Loading...
CR 97-135 Waive Penalrty To Obtain License• July 9, 1997 Council Report 97 -135 REQUEST TO WAIVE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A LICENSE OR APPROVE SIXTY DAY EXTENSION Staff recommends approval of the following motion: Move that the Hopkins City Council deny the request for waiver of penalty for failure to obtain a license for Integrity Auto Brokers Inc. Approve a sixty day extension , making payment of $400 penalty due on October 15, 1997. Adoption of this motion will not waive the penalty, but will allow Mr. Walsh an additional sixty days to pay the penalty. Overview At its June 17 meeting the City Council approved a license for Integrity Auto Brokers and assessed a penalty of $400 for failure to obtain a license in a timely manner. Mr. Walsh appeared before the Council on July 1s and asked that the action taken on the penalty be reconsidered or that he be given sixty days to pay the penalty. Primary Issues to Consider • Was Mr. Walsh aware of the procedure and requirements • What does the ordinance require • Uniform enforcement Supporting Documents • Complete application available in the City Clerks office rmaier, City Clerk Council Report Page 2 Primary Issues to Consider • Was Mr. Walsh aware of the procedure and requirements Prior to purchasing Rent -a -Wreck last fall, Mr. Walsh inquired as to the regulations regarding licensure. At the time he was told that he would be required to license the business under his own name for 1996. He came back and said that the owner at the time was going to keep the business under his name and he would operate it for the owner for the remainder of 1996. He said that his agreement with the person he was purchasing from was that he could operate under the existing licenses. Mr. Walsh was told at that time that he would be required to obtain a license for 1997 because the 1996 license would expire on December 31, 1996. Mr. Walsh appeared before the Zoning and Planning Commission on October 29, 1997, to request the continuation of the CUP on the property. Just prior to that meeting, I spoke with Mr. Walsh and again emphatically stated that he would be responsible to obtain a license before January 1, 1997 for the license year of 1997. He answered that he would obtain that license. In October, 1996, license renewal forms were sent to the address, 2021 Mainstreet, of the business. Mr. Karchevski notified me that he would not be responsible for the 1997 license and that Mr. Walsh would take care of it. spoke with Mr. Walsh again to alert him that he was responsible for the 1997 license. He responded again that he was aware of that. In the previous conversations, Mr. Walsh was told that he was required by our ordinance to obtain a state license before a City of Hopkins license would be issued to him. When Mr. Walsh submitted an application for the City of Hopkins license, he was in the process of applying for the state license. He indicated to me at that time that he had not applied for the state license prior to that time because the state license required bonding. He indicated that he was not sure he could qualify for the bond and that the amount of money required for the bond was not available until the time that he applied. Mr. Walsh submitted an application for a license on May 20, 1997. At the same time he submitted a request for zoning approval for his state license. When Mr. Walsh was informed that he would have to pay the penalty, he said that he was not renewing a license and therefore was not considered as a late renewal. When reading the section further, he stated that he was not Alternatives City Council Report 97 -135 Page 3 applying for a new license late, because he had been operating under an existing license. It was explained to Mr. Walsh that either way, he was not in compliance. Mr. Walsh read the ordinance again and said that the ordinance reads "may" not must. Mr. Walsh's state license was processed on May 28, 1997. It is the opinion of staff that Mr. Walsh was aware of the procedure and requirements when he took over the business. • What does the Ordinance require Section 1005.05, subd.2 states, "A double fee may be charged any business which fails to secure a license in a timely manner. This provision shall apply to any business which fails to renew a license by the end of January. It will also apply in the case of a business seeking a new or temporary license where the business opens or the activity begins prior to applying for a license." • Uniform Enforcement In some cases, where hardships exist, or circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have caused delays, double fees have been waived. It is believed that in this case the applicant was fully aware of the procedure and requirements and made a decision to be out of compliance. In similar situations, others have been required to pay the penalty. 1. Deny the waiver and grant the sixty day extension 2. Deny the waiver and do not grant the sixty day extension 3. Grant the waiver Staff recommends alternative number one.