Loading...
01-1340�9�1�'.J��U�e� Presented Referred To Pro�ert�A pealed 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the December 21, 2 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 5 6 7 Committee Date Ap elp lant 730 Sherburne Avenue 7uanita Crenshaw & Cleveland Williams Decision: Appeal denied on the Notice of Condemnation dated October 31, 2001. 8 880 Wilson Avenue Jamie Plan 9 Decision: Appeal denied on the Deficiency List dated December 12, 2001. The $25 filing fee will be refunded. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey � Coleman ✓ Hams ,/ Benanav � Reiter �/ Bostrom � Lantry ,/ O C� Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � 17 Adopted by Council: Date � s.� _ o' �.00 \ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council 18 19 Adoption C ified by Council Secretary 20 By: � � (� B y' 21 Approved by Mayor: Date � Z, r�, 22 By: � CouncilFile# 6 \— 13yo Green Sheet # 113659 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA /�� _��UO DEPARTMENTlOFFICE/OpUNCIL OATE INmATED � City Council Offices Dec. 26 Zoo� GREEN SHEET No 113659 COMACT PERSON & PFiONE Nmalloaq NM1auDrte Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 �,, a ,,.� Musr ee ori courica ncErmn er can�f �ssww � roa anwnoaar � arcr.tmc ROIITUIG �� w1�11CMLaFRYICFSOR niUItL1LaER1l/ACLiG ❑wrortlwe�wsnu+p ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CL.IP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RE�UESTED Approving the December 21, 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 730 Sherburne Avenue and 880 Wilson Avenue. RECAMMENDATIO Approve (A) or RejeG (R) VERSONALSERVICE CONTRACfS MUSTANSWEW TNE FOLLOWIN6 QUFSRONS: 1. Has this persoNfirm e.er wwked under a contract forfhic departmeriY7 PLANNING CAMMISSION VE3 NO CIB CAMMITTEE 2. Has this persoNfiim awx been a dty empbvee4 CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION YE3 NO 3. Does thic person?rtn possess a sldll not nwmalyposse6seU by any curteM ci[y empbyee7 YES NO 4. Is tltis persoNfiim a tarp�edvaNOYt YES 1� E�¢lain ali Y� answeis on seP�e sheet and attach to Oreen shee[ INI7IATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPOR7UNI7Y (VJho, What, When, Where, Why) ADVAMAGESIFAPPROVED � "J�:9:c.si c,l;� !I�:.t a�c � � 2��i DISADVAMAGESIFAPPROVED - ' � DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S WST/REVENUE BUDGETm (CIRCLE ON� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlNANCIA� INFORMATION (IXPINt� ' � 1 •��71' BeYowarecorrectmutmgsfortliesi�cmostfi�eqa�ttppesofdocamenfs:• � � � � CONTRACTS (assumes authorized budget e�dsYsJ COUNCIL RHSOLT]TION (mnend 6udgets/acceptg�is) 1. OutsideAgency i. De���tmentD"uectnr 2. DepartmentD"uectar 2. OfficeofFin�ncialSecvicesD"sector , 3_ CityAttaney ' 3.,CitgAttaffiey,', 4. lvfapodAssistant' (for con4acts ova $25.Op0) 4. MayorlAssist�Y ' �� � � s. ���x� (� �r�� o� $so;000�� � s. cny ce,�,i � � � �� � � � 6. O�ce ofFinanciat Services - Axa�ting 6. O�ee ofFinancini $uvices - Acconnting nDivm�s�rx�.�zvE oxnEas Es;�a���;�;�> courrcu, xFSOitiztorr �au o� �a ora;�n�> � � 1. Adivity 1vSsoager � Department acco�Yant � I. De�entbirect�, ' � , ; � �� 2. DepaztmentDirector ' 2. Cit3'Attome9 3. O�ceofFinancialSeivicesDirector � 3: Mayor/tlsistant , � � � 4. ' City Cl�ic 4. , Cit} Coimc�l' 5. Office of Fmsncial S�vices - Accounting . ADMQdIS1RAITVE ORDIIZS (all othas) 1. Deparlm�Birector 2. City'At[omey 3. O�ce ofFinancial Se{vices D"uector 4. Cily CfeFk ' EXF.CUTIVE ORDER' 1'. DepaztmentDirecbor� 2.' Citp[1lkomey 3., Mayce/Assisfant 4'. City Clak , ,', TOTALNUMBF120F'SiGNATUREPAGES , ` 7ndie�te the' # of pages on wbicfi sgna[�nes are requiced and papemlip or.�ag eacL'ottheae PaSea ,�� � � � � � „� , � �"1 � � ACTIONREQUESTID Descnl�e what,the ProJ?�Uruloe� seeks tn accomplish in either ebronologicet order or order of impoitance, whicliever is most appropriate for the issve. Do notwrite complete sentences. Begin each item iu yo� list with a vecb. RECOMI��fEDIDATIONS lete ifthe isme in question has been presented before anY �Y. P�hc or vate, ' . Pn � PIILSONAL SERViCE CON'fRE1CTS: � ' � � � servicehiiingniles. , INITTATIl�7CsPROBLEIu; ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY Facplam ihe sid�tion or conditions tLat,created a need foryoisprojecf or request AIIVANTAGES 1F APPROVID �� � � � � � � � Indicate whether t6is is simPLY ffi annnat budSet Proced�se reclossed'by lawlchactec az whether Shere aze specific ways in ' w]vch the City of Saint Panl and ils citizens will beneSt from 4his projed/acliam_ DLSADVANTtYGES IF APPROVID Whatnegativee$'ecfsormajorch�B����B�'P�Pro�s`,esmi$htt�uSP%lecUre4oe�'Pro�weifitis,passeci , (e.g., 4a�c delaFs, noise, taacmcceases or assessments)7, To whom? When7 F�howlan�f DLSADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVID � � � � �� � � Wfiat will be the ne�ative aonseauences if the nromised'actioa is not anrmoved? Inabititv to deliver seivice? C "++; FINANCIAL IlNPACT AlthwBh Yw mast tailor the infoimation yau provide here to the issae yon are add�essing, in general you mus[ answ� -. two questions: How mnch is it goingto cwst? Who is 8��8 � P�' , r, , � „ ol—\3ya NOTES OF THE SPECIAL PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Friday, December 21, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Dick Lippert, Code Enforcement; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Don Wagner, LIEP (License, Inspecrions, Environmental Protecrion) 730 Sherburne Avenue (Note: The meeting was convened at 10:07 a.m. No one appeazed at that rime to represent the property. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal and adjourned the meeting. Shortly thereafter, the appellants and their attorney arrived, and Mr. Strathman reconvened the meeting.) The meeting was called to order at 10:15 a.m. The following appeared: Juanita Crenshaw, 730 Sherburne Avenue; Cleveland Williams, 730 Sherburne Avenue, and Seamus Mahoney, attorney. Mr. Mahoney stated the basis of the appeal is that the house was inspected during a police search. His clients were forced out of their home, and were given a list of items to conect. After the reinspection, a new list was created. To some degree, his clients felt they had dealt with what they were suppose to. His clients would like to live there and resolve these matters. They have children and are living out of relatives' homes. They feel they are being persecuted. There are buildings along that strip in worse condition and not condemned. This is not a denial of problems, but the problems aze minor. There is no explosion that will take place. They feel victimized to some extent because of their association with the police raid. Mr. Strathman asked how much rime they need to complete the repairs. Mr. Mahoney responded they should be able to deal with most of this in a couple of months. They have family that will help them with fmancing. The pressing matters could be dealt with faster. They could even be put on a schedule. Dick Lippert reported he would like Mr. Strathman to look at Item 11 on the Notice of Condemnation dated October 31, 2001, which reads "A code compliance inspection will be required." When looking at the violations for the building, this is ordinary and justified. Some items are serious and will need to be done before lifting the order to vacate. Mr. Strathman asked for a response to the statement ihat this is persecation and harassment. He also asked why there were two inspections done. Mr. Lippert responded he does not consider an execution of a search warrant as any sort of persecution. Search warrants have to be obtained from a magistrate. Mr. Lippert was called by officers who thought the building was in poor condition, and they wanted his opinion. Mr. Lippert made his report. It is difficult under search warrant conditions to make an accurate and complete inspection. He has within his authority to call for a code compliance inspection, which can be done under calmer circumstances by professionals. i>) -\�`�a 730 SHERBURNE AVENUE - SPECIAL PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES December 21, 2001, Page 2 Mr. Strathman stated Mr. Lippert was called by police officers who were in the process of serving a search warrant, he did a cursory inspection, and called for a complete inspection, which was done by Don Wagner. Mr. Lippert responded that is conect. Mr. Wagner reported he was at the house twice_ The first time, he advised the owners why he was there. After he explained what he was doing and the things the inspectors would be looking at, the inspectors were asked to leave before completing the inspection. Mr. Wagner explained they could talk to counsel. Later, Mr. Wagner heard back from someone, he thinks Ms. Crenshaw, who said they wanted him to do the inspection. The inspection was again set up. Mr. Wagner did not participate in that inspection. The appellants were fully awaze of what was happening in this process. Mr. Mahoney stated he has photogaphs from the neighborhood of various houses that were raided, but not condemned. (Mr. Mahoney showed photographs to Mr. Strathman. These photographs were also shown to Mr. Lippert.) Mr. Mahoney stated the appellants are not sophisticated in these matters. They are African American. The