmember feedback on the project. <br />e. Consider Non-Compliance Penalty for Centennial Gardens Apartments <br />Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed the <br />additional information provided as previously requested, and detailed in the <br />Request for Council Action dated March 23, 2009. Mr. Trudgeon noted <br />attachment to the report of three additional informational pieces: <br />1) Actual rent rolls and months ofnon-compliance <br />2) Rebate information provided (Attachment H) -number of units affected, <br />frequency and range of over charge <br />3) Attachment J -number of units to be included or not included for Section <br />8 -staff's interpretation; and interpretation of owner excluding Section 8. <br />Mr. Trudgeon noted that owner representatives were present, along with the <br />City's Bond Counsel Mary Ippel, with Briggs & Morgan. Mr. Trudgeon advised <br />that there was no debate as to whether there was a violation, just whether it was <br />substantial enough to mandate the $60,000 penalty as mandated by State Statute, <br />or insubstantial, and suggesting anon-compliance letter finding violations and <br />waiving the penalty, with reimbursement of legal fees as recommended by staff. <br />Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, authorizing issuance of anon-compliance order to <br />Gardens East Limited Partnership finding the violations substantial and levying a <br />penalty of $60,000 in accordance with Minnesota State Statute, Section <br />474A.047(3). <br />Discussion among Councilmembers and Ms. Ippel included whether the Statute <br />provided guidance in determining criteria for measuring substantial natures for <br />non-compliance; impact on residents; length of time for non-compliance; dollar <br />