Cedar Towing may lose its license

Company waiting for issue to be resolved before moving into Longfellow

by Tesha M. Christensen

Cedar Towing intended to move into the Longfellow neighborhood last fall, but is still waiting for the city’s approval. Because its license to operate hasn’t been renewed, city staff won’t sign off on the necessary paperwork for the move from 359 Hoover Street in the University neighborhood to 3527 Dight Ave. S. in the Longfellow neighborhood.

When Cedar Towing sought to renew its operating license in September 2011, the city initiated an investigation into their business practices.

Although the attorney’s office declined to press criminal charges in December, Minneapolis has announced its intention to deny the company’s license to operate because of numerous code violations, including overcharging customers and allowing its own employee to authorize tows from private property. It has allowed the company to operate since September until these issues are resolved.

Cedar Towing is the city’s largest of five towing companies. In 2008, Cedar Towing agreed to pay $1,341 in fines for various violations, some of the same ones the company is accused of repeating in 2011.

CEDAR TOWING’S OPTIONS

A letter written to Cedar Towing President Julie Rodriquez by Dana Banwer of Minneapolis’ licensing and environmental services division on Jan. 26, 2012 laid out three options for the company. One, surrender its business license. Two, acknowledge the violations did occur and allow the Minneapolis City Council to determine if any adverse license action should be taken such as the revocation or denial of Cedar’s business license, suspensions, administrative fines or additional business license operating conditions. Or three, opt to have the case be presented to an administrative law judge.

 “The city believes that we have the evidence to back up what we said in the letter to them,” noted Minneapolis Licenses Division Manager Grant Wilson. “We are not making stuff up. We believe these things are true or we would not have taken this road.”

Based on evidence gathered during a search warrant, the city believes Cedar Towing overcharged customers by $88,424.50 between Jan. 1, 2011 and Oct. 18, 2011. “We suspect this has been going on for a number of years,” Wilson stated.

The current towing fee set by the city’s ordinance is $212. The storage fee is $28 a day. Cedar Towing has been charging the storage fee on the first day a vehicle is towed, rather than beginning on the second day as stated in the city ordinance. Rasmus argued, “There is no language in the service fee section of the Ordinance (section 349.270) that suggests in any way that storage fees may not be charged on the first day of a tow, or that a licensee must wait until after midnight of the day a vehicle is towed to charge storage fees,” argued Rasmus.

Representatives from the city and Cedar Towing met on Thursday, Feb. 9. Cedar Towing asked for one week to decide which option to pursue (go before the city council or an administrative law judge). They were given a deadline of Feb. 17, according to Wilson.

“We’re working with the city to resolve these issues and we’re hopeful,” stated Cedar Towing’s attorney Dan Rasmus.

RELOCATION INTO LONGFELLOW

Cedar Towing’s business operations include service tows, motor club towing/services, impound towing, jump starts, lock-outs, winching, tire changes and gas fills. Cedar Towing also provides snow plowing services, lot sweeping and a striping service. The business holds an Auto Lien Auction most Tuesdays at 11 a.m.

The announcement last fall that Cedar Towing intended to move into the Longfellow neighborhood was met with some trepidation as neighbors expressed concerns about whether the impound lot would generate crime, lower property values and increase noise and traffic. Others were pleased that the building that once housed John’s Welding Service would be used again, and that outside art on the property would be preserved.

To move into the vacant property, Cedar Towing asked the city to remove the pedestrian-oriented overlay on the property, which prohibited a towing company. It also asked for a conditional use permit and a variance of the off-street parking requirement. The city’s planning division recommended that the city deny Cedar Towing’s request as it does not match the city’s comprehensive plan. However, Planning Commission members approved it at the Aug. 29, 2011 meeting and it was subsequently approved by the City Council at its Sept. 2 meeting. Before moving into the Dight Ave. location, Cedar Towing was required to comply with various landscaping and site conditions, including the remodel of the building to create a front entrance off Dight Ave.

-30-

SIDEBAR

VIOLATIONS AND RESPONSES

The following are a list of violations alleged by the city, followed Cedar Towing’s response provided to the city via a letter written by attorney Dan Rasmus.

1) Charging towing service fees in excess of those allowed by the city’s ordinances.

Cedar’s attorney Dan Rasmus pointed out that the service fee provision in the ordinance places a cap of service fees but it does not state that storage fees can’t be charged. “There is no language in the service fee section of the Ordinance (section 349.270) that suggests in any way that storage fees may not be charged on the first day of a tow, or that a licensee must wait until after midnight of the day a vehicle is towed to charge storage fees,” argued Rasmus.

2) Failure to accept credit cards as a form of payment on all days of the week.

Ramsus pointed out that Cedar Towing was having trouble with its credit card providers during a “small number of weekends” which made it unable to accept credit card payments. However, the situation has been resolved.

3) Conducting private impound towing services from private parking lots where there are no entrance warning signs posted.

According to Rasmus, this allegation involves a lot Cedar Towing shared responsibility over with another company. Because Cedar Towing didn’t own the lot, it couldn’t post a sign. “There was no intentional violation of the ordinance when vehicles were towed by Cedar Towing,” Rasmus stated.

4) Conducting private impound towing services without proper authorization.

“Cedar Towing strives to prevent tows from lots where signs are not posted or where alleged non-compliant signs are in place,” stated Rasmus. “Any alleged violations of this provision were unintentional.”

5) Conducting private impound towing services without completing a tow order form as required. (This violation is a repeat from August 2007.)

This allegation involves a disagreement between the city and Cedar Towing about what information should be released to vehicle owners, according to Rasmus. Cedar Towing expressed concerns about releasing the contact information of lot owners to vehicle owners, fearing that such information would be used by vehicle owners to retaliate against the lot owners. Rasmus stated that a new form was developed to protect lot owners from harm, and to his knowledge, “all parties are satisfied with the current use of this form.” 

6) Providing remuneration to parking lot operators in the form of parking lot security patrol services.

It can be unsafe for property lot owners to deal with individuals whose vehicles are about to be towed, stated Rasmus. “The work is better left to trained tow operators.”

7) Failure to immediately transport private impounded vehicles to a licensed storage facility. (This violation is a repeat from August 2007.)

“There were unique circumstances surrounding the alleged practice that led to a citation,” stated Rasmus. He added that this issue was already addressed and resolved by a Consent Degree in December 2010.

This story was printed in the March 2012 edition of the Longfellow/Nokomis Messenger.