warrant served was based on evidence that Mr. Mahoney wiIl contest in a criminal matter; the evidence was based on a statement by a witness who lives in a house where no one looks like that. Also, the police say there were a lot of people going to the property. Both appellants have twelve brothers and sisters. They feel they are a target of the state. All the inspectors are white males. He is not making a statement of their perspective, stated Mr. Mahoney, but this is how the appellants perceive it. Ms. Williams became agitated and concerned when Mr. Wagner was at the home. She felt they were judged guilty and were going to be sentenced right there. She said there was a comment that the porch was screwed up. Mr. Mahoney does not feel there was an intention of being racially discriminatory here, but that is the appellants' feeling. There are many houses that are problematic, stated Mr. Mahoney. These people are trying to bring it back from a crack neighborhood. Mr. Williams has a criminal record from a few yeazs ago, but they are trying to make a home here. They will do whatever they need to comply. Mr. Lippert stated he wanted to make it clear that the City does not, has not, and will not condemn houses because a search warrant was served on the property. The basis of the condemnation is listed in the letter of October 31, 2001, and foliowed up with the letter of December 10, which shows cause for the orders given. Mr. Lippert inspected some of the properties in the photographs, and they did not warrant condemnation, even though there was a search wan•ant there. All buildings inspected aze not condemned. Buildings are always condemned for cause and not for the circumstances of the search wanant. Mr. Strathman stated once the City becomes cognizant of the existence of unsafe conditions, the City has a responsibility to see that those conditions aze resolved. If the City allowed people to bt-i'J4.� 730 SHERBURNE AVENUE - SPECIAL PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES December 21, 2001, Page 3 reoccupy this building and someone was injured or killed, there aze those that would feel the City was responsible and proceed to take action against the City. It is inconvenient and expensive for the appellants to live in another place while the building is being repaired, but he cannot see how the City can allow them to reoccupy this building in light of its health and safety violations. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal because the orders are reasonable and prudent. It will not be in the City's interest to allow them to live in a building that is unsafe and unhealthy. His decision will go before the City Council for approval on December 26, 2001. If the City Council affirms his decision, the appellants will be unable to live there. As soon as these issues are resolved, they are free to move back in. The meeting was adjourned at 1034 a.m. � D �—\J`�l� NOTES OF THE SPECIAL PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Friday, December 21, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention 880 Wilsou Avenue The meeting was called to order at 11:08 a.m. The following appeazed: Jamie Plan, appellant, 880 Wilson Avenue, and Traci Plan, Jamie's niece, 880 Wilson Avenue. Traci stated Jamie moved into the property last summer. The properiy needed a lot of work. Finding suitable housing is not easy when a person does not make much money. Jamie is hying to stay off of weifare. They made an agreement with the landlord to do repairs and deduct the cost of the supplies from the rent. This worked fine for a couple of months. They tried to contact the owner to pay the third month's rent, and there was no luck contacting her. There are four apartments in this building. No one knew who to send the rent to. Jamie stated John Hitchcock said that he was taking the property over as manager and help his friend Leah Mazks (phonetic) sell the property, which is under foreclosure. Jamie and Traci agreed to pay him the rent. They did not heaz from him for si�c months. They did not pay rent for six months, asked Mr. Strathman. Jamie responded that is conect. When the police came, responded Traci, they told her the building is in foreclosure and they do not have to pay rent. The aparhnent looks 75% better than before Jamie moved in. The outlet covers and light domes were removed for painting. The repairs aze still being made on the apartment. Mr. Strathman asked who owns the building now. Traci responded Leah Mazks. Mr. Strathman asked about the notion that a tenant does not have to pay rent when something is in foreclosure. Traci responded