Memo Pines Mobile Home Park Storm Shelter
- -
"1;,_ i
CITY OF HOPKINS
.) MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 2, 1993
TO: Honorable ~~nd City Council
FROM: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: PINES MOBILE HOME PARK -
STORM SHELTER
---------------------------------
I. Purpose. of Discussion
The purpose of this item is to apprise the City council of
actions City staff and legal counsel plan on taking against the
owner of the Pines Mobile Home Park. This action relates to the
owners lack of attention to orders which the. City has written
regarding the provision of a storm shelter for the residents of
the 'Pines. No specific action is being requested by the City
Council.
.\ The owner of the pines Mobile Home Park has been notified of
)
staff's proposed action and of the City Council's review of this
matter.
II. Background
In February staff discussed with the city Council actions which
staff proposed to take to address 'code issues in the pines Mobile
Home Park. One of these code items related to storm shelter
matters. In this case, the owner of the park was required to
provide a storm shelter within the park, or a plan to provide a
shelter off-site which was acceptable to ,the City. The owner of
the park was not in compliance with this requirement, which is a
requirement of both State Statute as well as city Code.
As a ,result of staff's discussions with the Council in February,
the City'S legal counsel directed orders to the owner of the
pines Mobile Home Park indicating that he had until March 19,
1993 to construct an acceptaple emergency shelter on the Pines
property or, in lieu of such construction, propose an emergency
evacuation plan acceptable to the city. As a part of this
directive, the city Attorney outlined' actions which the city
might take if the owner did hot comply with this order.
'.\ As of March 19 the owner of the pines Mobile Home Park has not
. I complied with the City'S orders. Apparently the owner has
, j
undertaken some investigation to utilize the bowling alley on
..
Honorable Mayor and City Council
April 2, 1993
Page 2
. However, no formal plan
Shady Oak Road as an. off-site shelter.
has been submitted to the City.
.
III. Proposed Action
The alternatives which the City has, to deal with this matter are
varied. Attached is a memo from the City's legal counsel
outlining the various alternatives which are at our disposal.
The City's alternatives include the following:
0 The City could abate the problem by devising an emergency
evacuation plan or constructing a shelter and assessing the
costs back against the property.
0 File criminal misdemeanor charges against the park owner
0 Undertake a civil action against the owner of the park in
District Court
.
0 Undertake a combination of the aforementioned alternatives
Based upon discussions with legal counsel, it has been determined
e) that the appropriate course of action to take at this time would
be as follows:
0 Undertake a civil action against the owner of the Park in
District Court, requiring Hartman to comply with the
ordinance and either construct a storm shelter or devise an
acceptable evacuation plan. Based upon the civil action
taken, the City will recommend that Hartman be given 30 days
to undertake one of the two measures. If Hartman does not
undertake these measures, staff will also request that the
Court provide the City with the authority to construct a
shelter in the Park. However, this does not require the
City to construct this shelter. Any costs associated with
constructing a shelter would be assessed back against the
property.
0 File criminal misdemeanor charges against the Park ,owner for
his failure to .meet the City's orders. The penalty for a
misdemeanor is up to 90 days in jail and/or a $700 fine.
During the City Council meeting the City Attorney will be
available to provide more specifics regarding the action which is
proposed to be undertaken by staff.
.
) TH04013A
''i ,
'.'
, ,
C I T y 0 F H 0 P K I N S
M E M 0 RAN D UM
DATE: April I, 1993 .
TO: Tom Harmening
FROM: Wynn Curtiss
RE: Pines Trailer Park - Shelter Options
This Memo is a follow-up to our March 25, 1993 meeting at which
time we discussed the options available to the City to remedy the
lack of an emergency shelter at the H & H Pines Manufactured Home
Park (the "Pines" ) .
Included in our discussion were the following options:
e) 1- Criminal charges against the Pines' owner, Jerry Hartman,
for violation of both Minnesota Statutes and Hopkins City Code
sections requiring an emergency shelter or, in lieu of the shelter,
an approved emergency evacuation plan. As I indicated, these
violations are misdemeanor offenses "pu'nishable by up to 90 days in
jail and/or a $700.00 fine. The benefit to such a charge is that
it is a severe sanction which can provide considerable incentive
for Hartman to comply with the statute. The major drawback to
using criminal charges is_ that the process could take four to five
months before it is resolved and ' no shelter will have been
constructed or plan imposed by that time.
2. 'A second option would be to have ,the City remedy the
situatio~ by constructing a shelter or devising its own emergency
evacuation plan. Both the City nuisance ordinance and the
ordinance dealing with manufactured home parks ,grant the City
authority to take action and provide the process by which the
authority can be exercised. The major drawback to this option is
that it requires notice and hearings before the City can take
action and Hartman still has the option to seek review of the
Council's decision in District Court.
3. The third option is to seek an order directly from
District Court directing Hartman to either construct the emergency
shelter or devise an acceptable evacuation ,plan. In addition, we,
would seek an order from the Court stating that if Hartman failed
to meet the Court's deadline for completing the shelter or
.'