this is what the police officer told them. She moved in with Jamie to help her with the children and other things. Jamie is working part time. They were willing to do whatever they could to stay there. They would rather do that than be on the street. Jamie stated they paid the water bill of $1,200, and the trash bill of $800. The NSP bill for the building--hallways and basement--was not paid. There is a water shutoff for $800, which will be paid if they are allowed to stay in the building. Mr. Strathman stated during the last six months, they aze making repairs, paid the gazbage, paid one water bill, but they have not been paying rent. Traci and Jamie responded that is correct. b�_��y,o 880 WILSON AVENUE - SPECIAL PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES December 21, 2001, Page 2 Traci stated they aze willing to rectify the deficiencies in the report. The landlord wanted to go through proper proceedings to evict them. They have a lot of boxes because most of the items aze packed away in case they aze forced to leave. If they knew where they stood, they could get rid of the boxes. Jamie stated they would like 30 to 60 days to find an adequate home for her family. They are willing to make the repairs. They understand Pat Fish will be back for another inspection. Other tenants were told they were coming here today, and they are not here. Pat Fish stated she sympathizes with the tenanYs situarion. There were numerous complaints on the building. It was due for the certificate of occupancy renewal in May. She met with Leah Marks and her husband. He has since disappeared. Ms. Marks was unable to handle the property, and it went back to the bank. It is under foreclosure. There is some difficult reacting with the owner. Ms. Fish tried to speak to the bank, which referred her to their attorney, who referred her to Mr. Hitchcock, who referred her to the purchaser, who does not plan on keeping it occupied. It a losing situarion to stick any money into the building because the owner plans to vacate it and rehabilitate. The electric was tiuned off in the hallway. The smoke detectors were tutned off on the stairs. She was assured by Mr. Hitchcock that they would be repaired immediately, but it was still missing last week. There is no lighting in the hallway. A handrail is missing. There are trash issues. She could not get into two of the four units because tenants had changed the locks. There is an extension cord that comes out of the basement and across the deck. A ceiling is missing from one of the closets. Ms. Fish would recommend against the tenant doing the repairs. There are ways to pay the bills through the court system. Mr. Strathman stated it appeazs that the owner intends to allow the building to be condemned and use the condemnation to get the tenants' out. Ms. Fish responded the owners cannot close on the building prior to getting the ritle. If the purchaser was able to purchase the building, he would do the work and maintain the building. He does not want to invest money in the building because he has not closed on it yet. The bank does not want to invest money in the building. Jamie stated they should get some compensation for maintaining the building; what they did was for nothing. Mr. Strathman responded they did not pay rent, so it didn't turn out too bad, He cannot allow them to live in this building because it is unsafe and dangerous. If something happens in the building, people may claim it is the City's fault. He asked have they been to the Aousing Information Center. Jamie responded yes. Ms. Fish responded she talked to someone from Community Stabilization Project; they may be able to assist. Jamie stated she used emergency assistance to move in the building in April and to pay her NSP bill. She is not due for fiuther assistance until April. Also, she paid $25 for this appeal, which could be used for something else. Mr. Strathman responded he will contact the Citizen Service Office to issue her a refund. He asked would Ms. Fish call the Housing Information Cemer for Dl-t�4� 880 WILSON AVENUE - SPECIAL PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES December 21, 2001, Page 3 an extra push to find them housing. Ms. Fish responded yes, and she would call Community Stabilization Project again. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal and directed the Citizen Service Officer to refund Jamie her $25 filing fee. Ms. Fish's orders aze reasonable and within the law. His decision will be reviewed by the City Council on December 26. Ms. Fish will be at the property on January 2. The meeting was adjourned at 1135 a.m. rrn