, evacuation plan, that the City would be authorized to take whatever
.-
" . ,.;
1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935-8474
An Equal Opportunity Employer
; i
.
Tom Harmening
ei April 1, 1993
Page 2
action it felt was necessary to remedy the situation. Finally, the
order would authorize the City to assess any costs incurred by it
against the property as a special assessment. The advantage to
this option is that it is probably quicker while still affording
Hartman the greatest degree of due process available under the law.
4 . Finally, the last option discussed was the possibility. of
combining any of the above options and executing them
simultaneously.
Following our discussion of these options, it was decided that
the two options most favored wer.e filing a criminal charge and
simultaneously commencing a civil action seeking an order directing
Hartman to comply with the shelter requirement. It was further
decided that the matters would be presented to the Council and
notice would be given to Hartman of the date of the presentation to
the Council so he could participate if he chose. I have sent that
notice. In addition, I have prepared a criminal complaint and am
preparing the civil papers so either or both actions can be taken
immediately following the Council meeting if no significant
progress is made to resolve the issue.
.. Attached with this Memo is a copy of my March 23, 1993 Memo
". }
setting forth in more detail the options available to the City.
In addition, attached is a copy of the letter sent to Hartman
giving him notice of the Council meeting and the options under
consideration.
WC
njj
Enclosures
.i
.- -. /
------- ---
.
VESELY, MILLER & STEINER
. " PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
JERRE A. Mil..LER 400 NOR WEST BANK BUll..OING JOSEPH C. VESELY (1905-1989)
JEREMY S. STEINER'" 1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH
WYNN CURTISS HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
. Real Ptopcrty Law Spoc:ia1i1t. 612-938-7635
-uflCCl by tbo MimcIoca s_ March 31, 1993 FAX 612-938.7670
Bar ANoc:iation.
Gerard Hartman
4802 East Berniel
Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253
Re: Pines Mobile Home Park Compliance with Section 450 of Hopkins
City Code
Dear'Mr. Hartman:
The purpose of tPis letter is to notify you, as owner of the
Pines Manufactured Home Park (the "Pines"), that the March 19, 1993
deadline set for you to complete certain actions has passed.
Previously, the City of Hopkins (the "City") informed you that you
had until March 19, ,1993 to construct an acceptable emergency
e) shelter on the Pines pr~perty or, in lieu of such construction, to
propose an emergency evacuation plan acceptable ' to the City.
Neither of those actions has taken plac~. The City, therefore,
intends to take whatever actions are necessary to remedy the
situation at the Pines.
On April 6, 1993, the Hopkins City Council will meet to discuss
recommendations by the City staff for resolving this situation.
While the precise recommendations have not been determined, it is
expected that the staff will recommend and that the Council will
approve two courses of action.
First, criminal charges would be filed against you pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes and Hopkins City Ordinances requiring the
construction of the shelter or preparation of the emergency
evacuation plan. Violations of this type are misdemeanors under
Minnesota law, punishable by up to 9,0 days in jailor a $700.00
fine or both.
In . addition, to the criminal charges, the City staff likely will
recommend 'that a civil action be commenced seeking .a court order
directing you to build a shelter or devise an emergency evacuation
plan. The City would further ask the Court for authority to build
the shelter itself or devise its own plan should you fail to meet
the Court-imposed deadline. Finally, the City would seek a court
order authorizing the City to assess against the property all costs
. incurred by the City in remedying this situation:
.>" _.-~
. .
e} Gerard Hartman
March 31, 1993
. Page .2
These matters will be discussed at the City Council meeting on
April 6, 1993. Your participation inthos~ discussions would be
helpful' and is strongly recommended. If you wish .to discuss these
matters before the City Council meeting, I recommend you contact
Mr. Torn Harmening.
Sincerely,
Wynn Curtiss
cc: Tom Harmening
Jim Kerrigan
Torn Anderson
Pat Graham
Steve Mielke ~
John Koneck, Esq.
WC:njj
e)
. .
.} :
,t .p'~
..
, ,
, '
.)
c I "r y .0 F H 0 P K I N S
,
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 23, 1993
" TO: Tom Harmening I'
Steve Mielke ./
Tom Anderson .
Jim Kerrigan
Pat Graham
FROM: Wynn Curtiss
RE: Pines Trailer,Park - Shelter Options
l.
The purpose of this Memo is to discuss the options available to
the City if Jerry Hartman fails to provide an adequate emergency
shelter or emergency evacuation plan within the time period allowed
..). to him .and staff elects to proceed with enforcement action.
Option I - Abatement by the City.
The City could, pursuant to either Hopkins City Code Section
450.19, Subd. 2 or . 615.02, Subd. 7 (the nuisance ordinance)
alleviate the lack of an emergency shelter or emergency evacuation
plan by constructing a shelter on the property or devising an
emergency evacuation plan. In the case of the nuisance ordinance,
the City likely would proceed pursuant to Hce 615.12, the emergency
abatement procedure, and commence the action immediately.
Both Hce 450.19, Subd. 9 and Hee 615.0?, Subd. 1 authorize the
City to assess the costs of abating the hazard against the pr~perty
as a special assessment. Both sections, however, do require notice
of the intent. to abate as . well as hearings before the eouncil
regarding the abatement procedure and the assessment.
Option 2- Criminal Charges.
Both HCe Chapter 450 and Hee Chapter 615 state that violation
, of any provision of those chapters constitutes.. a misdemeanor.
Therefore, criminal misdemeanor charges could be filed,against the
park owner for his failure to provide the shelter under HCe ehapter
450 or for his allowing a nuisance under Hee ehapter 615. Since
notice already has been given to Hartman under Hee Chapter 450, no
.' further action need be taken other than drafting a complaint and
. ) filing it with the Court. Hee 615.13, which provides the criminal
",.J
1010 First Street South. Hopkins. Minnesota 55343 612/935-8474
An Eaual Opportunity Employer
, ,
." penalty for creating or allowing a nuisance, does not appear to
. require any notice before charges can be filed. However, if the
City chooses to file a criminal complaint pursuant to the nuisance
ordinance, I would suggest giving notice of the city's intent to do
so so as to avoid any 'appearance of unfairness or lack of notice.
In addition, Minn. Stat. 327.20, Subd. 1(6) requires a
manufactured home park to have a shelter or an evacuation, plan
approved by the City as of March I, 1989. Minn. Stat. 327.24,
Subd. 2 makes it a .misdemeanor to violate any provision of Minn'.
Stat. .327, including failing to have a shelter or plan. A 1988
Attorney General's opinion cites Minn. Stat. 487.25, Subd. 10 for
the proposition that misdemeanor violations of Minn. Stat. ,327 can
be prosecuted by the City Attorney. Therefore,a misdemeanor
charge could also be filed against Hartman pursuant to Minn. Stat.
327.24.
The penalty fora misdemeanor is up to 90 days in jail and/or a
$700.00 fine. Presumably, we could file charges for each day of
the violation and thus, each day of the violation would be a new
criminal count. This would, however, be quite cumbersome and not
likely to add signifit:ant weight to the prosecution. Either a
single criminal charge will be effective or it will not, I do not
believe repetitive criminal charges will provide additional
enforcement ability.
~) Option 3- Civil Action Aqainst Hartman.
The City could institute a civil action against Hartman in
District Court. The result of the action could be one of three
things: An order from the Court requiring Eartman to comply with
the ordinance and either construct a' shelter or' devise an
acceptable evacuation plan; an order from the Court to Hartman
requiring him to vacate the property and remove the residents until
such time as the shelter is constructed or the emergency evacuation
plan is approved; or, an order authorizing the City to construct
the shelter or devise an emergency evacuation plan if Hartman fails
to do so and to charge the costs of ~hose of those actions against
the property.
The City's authority to commence a civil action and to
undertake the remedial action itself derives from several sources.
Minn. Stat. 327.24 Subd. 3 provides possible legal grounds for
the City, to file a civil action against Hartman for his failure to
provide a shelter or emergency plan. The statute reads:
Any person injured or threatened with injury by a violation of
Sections 327.14-327.18 or of the rules of the Department of
Health applicable to manufactured homes may bring a private
action in any court of competent jurisdiction.
I)
-2-
l"., .. ~
.\ In addition, HCC Chapter 450.19 Subd. 5 authorizes the City to
take certain actions should the remedial action not be completed by
Hartman. The options of having the City undertake the remedial
action itself or filing criminal charges ,have been discussed
above. The other option listed is to "order inunediate vacation of
the '. property. It
Finally, the nuisance 'ordinance, as discussed above, could be
used to, establish the City's authority to abate the nuisance by
taking the remedial action and charging the costs against the
property.
,The advantage to seeking a court order, regardless of the
remedy elected, is that the' court procedure affords Hartman the
greatest amount of legal due process and.provides the City with
judicial review of the authorization for its enforcement action.
Any order ultimately obtained by the City carries with it the
considerable authority of the District Court.
Option 4 - Combination of Options.
!..
Finally, the options listed above can be combined in various
ways if that is desired. Criminal charges can be.' filed in
conjunction with any of the options listed above. Vacation of the
. property could be sought at the same time the City seeks .to abate
.~--i the problem itself either by constructing a shelter or creating an
. ,,/ emergency evacuation plan. In other words, the options listed
above are not necessarily mutually exclusive and could be pursued
in whatever comb~nation was deemed most appropriate.
Summary
Should the City choose not to proceed at this 'time with any of
the options listed above, it would ,be prudent to notify each of the
trailer occupants that the park does not meet the statutory
requirements regarding a shelter or emergency evacation plan.
If you have, any questions regarding these options please
contact me.
WC
njj
.fJ -3-